Architecture and Urbanism in Viceregal Mexico: Puebla de Los Ángeles, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries 0367531607, 9780367531607

Citation preview

“Turning our gaze away from Mexico City and from conventional art historical stylistic accounts, this remarkable scholarly study offers an important corrective to our understanding of colonial architecture and urbanism in Mexico. The book discusses the cultural and intellectual primary sources behind the impulses that crystallized in the urban design and major architecture of Puebla de los Ángeles, an important paradigm for Viceregal Mexico.” Dr. Alberto Pérez-Gómez, Bronfman Professor of the History of Architecture, McGill University, Montreal “Today’s debates in architecture are finally revisiting the role that our discipline played in the mechanisms of colonization. Burke’s discussion of Puebla, Mexico, is a significant step in that direction for the author dissects how the built environment was an integral part of the process of colonizing spaces and peoples of the Americas.” Fernando Luiz Lara, Professor and Director of PhD Program in Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin “Mythically founded by angels as an embodiment of Heavenly Jerusalem, the town of Puebla soon became a complex multicultural city in need of constantly reimagining its utopian origins through the medium of building. In synthetically retelling its story from perspectives that range from theology to architectural theory, Burke has made an invaluable contribution to the study of early-modern age urbanism.” Juan Manuel Heredia, Associate Professor of Architecture, Portland State University

Architecture and Urbanism in Viceregal Mexico

Architecture and Urbanism in Viceregal Mexico presents a fascinating survey of urban history between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. It chronicles the creation and development of Puebla de los Ángeles, a city located in central-south Mexico, during its viceregal period. Founded in 1531, the city was established as a Spanish settlement surrounded by important Indigenous towns. This situation prompted a colonial city that developed along Spanish colonial guidelines but became influenced by the native communities that settled in it, creating one of the most architecturally rich cities in colonial Spanish America, from the Renaissance to the Baroque periods. This book covers the city’s historical background, investigating its civic and religious institutions as represented in selected architectural landmarks. Throughout the narrative, Burke weaves together sociological, anthropological, and historical analysis to discuss the city’s architectural and urban development. Written for academics, students, and researchers interested in architectural history, Latin American studies, and the Spanish American viceregal period, it will make an important contribution to the field. Juan Luis Burke is Assistant Professor of Architectural and Urban History at the University of Maryland, College Park. His research is centered on Mexican and Latin American architecture and urbanism, and its interactions with Europe, particularly Italy and Spain.

Routledge Research in Architectural History Series Editor: Nicholas Temple

Books in this series look in detail at aspects of architectural history from an academic viewpoint. Written by international experts, the volumes cover a range of topics from the origins of building types, the relationship of architectural designs to their sites, explorations of the works of specific architects, to the development of tools and design processes, and beyond. Written for the researcher and scholar, we are looking for innovative research to join our publications in architectural history. The Rise of Academic Architectural Education The origins and enduring infuence of the Académie d’Architecture Alexander Griffn Finding San Carlino Collected Perspectives on the Geometry of the Baroque Adil Mansure, Skender Luarasi Architecture and the Language Debate Artistic and Linguistic Exchanges in Early Modern Italy Nicholas Temple Urban Architectures in Interwar Yugoslavia Tanja D. Conley The Architecture and Landscape of Health A Historical Perspective on Therapeutic Places 1790–1940 Julie Collins Architecture and Urbanism in Viceregal Mexico Puebla de los Ángeles, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries Juan Luis Burke For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/ architecture/series/RRAHIST

Architecture and Urbanism in Viceregal Mexico Puebla de los Ángeles, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries Juan Luis Burke

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Juan Luis Burke The right of Juan Luis Burke to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Burke, Juan Luis, author. Title: Architecture and urbanism in viceregal Mexico : Puebla de Los Ángeles, 16th-18th centuries / Juan Luis Burke. Other titles: Puebla de Los Ángeles, 16th-18th centuries Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York : Routledge, [2021] | Outgrowth of the author’s thesis (doctoral)—McGill University, 2017, under the title : Civitas angelorum : the symbolic urbanism of Puebla de los Ángeles in the early modern era. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020051692 | ISBN 9780367531607 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003080732 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Architecture and society—Mexico—Puebla de Zaragoza—History. | City planning—Mexico—Puebla de Zaragoza—History. | Puebla de Zaragoza (Mexico)—History. | Mexico—History—Spanish colony, 1540–1810. Classification: LCC NA2543.S6 B79 2021 | DDC 720.972/48—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020051692 ISBN: 978-0-367-53160-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-53161-4 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-08073-2 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Para Alejandra, Sofía y Daniel, las tres luces de mi vida

Contents

1

2

3

4

5

List of figures

x

Introduction

1

The creation of a town: Puebla de los Ángeles as an urban and theological experiment (c. 1530s–1580s)

8

The grid and the hill: Puebla’s urban form (c. 1530s–1610s)

43

Urban palaces and architectural treatises: The New World Renaissance in Puebla de los Ángeles (c. 1570s–1630s)

79

The Bishop and his cathedral: Juan de Palafox’s ideal Christian Republic (c. 1600s–1650s)

115

Decline and splendor: Puebla de los Ángeles’ Baroque era (c. 1660s–1790s)

148

Bibliography Index

188 203

Figures

1.1

1.2 1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

2.2

2.3

A map of the Puebla Region showing some of the principal urban Indigenous fiefdoms in the area, the principal topographical features, and other Spanish foundings A map showing the river systems that traversed the Puebla Valley and Puebla’s founding site A diagram of the town of Cuauhtinchan in the present-day State of Puebla. Cuauhtinchan was a pre-Hispanic town whose urban design was reordered by the Spanish. In this case, the urban layout is not entirely orthogonal, as it adapts to natural topographical features A diagram representing Mexico City’s principal plaza and its immediate environs. Mexico City’s urban design represents a mixture of native and Spanish solutions to produce a new urban layout. Its oversized plaza and its range of different urban blocks are examples of the solutions that drew from the city’s preexisting urban conditions A map of Central Mexico in the sixteenth century, showing some of the principal urban centers of the period and their year of establishment A mural depicting an artistic rendition of Puebla’s founding as carried out by angels. The notion that angels traced the city is a myth that originated in the viceregal period A map-diagram representing an approximate rendition of Puebla’s urban morphology and density around the mid-seventeenth century Puebla’s coat of arms as it appeared on the official cédula or title granted by the Spanish Crown officially designating it a ciudad, a city A rendition of the Heavenly Jerusalem by the Indigenous artist Juan Gerson (active c. 1560) at the Tecamachalco Monastery in the State of Puebla

9 14

18

19

23

35

44

50

52

Figures 2.4

2.5

2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5 3.6

3.7 3.8 3.9

An engraving depicting an idealized Franciscan monastery in New Spain, with Franciscan missionaries converting the native population. Diego de Valadés (1533–1582), “The Ideal Atrium,” copperplate engraving from Rhetorica Christiana or Christian Rhetoric (Perugia: Petrus Jacobus Petrutius), 1579 An anonymous map of the City of Cholula, close to the City of Puebla. The map was done for the Relaciones Geográficas; a geographical survey carried out by the Spanish Crown (1579–1585) A visual breakdown of the existing chapel-stations in Puebla’s Via Crucis The fifth station in Puebla’s Via Crucis, popularly known as El Cirineo (The Cyrenean) Façade of the Chapel of St. Veronica, the fourth chapel and sixth station of the Puebla Via Crucis cycle View of the Holy Sepulcher Church, the last and most elaborate building of the Puebla Via Crucis itinerary. It contains six stations of the Via Crucis cycle in its complex A view of the corner balcony of the Castillo de Altra family residence in downtown Puebla, dating from the early seventeenth century. This corner detail is a relevant example of the high quality of building manufacture present in the city Luis Lagarto (Seville 1556 – Puebla (?) c.1624), The Annunciation (1611), Puebla, Mexico, gouache on parchment with gold leaf. 31.43 cm (12.37 in) × 54.61 cm (21.5 in) Three details of marginalia from a 1552 Vitruvius (Lyon), with Guillaume Philandrier’s comments, annotated by an anonymous reader Marginalia in a 1582 Spanish edition of Vitruvius (Alcalá de Henares), containing handwritten annotations by anonymous reader(s) A detail of the Casa del Deán façade, in downtown Puebla, showing the entry portal A computer model showing a hypothetical reconstruction of Casa del Deán, Puebla, from a bird’s eye view perspective A hypothetical computer reconstruction of the Casa del Deán’s original façade Entry to the Casa de las Cabecitas residence, late sixteenth century, located in downtown Puebla View of the Casa del que Mató al Animal residence entry portal, dating from the sixteenth century, downtown Puebla

xi

53

57 60 66 67

69

85

90

95

96 100

102 102 105

106

xii 3.10 4.1 4.2 4.3

4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8

4.9 4.10 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15

Figures A detail of the façade of Puebla’s alhóndiga or public granary, late sixteenth century, Puebla An aerial view of Puebla Cathedral Plan of Puebla Cathedral A view of the Altar de los Reyes at Puebla Cathedral, c. 1649, by Pedro García Ferrer, with important modifications in the early nineteenth century by José Manzo The façade of Puebla Cathedral, latter part of the seventeenth century An aerial view of San Pedro Hospital, Puebla A map of Puebla’s historical center highlights Palafox’s primary architectural sponsorships A view of the Tridentine Seminary, sponsored by Bishop Juan de Palafox during the 1640s, Puebla A view of Xonaca Parish Church’s gate. The Church’s gate and façade are attributed to Pedro García Ferrer and sponsored by Bishop Palafox Façade of Santiago Parish Church, an Indigenous barrio, sponsored by Bishop Juan de Palafox A view of the San Miguel del Milagro Shrine, sponsored by Bishop Juan de Palafox, Nativitas, Tlaxcala, Mexico A view of Puebla, 1754, drawn by José Mariano de Medina and engraved by José Ortiz Carnero in Puebla An aerial view of the Church of La Compañía de Jesús, c. 1760, Puebla A view of Santo Domingo Monastery’s main entry, c. 1611, Puebla San Pedro Hospital Church façade, Puebla, seventeenth century A view of the San José Parish Church (1653–1693), Puebla Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe, Puebla Detail of the façade of the Church of the Orphanage of San Cristóbal, Puebla Façade of the San Francisco Church and Monastery in Puebla Façade of the Church of La Luz, finished in 1805, Puebla Two details of the Casa de las Bóvedas residence, Puebla Detail of the façade of the Casa de los Muñecos residence, Puebla The façade of the Casa Alfeñique, Puebla A view of the Palafoxiana Library, Puebla Detail of the Chapel of El Rosario, Puebla Detail of the decoration at the Church of Tonantzintla, Puebla

107 116 120

122 125 127 130 131

135 136 139 153 159 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 170 171 173 175 178

Introduction

This book narrates the history of the City of Puebla de los Ángeles, located in present-day central Mexico, some 120 km (74.5 miles) to Mexico City’s southeast. The book opens with Puebla’s founding in 1531 and chronicles the city’s development until the late eighteenth century, shortly before New Spain initiated its independence movement from Spain. The book’s narrative places architecture and urbanism at the forefront of its discussions, recounting the city’s birth, splendor, and decline in the more than three centuries of Spanish colonial rule. As the reader will find out, even during its most difficult moments, with economic hardship, epidemics, and demographic losses battering Puebla, the city managed to prove its resiliency and produce magnificent architectural works. In a way, Puebla de los Ángeles, like cities elsewhere, will always manage to surprise those who write and read about them. In effect, the tradition of writing detailed accounts and histories of urban settlements is centuries old. Through time, these texts accrued different names, whether known as laudes civitatum, encomium urbis, or more commonly, panegyrics; this literary genre sought to praise and describe a city, mining a town’s foundational myths, describing its topography and natural settings, praising its architectural landmarks, and producing laudatory discourses on their inhabitants and historical figures. From Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Roman Antiquities of the first century AD, a historical review of Rome from its murky origins to the First Punic War; or the anonymous Wonders of the City of Rome (Mirabilia Urbis Romae), c.1140, a pilgrim’s guide to Rome; or Leonardo Bruni’s Praise of the City of Florence (Laudatio Florentinae Urbis), written in 1403, volumes on a city’s history and its built environment have served several purposes. Dionysius’ twenty-volume work was an extensive study of Rome’s historical development while the anonymous Mirabilia acted as a visitor’s guide to Rome and an inventory of the city’s architectural landmarks. During the Renaissance, Bruni, a humanist who studied and translated philosophical and historical Greek and Latin texts from antiquity, in his laudatory text dedicated to his beloved Florence, detailed the city’s topography, natural settings, its citizens’ character, and cited the city’s architectural landmarks to argue in favor of Florence’s virtuosity in the face of a military victory over Milan.

2 Introduction Laudatory texts devoted to urban centers have been central to Hispanic culture for centuries too. The Franciscan monk Francesc Eiximenis, in the prologue to his Regiment of the Public Sphere (Regiment de la cosa pública) from 1383, praised the City of Valencia and its “delights,” such as the city’s climate, natural resources, and its piety. In another example, the sixteenthcentury historian Pedro de Alcocer authored the History or Description of the Imperial City of Toledo (Hystoria o Descripción de la Ymperial Cibdad de Toledo) of 1551, divided into two volumes. The first recounted the city’s historical trajectory and the second contained descriptions of the city’s religious-architectural landmarks. The Spanish colonization of the Americas brought the genre to New Spain (viceregal Mexico), and the year 1554 saw the appearance of the first encomia written for the recently defeated Tenochtitlan, or Mexico City, by the Spanish humanist Francisco Cervantes de Salazar, who praised the city’s settings and its, at the time, incipient architectural and urban character. From there on, the literary genre of urban panegyrics took root in New Spain. By the eighteenth century, the criollos, descendants of Spaniards born in Mexico, adopted the practice of writing encomia for their patria chica, a Spanish-language term employed to designate a person’s hometown. Such was Puebla’s case, founded in 1531 as a Spanish settlement that quickly became, after barely a few decades, the viceroyalty’s second largest urban center after Mexico City. As such, Puebla was not without its share of encomia, like the one written by the criollo historian and philosopher Mariano Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, titled History of the Foundation of the City of Puebla de los Ángeles (Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles), written in 1799 – but not published until the twentieth century. In reality, Fernández’s chronicle attempted to provide a coherent narrative that organized the differing versions of Puebla’s foundational myth and the town’s subsequent development. The founding myth, roughly recounted, involved the notion of a cohort of angels descending from heaven and laying out the city’s gridded urban form. Puebla’s supposed angelic origin was an instance of what scholar Antonio Rubial termed a “sacred geography,” a string of cities in central Mexico that claimed a divine origin. These included Mexico City, Querétaro, Valladolid, and Puebla, among others. In Fernández’s chronicle, Puebla, due to its importance as a cultural and economic center, its impressive architectural stock, and its mythical, heavenly origin, was framed as New Spain’s most beautiful and pious city – the same claim, in reality, that was made in favor of all the cities of that sacred urban geography. Fernández recounted Puebla’s origins and its founding myth, and he made sure to carefully describe the city’s religious architectural landmarks, staking a claim too, for the outstanding character of the city’s illustrious inhabitants. Chronicles like Fernández’s belonged to a broader phenomenon of criollismo, the notion that the American-born inhabitants of New Spain – after experiencing three centuries of Spanish colonialism – were in the process of, as Antony Higgins put it, reconstructing “the image

Introduction

3

of a (post)colonial subject.”1 Eminently, the locus of that rhetorical discourse on identity-making fell, to a large extent, on cities, as these were the sites that contained all the institutions of the Spanish colonial enterprise: the churches, monasteries, almshouses, foundling hospitals, the city hall, the city granary, the colleges, the hospitals, and the residences of the richest and poorest of its inhabitants. In short, the city was the locus of collective identity-forging that arose from processes of continuous negotiations and exchanges. These processes gravitated continuously between the native and the Hispanic, creating complex, hybrid, and contradicting expressions of material evidence of which architecture stood out in many ways. First, due to its visibility and permanence and also due to the possibilities the built environment possesses to reveal the different capacities under which several social actors participated in the building of a town. However, it is true that the powerful and wealthy, usually white males, gained practically all the visibility in their roles as patrons and architects of Puebla’s architecture while the contributions of builders, laborers, or stonemasons, often of native and mestizo origin, remain overlooked. I have tried to make the contributions of native and mestizo builders and communities as visible as possible, although further work on this topic needs to be carried out. It is also relevant to point out that this work is not, nor was it ever conceived to be, a comprehensive survey of Puebla’s viceregal architecture – such an endeavor would be entirely outside this book’s scope, and it would also fall outside of my scholarly interests. Instead, each chapter, read together or independently, picks up on specific topics that discuss and convey different relevant aspects of Puebla’s architectural and urban culture. In that regard, this book takes its inspiration from encomia such as that by Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, who attempted to present a chronicle of a great city, written for those acquainted with Puebla and for those who had never set foot on it. Fernández, after all, attempted to articulate a sophisticated historical narrative that involved Spanish conquistadors, missionaries, criollos, the Indigenous communities, and an amalgam of subjects with differing attitudes and interests in shaping a city he would have called his patria chica. In a similar vein, this book attempts to chronicle the city’s material fabric, that is, Puebla’s churches, colleges, hospitals, its city hall, and, notably, the city’s exacting urban form. They all come together to narrate some outstanding episodes in the viceregal history of that wonderous city called Puebla de los Ángeles. As in the eighteenth century, when criollos attempted to draw attention to their unique material and cultural settings by chronicling the development of their cities, this book also attempts to fill a gap in the contemporary academic literature devoted to documenting the creation and development of cities in the Spanish world of the early modern period. Indeed, volumes dedicated to chronicling a city’s history and development using its built environment as a common thread abound, particularly if those cities are European or North American. The same cannot be said of Latin American cities. While renewed interest in Latin American architectural

4 Introduction history and urban studies continues to increase, there is still a lack of specialized works that focus on the region’s architectural and urban histories. This is despite knowing that the colonial enterprise in the Spanish Americas represented one of the most ambitious and relevant urbanization experiments in history and despite the growing sentiment that the history of the Spanish early modern world contributed significantly to the shaping of modernity in the western hemisphere. Therefore, this book tracks the history of an outstanding case study in the context of early modern architectural and urban history of the Spanish American world. Indeed, unlike Mexico City or Cuzco or other important Spanish viceregal cities in the Americas, Puebla lacked a pre-Hispanic origin. Instead, its existence was marked by the need of Spanish colonizers to affirm their presence in a heavily Indigenous region. In effect, its creation was only made possible after the Spanish settlers negotiated the city’s creation with the Indigenous fiefdoms surrounding Puebla’s founding site. However, since the viceregal period, the city’s chronicles and historical accounts overwhelmingly favored the view that the city was founded and that it thrived because of its Spanish settlers. Instead, as this book suggests, the city could never have thrived or even existed without the Indigenous communities that settled in the city practically right after its establishment. Indeed, the poblano criollos of the eighteenth century felt their city was one of the most “Spanish” in New Spain due to its large Spaniard and criollo community, the exacerbated perception of its religious and imperial loyalty as well as its piousness. The image presented within these pages is more complicated than that. This book conveys the notion of a city shaped by various factors, actors, and circumstances as it developed from an incipient settlement into a wealthy metropolis, transformed as it was by a cohort of diverse settlers and a host of civic and religious initiatives that managed to produce a fantastic array of architectural landmarks hardly matched by any other in the continent. As reiterated earlier, instead of presenting a comprehensive survey of the city’s development, each chapter should be understood as a cross section along Puebla’s timeline that captures a period in the city’s architectural and urban sphere. The book opens with a chapter that contextualizes Puebla’s founding in 1531 within the broader topic of urbanism in the Spanish world of the early modern period. It closely examines the events surrounding Puebla’s establishment, the key players involved, and the town’s founding site. It then shifts over to stake a claim to understand Puebla not as a Spanish town but rather as an incipient Spanish settlement that would not have survived had it not been for the early establishment of native communities in the city’s peripheries. This chapter also introduces the reader to the concept of the altepetl, the Nahua, pre-Hispanic notion of an urban community, which acted as a social model for the Indigenous barrios or neighborhoods of Puebla’s periphery. The chapter also explains how the city operated politically through the cabildo or city council and how the native communities adopted

