This article presents the analysis and critical edition of a poem dedicated to Queen Isabel II, written by Juan Maria Capitan in the aftermath of the conspiratorial and insurrectional events of 1844 and published in Revista Literaria de El Espanol in September 1845. Through this specific case, the study illustrates the role of nineteenth-century literary journalism in shaping the royal imaginary of clemency and concord during a period marked by the young queen's need for political legitimization. The manuscript sources preserved in the Fernandez-Guerra Family Archive enable a dialogue between the author's public and private facets, offering valuable insight into his ideological positioning and the motivations underlying his literary production.
Fernando Gilleman stands as an example of discreet intellectual authority within the Bourbon administration of the late eighteenth century. His incorporation into the institutional sphere from 1786 onwards reveals a process of legitimation grounded in linguistic competence, archival expertise, and the adoption of the Enlightened ideal of public service. Analysis of his work as translator, censor, and mediator between knowledge and normative frameworks sheds light on the silent dynamics of intellectual authority operating within the Bourbon apparatus. His trajectory invites a reassessment of the centrality of discreet actors who, through technical precision and indirect intervention, contributed both to the circulation of knowledge and to the ideological consolidation of the Enlightened state.
The Lima intellectual Pedro de Peralta Barnuevo maintained a complex relationship with the viceregal authorities and the Holy Office, of which he was a consultor. In 1733, he published the account of the auto-da-fe commissioned by Viceroy Castelfuerte, facing accusations of offensive propositions. The viceroy protected him, and the text was published despite inquisitorial objections. In 1736, he wrote the Relacion de gobierno of the Viceroy, considered a model of the genre, in which he defended the Royal Patronage and criticized ecclesiastical power, further straining his relationship with the Inquisition. In 1738, he published Pasion y Triunfo de Cristo, with all the required licenses and approvals, including that of his brother, a bishop. Inquisitor Calder & oacute;n accused him of blasphemous and heretical propositions and of not being a theologian. Gravely ill, Peralta defended himself with the & laquo;Satisfacci & oacute;n de las dos proposiciones & raquo;. After two years of proceedings, the charges did not prevail, although the book was expurgated fifty years later. I propose to analyze these encounters between Peralta and the Holy Office, as well as the censures and trials to which he was subjected.
This article proposes a study of the dedications to Marie-Louise of Parme as Princess of Asturias (1765-1788) and Queen Consort of Spain (1788-1808). The fundamental pillar of this work will be the requirement to request permission from the Secre tary of State in order to address a text to a member of the royal family. In this way, the accepted dedications tell us about the topics and authors who were allowed to be associated with the first woman of the kingdom, while the reasons given for rejecting a laudatory text, which complete the image of the queen transmited by the printer. Therefore, the combination of the paratexts finally published with the files of dedication requests will allow us to understand the image of Marie-Louise of Parme shaped by literary figures, inevitably at the service of the Crown's wishes, involved in its own representation. Likewise, we present a systematisation of the archival information on all the works dedicated or rejected that it has been possible to locate.
Ana de San Jer & oacute;nimo's Obras po & eacute;ticas (1696-1771) were published posthumously in 1773. This article examines the documentation related to obtaining the printing license, which has been partially located (Archivo Hist & oacute;rico Nacional, Real Academia Espa & ntilde;ola). Such documentation reveals important details of the editorial process, such as its beginning during the author's lifetime, the delays that allowed additional poems to be incorporated into the collection originally submitted, and the intervention of censorship. Particularly significant are the two reports issued. The information they contain, together with support from another manuscript collection, makes it possible to analyze the censored words and verses, the reasons given by the censors -mostly religious and linguistic- and the effects on the affected compositions.
