during ship inspections led to detailed instructions in 1613 and the creation of another position for overseeing measurements in 1620. In places, he shows that the officials of the Casa did not always scrupulously follow royal orders, as with their repeated failure to maintain records of the contents of the locked chests of the royal treasury up to the mid-seventeenth century, when still another official was put in place to supervise these account books. Fernández López’s incorporation of numerous examples from various time periods in much of the book—as well as in the documentary appendix—provides a concrete illustration of how the Casa’s documentary output was constructed and brings these records to life. Since the Casa is potentially such a broad topic, connected as it was to so many aspects of overseas communication, it is tempting to fault the author for not touching on any number of areas, but his intent with this already substantial work is more descriptive than broadly analytical. His occasional reliance on the ordinances of the Casa and laws of the 1681 Recopilación de Indias to illustrate customary practice is a bit of a methodological issue, though this is tempered by his frequent inclusion of José de Veitia Linaje’s 1672 Norte de la Contratación, which does comment on actual procedures. His focus on the most common kinds of documents produced by the Casa means that readers will not find consideration of, for example, the Casa’s role in inspecting and approving slave ships and other vessels sailing outside the annual fleets, or the union with Portugal (when some ships were inspected in Lisbon). Yet these choices also give Fernández López more space to carefully examine the processes underlying the Casa’s archival records, which can easily be applied to understanding other related kinds of sources. An index would certainly have improved the book’s usefulness, however. Although this is a very different kind of study than Michel Betrand’s 1999 Grandeur et misère de l’office, on the seventeenthand eighteenth-century treasury of New Spain, Fernández López’s detailed examination of the Casa’s documentary output is valuable for scholars working directly with archival sources or seeking to understand the Casa’s functions from the Crown’s perspective. Perhaps wisely, he does not seek to engage with a prohibitively broad range of secondary works, but rather concentrates on guiding readers through a variety of records produced by an institution responsible for implementing royal policies on imperial trade. I might have wished for more discussion of the Casa’s effectiveness in actually controlling commerce with the Indies—something hinted at in the conclusion—but Fernández López envisions this volume as a foundational step in better understanding the role of the Casa in governing Spain’s overseas empire, and his study will likely become a standard reference work on the topic.

中文翻译：

---

美洲的非裔天主教节日。Black Atlantic 传统的表演、表现和制作

1613 年的船舶检查导致了详细的指示，并在 1620 年设立了另一个监督测量的职位。在某些地方，他表明卡萨的官员并不总是严格遵守皇室的命令，因为他们一再未能保持对测量的记录。直到 17 世纪中叶，皇家金库上锁的箱子里的东西，当时还有另一位官员被任命来监督这些账簿。Fernández López 在书中的大部分内容以及纪录片附录中纳入了来自不同时期的大量例子，具体说明了 Casa 的纪录片作品是如何构建的，并将这些记录带入生活。由于卡萨可能是一个如此广泛的话题，它与海外交流的许多方面都有联系，很容易指责作者没有涉及任何领域，但他对这部已经很重要的作品的意图更多的是描述性而不是广泛的分析性。他偶尔依赖 Casa 的条例和 1681 Recopilación de Indias 的法律来说明习惯做法，这有点方法论问题，尽管他经常将 José de Veitia Linaje 的 1672 Norte de la Contratación 纳入其中，从而缓和了这一点。评论实际程序。他专注于 Casa 制作的最常见类型的文件，这意味着读者不会发现 Casa 在检查和批准奴隶船和其他在年度船队之外航行的船只方面的作用，或与葡萄牙的联盟（当一些船舶在里斯本接受检查）。然而，这些选择也为 Fernández López 提供了更多空间来仔细检查 Casa 档案记录背后的过程，这些过程可以很容易地应用于理解其他相关类型的来源。然而，索引肯定会提高这本书的实用性。尽管这与 Michel Betrand 1999 年的 Grandeur et misère de l'office 是一种非常不同的研究，关于新西班牙十七世纪十八世纪的国库，费尔南德斯洛佩斯对卡萨的纪录片输出的详细检查对于直接使用档案资源的学者来说是有价值的或试图从皇冠的角度来理解 Casa 的功能。也许明智的是，他并没有试图参与范围广泛的次要作品，而是专注于引导读者阅读由负责实施皇家贸易皇家政策的机构制作的各种记录。我可能希望更多地讨论 Casa 在实际控制与印度的贸易方面的有效性——结论中暗示了一些东西——但 Fernández López 认为这本书是更好地理解 Casa 在管理西班牙海外帝国中的作用的基础步骤，他的研究很可能会成为该主题的标准参考书。