Introduction

5

and participated in that model to gain political representation. The chapter ends by describing the city’s early characteristics, placing the importance of the town’s urban form as a segue into the second chapter. Chapter 2 analyzes how Puebla’s powerful inspirational archetype, the Heavenly Jerusalem, materialized in two distinct forms: Puebla’s urban form and its Via Crucis. The discussion surrounding the grid model as urban form revises some classic notions regarding this topic but also recent scholarship to trace the grid’s origin and development. The urban form’s analysis also examines the validity of the hypothesis that links Puebla’s urban design to the neighboring, ancient pre-Hispanic City of Cholula. The chapter ends by placing forward the idea that, contrary to the understanding of gridded urban forms as an “ideal of the European Renaissance,” the gridded urban form was a highly effective and loaded colonizing strategy. Chapter 3 investigates the period ranging from the 1570s to the 1630s, interrogating the arrival and development of the Classical architectural tradition in Puebla, a New World Renaissance, arguing how Classicism became the foundation for the city’s architectural culture for the rest of the viceregal period. This chapter’s discussion starts by investigating the arrival and reception of Classical culture to Puebla in the form of books, people, and images. The presence of architectural treatises in the city is investigated and the arrival of Spanish architects who will institute Classicism in the city too. The last part of this chapter analyzes the few remaining buildings from the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries in closer detail. Chapter 4 takes a different narrative approach by discussing Puebla’s architecture and urbanism during the first half of the seventeenth century by focusing on Puebla’s most notorious viceregal character: Bishop Juan de Palafox y Mendoza (tenure 1640–1649). Palafox, a high-ranking Church and Crown dignitary, prolific writer, theologian, and political actor, championed the construction of the city’s cathedral, its most notable viceregal landmark while articulating a plan to turn Puebla into an “ideal Christian republic,” a term coined by scholar María Dolores Arriaga to refer to the notion that Palafox, based on his theological-political ideas, attempted to make of Puebla the experimentation ground for his visionary politics. This chapter places forward the idea that architecture and art were crucial in building Palafox’s ideal Christian republic, which is proven by analyzing his promotion of the cathedral’s completion (the cathedral works had been stalled for years before Palafox arrived in Puebla) and Palafox’s sponsorship of a series of chapels in majority-native barrios, as well as other relevant art and architecture works in Puebla and its hinterland. Chapter 5, the final chapter, examines Puebla’s Baroque era (c.1680s– 1790s). It narrates the city’s decline in the eighteenth century and how epidemics and a demographic decrease worsened the economic crises. However, it also recounts the contrastingly outstanding architecture produced during this period and how a series of simple construction materials and forms, an excellent building culture (in terms of labor standards and the adequate

6 Introduction handling of construction materials), as well as an array of grandiloquent ornamental vocabularies, managed to produce a string of monumental landmarks, residential, civil, and religious, which, it will be argued, marked a summit for the city’s architectural culture. In terms of architectural interpretations and in order to prove the varied and rich forms of Baroque architectural expression, the discussion places the famed Rosary Chapel and the Tonantzintla church, the former a Spanish and criollo urban monument and the latter a native chapel in Puebla’s hinterland, and examines their similarities and differences face to face. The chapter then performs a Baroque architecture survey in the city, registering some of Puebla’s most accomplished landmarks. The discussion ends by fleshing out some of the differences and similarities between the European and Spanish American Baroque, attempting to establish discussion points for future studies, arguing how the Baroque of the Spanish world has been consistently neglected and understudied. The chapter ends by suggesting how Baroque architecture in Puebla expressed a level of sophistication grounded on hybridity, complexity, and an exhilarating form of sensuality – a mirror, at least in some capacities, of New Spain’s mature cultural and philosophical environment at the time. This book is an imperfect but honest expression of love for the city where I was born. In some ways, these pages reflect how I became enamored with architecture when walking down the streets of Puebla’s centro histórico, as the historical city district is known today. Even as a young boy, I came to comprehend architecture’s capacity to engage and enthrall the human mind, thanks to Puebla’s amazing architecture. Furthermore, this manuscript is based on my doctoral thesis; however, this work, thoroughly revised and adapted, bears little resemblance to my doctoral project. I wish to acknowledge and thank for their support, first, my mentor and research supervisor at McGill University, Prof. Alberto Pérez-Gómez. Further, Prof. Gauvin Bailey and Prof. Ricardo Castro, members of my doctoral committee, who provided crucial feedback. Further thanks should go out to Prof. Juan Manuel Heredia, at Portland State University, who also read my dissertation as part of my doctoral process. As a doctoral student, I benefited from the support of the Mexican Council for the Sciences and Technology (CONACYT). As this project took on the shape of a book, my current institution, the University of Maryland-College Park, and specifically interim Dean Prof. Donald Linebaugh, as well as Architecture Program Director, Prof. Brian Kelly, showed me their full support. As a faculty member at UMD, I was the recipient of a research grant to complete my research. Finally, I also wish to thank the editorial team at Routledge, particularly Grace Harrison, Trudy Varcianna, and the Routledge Research in Architectural History series editor, Prof. Nicholas Temple. In Puebla, I wish to thank the staff at the Archivo Municipal de Puebla, at the Archivo de Notarías, at the Biblioteca Palafoxiana, and the Biblioteca

Introduction

7

Lafragua. In each case, they were all willing to help and open their collections to me and other researchers.

Note 1 Antony Higgins, Constructing the Criollo Archive: Subjects of Knowledge in the Bibliotheca Mexicana and the Rusticatio Mexicana (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2000), 4.

1

The creation of a town Puebla de los Ángeles as an urban and theological experiment (c. 1530s–1580s)

The city as a missionary and colonial endeavor The only first-person account we possess of the founding of the City of Puebla de los Ángeles comes to us via Friar Toribio de Benavente, a.k.a. Motolinia (c. 1490–1569),1 a Spanish missionary who arrived in New Spain in 1524.2 A few years after his arrival to what would later be known as the Viceroyalty of New Spain, Motolinia became one of the protagonists in the founding of a city that, as initially planned, was meant to be an ideal agrarian community. This missionary would work with Juan de Salmerón, an oidor or judge, a member of the second Audiencia – a judicial governing body – and representative of the Spanish Crown,3 to create this community. As they imagined it, these hypothetical settlers would be Spanish immigrants, not conquistadors, but rather peasants from Spain. They would grow European crops and raise European livestock, and their exemplary lives would showcase the best aspects of Christian life from the Iberian Peninsula to the natives of the region. However, as Puebla’s history progressed, this idealist agenda was never realized. Instead, Puebla became the viceroyalty’s second most important city just a few decades after its founding. Despite the unexpected result, analyzing Puebla’s creation is relevant, as it allows us to understand the process of town creation and development in the context of the recently subjugated central territories of New Spain in the first half of the sixteenth century. Motolinia’s collected writings, commonly known as Memoriales and written toward the mid-sixteenth century, contain a chronicle of the city’s founding day. It starts with a description of how, early in the morning of April 16, 1531 (he erroneously wrote 1530 in his manuscript), the small number of future settlers of the city, all Spanish immigrants arrived at the site. The friar then mentions the arrival of large groups of Indigenous people from the neighboring towns of Tlaxcala, Cholula, Calpan, and Tepeaca – important Indigenous fiefdoms in the region – who were tasked with building temporary housing for the Spanish settlers to aid in the tracing of the city and to help clear the land (see Figure 1.1).

The creation of a town

9

Figure 1.1 A map of the Puebla Region showing some of the principal urban Indigenous fiefdoms in the area, the principal topographical features, and other Spanish foundings.

In Motolinia’s words: “The Indians arrived singing and waving their flags, ringing bells and banging drums, while others, like boys, were performing various dances. It seemed as though they were already banishing the Devil and calling upon the angels, whose town they were about to build.”4 While Motolinia’s chronicle of the city’s founding is a relevant testimonial, not only as a rare, first-person account of creating a city in the New World, it also reveals a series of tensions and contradictions that occupied the minds of missionaries and colonizers in the New World. For one, the missionary characterizes the creation of the city as a hierophantic event. In other words, the Franciscan describes the establishment of the town as having decisive religious implications. He goes as far as describing the future city as a place that would be the abode of angels – God’s emissaries. Moreover, as tempting as it would be to interpret his discourse as inflamed religious rhetoric, the angelic references were not mere hyperbole at all. In reality, for Motolinia, the act of founding a new city in the New World meant advancing the notion that, at the heart of the colonization and evangelization of New Spain, the city was the beacon of Christian civilization. What is more, the city, as the missionary suggested, was the artifact that could cast light on a territory previously inhabited by natives ignorant of the “true faith,” naïve practitioners of what appeared to him and his brethren to be “evil” religious rituals.

10 The creation of a town In effect, the creation of cities amounted to the literal transplantation of political, social, and economic institutions, what Richard Morse deemed the “mystical body” of Iberian culture.5 Besides the concerns over converting the native populations, the founding of urban settlements was also the strategic operation by which the Spanish missionaries and colonizers came to control the territories and newly subjugated peoples of central New Spain. The city was the vehicle through which they deployed their institutions: the Catholic Church and the Spanish Crown’s laws and ordinances. What is more, through these institutions, the colonizers imposed their understanding and ordering of the territory, the world, and the universe at large on the subjected native peoples. The mere intention of analyzing the founding of a city such as Puebla provides a window into the Spanish evangelization and colonization of the New World through a specific lens that places the creation of urban centers at the heart of the complicated mechanisms of Spanish colonization in New Spain. By extension, it is equally vital to comprehend the scale and magnitude of the whole endeavor. By 1574, scholar George Kubler’s estimates that about thirty Spanish administrative cities had already been established, mostly in the central and southern territories of the Viceroyalty of New Spain.6

The relevance of the city in the early modern Hispanic world The story of how urbanism played a crucial role in the colonization of New Spain begun when the conqueror Hernán Cortés arrived on the coasts of the present-day State of Veracruz. Indeed, when Cortés and his men landed on the Gulf of Mexico’s shores in February 1519, Cortés proceeded to judicially establish a city council, or cabildo, consisting of his most trusted associates. This cabildo then proceeded to elect Cortés as its head. Through this tactic, Cortés established a legal precedent: the founding of la Villa Rica de la Veracruz, on Good Friday, 1519. In this way, he provided his expedition with legal standing in the face of the opposition that Cortés would face from Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar, Governor of Cuba, for sailing against the Governor’s orders. At least symbolically, this act inaugurated the urban colonization of New Spain by establishing – in Cortés’ eyes and in those of the Spanish Crown’s – a legal claim to the territory of what would later constitute New Spain.7 With Cortés and his troops’ image in mind, we see how the city was understood primarily as an assembly of people and the institutions they upheld as a group, and only secondarily as an urban fabric. This is a notion that is deeply entrenched in the Classical tradition. In his now-classic study, Richard Kagan identifies the concepts of urbs and civitas as central to understanding the city during the Spanish Renaissance. Under this lens, urbs refers to the physical aspects of the town. At the same time, civitas is a term employed to describe the citizens, the cives, of the city – in other words, the body politic of a community.8 The notion of civitas resonates with Aristotle’s Hellenistic understanding of the polis as laid down in his work Politics (written in the fourth century

The creation of a town

11

BCE), in which he affirms that the ultimate purpose of living in a community is to live “happily and nobly.”9 Further, the Roman writer and politician Cicero (106–43 BCE), in his De re publica (On the Commonwealth), defines the city as the dual combination of citizens and material fabric.10 Cicero writes that the result of people gathering to live together, as is the natural condition of humankind, is to form a commonwealth (res publica), “an assemblage of some size associated with one another through agreement on law and community of interest,” and the resulting physical settlement of the commonwealth is called the urbs.11 Another relevant source that shaped the understanding of the city in Spanish medieval and Renaissance culture is Christian theology. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE), a highly influential figure among New World missionaries, in his celebrated Civitas Dei (The City of God), defines what a commonwealth or res publica is: “An assemblage of reasonable beings bound together by a common agreement as to the objects of their love.”12 In Iberian culture, as Kagan has noted, a pervasive influence on urban thinking was Isidore, Archbishop of Seville (c. 560–636 CE). In his magnum opus Etymologiae (The Etymologies), Isidore affirmed that the city, the civitas in his original Latin, was, in effect, “a multitude of persons united by a kinship that receives its name from the civibus (the citizens), which is to say the people that inhabit the urbis (the city). Therefore, the term urbs designates the city’s material fabric, while civitas makes a reference not to its stones but its inhabitants.”13 The understanding of European urban culture did not change dramatically for centuries. During the medieval period, Thomas Aquinas (1225– 1274) wrote that humankind’s “natural” way to live was in society. Aquinas makes the point that man is a “social animal” and that it is “natural for man . . . to live in a group,” and this is because Aquinas believed that a community, which united many people’s abilities, would ensure that everybody’s needs would be satisfied.14 For Aquinas, cities would need to follow the laws created by humankind, but he insisted on the preeminence of God’s laws.15 Such a long and established cultural tradition regarding the importance of cities must have influenced the Spanish colonizers’ attitudes regarding their relevance and convenience. On the one hand, it was critical for the colonizers to gather the Indigenous peoples of New Spain in cities – people who preferred living in scattered communities throughout vast territories – to try to control their labor, their bodies, and their cultural practices. On the other hand, it was paramount for the Spanish to exercise political and administrative control over the territories inhabited by an overwhelming majorityIndigenous population by establishing cities for European colonizers and their offspring. An example of this is the City of Puebla de los Ángeles.

The key players Puebla de los Ángeles, as an urban and social project, was planned by a tripartite committee. The first party was the Real Audiencia, the official interim tribunal that represented the Crown of Spain until the arrival of the

12 The creation of a town first appointed Viceroy of New Spain, Antonio de Mendoza (1495–1552). Juan de Salmerón, an oidor, represented the Audiencia as a member of that tribunal. The second protagonist was the Franciscan Order, the guardianes or designated evangelizers of the province of Tlaxcala, represented in the founding of the city by Friar Toribio de Benavente Motolinia. The third was the Bishopric of Tlaxcala, represented by Bishop Julián Garcés, who had the ecclesiastical control of Puebla’s future founding site.16 All three characters involved in the project were intriguing. Salmerón was a renowned jurist who participated in the famous trial against Pedro Arias Dávila, the infamous Governor of Castilla de Oro (Central America).17 Upon Salmerón’s arrival in New Spain as a second Real Audiencia member, the judge would also prove a crucial protagonist in Puebla’s foundation. Toribio de Benavente Motolinia, as mentioned earlier, was the author of a collection of writings known as Memoriales, which proved crucial as a source of information on the first years of the colonization of New Spain, the native peoples of the early post-conquest period, as well as a first-person account on the founding of Puebla.18 Friar Julián Garcés (1452–1541) was a Dominican priest and later bishop of Tlaxcala’s province. Garcés was a notable theologian, a former student of the famed humanist Antonio de Nebrija, and a Sorbonne University alumnus.19 He arrived in New Spain in 1526 to occupy the see of the Tlaxcala Bishopric. The history surrounding the creation and establishment of bishoprics and their respective concilios catedralicios – which were the councils that administered the ecclesiastical rents or prebends of each bishopric – is critical in the Mexican viceregal context, as they oversaw the establishment and development of ecclesiastical rule in the territory. By extension, bishoprics informed the development of political–geographical delimitations in New Spain. To this effect, the creation of the Bishopric of Tlaxcala is intimately linked to Puebla de los Ángeles’ founding and its later economic and political development. As early as 1519, Garcés was appointed to the see of what was then called the Carolense Diocese by order of Pope Leo X in Rome. This was the first diocese in New Spain, planned well in advance of the military conquest led by the Spaniards against the Mexica in 1521. The geographical delimitation of the Carolense Diocese initially encompassed most of the vaguely known territory of Central Mexico and the Gulf Coast. It would later be redrafted due to the creation of the Mexico City Diocese in 1530. However, in 1526, the Cathedral Chapter decided to have Garcés’ episcopal see transferred to the City of Tlaxcala.20 This decision was bound to trigger a sensitive situation given that the Tlaxcalan people had benefited from the allegiance they celebrated with the Spaniards, as they rallied against, and eventually defeated, the political consortium headed by the Mexica. As a reward, Tlaxcalans enjoyed certain privileges, such as restricting Spanish settlements on their lands.21 Tlaxcala’s privileges were thus indirectly responsible, at least in part, for the idea of establishing the City of Puebla as the seat of the bishopric for

The creation of a town

13

this region. Garcés was troubled by having to establish his see in the mostly Indigenous town of Tlaxcala, as he felt the bishopric should be in a Spanish administrative center. Therefore, the establishment of a Spanish city represented a possible solution. Still, Garcés was also unconvinced of establishing the bishopric in a newly created town, as it would pose the challenge of raising sufficient prebends to sustain a bishopric from a sparse population. Garcés sought a middle route – to introduce Spanish settlers into Tlaxcala, a highly complicated situation given Tlaxcala’s privilege of being spared European colonists.22 In the end, the diocesan see was eventually transferred to the City of Puebla, but only because the concilio catedralicio, the Cathedral Chapter, pressured Garcés into making a decision. Garcés only agreed to move the bishopric around 1539, eight years after the city’s establishment.23

The site In the sixteenth century, choosing a site for new urban settlements was a matter of great importance for the Spanish colonizers. Pedro Arias Dávila, for one, brought exact instructions on selecting a site for the establishment of the City of Panamá.24 Conversely, in New Spain, the case of Valladolid, a city destined for Spanish settlers, was founded by the Augustinian Order of Missionaries and by Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza (1495–1552), exemplifies the matter of carefully choosing the site for a new settlement. Mendoza demanded that the Augustinians pick a site where timber, stone, access to potable water, a propitious climate for agriculture, and other detailed requirements would be thoroughly met.25 As with other cities that were meant to be sites of Spanish regional power, Puebla de los Ángeles, in the eyes of the colonizers, needed to be in a strategic position to be able to exert control over the territory, especially if that territory was densely inhabited by Indigenous peoples (see Figure 1.1). Puebla’s location lies in a valley crossed by rivers and has a particular topography, namely, various hills and volcanic elevations. The valley, a fertile stretch of flatlands or plains experiencing mild weather, was known as Cuetlaxcoapan in Nahuatl (the place where snakes shed their skins). Evidence exists of the presence of people inhabiting the area for 22,000 years in the area of Valsequillo to the south of Puebla, 20 km away (12.4 miles). However, the closest pre-Hispanic settlements to the city and the most ancient ones, which date from the late Preclassic Period, are found in San Francisco Totimehuacan, where a series of eight pyramidal mounds exists. Another site is Amalucan, where a series of mounds, structural bases, and water canals exists. These settlements date from 500 to 200 BCE. From the Classic Period (250–900 CE), the most relevant towns were Tonantzintla and Cholula, 15 and 12 km away (9.3 and 7.5 miles, respectively) from Puebla’s center. At the time when the Spaniards arrived in the area in the early sixteenth century, a pact between the fiefdoms of Huejotzingo, Cholula, Cuauhtinchan, Totimehuacan, and Tlaxcala was in place, which stated that the Valley of

14 The creation of a town Cuetlaxcoapan was a yaotlalli, a neutral battleground in which to carry out “flower wars” or xochiyaólotl. During this convened war, the objective was to take prisoners alive for cuaxicalli or ritual sacrifice.26 The argument regarding the valley being used as a ritual battlefield explains why it lacked any urban settlements when the Spaniards were looking to colonize the area. Be that as it may, the Europeans had to mediate and negotiate with the Indigenous fiefdoms to occupy the area when looking to establish a city in the vicinity. Still, they all complied, given that they had all cooperated in the war against the Mexica, which made the negotiations easier.27 To the Spaniards, the valley appeared ideal, given its strategic location. The site is 135 km (84 miles) from Mexico City to the southeast and 281 km (174 miles) to the west from Veracruz, New Spain’s most important port during the sixteenth century. Puebla’s placement between those two critical cities established a stop for travelers and merchandise arriving from the Iberian Peninsula and the Caribbean Region. Juan Villa Sánchez, a Dominican friar, writing in 1746, described the city as enjoying a “pleasant and placid plain cut and divided by the parentheses of two rivers.”28 Indeed, the town is nestled in a valley at 2,150 m (7,050 ft) above sea level, crisscrossed by not two but three rivers: the San Francisco River, which ran north-south, splitting the city’s layout at its center (the river was piped in the 1960s); the Río Alseseca, which ran some 2 km to the east of the city center (parts of the river today run through pipes); and the Atoyac River, which ran 2 km to the west of the city center, which today suffers from dreadful levels of pollution (see Figure 1.2).29

Figure 1.2 A map showing the river systems that traversed the Puebla Valley and Puebla’s founding site.

The creation of a town

15

Two prominent hills delimited the viceregal city: one to the northeast, known during the viceregal period as Cerro de San Cristóbal or Cerro de Belén (today known as Cerro de Loreto y Guadalupe) and another to the west, known as Cerro de San Juan (today known as Cerro de la Paz). The site was quite fertile and enjoyed abundant natural resources, such as timber, quarries, and water sources, making it an ideal location for founding a new settlement.

The founding of Puebla de Los Ángeles Puebla was founded on April 16, 1531. A series of events took place that day, presumably the tracing on the ground of the initial settlement’s layout and a religious mass presided over by Motolinia, as recounted by him in his Memoriales and reiterated by Fray Juan de Torquemada, a notable Franciscan missionary, in his famed treatise Monarquía Indiana (Monarchy of the Indies).30 Groups of Indigenous peoples were also present since the Audiencia requested that they aid in the work and general proceedings.31 Right after Puebla’s founding, the wealthy encomendero32 class in Mexico City expressed opposition to the project when it appeared as if the incipient town was beginning to prosper.33 By the end of the summer of 1531, judging by a report delivered by Salmerón to the Council of the Indies, several actions were accomplished in barely a few months: the construction – with Indigenous labor – of fifty adobe houses for the settlers, construction of a hostel for newcomers arriving from Spain via Veracruz, and construction of infrastructure to link Puebla with the Mexico City – Veracruz road.34 However, this success also marked the end of Puebla’s ideal agenda. In the same report in which Salmerón asserts Puebla’s early accomplishments, he also requests that the council carry out the necessary arrangements to provide Puebla with the official title of ciudad (city). This action would elevate the settlement’s prestige in New Spain, quieting opposition from the Mexico City adversaries, who preferred to see Puebla as an insignificant attempt at establishing a new town.35 Besides requesting this official title, Salmerón also asked that the Spanish Crown designate the neighboring Indigenous towns of Cholula, Tlaxcala, Huejotzingo, and Tepeaca as pueblos de encomienda (lit. “entrusted towns”). This designation meant that the Indigenous populations of these towns would have to travel to Puebla to labor there, as requested by the city’s authorities and inhabitants, for at least the next six years, after which the Spanish settlers would have to pay a salary if they required Indigenous labor.36 By securing encomienda status, Salmerón wished to guarantee the city’s existence. Guadalupe Albi Romero documented how Salmerón attracted some moneyed conquistadors, inviting them to settle in Puebla and possibly lure other wealthy people to follow in their footsteps, which is why Salmerón also offered encomienda labor to the Spanish settlers. Simply put, to convince them to stay.37 However, with these actions, he compromised the city’s initial vision – that of a self-sufficient agrarian community in which

16 The creation of a town the native population would be spared forced labor – in favor of letting the Spanish settlers carry out all the work necessary to make the city a successful one. Judging by his actions, it seemed as if Salmerón lacked faith in his fellow countrymen. The jurist had a transparent opinion of the Spanish settlers in New Spain. He wrote: The Spanish people who inhabit these lands and the conquistadors’ excessive ambition and laziness are due to them receiving grant labor from the natives, and they take advantage and employ them without providing them useful and concerted instruction on political life.38 The developments that occurred in Puebla after its first few months of existence are confusing, and few primary sources exist to help untangle them. The sixteenth-century chronicle by Friar Juan de Torquemada (c. 1562–1624) relates what most subsequent historians confirm: that in the fall of 1531, an unusually rainy season flooded the early settlement. “After having sited the town and with its few inhabitants settled, it rained tremendously that year, and the land not having been compacted, resembled a marsh.”39 The flooding threatened the city’s future and forced the settlers to rethink whether to stay at this site or move the settlement elsewhere. The chronicler Mariano Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, writing around 1780, and most modern scholars who have tackled the city’s foundation agree that the initial settlement was on the eastern bank of the San Francisco River. The present name of this site is El Alto, now one of the many barrios (neighborhoods) that make up the centro histórico or historical district of the city. Veytia reported disputes among the settlers about what decision to take after the floods since the catastrophe had seriously affected the settlers’ will to continue inhabiting the site. Veytia relates how most settlers decided to move the settlement to the western bank of the river, presumably to the site of the present city square. On this site, the cathedral and city hall stand to this day. There are no records of how these decisions developed, so speculations abound. Most historians believe the reason lay in the fact that the terrain on the western bank is more level than in the El Alto area and the site of the “second foundation” is located farther from the riverbank. Perhaps this was a precautionary measure against future flooding. However, as Veytia recounts, the Franciscan Order had set up residency in the city from day one. Further, by carrying out the erection of a massive monastery complex, their presence was reaffirmed, so they were not in agreement with the decision to move, and they resolved to stay at the original site. Their conventual complex remained on the river’s eastern bank and was even enlarged a couple of decades later (see Figure 5.1, Medina’s view of Puebla, where the Franciscan monastery is seen southwest from the cathedral, across the San Francisco River).40 On the other hand, a comment by Torquemada sums up this period succinctly: “Albeit dejected at first, the place began growing in people.”41

The creation of a town

17

The city indeed grew and prospered after its initial decades. However, it became necessary to revise the mechanisms – urban and sociopolitical – by which the city thrived. As discussed earlier, Puebla was initially conceived as an agricultural community, formed by peasants from the Iberian Peninsula who would willingly renounce to native labor. However, it became clear right after the city’s foundation that this would not be the case. Right from its beginnings, the city instead became a place where the Spanish settlers employed a considerable native workforce to erect the incipient Puebla de los Ángeles. Despite this fact, the view that Puebla was a “Spanish” city continues to be favored, suppressing from the narrative the Indigenous contributions to the city’s growth and development and the presence of Indigenous peoples in the city. One of the reasons why Puebla continues to be perceived as a Spanish city – apart from historical racial discrimination – is due to how cities were classified during the viceregal period. In New Spain, there were, on the one hand, cities for Spaniards or repúblicas de españoles, or Spanish Republics in the official jargon, and on the other hand, there were majority-Indigenous settlements, termed repúblicas de indios. It is critical to understand the difference and origin of each, to understand how fickle and porous that dyadic classification was, and how Puebla de los Ángeles is proof of that. Repúblicas de Indios The origins of these urban settlements in the New World date back to the beginning of the American continent’s exploration and colonization. Perhaps the earliest document to specifically address the matter of congregaciones – the act of congregating natives into newfound towns – is an official decree issued in 1503 by the Spanish monarchs, Fernando and Isabel, in Alcalá de Henares, instructing the temporary Governor (or comendador) of the Indies, Nicolás de Ovando. The monarchs instructed that the natives of La Hispaniola, where Ovando was based, be collected into towns to live within close quarters (juntamente).42 According to scholar Guillermo Floris Margadant, the practice of forced congregation at La Hispaniola derived from the colonizers’ need for Indigenous labor to carry out their economic ventures. However, seeing that the native peoples would scatter to the hills to escape subjugation, the Spanish responded by congregating them in villages for greater control.43 In terms of urban design, these newly founded or reestablished towns followed the characteristics of other Spanish settlements in the Americas, namely, the orthogonal layout or grid whose four directions originated at a central square or plaza. In this square, the religious and civic authorities established their dominion, represented by the church building and the city hall or cabildo, respectively (see Figures 1.3 and 1.4).44 When discussing congregations, there is a need to understand a critical related term: the encomienda (entrustment). In essence, the encomienda is the term used to define the legal system employed by the Spanish Crown

18 The creation of a town

Figure 1.3 A diagram of the town of Cuauhtinchan in the present-day State of Puebla. Cuauhtinchan was a pre-Hispanic town whose urban design was reordered by the Spanish. In this case, the urban layout is not entirely orthogonal, as it adapts to natural topographical features.

to exact tribute from its subjects, both Spaniards and natives. It relied on the encomenderos or “entrusted,” former Spanish conquistadors. They demanded and were trusted with legal (in the eyes of the Spanish Crown) custody of territorial demarcations, thereby assuming the right to own that territory’s Indigenous inhabitants’ labor. In exchange, the encomenderos would assume responsibility for the religious conversion, education, and general well-being of that population. Generally, this premise was not met but was rather substituted instead for harsh treatments and abuse.45 In 1512, a set of ordinances commonly called the Leyes de Burgos (Laws of Burgos) legally endorsed the encomienda system, clearly stating the encomendero’s responsibility to congregate the Indigenous peoples in urban settlements nearby and under the watchful eyes of the Spanish colonizers. The Spanish colonial experience in the Caribbean gave form to the Leyes de Burgos. Still, Spanish legislation regarding the encomienda kept evolving once the Spanish colonization campaigns had arrived in the continent. Later iterations included the Leyes Nuevas (New Laws) of 1542 and 1545, which introduced the idea of segregating the Indigenous and Spanish populations into separate towns, charging the encomenderos with the task of congregating the natives into urban settlements.46 In New Spain, urban congregations occurred in two major campaigns. The first started as early as the 1530s in the central-western province of

The creation of a town

19

Figure 1.4 A diagram representing Mexico City’s principal plaza and its immediate environs. Mexico City’s urban design represents a mixture of native and Spanish solutions to produce a new urban layout. Its oversized plaza and its range of different urban blocks are examples of the solutions that drew from the city’s preexisting urban conditions.

Michoacán with the foundation activity of Bishop Vasco de Quiroga and then gained momentum during the mid to latter half of the sixteenth century under the tenure of Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza.47 During the first campaign, Mendoza was broadly supported by missionaries from the Franciscan Order, having as allies the likes of Toribio de Benavente Motolinia, Pedro de Gante, Juan de Tapia, Francisco del Toral, and Gerónimo de Mendieta. However, a disastrous epidemic from 1545 to 1548 turned Viceroy Mendoza from supporter to detractor of the practice of congregating the Indigenous population. He advised his successor, Viceroy Luis de Velasco, to proceed with much caution: “Your majesty will withhold from making congregations and gatherings [of Indians] because experience shows the benefits are outweighed by the damage in the issues and opinions derived from their making.”48 The second campaign in the late sixteenth century was more

20 The creation of a town precise, better planned, and was successfully carried out. It was backed by the Peruvian experience of congregating the Indigenous populations from 1569 to 1571, overseen by the Peruvian Viceroy Francisco de Toledo.49 By ordering the Indigenous communities to congregate, the Spanish Crown attempted to instill a sense of urbanitas50 in them, of living in policía,51 instead of living with their “barbarous” ways. The consequences of concentrating on a group of people at one particular site were unanticipated. Forcing the cohabitation of peoples of diverse ethnic and geographic origins resulted in a series of demographic, political, and social events that drastically impacted Mexico’s landscapes and its native populations. In general terms, these urban-social projects devised by the Spanish forced the mobilization of the Indigenous populations of New Spain, in some cases relocating settlements slightly, but in other instances, displacing them entirely to distant locations. There were many consequences derived from this practice; forced relocations caused dramatic social and anthropological changes. The most disruptive being the disease epidemics inadvertently brought by Europeans that decimated the native populations. These epidemics destroyed entire communities, familial and kinship relations, and ravaged families, leaving countless orphaned children uncared. The practice of living in low-density settlements could have acted as a buffer against those diseases while forced congregations only worsened the epidemics due to the higher population density of the new urban paradigm. Other factors that reshaped the landscapes of New Spain were the introduction of new cash crops, such as wheat.52 With people moving and abandoning their towns, the land was left uncultivated, with many swaths of land now destined for grazing. The introduction of domesticated animals, such as horses, donkeys, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and chickens, brought changes in the use of land, diet, and cultural practices. For one, grazing herds went unchecked, and goats, for instance, became a plague causing environmental mayhem. Other environmental changes were caused by deforestation and land erosion, as timber was exploited dramatically for construction and industrial processes and to produce charcoal. The introduction of new species of plants, crops, and trees also caused changes in the natural landscapes and the diets and cultural traditions among the native population, who were forced to raise newly introduced domesticated animals and cultivate new crops to survive.53 Creating a congregación (congregation) consisted, from a legal standpoint, in the formal recognition of the need to found an Indigenous village or town. A judge would point out the site’s geographical characteristics, such as the climate, the number of inhabitants, and the new town’s position relative to the neighboring towns. A proclamation would then be issued and communicated to the affected Indigenous population, many of whom lived independently in the hills, completely scattered. At other times, these edicts affected existing villages, and the entire village was then forced to move.

The creation of a town

21

The Indigenous population then had no choice but to relocate, and the legal edict would be enforced by the Spanish authorities, to the point of them threatening the natives with the destruction of their homes and crops if they did not concede.54 The Spanish civil authorities would choose the relocation sites for the new towns based on European principles of urban planning relevant at the time. As mentioned earlier, native populations had the custom of inhabiting rural areas in small villages, usually scattered around larger towns and cities. This practice proved inadequate to the Spaniards since many villages were located on hillsides or even atop hills or mountains. The Spaniards, in contrast, considered open valleys to be the ideal site for cities. Wind currents would freely traverse the territory in an open valley, which was considered a healthy measure. Compounding the resettlement problem, the Spaniards sometimes forced different ethnic groups to congregate in the same town, creating internecine disputes and frictions between groups. Another factor relating to the social impact of resettlement was that the high death count from European-brought diseases depopulated many towns, whose survivors ended up congregated in new sites.55 Furthermore, repúblicas de indios closely followed many of the same characteristics employed in other urban foundations promoted by the Spanish authorities. Their urban form was usually a grid that could adapt to topographical specificities (e.g., rivers, streams, natural or human-made slopes, or others). The crossing of the main axes marked the public square or plaza (see Figure 1.3). As with other urban foundations, the plaza was the site for the most relevant religious and civic institutions: namely, a church building, often part of a monastery, in the case of towns founded by the mendicant orders, and the cabildo or city council building, which represented the local civic authorities.56 Although repúblicas de indios were urban foundations meant to house the Indigenous population, from a formal standpoint, these settlements reflected, to a considerable extent, Spanish ideals of urban design for the New World, which were very distanced from the pre-Hispanic concept of urban. The Indigenous peoples of New Spain, particularly in the central and southern regions of what constitutes present-day Mexico, for the most part, inhabited the territory in what we would today describe as low-density, semirural towns, and villages. As Bernal García and García Zambrano have pointed out, a lack of clear differentiation between what constituted the urban versus the rural in pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica led the Spanish colonizers to conclude that the Indigenous peoples lived scattered in the country and therefore, that they were without policía.57 In that sense, in the Spanish colonizers’ eyes, repúblicas de indios were the de facto vehicle through which the control of geographic territory and acculturation, including religious conversion, would effectively occur.

22 The creation of a town Repúblicas de Españoles The repúblicas de españoles were the urban project that the colonizers conceived as the administrative, political, and economic centers of the viceroyalty. These cities contained most Spanish and criollo (of Spanish descent, born in the Americas) populations and the institutions that defined and made sense of their colonization efforts. They embodied important economic and political centers at a regional level. The repúblicas de españoles, in fact, articulated nodal regions, a term employed in the field of human geography to refer to a market center that exerts economic, cultural, and political influence on its outlying concentric provinces.58 The first significant and complex urban project that the Spaniards carried out in the recently conquered territories of New Spain was the foundation of the City of Mexico in 1524, following the fall of the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan. The case is paradoxical in urban planning because Tenochtitlan was already defined by a rectilinear layout that embodied a transparent, regulated urban order without being a veritable grid. After the city’s conquest and destruction, the layout of the Aztec capital was modified by Alonso García Bravo, a master alarife,59 under the service of Hernán Cortés, giving the city an urban form that resembled a Spanish urban settlement in the New World, with rectangular urban blocks (solares) and a large, open main square (the Plaza Mayor) flanked at each corner by two broad streets (see Figure 1.4).60 García Bravo’s main innovation, therefore, was to incorporate a central square that continues to be the symbolic heart of the city today. Otherwise, García Bravo established a grid, taking as its axes the two main pre-Hispanic avenues aligned with the cardinal points: the Tacuba causeway, running east-west, and the Tepeyac-Iztapalapa causeway, running south-north. Another popular reference that discusses the urban form that Mexico City acquired after the war waged against the Mexica is contained in the Latin dialogues by Francisco Cervantes de Salazar – a Spanish humanist and university professor. Cervantes migrated to Mexico City in the sixteenth century. In one of the dialogues, a character identified only as Alfaro comments on Mexico City’s public plaza: Certainly, I cannot remember any, nor do I think in either side of the world could we find one to match it. My God, how flat and vast it is! How joyful! How adorned with tall and superb buildings in all four directions! Such regularity, such craftsmanship, such disposition, and site!61 The comment regarding the central plaza is relevant because it points to what George Kubler and other scholars have recognized as the most critical and non-European trait of New Spain’s urban enterprise.62 In Mexico City and elsewhere, the public plaza points to the vital site where the most important

The creation of a town

23

public events, festivities, social demonstrations, and public markets took place. The central plaza’s importance in any New Spanish city, whether a república de indios or república de españoles, cannot be stressed enough; the plazas in Mexican urbanism, as Kubler wrote, “are unprecedented in general European practice, but for a very few exceptions.”63 The establishment of Mexico City was the inaugural república de españoles, and other urban settlements for Spaniards would soon come to fruition, such as Villa Real de Chiapa (present-day San Cristóbal de las Casas) in 1528, Valladolid (present-day Morelia), founded in 1543, and Puebla de los Ángeles, founded in 1531 (see Figure 1.5). As Richard Morse affirms, administrative villas (towns) for Spaniards appear to have grown faster than the smaller settlements.64 These towns solved the need for vigilance and the administrative control of the surrounding territory while a network of roads made the trade of food and merchandise possible between them. The most famed of these roads was the Camino de Tierra Adentro, which linked Mexico City to its most important mining cities in the northern territories of New Spain, such as Guanajuato (established in 1548 as a real de minas, a fortified mining outpost) and Zacatecas (also established as a mining outpost in the late 1540s and acquiring its

Figure 1.5 A map of Central Mexico in the sixteenth century, showing some of the principal urban centers of the period and their year of establishment.

24 The creation of a town título or charter of ciudad in 1585). The road reached La Villa Real de la Santa Fé (founded in 1610) in the outlying territory of New Mexico. These repúblicas de españoles were veritable new foundations in physical and demographic terms (with some exceptions, such as Mexico City), in contrast to the repúblicas de indios, which were, in most cases, refoundations or urban reconfigurations of pre-Hispanic settlements, relocated to what the Spanish considered better sites for urban settlements, namely, valleys or flat plateaus, as opposed to the military-oriented settlements in high places that characterized some pre-Hispanic towns.65 The repúblicas de españoles embodied the ideals of both the civitas and the urbs. In the eyes of the Spanish colonizers, these urban settlements represented their institutions, and they were the vehicles through which they would expedite the order to the regions these cities overlooked. A república de españoles was the seat of power that effected a vexing influence over whole hinterlands. The area of each city’s jurisdiction included the surrounding and nearby towns and villages while those jurisdictions’ exact borders were not always clearly established. In general terms, a city’s jurisdiction ran as far as another city could rival its hegemony over a specific territory. In effect, there was an established hierarchy of urban settlements. In general terms and with certain exceptions depending on the specific period or geographic region, aldeas (villages), lugares (lit. “sites” but closer in English to a township), and anejos (similar to the English equivalent of a hamlet) were the designations for the smallest urban habitats, then came villas or small cities.66 There was also an array of other classifications for settlements, such as military outposts (presidios) and reales de minas (a mining settlement). However, all of these titles were lower in the hierarchy to that of the ciudad, a title that could only come from a título, an official charter obtained for historical, political, or even economic reasons.67

Puebla, the Spanish and Indian Republic of Los Ángeles Puebla de los Ángeles was initially conceived as a república de españoles, a city reserved for a Spanish and criollo population, which became a regional urban node concentrating the colonial political, cultural, and religious influence exerted over the Indigenous population in the region. In every way, this is a fitting description for Puebla de los Ángeles. However, at the same time, it is necessary to place and give credit to the enormous importance that the urban Indigenous communities had in the City of Puebla, given that they shaped the city as much as the Spanish community did and were also just as responsible for the city’s success. Given this, it is fair to say that the City of Puebla de los Ángeles was, in reality, a república de españoles and a series of repúblicas de indios coexisting within the same urban layout. As a civitas – a gathering of citizens with a series of institutions and corporations representing them – Puebla was many repúblicas in one. Simultaneously, urbs – an urban material fabric, including its urban form – was

The creation of a town

25

one single entity where a series of civitas or repúblicas coexisted; however, not in equal terms or on equal grounds. This condition goes well beyond the república de indios – república de españoles binary. At the very least, it proves that those labels were useful in describing a form of judicial and political model, as they were both based on an elected ruling cabildo that administered judicial, financial, and political decisions. However, it also proves that this paradigm was relatively ineffective in achieving a segregationist model, which was another of its objectives. Despite the coexistence of both models within the same urban agglomeration, the Spanish elite occupied the top of the social pyramid, and geographically speaking, they occupied the central part of the urban layout. In contrast, the bulk of the Indigenous population occupied the peripheries. Although, as the city’s history progressed, this condition became porous, as we find Spaniards and criollos living in traditionally Indigenous barrios, or mestizos (those of mixed race) living in the spaces reserved for the Spanish and criollos. The history of the urban Indigenous communities of Puebla begins with the choice of the site for the city, given that, as mentioned earlier, negotiations occurred with the most important Indigenous fiefdoms to proceed to occupy the site for permanent settlement. With the city founded and when Juan de Salmerón granted Puebla’s Spanish settlers the benefit of encomienda or native labor to attract more Spanish settlers to the new foundation, negotiations with the repúblicas de indios took place on December 5, 1532, to agree on the terms for the encomienda. Initially, the agreements (signed with the guardianes or representatives of the Franciscan monasteries of Cholula, Tlaxcala, Huejotzingo, and Tepeaca as witnesses) specified that labor was to be provided in exchange for waiving tributes paid in kind, specifically the payment of maize.68 As a result of those negotiations, groups of young native men from different Indigenous towns and villages in the region would travel to Puebla weekly, remain in the city performing work (mostly related to construction) during the week, and travel back to their hometowns on the weekends. Provisions allowed for temporary housing in the city’s peripheries for those waves of weekly labor. Eventually, however, those lodgings became permanent, as Indigenous people decided to migrate to the city and settle in it. Additionally, once the encomienda agreements concluded after some years, it was agreed that the Spanish who desired to contract labor from the Indigenous workforce would have to provide a salary. For this reason, for many native families at that point, migrating to Puebla became an attractive alternative. Toward 1540, the Indigenous communities had congregated around three parishes administered by mendicant orders.The barrio of El Alto congregated around the Franciscan monastery located on the eastern bank of the San Francisco River, which was populated by Tlaxcalans; the barrio of Santiago, in the southwestern sector of the town, was populated by Cholulans; and the barrio of San Pablo, in the northwestern sector, was populated by Texcocans

26 The creation of a town and Tlatelolcans. Although the term barrio, a Spanish-language word, is employed to designate these sociopolitical units, in reality, what lay behind the Indigenous barrios was a hybrid or syntactic concept of political-social order. Before the Europeans arrived in the Mexican heartland, Indigenous urban settlements were characterized by what scholars have defined with the concept of the altepetl, a Nahua ethnic state. Although it is impossible to summarize the pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican urban tradition herein, it is worth discussing, albeit briefly, the concept of urbanity in a native culture representative of today’s central Mexico: the Nahua culture. The Nahuas, who made up the bulk of Puebla’s Indigenous presence during the sixteenth century, possessed a sense of landscape and territoriality that differed significantly from that of Europeans. First, the territorial-community unit that defined an urban center was the altepetl, the guiding concept of Nahua territoriality, distinguished and defined by its community organization forms.

The altepetl The altepetl was constituted, according to Bernal García and García Zambrano, by a series of elements. First, by a territorial or urban unit, then by a series of institutions that guaranteed said unit’s existence, and finally, by having a ruler of lineage or a tlatoani. On the other hand, it also required an architectural or essential infrastructural core, constituted in its simplest elements by the temple or teocalli, the palace or tecpan, and even the market or tianquiztli. The altépetl as a communal settlement was, in turn, divided into neighborhoods or calpolli (also identified as tlaxilacallis by scholar Luis Reyes), which were, effectively, reflections or “microcosms” of the altepetl itself and provided the altepetl with tribute and labor.69 In this way and taking the altepeme (the plural form of altepetl) as urbancommunity units of different sizes, populations, and extensions, the main difference between European, sixteenth-century urbanism and the Nahua conception of urban settlements is mainly contained in two ideas. On the one hand, the porous and fluid character of what constituted the geographical boundaries of an altepetl, which, although they held within their limits (as mentioned, made up of the teocalli, the tecpan, and the tianquiztli), the residential areas or calpollis were more difficult to define or understand from a Western understanding of urbanism. The calpolli can be identified in contemporary terms as residential settlements of low population density that were more rural than urban. They were more rural because the residential units had farmland that surrounded them, lacking a grouping pattern, unlike the urban traces that the Spaniards employed in their urban foundations, where the residential units were arranged densely in clearly defined plots within an urban trace. The second element that differentiated the concept of Nahua urbanism from the European conception was the intimate relationship that the altepeme established with the landscape in which they settled and that

The creation of a town

27

surrounded them, namely, hills, mountains, mounds, trees, streams, rivers, and any other bodies of water. The altepetl’s resources did not merely fulfill the purpose of satisfying material needs, in other words, natural resources did not exist only to be exploited for the benefit of a community. Instead, the topographic and geographical elements constituted the mythical-religious sources that informed the urban-architectural configuration of an altepetl and its location. Further, the symbols that were taken from the landscape provided meaning and continuation to the cosmological vision of the altepetl’s inhabitants. It is fundamental to note that the altepetl had its conceptual equivalents – not exact translations, but very close in definition – in other Mesoamerican cultures such as the Totonac, Zapotec, Mayan, Huastec, Mixe-Zoque, and others.70 The Nahua and different Mesoamerican cultures had points in common regarding the worship of the landscape – for instance, the conception of topographic elements and cosmogony that divided the universe, both physical and mythological, into simple geometric elements, namely, the notion of the world’s four directions as well as the center as a geometric position (which referred to the central axis of the universe, conceived as a mountain or sacred hill) and mythological-geometric elements such as the columns of the universe. Together, these elements fed the Nahua cosmogony and other Mesoamerican cultures and informed urban and architectural decisions.71 However, the introduction of European urban traditions inevitably caused the dramatic transformation of Indigenous urban and architectural understandings and practices. In this way, their notions of space and territoriality and the intimate relationships they established with the landscape and territory sometimes completely collapsed or were dramatically altered. In either case, the introduction of European ideas related to space and time evidences the dramatic alteration of the Mesoamerican cultures’ cosmological vision at the time of contact with Europeans.

The altepetl as a social model for the Indigenous barrios in Puebla de Los Ángeles When Indigenous communities settled permanently within Puebla’s urban layout or traza, as the Spaniards termed it, they reproduced many of their cultural traditions associated with the notion of the altepetl within the república de indios paradigm, that is, the judicial and political system that allowed a community to self-rule through the figure of the cabildo. In effect, in official Spanish documents of the period, the three initial native urban settlements in Puebla – namely, San Francisco (eventually known as El Alto), Santiago, and San Pablo – are identified as barrios. In contrast, the Indigenous documents, in turn, referred to them as altepetls or altepeme.72 Being recognized as an altepetl incorporated a certain level of self-governance regarding political, financial, and judicial objectives. Thus, each barrio or altepetl administered a series of calpollis. These communal units made up

28 The creation of a town the altepetl, with each calpolli in turn standing apart from others in terms of kinship, place of origin, or other significant forms of allegiance. In Puebla, each altepetl or barrio fell under the care of a mendicant order (El Alto to the Franciscans, Santiago to the Augustinians, and San Pablo to the Dominicans), which also corresponded to each order’s localization of their monastic complexes within the city. In the City of Puebla’s council minutes, the earliest mention of the official agreement to allow Indigenous people to settle within the urban traza dates from 1539 when the cabildo officially agreed to grant native settlers plots of land of 12 by 18 varas, or roughly 14.4 by 21.5 m. These were significantly smaller than the 50 by 50 vara plots (42 by 42 m) that Spanish settlers received.73 All in all, however, it is also important to note how the repúblicas de indios, understood as selfgoverning or semiautonomous political units, did not reach that status of self-governance until decades after the founding of the City of Puebla. When the settlements became permanent barrios, each one was administered by a cacique indio, a term employed to refer to a figure of authority. However, the república de indios was not officially or judicially in effect, as cabildos were not being constituted nor were the inhabitants of the altepeme able to freely elect their alcaldes or magistrates. Instead, the república de indios and its realization follow this timeline: In 1539, we see the city council granting land plots to Indigenous settlers, and in 1552, the city’s alguacial mayor or city constable named the first alguaciles indios, who carried out the duties of assistant constables. However, these men were not chosen by their communities, and the Spaniards effectively controlled the city’s judicial system. In 1561, the city council elected the first alcalde indio or native magistrate, and the following year, magistrates for each barrio were selected by the city council. It was not until 1601 that the república de indios effectively materialized, as a native gobernador and a magistrate for each Indigenous barrio were elected. The gobernador oversaw the three magistrates’ work, who oversaw all the financial, judicial, and political matters involving the barrios.74 Furthermore, by the second half of the sixteenth century, the ethnic makeup of the City of Puebla de los Ángeles became more sophisticated due to the presence of the African community, made up of people brought from Africa as slaves to New Spain, and which, in Puebla, reached an approximate number of 300 by 1550. The city’s elite employed members of the Black community, whether in civil or religious households, as servants and for management positions on haciendas (large, agricultural, and livestockproducing estates) or in obrajes (factories), living for the most part in the European part of the traza and prohibited from living in the Indigenous barrios.75 As the various ethnic groups that cohabited in Puebla came to solidify an urban culture and a more defined society, it is also imperative to underline that miscegenation became the norm, not just in terms of ethnicity but also in terms of cultural practices. As early as the sixteenth century, the

The creation of a town

29

segregationist efforts to divide the city into precincts or districts became all the vaguer and more fluid, and, at that point, poblano (Pueblan) society mostly became a mestizo one in all senses of the term.

The cabildo: the body politic of the town In the Hispanic world of the early modern era, the city was, first and foremost, the locus of all the relevant legal and religious institutions. The center of political power in a town or city lay in the cabildo, responsible for legislative and administrative decisions. The cabildo as the political center of urban power was an exact mirror of the urban model in the Iberian Peninsula, as the sixteenth-century cosmographer Juan López de Velasco affirmed: “The republic and town councils of the Spanish in the Indies is just as in Spain, with their alcaldes ordinarios [executive magistrates], and the various individual offices of a council.”76 The cabildo made up the essential regulating body in an urban settlement. The city council oversaw, ratified, and decreed public interest ordinances to all citizens of an urban establishment – Puebla de los Ángeles was no exception. Some of the earliest extant documents on the city’s history cover matters dealing with Puebla’s council election and constitution.77 Like any other city in New Spain, Puebla’s cabildo was tasked with such duties as distributing land plots to incoming settlers to administer the city’s commons (ejidos y dehesas). Likewise, it was responsible for the city’s public infrastructure in terms of water supply, roads, streets, bridges, public fountains, water management, water storage, street lighting, the administration of public-funded institutions such as hospitals and schools, the regulation of commercial activities, setting the prices on grains, the administration of public markets, the regulation of hostels and inns, and the collection of city taxes.78 Apart from all these duties, the cabildo was responsible for organizing the public events and festivities known as extraordinarias, such as the reception of new viceroys or the funeral rites and rites of passage of public figures. The cabildo also worked closely with religious authorities to carry out public processions in honor of the city’s patron saints, festivities known as ordinarias, as they followed the Catholic calendrical cycle. However, religious processions were organized in response to contingent situations, such as droughts, epidemics, fires, or heavy rains.79 The cabildo head was the alcalde mayor, or executive magistrate or mayor, appointed by the viceroy. Then came the regidores or council members, whose number varied throughout the viceregal period, together with the other charges, such as the various treasurers, the alguacil mayor or executive constable, tasked with matters of public law and order, and the alférez mayor, or second lieutenant. This honorary title granted the appointee the honor of carrying the royal banner during official ceremonies, festivities, and processions. These council members elected, each year, two alcaldes ordinarios, who were the deputy magistrates or deputy mayors of the council.80 The

30 The creation of a town election of two deputy mayors was an unusual right that was not common in other cities in New Spain and which Puebla’s council defended throughout the viceregal period. The cabildo’s basic structure did not experience significant changes until the mid-eighteenth century when the alcalde mayor was substituted for the figure of the gobernador.81

Puebla’s early urban characteristics Given the ambitiousness of the urban enterprise in Spanish America and due to the differing and variable circumstances under which settlements became established, towns possessed widely differing sizes – in sixteenth-century New Spain, towns could range in size from a few families to many thousands of inhabitants.82 While towns in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico were usually walled to protect against pirate attacks, cities inland lacked such barriers. Additionally, once established, many cities never prospered and thus were abandoned. Such was the case for Segura de la Frontera (which eventually, after refounding it years later, became the town of Tepeaca in the State of Puebla), founded by Hernán Cortés as a Spanish settlement in 1520.83 For towns that survived the initial post-Conquest years and thrived, such as Mexico City, the Spanish academic Francisco Cervantes de Salazar noted, around 1554, how the buildings and infrastructure in the city’s core were polished and well-built.84 Puebla de los Ángeles is a case of a successful urban founding. It exemplifies how a town transitioned from an embryonic physical form to a city with well-crafted civic and religious buildings and an ordered layout. The urban form, it must be underlined, was of extreme importance given that it dictated its growth, settlement patterns, hierarchical social order, and its future development. Settlers allowed to become vecinos or citizens of the city would be given an urban plot, a solar, which measured 50 by 50 varas. If they were Spanish and had the means, they could settle in the city’s central part. Everybody else – Indigenous settlers, mestizos, and poor Spanish families – settled in the peripheral barrios, often receiving smaller plots of approximately 20 by 25 varas. The eastern bank of the San Francisco River, as discussed previously, was the first site for the city where the rudimentary settlement flooded severely a few months post-founding. The settlement then relocated to the western bank, in a higher, flatter place. The surveyor was Alonso Martín Pérez, nicknamed El Partidor,85 a member of the cabildo who was responsible for the tracing of the central plaza and the urban blocks and also for allotting the plots of land to the future inhabitants.86 Once the settlement moved, Puebla’s new urban form was precise and geometrically ordered. The central plaza measured approximately 220 by 200 varas (184 by 167 m),87 and, in turn, it was then split into two rectangles, with the northern plot reserved for the plaza pública (public square) or plaza principal (main square) and the southern one for the cathedral building. The

The creation of a town

31

urban blocks were 100 varas in length on their short side (about 83.5 m) and 200 varas on their long side (approximately 167 m). Each urban block was divided into eight plots distributed among the Spanish vecinos or citizens of the city (the plots themselves being 50 by 50 varas or 42 by 42 m). At the same time, all streets in the traza principal, or the core layout (excluding the peripheries that developed a bit more haphazardly), were 14 varas in width (11.7 m) (see Figures 2.1 and 5.2). Puebla’s central plaza was colonnaded only a couple of years after the city’s foundation. These colonnades were initially wooden, transitioning into quarried, dark basaltic stone, Roman arch arcades that characterize the elegant plaza principal to this day.88 In those first decades after its founding, the plaza principal featured a monumental public water fountain on its eastern side. In contrast, the western side was left open for public spectacles and festivities, such as bullfighting.89 The plot destined for the cathedral was localized on the southern part of the plaza while the urban block immediately north of the plaza was destined for the civic buildings. Bridges connecting both sides of the city, divided by the San Francisco River, were reported to have existed already by 1537.90 Outside the traza, the city destined a series of commons, known as ejidos and dehesas, for the citizens’ convenience in grazing livestock and agricultural purposes. However, as the city took in more residents who needed to be allotted plots of land, the city would usually draw them from the dehesas, so that their borders and delimitations kept changing.91 The city was unevenly settled, with the central core, destined for the Spanish settlers, more densely inhabited from the start and with the southern and western parts of the city more scattered. Scholar Miguel Cuenya attributes this situation to the lack of potable water in these areas, which inhibited people from settling in barrios such as El Carmen and Santiago.92 Despite this, by the end of the sixteenth century, the city had 120 inhabited urban blocks and four public plazas located next to or in front of a religious building. These were the central plaza, San Agustín’s plaza, San Francisco’s plaza, and the La Compañía de Jesus’ plaza (the Society of Jesus), alongside there being an array of urban monastic complexes, such as the male monasteries of San Agustín, San Francisco, the Society of Jesus, Santo Domingo, and the female monasteries of Santa Catarina, La Concepción, and the Jeronomites. At the same time, the first few years of the seventeenth century saw the establishment of others, such as Santa Teresa, Santa Clara, and Santa Inés.93 Indeed, cities such as Puebla, administrative centers run by Spanish colonizers and criollos, were also the seats of religious power and bureaucratic apparatuses. A recurring theme in the study of early Mexican society is the close allegiance between the Catholic Church and civil authorities to such an extent that they often overlapped in their responsibilities and spheres of power. Thus, as Puebla grew in the sixteenth century, the myriad towers and domes of chapels, cathedrals, and monasteries began to shape the city’s urban landscape. The Church’s activities ranged from evangelization,

32 The creation of a town education, and charity to health services, as the Church was often in charge of public hospitals. Its institutions spanned universities, hospitals, orphanages, almshouses, female and male convents, and others of varied responsibilities. Without the Church and its institutions’ presence, the Hispanic city of the early modern world, on both sides of the Atlantic, would have been unrecognizable given that the Church operated and owned many buildings in the cities.

Epilogue: the city as an urban and social experiment As convoluted as the city’s founding was, Puebla began to thrive barely a few decades after its establishment. By 1570, it was already considered the uncontested second most important urban settlement in the viceroyalty after Mexico City. In that regard, it is important to note how many circumstances favored the city’s success. First, Puebla’s location was one critical element to seal its future economic development, given that the Indigenous fiefdoms or repúblicas de indios surrounding it would provide the labor for all commercial activities. Tlaxcala, a crucial Indigenous city whose leaders aligned with the Spanish against the Mexica during the war, is 44 km (27 miles) to Puebla’s north. Cholula, the most important religious center before the arrival of the Spanish in that area, is 14.5 km (9 miles) east from Puebla. Meanwhile, Tepeaca (its colonial name was Villa de Segura de la Frontera), a critical villa and center of the most important agricultural valley in the region, is 40 km (24 miles) southeast of Puebla. Other relevant repúblicas de indios that became economically subservient to Puebla over the decades after its foundation were Tecamachalco, Cuauhtinchan, Tecali, Calpan, Huaquechula, and San Francisco Totimehuacan, among others. The Villa de Carreón (present-day Atlixco), 33 km (20.5 miles) southwest of Puebla, became an agricultural and livestock center where some Pueblan merchants established their agricultural ventures. To the northeast, Puebla established a mercantile corridor that extended to Córdoba and Orizaba’s tobacco-producing areas while to the north and northwest, it created a corridor for textile manufacturing with San Martín Texmelucan and several towns in the Tlaxcala Region. To the south, it traded cattle, cotton, textiles, and cochineal dye with Antequera (present-day Oaxaca City). Another critical element in determining the city’s early success was the presence of native barrios in the town as early as 1539 when the encomienda agreements with the surrounding native repúblicas had expired. At that time, the authorities attracted native settlers by offering small plots of land and organizing them into repúblicas de indios within the city’s traza. The significant presence of Indigenous populations guaranteed a workforce that erected the town and then aided in constructing a thriving proto-capitalist manufacturing industry. Even the Franciscan Order, intimately linked to the city’s creation, acknowledged how the city had a social objective to curtail the effects of the encomienda system. The latter part of Motolinia’s chronicle

The creation of a town

33

describes the social advancements that the foundation of Puebla would represent for New Spain: This town was erected on the demands of brothers minor who proposed to the lords [the members of the Audiencia] to build a city of Spaniards whose inhabitants would cultivate the land and till it, as was done in Spain, since there were great willingness and preparedness in them, as opposed to having them wait around to benefit from the repartimiento de indios. Many other towns would be founded in which Christians who were at present idle and roaming would set an example to the natives of Christian living and the Spanish way of working. And, having their customs and traditions, they would eventually love their land and be willing to stay, as opposed to how they were before, roaming and looking for short-term benefits and then return to Spain, and many good things would come from this project, etc.94 Although many differing interests coincided with Puebla’s creation, Motolinia insisted that the reason for its foundation was primarily motivated by a social agenda. Even more importantly, he claimed these hypothetical settlers would willingly reject the native labor other Spanish settlers were getting elsewhere in New Spain. In other words, they would eventually be weaned off of the repartimiento de indios. The encomienda system was widespread in New Spain by 1531, the year of Puebla de los Ángeles’ founding, to such an extent that, during the first three decades of the sixteenth century, it became the economic basis for all repúblicas españolas (Spanish Republics).95 However, as François Chevalier has demonstrated, from a social perspective, Puebla’s foundation was a landmark in the process of changing the course of the encomienda system.96 According to Chevalier and Guadalupe Albi Romero, Puebla welcomed the Spaniards of lower rank who participated in the war against the Mexica and did not have enough resources or rank to obtain an encomienda.97 Toward 1530, the encomienda system began to be frowned upon by the Spanish Crown and the Church alike, who were interested in proclaiming the Indigenous peoples’ freedom.98 However, even though the Spanish Crown ordered the suppression of the encomienda, in practical terms, the Audiencia in New Spain felt that this had to occur gradually, anticipating fierce opposition from the encomenderos. Allegedly then, Puebla was conceived by the Audiencia as a social experiment that would, by its mere existence, prove that it was possible to eliminate the despised encomienda system.99 Puebla’s initial settlers received help from the inhabitants of the neighboring Indigenous towns to build temporary housing, trace the urban grid, and perform other labors. When tempestuous rains hit Puebla a couple of months after its foundation, many settlers became discouraged and left the settlement. Albi Romero claims that by 1532, there were only thirty-four settlers left.100 At this point, Salmerón and the Audiencia became worried that Puebla might fail, so Salmerón himself oversaw an attractive division of

34 The creation of a town land plots among the remaining settlers and lured other Spanish settlers in New Spain to become vecinos of Puebla. He also negotiated that the Spanish settlers would obtain some encomienda benefits, as other Spaniards got in repúblicas de españoles elsewhere. In that way, hundreds of natives from some of the significant Indigenous fiefdoms surrounding Puebla, such as Tlaxcala, Tepeaca, and Huejotzingo, began working for the city, building the cathedral and working for the Spanish settlers in other labors.101 This occurred in the winter of 1531, and three years later, a Spanish head of family in Puebla would have anything from fifteen to forty Indigenous workers at his service. By 1543, twelve years after the city’s establishment, that number had decreased to two to six workers.102 Therefore, Puebla marked a definitive change in how repúblicas de españoles depended so heavily on the encomienda system. Scholars Chevalier and Albi Romero established how given the fact that a majority of Puebla’s Spanish population was not made up of conquerors but was instead represented by farmers and peasants coming from Spain or other cities in the viceroyalty made quite a difference.103 Albi Romero explains how conquerors – a label applied to veterans of the war against the Mexica – had become used to claiming their benefits as encomenderos and benefiting from native labor in New Spain. In the meantime, by the mid-sixteenth century, a majority of the Pueblan population (Albi Romero places the percentages at about 34% conquerors versus 66% peasants) were farmers who did not rely on the encomienda.104 Juan de Salmerón and Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza continually capped Puebla’s residents’ rights to the encomienda system. In the rest of New Spain, meanwhile, repúblicas de españoles only began to shed the encomienda system at the very end of the sixteenth century, five or six decades after Puebla did so. However, the Leyes Nuevas of 1542 attempted to curb and cap the encomenderos’ legal claims, leading to considerable resistance against the New Laws, not only from encomenderos but also from some factions among the clergy. Because of this, the encomienda’s legal and economic influence did not fade until the latter part of the century.105 In that sense, Puebla stood apart from other towns founded around the same time – like Culiacán, in Sinaloa on Mexico’s Pacific coast, founded by Nuño de Guzmán in 1532, which was completely dependent on the encomienda system up until the end of the sixteenth century. Another example was Antequera, which only began to see the encomienda system fade in the seventeenth century.106 It is no small matter to recognize how, despite how Puebla is continually depicted as a “failed utopia” in the contemporary historiography,107 in reality, the city stood apart, and, partially but significantly, fulfilled the idealistic agenda its creators granted it. This should be largely credited, according to Albi Romero, to the figure of Juan de Salmerón.108 The other aspect that points toward Puebla’s exceptionalism is its mythology. No other city in New Spain possesses a mythology so rich and successful that, up to this day, continues to define its personality among contemporary Mexicans. Puebla continues to be perceived as a city of angelic and heavenly lineage associated with the Heavenly Jerusalem – City of God paradigm.

The creation of a town

35

The fact that this mythology persisted throughout the viceregal period and is still invoked shows how successful it was in its implementation, or at the very least it confirms the endurance of the city’s aspirations (see Figure 1.6). While other cities in New Spain possessed strong symbolic dimensions based on the popular Heavenly Jerusalem – City of God ideal – Mexico City, for one109 – no other city in sixteenth-century New Spain – came to be defined by it so thoroughly as Puebla. While the possession of such a strong founding myth might not be extraordinary, what is exceptional, however, is this mythology’s pervasiveness and its ability to define and redefine the city’s image throughout the viceregal period (see Figure 1.6). Indeed, the articulation of its mythology, largely borrowed from religious imagery, provided powerful archetypes for the city’s architectural and urban development. Toward the end of his chronicle, Motolinia predicted the success of Puebla, attributing its perseverance to the angels’ benevolence: Because this city, with its obstacles and contradictions notwithstanding, has kept on growing, while others with great favors have gone on to become uninhabited. But because it has the favor of angels, no setback will hinder it from growing, and become that which it shall be.110 His prediction, as it happens, actually came to pass.

Figure 1.6 A mural depicting an artistic rendition of Puebla’s founding as carried out by angels. The notion that angels traced the city is a myth that originated in the viceregal period. Source: Google Maps.

36 The creation of a town

Notes 1 Motolinia was Toribio de Benavente’s nickname in the Nahuatl language. It meant poor or humble. 2 The word puebla was a generic term commonly used in the Hispanic world during the sixteenth century to designate a newly founded town or an attempt to populate a certain village or territory by means of attracting colonizers to settle in it. (It is derived from the Latin word populous.) 3 The Real Audiencia was the most important judicial body in New Spain. The first Audiencia was created in 1528, which was directed by Nuño de Guzmán, a conquistador, and his tenure was fraught with scandal and accusations of violence toward the natives, which led to its abolishment and to the creation of the second Audiencia in 1530, headed by Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal and a group of professional jurors. 4 Fray Toribio de Benavente, Memoriales: Edición crítica, introducción, notas y apéndice, Nancy Joe Dyer, ed. Nancy Joe Dyer (Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 1996), 364. Translation of quoted text by author. 5 Richard M. Morse, “The Urban Development of Colonial Spanish America,” in The Cambridge History of Latin America. Volume II. Colonial Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 69. 6 George Kubler, “Mexican Urbanism in the Sixteenth Century,” The Art Bulletin 24, no. 2 (June 1942): 162. 7 Hernán Cortés and Anthony Pagden, Hernán Cortés: Letters from Mexico, Revised second edition (New Haven, CT: Yale Nota Bene, 1986), Cortés mentions this act in his First Letter, 26; Bernal Díaz del Castillo and Davíd Carrasco, The History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Díaz Del Castillo (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 2008), Bernal Díaz del Castillo was present during the founding of the town, 71; Richard Kagan, Urban Images of the Hispanic World, 1493–1793 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 28–29. 8 Kagan, Urban Images of the Hispanic World, 1493–1793, see Chapters 1 and 2. 9 Aristotle, The Politics, ed.Trevor J. Saunders, trans.T.A. Sinclair (London: Penguin, 1981), Book III, ix, 198. 10 Cicero,On the Commonwealth and on the Laws, ed. James E.G. Zetzel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 96. 11 Ibid., 18. 12 Augustine, The City of God. 2 Vols, trans. Marcus Dods (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871), Book XIX, Chapter 24. 13 Isidoro de Sevilla, Etimologías. Versión bilingüe, trans. José Oroz Reta and Manuel Marcos Casquero (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos (BAC), 2004), 1070–1071. 14 Thomas Aquinas, On Kingship to the King of Cyprus (De Regno Ad Regem Cypri), trans. Gerald Phelan (Toronto: The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1949), Book 1, Chapter 1, http://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeRegno.htm. 15 Aquinas, On Kingship to the King of Cyprus, Book 1, Chapter 13. 16 Julia Hirschberg, “La fundación de Puebla de los Ángeles: Mito y realidad,” Historia Mexicana – El Colegio de México 28, no. 2 (1978): 185–223. 17 AGI, Archivo General de Indias, Panamá, 234, Legajo 3, Folio 321R, and also: Ramo Justicia, Residencias de Panamá, 359. 18 AGI, Archivo General de Indias, México, 68, R.3, N.10. 19 Recasens, El primer obispo de Tlaxcala, d. fr. Julian Garcés: estudio biografico (Mexico City: Tip. Barbedillo y comp., 1884), 3–7. 20 Jesús Joel Peña Espinoza,“El Cabildo eclesiástico de la Diócesis Tlaxcala-Puebla, sus años de formación, 1526–1548,” Historia y antropología de Puebla – Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, no. 78 (2005): 12–19.

The creation of a town

37

21 The historian Antonio Peñafiel collected a series of documents from the postConquest period granting the Lords of Tlaxcala privileges over their territories, such as a letter by Charles V, from 1537, granting titles, deeds, and the power to form a city council in Tlaxcala. Another document presented by Peñafiel is the charter that names Tlaxcala a “Muy Noble, Muy Insigne Ciudad,” signed by Philip II. See Antonio Peñafiel, La Ciudad Virreinal de Tlaxcala. Ciudades Coloniales y capitales de la República Mexicana (Mexico City: Imprenta y fototipia de la Secretaría de Fomento, 1909), Chapter XVI. 22 Two contemporary historians who have analyzed Garcés’ bishopric have pieced his attitude toward the founding of Puebla. On the one hand, Jesús Joel Peña and Charles Gibson outline a somewhat more convoluted scenario. Peña, for one, affirms that Garcés was never satisfied with the idea of settling the bishopric in Tlaxcala. However, he also underlines that when presented with the alternative of creating Puebla de los Ángeles as a Spanish-only city, Garcés was not content with the site chosen and became opposed to the project. Furthermore, Peña has presented the idea that Garcés was satisfied with neither staying in Tlaxcala nor with a transfer to Puebla because the newly founded city was scarcely inhabited. The scant number of inhabitants presented a problem for the sustenance of the diocese, given that the cathedral chapter depended on the prebends they obtained from the population, and the people, in turn, had to enjoy a healthy economic situation to sustain the ecclesiastical institution; thus, a sparsely inhabited region would hardly provide for the needs of either party. On the other hand, Gibson affirms that Garcés’ opposition was rooted in the idea of having his episcopal see located in an Indigenous city; instead, Garcés promoted the idea that the province of Tlaxcala be populated with Spanish people to counter the Indigenous presence. Charles Gibson, Tlaxcala en el siglo XVI (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1991), 63–64; Jesús Joel Peña Espinoza, “El Cabildo eclesiástico de la Diócesis Tlaxcala-Puebla, sus años de formación, 1526–1548,” Historia y antropología de Puebla – Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, no. 78 (2005): 12–22. 23 Peña Espinoza, “El Cabildo eclesiástico de la Diócesis Tlaxcala-Puebla, sus años de formación, 1526–1548.” 24 Manuel Serrano y Sanz, Orígenes de la dominación española en América; estudios históricos (Madrid: Bailly-Bailliere, 1918), CCLXXXI. 25 Diego Basalenque, Historia de la provincia de San Nicolás de Tolentino de Michoacán, del orden de N. P. S. Augustín (Mexico City: Tip. Barbadillo y Comp., 1886), Chapter IX, http://cdigital.dgb.uanl.mx/la/1080027706/1080027706.html. 26 Francisco Vélez Pliego, “El paisaje cultural de Valle de Cuetlaxcoapan,” Cuetlaxcoapan. Revista del centro histórico de Puebla 1, no. 1 (2015): 3–9. 27 Lidia Gómez García, Los anales nahuas de la ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles, siglos XVI y XVIII. Escribiendo historia indígena como aliados del rey católico de España (Puebla, Mexico: Ayuntamiento de Puebla-Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences, 2018), 34. 28 Juan Villa Sánchez, Puebla sagrada y profana. Informe dado a su muy ilustre ayuntamiento el año de 1746, por el M.R.P. Fray Juan de Villa Sánchez (Puebla: Imprenta de José María Campos, Calle de la Carnicería no. 18, 1835), 14. 29 The lack of oversight and enforcement of environmental regulations has kept the Atoyac River, which still traverses the City of Puebla, in a state of chronic environmental degradation, thanks in large part to the toxic waste spilled into the river by the textile sweatshops that are established along the riverbanks. As an example of the multiple articles written on this matter, see Sin Embargo, n.a., May 24, 2019, accessed October 2019. www.sinembargo. mx/24-05-2019/3586373.

38 The creation of a town 30 Fray Juan de Torquemada, De los Veintiún Libros rituales y Monarquía indiana (Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas – UNAM, 1979), 428. 31 Ibid., 426 and subsequent. 32 An encomendero was usually a former conquistador who had been given land titles and who exploited the native workforce who inhabited those lands. During the first half of the sixteenth century, the encomenderos in Mexico City had become a powerful group with economic and political weight. 33 Viceroy Mendoza, in a letter addressed to Charles V, which remains undated, acknowledges the rivalry that existed between Puebla de los Ángeles and Mexico City. The letter is reproduced in both the Cartilla Vieja by López de Villaseñor and the Suplemento de el Libro Número Primero. See Pedro López de Villaseñor, Cartilla Vieja de la Nobilísima Ciudad de Puebla. Facsimilar edition of the 1781 original (Mexico City: UNAM, 1961), 59; Efraín Castro Morales, ed., Suplemento de El Libro Número Primero de La Fundación y Establecimiento de La Muy Noble y Muy Leal Ciudad de Los Ángeles (Paleographic Edition of Puebla Town Hall Records Compiled in the 16th and 17th Centuries) (Puebla, Mexico: Ayuntamiento de Puebla, 2008), 41. 34 Hirschberg, “La fundación de Puebla de los Ángeles,” 201. 35 Mariano Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado, ed. Efraín Castro Morales, vol. I (Puebla, Mexico: Ediciones Altiplano, 1962), 130. 36 Silvio Zavala, Epistolario de Nueva España, 1505–1818, vol. 16 (Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa, 1942), 5–15. 37 Guadalupe Albi Romero, “La sociedad de Puebla de los Ángeles en el siglo XVI,” in Ángeles y Constructores: Mitos y realidades en la historia de Puebla, siglos XVI y XVII (Puebla: BUAP, Gobierno del estado de Puebla, 2006), 127–206. 38 Salmerón to the Consejo de Indias (August 13, 1531), quoted in: Hirschberg, “La fundación de Puebla de los Ángeles,” 202. 39 Torquemada, De los Veintiún Libros rituales y Monarquía indiana, Volume I, book III, Chapter XXX. 40 Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado, 1962, I: 60–62. 41 Torquemada, De los Veintiún Libros rituales y Monarquía indiana, Volume I, book III, Chapter XXX. 42 Francisco de Solano, Cedulario de tierras: Compilación agraria colonial (1497– 1820), Fuentes, textos y estudios legislativos 52 (Mexico City: Instituto de Investgaciones Jurídicas – UNAM, 1992), 109–11. 43 Guillermo Floris Margadant, “La política de congregación de indios en su etapa más áspera (1598–1605),” in Estudios en honor del doctor Luis Recaséns Siches, First edition (Mexico City: Instituto de Investgaciones Jurídicas – UNAM, 1980), 630–31. 44 Pablo Escalante Gonzalbo and Antonio Rubial García, “Los pueblos, los conventos y la liturgia,” in Historia de la vida cotidiana en México: Mesoamérica y los ámbitos indígenas de la Nueva España, Second edition, vol. I (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2009), 369. 45 Silvio Arturo Zavala, La encomienda indiana (Madrid: Helénica, 1935). 46 Ibid. 47 Peter Gerhard, “Congregaciones de indios en la nueva España antes de 1570,” Historia Mexicana – El Colegio de México 26, no. 3 (March 1977): 349–50. 48 Ibid., 349. 49 Francisco Luis Jiménez Abollado, “Sobre la conveniencia o no de establecer congregaciones de indios en los reales de minas,” Relaciones, no. 133 (Winter

The creation of a town

50 51

52

53 54 55 56

57

58

59 60

39

2013): 143; Gerhard, “Congregaciones de indios en la nueva España antes de 1570,” 347–95. Urbanitas refers to the notion of living in a city, employed to refer to a refined, courteous, elegant manner of living. The term policía was employed, in the sixteenth century, to refer to a sense of civilized and ordered way of life, following Christian precepts. Etymologically, it derived from the Greek polis. For an extended and illuminating discussion of the meaning of policía in the context of Spanish urban culture in the early modern period, see Chapter 2. Andrew Sluyter, “Landscape Change and Livestock in Sixteenth-Century New Spain: The Archival Data Base,” Yearbook. Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers 23 (January 1, 1997): 27–39; Richard Hunter, “Land Use Change in New Spain: A Three-Dimensional Historical GIS Analysis,” The Professional Geographer 66, no. 2 (May 2, 2013): 260–73, https://doi.org/10.1080/003301 24.2013.784951. Ida Altman, Sarah Cline, and Juan Javier Pescador, The Early History of Greater Mexico (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003), 97–112; Hunter, “Land Use Change in New Spain.” Rafael López Guzmán, Territorio, poblamiento y arquitectura: México en las Relaciones Geográficas de Felipe II, First edition (Granada, Spain: Editorial Universidad de Granada, 2007), 168–69. Escalante Gonzalbo and Rubial García,“Los pueblos, los conventos y la liturgia,” 369–72. Many authors speak about the configuration of repúblicas de indios and the central role played by the public plaza. See, for instance: Antonio Bonet Correa, El Urbanismo en España e Hispanoamérica (Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra, 1991), 175–91; Escalante Gonzalbo and Rubial García, “Los pueblos, los conventos y la liturgia,” 369; Federico Fernández Christlieb and Angel Julián García Zambrano, Territorialidad y paisaje en el altepetl del siglo XVI (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2006), see Primera Parte; part II. La policía de los indios y la urbanización del altépetl; Kubler, “Mexican Urbanism in the Sixteenth Century”; Logan Wagner, Hal Box, and Susan Kline Morehead, Ancient Origins of the Mexican Plaza: From Primordial Sea to Public Space (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013), see Chapter 3; Morse, “The Urban Development of Colonial Spanish America,” 81–86. María Elena Bernal García and Angel Julián García Zambrano, “El altépetl colonial y sus antecedentes prehispánicos: contexto teórico-historiográfico,” in Territorialidad y paisaje en el altépetl del siglo XVI, First edition (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2016), 51–52. In the field of human geography, the term “hinterland,” based on Johann Heinrich von Thumen’s theories, precedes that of the now preferred term “nodal region” or its similar cognate term “urban field.” See Gerald Rudolph Pitzl, Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004), 100. Alarife is a word whose etymological origin lay in the Arabic al-Alarif and was used in Colonial Mexico to designate a person whose characteristics were a combination of master builder, land surveyor, and even urban planner. Carlos Chanfón Olmos, ed., Historia de la arquitectura y el urbanismo mexicanos: El periodo virreinal, Tomo I: El Encuentro De Dos Universos Culturales (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1997), 212; Miguel León-Portilla and Carmen Aguilera, Mapa de México Tenochtitlan y sus contornos hacia 1550 (Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas UNAM – Ediciones Era, 2016), 116–22; Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, Tenochtitlan (Mexico City: El Colegio de México – Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2006), 100–04; Barbara

40 The creation of a town

61 62

63 64 65 66 67 68

69 70 71 72

73 74 75 76 77

E. Mundy, The Death of Aztec Tenochtitlan, the Life of Mexico City (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2015), 72–77. Ibid., LVI. Bonet Correa, El Urbanismo en España e Hispanoamérica, 175–91; Escalante Gonzalbo and Rubial García, “Los pueblos, los conventos y la liturgia,” 369; Kubler, “Mexican Urbanism in the Sixteenth Century,” 160–71; José Miguel Morales Folguera, La construcción de la Utopía: El proyecto de Felipe II (1556–1598) para Hispanoamérica (Madrid: Universidad de Málaga, 2001), 70–71; Morse, “The Urban Development of Colonial Spanish America,” 81–86; Wagner, Box, and Morehead, Ancient Origins of the Mexican Plaza, Chapter 3. Kubler, “Mexican Urbanism in the Sixteenth Century,” 169. Morse, “The Urban Development of Colonial Spanish America,” 78. Gerhard, “Congregaciones de indios en la nueva España antes de 1570.” Morales Folguera, La construcción de la Utopía: El proyecto de Felipe II (1556–1598) para Hispanoamérica, 67. Ibid. Castro Morales, Suplemento de El Libro Número Primero de La Fundación y Establecimiento de La Muy Noble y Muy Leal Ciudad de Los Ángeles (Paleographic Edition of Puebla Town Hall Records Compiled in the 16th and 17th Centuries), 9–11. Bernal García and García Zambrano, “El altépetl colonial y sus antecedentes prehispánicos: contexto teórico-historiográfico.” Fernández Christlieb and García Zambrano, Territorialidad y paisaje en el altepetl del siglo XVI. Alfredo López Austin, “Las Columnas del Cosmos,” Arqueología Mexicana, Cosmogonía y geometría cósmica, no. 83 (December 2018): 13–37. In the colonial-era municipal council minutes, the Indian settlements are referred to as barrios, an early example is the minute dated April 21, 1545, which mentions a man called Martín Sánchez, an “indio natural de México,” as being in charge of water engineering works in the San Cristóbal Hill. See: AMP, Archivo Municipal de la Ciudad de Puebla, Volume 5, Document 22, Folios 25V-27R. For native documentation pertaining to altepeme in Puebla see: Lidia Gómez García, “El cabildo indio en la Puebla de los Ángeles, siglos XVI y XVII,” in Estampas de la vida angelopolitana: Ensayos de historia social del siglo XVI al XX/ María de Lourdes Herrera Feria (coord.) (Puebla, Mexico: BUAP – El Colegio de Tlaxcala, 2009), 11–24; Gómez García, Los anales nahuas de la ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles, siglos XVI y XVIII. Escribiendo historia indígena como aliados del rey católico de España; Lidia E. Gómez, Celia Salazar Exaire, and María Elena Stefanón López, Anales del Barrio de San Juan del Río: Crónica indígena de la Ciudad de Puebla, siglo XVII, First edition (Puebla, Mexico: Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – BUAP, 2000). AMP, Archivo Municipal de la Ciudad de Puebla, Volume 04, Document 146, Folio 168F, September 19, 1539. Gómez García, “El cabildo indio en la Puebla de los Ángeles, siglos XVI y XVII.” Guadalupe Pérez-Rivero Maurer, “El gobierno virreinal de la Puebla de los Ángeles (1531–1821),” in La Puebla de los Ángeles en el Virreinato (Puebla, Mexico: UPAEP, 2016), 43. Juan López de Velasco, Geografía y descripción universal de las Indias (Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia Española, 1894), 42. A letter collected in the Suplemento book at Puebla’s Municipal Archive details how the elections for magistrates and aldermen should be held. The letter is dated June 14, 1532, barely a year after the city’s founding. The letter is signed by the judges of the Audiencia. For a transcribed version of the letter, see Castro

The creation of a town

78 79 80 81 82 83 84

85 86

87

88 89 90 91 92 93 94

41

Morales, Suplemento de El Libro Número Primero de La Fundación y Establecimiento de La Muy Noble y Muy Leal Ciudad de Los Ángeles (Paleographic Edition of Puebla Town Hall Records Compiled in the 16th and 17th Centuries), 2–3. Pérez-Rivero Maurer, “El gobierno virreinal de la Puebla de los Ángeles (1531– 1821),” 33–34. Frances L. Ramos, Identity, Ritual, and Power in Colonial Puebla, First edition (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2012), xvii; Pérez-Rivero Maurer, “El gobierno virreinal de la Puebla de los Ángeles (1531–1821),” 46–51. Pérez-Rivero Maurer, “El gobierno virreinal de la Puebla de los Ángeles (1531– 1821),” 34–39. Ibid., 36–38. Kubler, “Mexican Urbanism in the Sixteenth Century,” 160. Ibid., 160. Admittedly, Cervantes also describes the natives’ residences as being poorly built and scattered and “lacking any order”. See Francisco Cervantes de Salazar, México en 1554: Tres diálogos latinos de Francisco Cervantes de Salazar, ed. Miguel León-Portilla and Joaquín García Icazbalceta, First edition (Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas – UNAM, 2001), 70, www.historicas. unam.mx/publicaciones/publicadigital/libros/mexico1554/mex1554.html. López de Villaseñor erroneously identifies him as Martín Alonso in his Cartilla Vieja. See: López de Villaseñor, Cartilla Vieja de la Nobilísima Ciudad de Puebla. Facsimilar edition of the 1781 original, 60. The historian Hugo Leicht actually puts in question whether Partidor was the surveyor; however, he does not place forward any other suggestion, while modern scholars such as Kubler and Illades have agreed he was indeed responsible for the tracing of the initial layout. See Lilián Illades Aguiar, “La Puebla de los Ángeles: Fundación de Tierra Adentro,” in XXII Coloquio de Historia Canario-Americana, vol. 23, XXII (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 2017), 1–8; Hugo Leicht, Las calles de Puebla, Tenth edition (Puebla: Secretaría de Cultura, Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, 2009), 1; Kubler, “Mexican Urbanism in the Sixteenth Century,” 161. A vara castellana, a unit of length in Spain that was exported to the New World, whose length varied across the centuries and across different regional settings, in the sixteenth century, was 83.5/83.9 cm or approximately 33 in. See Real Academia de la Historia (Spain) Gabinete de Antigüedades, Jorge Maier, and Martín Almagro Gorbea, Antigüedades siglos XVI-XX (Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 2005), 51. Illades Aguiar, “La Puebla de los Ángeles: Fundación de Tierra Adentro,” 4; Kubler, “Mexican Urbanism in the Sixteenth Century,” 161–62. Kubler, “Mexican Urbanism in the Sixteenth Century,” 162. AMP, Archivo Municipal de Puebla, Volume 3, Document 226, folio 201R, January 5, 1537. A city council minute specifies that the aldermen of the city council will inspect the bridges at the “end of the city,” every four months. AMP, Archivo Municipal de Puebla, Volume 3, Document 33, Folio 20R, November 15, 1533; and Illades Aguiar, “La Puebla de los Ángeles: Fundación de Tierra Adentro,” 6. Miguel Ángel Cuenya Mateos and Carlos Contreras Cruz, Puebla de los Ángeles: Historia de una ciudad novohispana (Puebla: BUAP, Gobierno del estado de Puebla, 2007), 48–52. Lidia E. Gómez, “La fundación de la Nobilísima Ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles,” in La Puebla de los Ángeles en el Virreinato (Puebla, Mexico: UPAEP, 2016), 40. Ibid.

42 The creation of a town 95 Zavala, La encomienda indiana, 38. 96 François Chevalier, Significación social de la fundación de la Puebla de los Ángeles (Puebla, Mexico: Centro de estudios históricos de Puebla, 1957). 97 François Chevalier, Significación social de la fundación de la Puebla de los Ángeles (Puebla, Mexico: Centro de estudios históricos de Puebla, 1957), 35; Guadalupe Albi Romero, “La sociedad de Puebla de los Ángeles en el siglo XVI,” in Ángeles y Constructores: Mitos y realidades en la historia de Puebla, siglos XVI y XVII (Puebla: BUAP, Gobierno del estado de Puebla, 2006), 129. 98 Zavala, La encomienda indiana, 71. 99 Chevalier quotes a letter by the Audiencia, dated 1531, in which they express their intention to initiate social experiments: “Nos hemos puesto a hacer ensayos de repúblicas políticas . . . que sean sin dar a los indios en encomienda, bien que para todos, excepto para los religiosos, esta empresa se tiene por difícil.” Chevalier also credits Vasco de Quiroga’s experiments around the same dates (and it is important to remember that Quiroga was a member of the Audiencia), namely his hospitales-pueblos, in Santa Fe, in the outskirts of Mexico City, with being part of the same initiatives to curb the use of the repartimiento system. François Chevalier, Significación social de la fundación de la Puebla de los Ángeles (Puebla, Mexico: Centro de estudios históricos de Puebla, 1957), 35–36. 100 Albi Romero, “La sociedad de Puebla de los Ángeles en el siglo XVI,” 80. 101 Chevalier, Significación social de la fundación de la Puebla de los Ángeles, 29–40. 102 Ibid., 42–44. 103 Albi Romero, “La sociedad de Puebla de los Ángeles en el siglo XVI”; François Chevalier, Significación social de la fundación de la Puebla de los Ángeles (Puebla, Mexico: Centro de estudios históricos de Puebla, 1957). 104 Albi Romero, “La sociedad de Puebla de los Ángeles en el siglo XVI.” 105 Zavala, La encomienda indiana, See Chapter 3. Las Leyes Nuevas and Chapter 4. La integración jurídica. 106 Mercedes Olivera and Ma. de los Ángeles Romero, “La Estructura Política de Oaxaca En El Siglo XVI,” Revista Mexicana de Sociología 35, no. 2 (1973): 227–87, https://doi.org/10.2307/3539586; Sergio Ortega Noriega, Breve Historia de Sinaloa (Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 1999), Chapter III. 107 A couple of examples of how Puebla gets depicted in the scholarship as the “failed utopia” are Hirshberg’s essays on Puebla, which places considerable emphasis on the fact the city “betrayed” its own principles by allowing encomenderos to settle in the city. Another example, in Spanish, is by Mínguez and Cornelles, who dedicated a chapter in their book to Puebla, which is predictably titled “Puebla, la utopía fallida.” See: Julia Hirschberg, “La fundación de Puebla de los Ángeles: Mito y realidad,” Historia Mexicana – El Colegio de México 28, no. 2 (1978): 185–223; Julia Hirschberg, “Social Experiment in New Spain: A Prosopographical Study of the Early Settlement at Puebla de Los Angeles, 1531–1534,” The Hispanic American Historical Review 59, no. 1 (February 1979): 1, https://doi.org/10.2307/2514134; Víctor Manuel Mínguez Cornelles and María Inmaculada Rodríguez Moya, Las ciudades del absolutismo: Las ciudades del absolutismo en Europa y América en los siglos XV-XVIII (Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I, 2006), 327–30. 108 Albi Romero, “La sociedad de Puebla de los Ángeles en el siglo XVI.” 109 Martha Fernández, “La Jerusalén celeste. Imagen barroIOGRAPHYca de la ciudad novohispana,” in Actas III Congreso Internacion al del Barroco Americano: Territorio,Arte, Espacio y Sociedad (Sevilla: Universidad Pablo deBLIOGRAPH Olavide, 2001), 1012–31, https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/liBLbro?codigo=508346. 110 Benavente, Memoriales: Edición crítica, introducción, notas y apéndice, Nancy Joe Dyer, 367.

2

The grid and the hill Puebla’s urban form (c. 1530s–1610s)

In the decades following Puebla’s founding in 1531, the nascent town must have appeared rudimentary, much like any other in early-sixteenth-century New Spain. Indeed, at that point, Puebla’s urban landscape consisted of a series of buildings of varying quality, from adobe huts in the periphery to some seignorial stone palaces for the wealthiest Spanish vecinos or citizens in the town’s traza central or central grid. The buildings stood scattered among vacant lots, many of which were used as gardens, in a gridded layout of unpaved streets (see Figure 2.1).1 However, slowly, the town progressed from an elemental settlement into a legible and orderly urban establishment toward the end of the century. The guiding element that informed Puebla’s urban development, from its establishment in the early sixteenth century until the mid-twentieth century, was its urban form, which ordered how people settled within the city and dictated its growth for centuries afterward. In effect, the gridded form is a crucial design principle that urbanistically defined hundreds of cities founded during Spanish America’s viceregal period. As such, its origin and ramifications have been the subject of ample and debated scholarship. Some of its topics have resisted untangling, such as the orthogonal model’s origin as exercised in the American continent.2 These discussions usually involve the idea that the urban model was a cultural practice that ran continuously throughout Western and Spanish history: from Thales of Miletus to Vitruvius and from Roman castrametation to the early medieval settlements that marked the advance of Christian towns in Aragón, culminating with Santa Fe de Granada, in Andalusia, a supposed precedent of the gridded urban paradigm that landed on the shores of the Caribbean, along with the first Spanish colonizers of the Americas. These discussions also often interrogate the notion that Spanish colonial urbanism found its inspiration, or at the very least, was imbued with religious symbolism, in the theological works by the Catalonian Friar Francesc Eiximenis. Another line of thinking highlights the urban grid’s practical ends, classifying the orthogonal model as part of an early modern understanding of urban space that played a critical role in deploying colonial institutions. Another branch of thought, perhaps more subdued compared to the ones

Source: By the author and Trevor Wood.

Figure 2.1 A map-diagram representing an approximate rendition of Puebla’s urban morphology and density around the mid-seventeenth century.

44 The grid and the hill

The grid and the hill

45

earlier, has argued that pre-Hispanic urban traditions informed the gridded layout in the Spanish Americas and that Spanish colonizers at times replicated, and at other times simply merged pre-Hispanic urban elements, particularly the central plaza (square), with European cultural-urban practices. As it happens, Puebla de los Ángeles’ urban form can touch upon the most controversial and relevant debates surrounding Spanish colonial urbanism because, as will be argued in this chapter, Puebla’s urban design was in one way or another, and to lesser or higher degrees, informed by all of them. Indeed, Puebla’s urban form embodies a pivotal moment in the history of urban design in Spanish America, helping to pave how urban practice would evolve during the rest of the viceregal period in New Spain. Therefore, this chapter discusses the various sources and elements that informed Puebla’s urban form. Questions such as the origin of the city’s urban design, its place within the context of the long and ample tradition of Spanish urbanism in the Americas, and its symbolic meanings all form part of this discussion.

Puebla’s orthogonal design: the material expression of New World urbanism In the twentieth century, when scholarship on Puebla’s urban form awakened urban historians’ interest, the research adopted a functionalist stance, inferring that the form Puebla adopted was a product of ordered and rational ideas, supposedly emanating from Renaissance urban principles. The now-classic study by author Eloy Méndez Sáinz is a case in point. Méndez Sáinz carried out a thorough study of Puebla’s urban form, publishing his Urbanismo y morfología de las ciudades novohispanas: el diseño de Puebla (Urbanism and Morphology of New Spanish Cities: Puebla’s Design) in 1988.3 The author exposed the essential characteristics of the urban form. Namely, the streets run parallel with the central axes, wherein point zero is the main square generated by the cardo maximus (a north-south central axis in Roman urban design) and the decamanus maximum (the east-west central axis in Roman urban design). The intersection of the axes, in turn, marked the site of a rectangular plaza, where the city’s prominent civic and religious buildings find their location. In turn, the axes present an incline of approximately 24° 30ʹ north to east (see Figure 2.1), with an exact reproduction of urban blocks of 200 by 100 varas (a vara measures approximately 83.59 cm), which would make the blocks 83.59 m by 167.18 m, in other words, a 2 to 1 proportion.4 The first reason for the north-south axis’s declination, argued Méndez Sáinz, was to have stormwater runoff flow naturally down the streets and into the San Francisco River’s zigzagging causeway (which now runs in underground pipes under what is today 5 de Mayo Boulevard). The second reason was to protect the settlement from the prevailing northern winds, an idea that is possibly drawn from Vitruvius.5 However, Méndez Sáinz’s contribution was to propose that the urban blocks’ declination also obeyed

46 The grid and the hill military-defensive purposes.6 In effect, there are two prominent hills in Puebla’s vicinity: the first stands to the northeast of the main square and was called Cerro de Belén, nowadays known as Cerro de Loreto, and the second one is located due west from the main square and was called Cerro de San Juan, nowadays known as Cerro de la Paz. The hills and the gridded layout align so that a clear linear perspective from the city’s streets allows for a privileged view of both topographical features, thus serving defensive purposes.7 While the functionalist aspects of the grid, as highlighted by Méndez Sáinz, are of utmost importance in viceregal novohispanic (New Spanish) town-making, it is also imperative to dig deeper into the urban tradition and origins of Puebla’s urban form in order to perceive its full cultural and social complexity.

Hispanic urban surveying traditions: the legal and practical aspects of city-making When it comes to urban form, the Classical world should be credited for handing down the tradition of sacred geometry to medieval Europe, at least when applied to land-surveying traditions. As Joseph Rykwert has pointed out, the Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum, loosely translated as the Corpus of Roman Surveying, a series of treatises probably composed during the first century AD,8 was a “rationalized” tradition that the Roman world inherited from earlier Etruscan beliefs, and these, in turn, were based on the recognition of the sacredness of boundaries and ownership titles. Rykwert also pointed toward the cosmological implications of land surveying, basing his affirmation on how ancient sources, such as Plutarch, Macrobius, and Varro, revealed these ideas.9 The cosmological symbolism began with the act of choosing a site for the new settlement. This single act entailed the site’s examination by the town founder, who had by then observed the movement of animals, the flight of birds, and cloud patterns to detect any issues with the site and determine whether the day for performing the founding rites would be propitious. In the Italian Peninsula, the practice of haruspicy or extispicy (divination through examining an animal’s entrails, but mainly, in the Ancient Romans’ case, the animal’s liver) was also associated with rituals practiced when founding a new town, as reported by Vitruvius.10 These foundation rituals proceeded to determine the two intersecting axes: the cardo maximus and the decamanus maximus. These axes provided the colony with the basis for laying out the new settlement, but their implications ran deeper than mere functionality. The decumani or east-west axes were aligned with and embodied the sun’s course while the cardines or north-south axes, on the other hand, provided a symbolical axis for the earth.11 Lilley summarized it in this form: “The Corpus Agrimensores texts and their gromatic derivatives provide one reason why surveying had cosmological symbolism in the Middle Ages. For the Romans, the very act of surveying was itself cosmically oriented.”12

The grid and the hill

47

The legacy of the ancient Corpus Agrimensorum’s land-surveying techniques, with its notions of sacred cosmology, the establishment of boundaries, and religious and civic order, was complemented and fused during the early medieval period with legal and statutory codes that defined ordered and practical land-distribution practices in the Iberian Peninsula. In effect, in the Iberian Peninsula, the notion of an orthogonal urban practice can be traced to the refounding of the town of Jaca in the Province of Aragón, a small town in the Hispanic Marches, the neutral military border established by Charlemagne and the Umayyad Moors in the Pyrenees. The Aragonian King Sancho Ramírez chose the town of Jaca to be reestablished as the capital of the Crown of Aragón in 1076. He provided it with the title of ciudad (city) and redesigned the town establishing two streets reminiscent of the cardus and decumanus, and therefore reviving, in the wake of practices derived from the Corpus Agrimensorum and the notion of the Heavenly Jerusalem as a religious – intellectual ideal, the practice of orthogonal urbanism.13 When Jaca was refounded, King Sancho also issued fueros, legal codes detailing privileges that settlers would receive if willing to populate the new Jaca. These fueros included agricultural and mercantile liberties for Jaca’s citizens and importantly, a distribution of solares or land plots in a series of urban blocks surveyed on equal dimensions.14 The practice of resettling or refounding towns in the Crown of Aragón by employing fueros derivative of Jaca’s spread, alongside the expansion of Christian territories into Al-Andalus, with towns such as Estella (Lizarra in Basque) in the Province of Navarra in 1077 setting a precedent that would cross over to the Kingdom of Castille toward the thirteenth century. In effect, the Castilian statutory code issued under the rule of Alfonso X (1252–1284) and known as the Siete Partidas or Seven Entries contained ordinances instructing land-surveying and distribution practices along with mechanisms to issue land titles and uphold them. In 1348, King Alfonso XI issued ordinances sketching out the laws governing a city and its outlying territories, including different land titles in the law code known as the Ordinances of Alcalá. Classical culture also influenced this law code – namely, by notions contained in Plato, Aristotle, and Seneca’s writings, which placed humankind and the importance of communal living at the center of urban life.15 Urban establishments from the fourteenth century, such as Briviesca (1314) in the northern province of Burgos, came to exemplify, through their urban form, a gridded layout with a central square. This paradigm represented the lasting influence of Roman castrametation in the Peninsula, ratifying ancient beliefs about the cosmological essence imbued in the concept of land ownership, boundaries, and the processes by which a town became sacralized territory ratified by the Spanish Crown through the establishment of civic and religious buildings, which were representative of those two institutions at the center of the grid.

48 The grid and the hill

The first European settlements in the Americas and the gridded form In the last stretch of the fifteenth century, the experience of conquering and colonizing the Canary Islands, the repopulation of the southern territories of the Iberian Peninsula after the expulsion of the Nasrid Kingdom from Granada, and the founding of the City of Santa Fe de Granada all constituted relevant urban experiences that directly informed the first European settlements in the Antilles.16 In both cases, urban establishments in the Canary archipelago, such as San Cristóbal de la Laguna (1500) and Santa Fe (1492), both of ordered urban form, demonstrate the preference for this urban solution, ratified by a theoretical corpus represented by works such as the Suma política que fabla como deven ser fundadas e edificadas cibdades e villas (Political summa that speaks of how towns and cities should be founded), written in 1453 by Rodrigo Sánchez de Arévalo.17 It was texts like Sánchez de Arévalo’s that gave origin to the so-called Instrucciones (Instructions), a document containing explicit directions from the Spanish monarch on how to establish a city, including the process of choosing a site, dividing and assigning urban plots, as well as issuing land titles to colonizers that adelantados or Crown representatives, such as Pedro Arias Dávila, brought with them when they established towns in the early colonization period of the New World, such as the City of Panamá (1519). However, those early foundings in the Antilles, such as Santo Domingo, Panamá, or Havana, did not possess such strict regular urban forms as did the administrative inland towns founded later in New Spain. It was cities such as Mexico City (1521), Puebla (1531), and Valladolid (1541) that truly embodied the urban ideals later compiled in the famed Ordenanzas de descubrimiento, nueva población y pacificación de las Indias (Ordinances of discovery, new foundings, and pacification of the Indies), issued in July 1573 by the Spanish monarch, King Philip II. This document contained detailed information regarding all the steps necessary to carry out a new urban founding, from the expedition’s assembling to choosing a site, the repartimiento or distribution of lands, to the vecinos (citizens) of the town, to specifications regarding urban design.

Urban planning and theology in the Hispanic late-medieval world: the Franciscan influence Besides statutory codes and land-surveying practices, theology was an essential source for shaping urban thinking in Spain’s medieval and early modern periods. Among the most relevant medieval sources that combined notions of urban planning, theology, and ideas of the city as a social-ordering apparatus are the writings by the Franciscan Friar Francesc Eiximenis, born in Girona c. 1330 and who died in Perpignan in 1409. He was an influential author and a political counselor to the Crown of Aragón. His work titled Lo

The grid and the hill

49

Crestià (The Christian) was his most celebrated work, planned as a thirteenvolume encyclopedia that was never completed and conceived as a summa of Christian knowledge aimed at the laity. In book twelve, titled Dotzè (Twelve) in Catalan, there is a section titled Regiment de la cosa pública (The regiment of the public sphere), written c. 1379 but published for the first time in Valencia in 1484. In it, Eiximenis establishes urban planning as a subject defined by notions of public order, beauty, and Christian piety. Regarding urban form, Eiximenis proposed that Christian cities had to reflect justice, order, and Christian virtues through their form, proposing a square gridded layout as the ideal urban model. Namely, his ideal city had to be some 1,000 walked steps per side, or 800 m, with some 1,600 residences, and religious and civic institutions.18 The city in Eiximenis’ vision possessed a wall with a principal gate and two secondary ones per side. Two main avenues would cross the urban fabric, one running north-south and the other east-west, splitting the grid into four quadrants. The crossing of the two main axes would mark the main square that was also the cathedral’s and the main civic buildings’ site. Each barrio (neighborhood) would count with the presence of a mendicant monastery, a chapel, and all manner of shops and services.19 Eiximenis’ urban ideal contemplates the city as a result of humankind’s historical development after its fall from grace. In his view, the city is humankind’s search to construct and inhabit a graceful community under God, and it is the embodiment of the fight between the civitas caelestis or Heavenly City, and the civitas Diaboli, or the City of the Devil. Eiximenis’ city is markedly hierarchical and disdainful of peasants and rural folk. His city is, put otherwise, a bourgeois city-state where the citizens’ professions provide a classification system for them and where people of similar professions and backgrounds would inhabit the same neighborhoods. According to Eiximenis, the city is, ultimately, a cos místic, a mystical body, wherein Divine Law informs the city’s ruling and organization, producing the ultimate res publica (commonwealth) prefigurative, modeled after, and aspirational of the Heavenly Jerusalem.20 His work is particularly of interest in the context of Puebla de los Ángeles, considering that his theoretical work acquired great importance when the colonization of the Americas by the Spanish Crown was about to be launched, and it was a model that the Franciscans who traveled to the New World must have known about and employed in their urban and evangelizing endeavors. Indeed, Eiximenis represented the pinnacle of Franciscan urban ideals, also providing guiding principles for political and social order. The role played by the Franciscan Order in the promotion and concretization of Puebla’s founding allows us to see how closely the religious and civic authorities shared intimately aligned ideas regarding the urban principles of a social and religious order. The settlements they founded represented the vehicles through which the institutions promoted by the Spanish Crown were deployed as colonizing apparatuses.

50 The grid and the hill Eiximenis’ theological-urban vision aligned with Motolinia’s and Juan de Torquemada’s regarding the founding of Puebla. These Franciscan missionaries chose to convey the city’s creation in their writings as a transcendental act, one in which its symbolic dimension fitted into their belief system. Puebla’s coat of arms, representing the city in symbolic form, also appears consistent with a series of Christian doctrines that resonate with the Franciscan theological worldview. Further, its striking geometric layout, as has been argued, cannot be considered a mere functionalist conceit but rather complements practical concerns, adding theological and symbolic considerations to the city’s creation (see Figure 2.2). While the design’s pragmatic aspects were of utmost importance, the orthogonal urban form chosen for Puebla by the civic and religious authorities fitted into their understanding that everything in a Christian city was to be ordered and to resonate with a religious dimension that also could provide norms regarding social order.21 As established in the first chapter, the Franciscan Order, through its delegate Toribio de Benavente Motolinia, played a crucial role in Puebla’s foundational project. Through Motolinia, the Franciscan Order exercised a vital role in drafting the city’s theological agenda. The Franciscan Order in New Spain is known for exerting a strong influence on creating urban settlements

Figure 2.2 Puebla’s coat of arms as it appeared on the official cédula or title granted by the Spanish Crown officially designating it a ciudad, a city. Source: Wikimedia Commons, Gusvel, CC BY-SA 4.0.

The grid and the hill

51

in the sixteenth century in the Puebla–Tlaxcala Region, which they carried out alongside their efforts to convert the Indigenous population.22 For this reason, to understand the theological weight that the creation of the city carried for the Franciscans, one needs to look no further than Motolinia’s account of the city’s founding. At its outset, Motolinia established an analogical and symbolic relationship between the Heavenly Jerusalem and the City of Puebla, quoting the Book of Revelation, chapters 21 and 22 directly. He states that Puebla is a city founded upon a connection with the celestial city. However, Puebla does indeed remain as the earthly version, located in New Spain, the land of Anahuac23 “A City of Angels no one believes there to be but the one up in the heavens. . . . Another one newly founded and called the city of Angels, is found in New Spain, the land of Anahuac.”24

Puebla, the viceregal Heavenly Jerusalem While the gridded layout served legal and functional ends, as has been argued, it is important to note how urban form in the early modern world also played critical symbolic roles.25 As Keith Lilley explains when referencing medieval European urban forms, “these geometrical shapes .  .  . were chosen deliberately by those creating new urban landscapes, but not simply for pragmatic reasons, rather convey a symbolic form that was itself rooted in sacred geometries common to both city and cosmos.”26 In this regard, Heavenly Jerusalem was the most potent and conjured urban archetype in the medieval and early modern history of Christianity.27 The concept of this Heavenly Jerusalem was introduced in New Spain by the Franciscan missionaries. This is easily understood when we remember that evangelization methods developed by the mendicant orders in New Spain were ultimately an exegesis of the Middle Ages’ great scholastic writers’ doctrines.28 In that sense, Puebla’s symbolic representation, as it appears on the city’s coat of arms, evokes a city-temple, something unsurprising considering that the associations between the temple and city were quite common in the medieval Christian universe.29 In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the desire to embody the temple in architectural or physical terms came from Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, as revealed to David and as recounted in the Book of Chronicles: “Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the Lord had appeared.”30 To the image of Solomon’s Temple – carefully described, measurements and all, in the Books of Chronicles and Kings – we must add the imagery of a descending city at the end of times, as described by John the Divine in the Book of Revelation. It is relevant to note that “[a]ccording to tradition, the Temple followed the designs of God and therefore could be interpreted as the archetypal work of architecture – a work that revealed a true order beyond the whimsical tastes of man and any temporal expressions of political power,”31 as Alberto Pérez-Gómez has noted. Therefore, its assumed divine origin explains the tremendous importance the building held as a

52 The grid and the hill bridge between architecture and Christianity at large. For this reason, most of the architectural representations of the Temple of Solomon are late medieval and early modern in date, of which Juan Bautista Villalpando’s famous In Ezechielem Explanationes (Commentary on Ezekiel) published in the late sixteenth century is the most outstanding and detailed, with other earlier and notable examples such as the one by the twelfth-century Franciscan Friar Nicolas of Lyre.32 Moreover, Heavenly Jerusalem was a symbol employed continuously by the mendicant orders in New Spain. The missionaries used it as a rhetorical device of evangelization throughout the sixteenth century, and the graphic evidence of their use is noteworthy.33 Images of the Heavenly Jerusalem appear in mural paintings in the sixteenth-century monastic complexes built by the Franciscans and other mendicant orders scattered throughout New Spain’s territory. An example is the Franciscan Monastery of Tecamachalco in the present-day State of Puebla, built around 1541, in which a painter named Juan Gerson decorated the choir loft’s ribbed vault of the church with several biblical images. One of these scenes portrays the Heavenly Jerusalem as a squared-plan city, walled, with three towers and three entrances at each side, evidently following the description given by John in Revelations 21 and 22 (see Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3 A rendition of the Heavenly Jerusalem by the Indigenous artist Juan Gerson (active c. 1560) at the Tecamachalco Monastery in the State of Puebla.

The grid and the hill

53

Another notable example is subtly present in an early Franciscan missionary’s work, the mestizo Friar Diego de Valadés (1533–1582). In Valadés’ Rhetorica Christiana (Christian Rhetoric), a treatise on conversion practices by the Franciscan missionaries in New Spain, Valadés illustrated his treatise with various engravings by himself, which acted as mnemotechnical rhetorical devices.34 One of these engravings is a veritable graphic compendium of the Franciscan Orders’ evangelical duties in the New World (see Figure 2.4). At its center, the composition shows the first cohort of twelve Franciscans who arrived in New Spain in 1524 to initiate the massive conversion campaigns on the native population. The missionaries perform a ritual procession around the atrium, led by their pater piorum or spiritual leader Saint Francis of Assisi. Accompanying the twelve – thirteen if we count Saint Francis – original missionaries, various other Franciscans appear performing evangelical duties, such as teaching the Indigenous peoples about the creation of the world, baptizing, and catechizing them. Overall, the architectural complex depicted in Valadés’ engraving made an explicit appeal to the imagery employed to represent the Heavenly Jerusalem.35

Figure 2.4 An engraving depicting an idealized Franciscan monastery in New Spain, with Franciscan missionaries converting the native population. Diego de Valadés (1533–1582), “The Ideal Atrium,” copperplate engraving from Rhetorica Christiana or Christian Rhetoric (Perugia: Petrus Jacobus Petrutius), 1579. Source: Courtesy of Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (2860–179).

54 The grid and the hill On close inspection, Puebla’s coat of arms displays a representation of a city – alternatively, a temple – with five towers, much like medieval representations of the Heavenly Jerusalem (see Figure 2.2). Two angels flank the city-temple, and above the angels, the letters K and V render tribute to Karolus Quintus, Emperor Charles V, ruler of the Spanish Crown at the time of the city’s founding in 1531. In turn, the angels appear to be lightly touching the city-temple’s towers, as if guarding the edifice. The city-temple has three entrances, suggesting it could be square or rectangular in plan. If the city-temple were square or rectangular in plan, it follows that it could have twelve gates, three per side, just as in the description given by John in Revelation 21 or Eiximenis’ ideal city. It is relevant to remember that the number twelve represents the number of gates to the city and its measurements. When the angel takes a rod to demonstrate its perfection to John, the city’s dimension is twelve thousand stadia, and the walls are one hundred and forty-four cubits, the square of twelve.36 Another essential feature in Puebla’s coat of arms is the banner framing its shield, which displays the following text: Angeluis suis Deus mandavit de te ut custodiant te in omnibus viis tuis (For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all his ways),37 a direct reference to Psalm 91, 11. The association with Psalm 91, a “song of trust”38 in God wherein angels make an appearance as guides and protectors of the faithful, seems to have been chosen to corroborate the city’s supposed angelic or supra-terrestrial affiliation. Finally, another feature of Puebla’s coat of arms is depicting a river underneath the city. It recalls John in Revelation 22:1: “[T]hen the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal.” At its foundation, the city could boast of having an abundance of water sources: three rivers (the San Francisco, Atoyac, and Alseseca Rivers), thermal waters, and natural springs (see Figure 1.2).39 Water as a symbolic element is popular in Scripture, as in the water of life described in Revelation – an archetypal symbol of abundance, life, and fertility – and the abundance of water that the city possessed was thus highly symbolic. Furthermore, it is essential to point out that, as urban historian Keith D. Lilley affirms, “The city that lay at the heart of the medieval world – the axis mundi – was of course Jerusalem.”40 Analogous to Puebla’s case, in medieval Europe, the Heavenly Jerusalem loomed large in the imagination and configuration of cities such as Padua in Italy, where, according to a chronicle written by a local judge Giovanni da Nono, the association between the celestial city and Padua appeared in the form of a dream, in which an angel conveyed the vision to a ruler of that city named Egidus.41 The idea of visions delivered in dreams by angels brings to mind Puebla’s mythological repertoire. Indeed, a popular legend tells of how Puebla’s urban form is an angelic design, as seen in a dream by the Bishop of Tlaxcala, Julián Garcés, in which he saw a group of angels descending from heaven who proceeded to lay out the city’s urban form (see Chapter 1).42 The symbols represented in the coat of arms display elements of prevalent Christian doctrines: medieval eschatology, the Augustinian doctrine of the

The grid and the hill

55

two cities, and angelology, which was a popular branch of theology in the medieval and early modern periods that also pointed in the direction of eschatology. In Augustine’s work, Civitas Dei (The City of God, c. 426 AD), he contextualized and explained the role of angels, understood as God’s emissaries vis-à-vis humankind’s role in the world. However, Augustine’s notions regarding angelology are merely representative of a whole tradition of patristic hermeneutical exegesis of Scripture. In other words, they are not exceptional but rather ordinary. Angels, according to theologist Jean Daniélou, have always occupied a very prominent position in Christian theology.43 They are the transmitters of the Law to humankind: “In the days before the Law, just as under the Law itself, it was the angels who guided our revered ancestors . . . by prescribing the rules for their conduct, or, as interpreters, by revealing to them the holy ordinances, the secret vision of mysteries that are not of this world.”44 According to Daniélou, they follow Christ in leading humanity back into heaven.45 Of particular note is the role they will have in the Second Coming: “At the end of time, it is the angels who will be the ministers of the Lord at the resurrection of the dead.”46 Scripture confirms this idea in Matthew’s gospel: “And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”47 The central role angels played in eschatology fits squarely into the articulation of Puebla’s supposed mythological origin, as emissaries of its founding, as the city’s supposed designers, they appear in the city’s seal, as eternal guardians of the city.

Pre-Hispanic influence in Puebla de Los Ángeles’ urban form As we have seen thus far, for the Spanish colonizers, the orthogonal urban paradigm was a legal, technological, and even theological practice rooted in surveying traditions taken to the New World and employed in the founding of countless urban settlements. However, the influence of Indigenous urban practices in shaping Spanish cities in New Spain should also be taken into account to calibrate better the idea of Spanish and Indigenous interactions in urban and surveying activities. In effect, it was auspicious for the Spanish colonizers that Mesoamerican cultures possessed deep-rooted ideas regarding establishing cities as centers of political and economic power. Indeed, in the pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican tradition, cities were understood as settlements with a specific population density and centers of economic and political power, generally presided over larger geographic areas whose social normative model was the altepetl.48 The altepeme (its plural form), defined by Lockhart as “ethnic states,” organized social and political systems in central, Nahua Mesoamerica, before and after the Spanish colonizers’ arrival. The simplest definition of an altepetl was a group of people “holding sway over a given territory.”49 The altepetl would possess a center, an urban core, and a series of architectural and urban features, namely temples and plazas, which embodied a series of symbols, beliefs, and ritual conceptions that integrated the physical with

56 The grid and the hill the sacred and the political. In this way, both the Spanish and Mesoamerican cultures had points of convergence regarding the importance of urban centers as the repositories of sacralized political power as a requisite for legitimacy. In this legitimation process, the built urban environments acted through architecture and urban form as symbols to be interpreted and read by the inhabitants. In that arena, Mesoamerican and Spanish-European cultures shared the cultural tradition of establishing cities that acted as regional power centers. Nevertheless, going even further, the notion that Puebla de los Ángeles’ urban form was influenced – or at least partially informed – by Mesoamerican pre-Hispanic urbanism was proposed decades ago and has never been settled.50 Namely, there is a suggestive possibility that the pre-Hispanic layout of the neighboring City of Cholula, an important religious and commercial center for centuries before the Spaniards’ arrival, influenced Puebla’s urban design. Cholula possessed a series of distinct urban characteristics. For one, the archaeological and documentary evidence has determined that, shortly before the Spaniards’ arrival and as an important religious center, the city possessed a significant number of religious buildings, more so than the average Mesoamerican city.51 Secondly, Cholula could have possessed a rectilinear, orthogonal urban form that, according to González-Hermosillo, obeyed an astronomical orientation that aligned with the sun’s winter solstice trajectory, or some 24° to the northeast.52 After the arrival of the Spaniards, a map produced by an Indigenous artist in 1581 – which represents the city synthetically, which is to say as an ordered, rectilinear grid with six Indigenous calpollis or neighborhoods, three on each side of the layout, at whose center stands the central plaza and the Franciscan monastery – has been employed to reinforce the notion that, upon the establishment of a viceregal government by the Spaniards, Cholula’s urban grid was adapted to fit the Spaniard’s requirements for an ordered city while keeping the streets’ alignment (see Figure 2.5).53 However, it is impossible given the available evidence to know precisely to what extent, if any, Cholula’s pre-Hispanic grid would have informed and influenced the colonizers’ decisions regarding Puebla’s urban form. If indeed Cholula possessed a pre-Columbian orthogonal and ordered urban design – this would have rendered it an anomaly rather than the norm in Mesoamerican urban design, as very few pre-Hispanic cities possessed orthogonal urban forms.54 However, the fact remains that both cities, Puebla and Cholula, possess urban grids that share the same inclination at approximately 24° to the northeast, to the point that if streets running eastwest in Puebla were extended northwestward, they would meet Cholula’s at practically the same angle. The urban blocks, likewise, share practically the same dimensions too. Even if Cholula lacked a gridded or rectilinear urban design, Cholula’s largest pre-Hispanic temple, the Tlachihualtepetl (Manmade Mountain), is aligned at approximately 24° NE–SW – virtually the same alignment as

The grid and the hill

57

Figure 2.5 An anonymous map of the City of Cholula, close to the City of Puebla. The map was done for the Relaciones Geográficas; a geographical survey carried out by the Spanish Crown (1579–1585). Source: Courtesy of the Benson Latin American Collection, LLILAS Benson Latin American Studies, and Collections, The University of Texas at Austin.

Cholula’s and Puebla’s urban grids – which remains an intriguing fact since the pre-Columbian temple’s alignment points to the idea that the Tlachihualtepetl structure could be a vestige of Cholula’s pre-Columbian urban design, and further, that the gigantic structure’s alignment could have been taken into consideration when deciding on both cities’ renewed alignment. After all, when Salmerón, Motolinia, and the small group of colonizers moved their settlement to the western bank of the San Francisco River in the city’s second founding, Indigenous workers participated in the works involved in that endeavor, and they could also have contributed their surveying experience and knowledge in the tracing of Puebla’s gridded urban layout. While Cholula’s Tlachihualtepetl fulfilled astronomical religious considerations, as it is aligned to coincide with the sunrise on the winter solstice,55 Puebla’s inclination would have fulfilled practical purposes such as those cited by Méndez Sáinz. These would be issues such as stormwater runoff into the river and protection against prevailing northern winds.56 Still, the identical urban imprint on both cities and their similar rectangular grids highlight the fact that Puebla, although it built an identity and mythology

58 The grid and the hill based on Iberian technological prescriptions, legal land title-granting practices, and Christian symbolic statements, continues to be tied – in sharing Cholula’s urban astronomical inclination – to a pervasive Indigenous context that informed Puebla’s creation and guaranteed its existence and success as a viceregal city, as the city’s Indigenous inhabitants became the driving force behind the city’s future success.

Epilogue: urban form as a colonizing strategy This survey of the adoption and deployment of the orthogonal layout as an organizing system in Puebla’s urban form allows us to see how the grid, for one, does not have a unique origin, nor does its origin determine its end. In other words, the grid was an organizing system that was, presumably, present in the Spanish cultural tradition for centuries before the arrival of the European colonizers to the New World, with various origins and capable of fulfilling statutory, legal, functional, and religious demands. At the same time, the physical alignment of architectural-urban elements, as in Cholula’s Tlachihualtepetl Temple, appears to have had the capacity to inform the outcome of urban decisions in Puebla’s urban form, making urban form a hybrid product. However, the urban grid in viceregal cities in New Spain, as in Puebla, also represented, an urban paradigm that enabled and guaranteed social and political order, therefore enabling and perpetuating a sophisticated colonizing apparatus.57 Indeed, the grid, as employed in Puebla and viceregal New Spain at large, was an expression of how space and time became entangled and embodied in the design of the urban environment, leading to the capacity of the viceregal institutions to establish, deploy, and control not just a city but a city’s hinterlands. The urban grids of carefully planned cities such as Puebla, Mexico City; Valladolid, today Morelia; or Antequera, today Oaxaca City should not be understood as the pinnacle of the urban Renaissance ideals in the American continent that Europeans never got to realize in their continent. Instead, an urban design such as Puebla’s also represents the beginning of an understanding of the territory in which geometry, space, time, and an emerging capitalist order inaugurated the forms and notions of modern urban planning. The capacity and historical role played by the Spanish American urban grid, in that sense, has only recently begun to be recognized and understood in these terms.58 All in all, Puebla’s urban grid should be viewed as one of the most successful and accomplished experiments in urban design in viceregal Mexico, representative of the second generation of urban foundings in the Spanish Americas (after the Antilles), hybrid in character, that together with other urban planning experiments, such as those of Mexico City, Antequera, and others, would forge an urban paradigm that would continue to be employed for the rest of the viceregal New Spanish period in the establishment of new urban settlements.

The grid and the hill

59

The Via Crucis of Puebla: the ritual architecture of an imagined Jerusalem in New Spain If the Holy City of Jerusalem presented itself to St. John descending from the skies . . . being that glorious city such in the likeness to this one of Puebla, and has been the same [angels] who traced its streets none others than those who, by order of the Mighty One, traced those of the Sacred Zion we can, with careful discourse, infer the resulting beauty of this Angelic City. Diego Bermúdez de Castro Theatro Angelopolitano (The City of Angels’ Theater), 1746.59

As noted earlier in this chapter, Heavenly Jerusalem, the revered model that stood at the center of various urban mythological narratives both in Europe and in the New World, was symbolically represented through urban and architectural elements that attempted to evoke the ideal city.60 The most quoted element that staked a claim for a city’s resonance with that model was its urban form.61 However, another closely related urban-architectural feature seen as an embodiment of the Heavenly Jerusalem was the Temple of Solomon. This mythical building was aspirational for architects in the early modern period, as Alberto Pérez-Gómez has demonstrated via the marvelous treatise on this building by the Jesuit scholar Juan Bautista Villalpando.62 In Puebla, and in other cities in New Spain for that matter, such as Mexico City, the Heavenly Jerusalem paradigm was invoked through their cathedral buildings (which made references to the Temple of Solomon as an architectural model) and through their rectilinear urban layouts.63 However, many cities in the Spanish world of the early modern period possessed another urban-architectural element that confirmed their bond to the Heavenly Jerusalem. These were urban-architectural complexes known as the Via Crucis or the processional and devotional Way of the Cross, and Puebla de los Ángeles’ Via Crucis, as it were, represents an outstanding case study of its type in the whole Iberian American context, as will be discussed in the pages that follow. The Via Crucis was a popular ritual with especially designated processional routes present in New Spain’s main cities, whose establishment often involved a topography that evoked Jerusalem’s. Put differently, the Passion’s ritual recreation involves the act of walking up a slope or hill for a distance that is, ideally, similar to that of Jerusalem’s own Via Crucis. A relevant characteristic of Puebla’s Via Crucis is that it continues to be used by the city’s inhabitants, as the ritual has been reenacted every Easter to this day since the sixteenth century, continuing to fulfill the complex’s purpose: namely, to bridge the relationship of the city’s symbolic “body” with the body of Jesus Christ himself. Another relevant aspect of Puebla’s Via Crucis is that it has preserved most of its chapel-stations – twelve out of thirteen chapel-stations remain – while

60 The grid and the hill the first station stood in the interior of the Franciscan monastery, which still exists today. The existence of most of its original elements allows for a more rational analysis of the complex, as it remains legible to no small degree, even though its site was initially designed and built in what was the city’s periphery at the time. However, given the city’s growth, the Via Crucis is now located in a central part of the city, in an area with a high population and building density. Still, compared to other similar complexes, such as the one Mexico City once possessed, and of which only one chapel exists today, Puebla’s Via Crucis is one of the best preserved – and probably one of the least researched – of the viceregal period in Mexico (see Figure 2.6).64 The Passion of Christ has been a central element of the Christian faith since its early days.65 The devotional practice of the Via Crucis is the physical and spiritual commemoration of Christ’s ordeal on Good Friday, which, over time, took the form of a processional ritual in which a group of faithful, following an entourage of priests, Church representatives, and well-known members of a community, would follow along an established path marked by stops or “stations.” At each station, the tradition narrates the events that presumably occurred, from Christ’s death sentence by Pontius Pilate to his death by crucifixion at Mount Golgotha, located outside Jerusalem’s city walls at the time.66 The origin of the ritual practice of the Via Crucis was born from the popularity and interest that the faithful placed on the episodes and details surrounding the Passion of Christ. In Europe, that interest is evidenced by

Figure 2.6 A visual breakdown of the existing chapel-stations in Puebla’s Via Crucis. Source: Google Maps.

The grid and the hill

61

pilgrimages that the faithful undertook to Jerusalem, recorded as early as the fourth century BCE. The itineraries in these visits would focus on visiting the sites linked to the story of Christ’s Passion, such as Calvary Hill, the Holy Sepulcher, the Mount of Olives, and the Garden of Gethsemane, among others.67 These pilgrimages continued to occur throughout the Middle Ages. However, the Via Crucis as a processional ritual acquired its present form in the early modern period due to pilgrims traveling to terrae sanctae (The Holy Land) and recording their experiences in writing and producing along the way a literary genre of pilgrimages to the Holy Land. These written accounts contained architectural, urban, and topographical descriptions, sometimes transmitted through maps as well – however fictional the information conveyed in the maps was – which disseminated the tradition of recreating Jerusalem and the sites associated with Jesus’ life in Europe. One of the most famous instances of a written account of the Holy Land is that by Christian Kruik van Adrichem (1533–1585), published for the first time in the late sixteenth century. In it, the author provides a detailed description of the Holy Land, together with a significant number of maps, including one of Jerusalem and its periphery, which is outstanding for its attention to detail. Topographical landmarks, the city’s walls, and, in general, the different shrines and places that played a role in the narrative of the Passion of Christ are all represented in the map.68 It is worth noting that a significant event prompted the articulation of the Via Crucis as a central ritual in the Christian faith. In the mid-fourteenth century, the Franciscan Order, which had had an active presence in the Holy Land, was officially declared by Pope Clement VI as the Holy Sites’ custodian in Jerusalem.69 In this way, those pilgrimages to the Holy Land and the Holy Sites’ custodianship by the Franciscan Order triggered a shift that led to the Passion’s recognition as the symbol of the triumph of life over death. In short, it was an event in which the faithful were encouraged to adopt an embodied, personal role in which to invest their own emotions. In effect, the believers would mentally place themselves in the role of Jesus, or the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene, or other characters, borrowing from and exploring the whole range of emotions and reflections experienced by them throughout the ordeal, by way of immersing themselves in the biblical narratives as they took part in the procession.70 However, there were other forms of manifestations regarding the Passion’s popularity, and those were the spatial or architectural manifestations of Jerusalem’s holy sites in Europe. An outstanding, early example is a group of seven church buildings that comprised a whole architectural complex constructed as part of the Monastery of Saint Stefano in Bologna in the fifth century by the bishop of that city at the time, Saint Petronius. The bishop intended to mimic the most important shrines associated with Jesus’ Passion in Jerusalem in Bologna.71 According to legend, Petronius traveled to Jerusalem and used a cane and counted his steps to survey Jerusalem, later reproducing some of its architectural and urban terms in Bologna.72 This idea

62 The grid and the hill of reproducing the Holy Land sites in Europe found its most sophisticated expression centuries later in the famed Sacri Monti (Sacred Mountains) in the Italian Regions of Tuscany, Piedmont, and Lombardy. The Sacri Monti were several architectural complexes made up of a string of chapels that commemorated Christ’s life and the saints, located in carefully chosen sites reminiscent of Jerusalem’s topographical characteristics. In the case of the Sacro Monte at Varallo and as David Leatherbarrow suggests, the chapels that make up the complex were carefully laid out to function similarly to the mnemonic techniques employed in certain devotional Catholic practices, such as the spiritual exercises designed by Ignatius of Loyola in the sixteenth century. According to Leatherbarrow, the layout of the chapels, the processional routes employed to navigate from one chapel to the next with trees lining the trails to guide the visitors’ gaze on perspectival views, and the theatricality of the whole complex, including the chapels’ decorative programs with realistic sculptures of Jesus and the saints, are designed to impress a series of powerful images on the faithful’s mind – prompting reflection and meditation.73 That is how topography, space, architecture, and artistic expressions such as sculpture and paintings all came together to evoke Christian spirituality’s urban and architectural center, the City of Jerusalem. The successful formula of the Sacro Monte in Varallo extended to the rest of Europe within a century and eventually to the New World.74 As expected, the Via Cruces in the New World had a direct precedent, the traditions found in the Iberian Peninsula. There, the practice of sacralizing mountains and hilltops and linking them to Jerusalem’s holy sites dates back to the precedent of the Via Crucis built by Saint Alvaro of Córdoba in the Monastery of Scala Coeli. Around the year 1425, Saint Alvaro, a Dominican priest who had traveled to Palestine, returned to Spain deeply moved by the sites of Christ’s itinerary during his Passion, to the point of establishing a scaled replica of the Via Dolorosa (Way of Suffering) in the monastery where he retired to live as an ascetic and hermit.75 However, the Sacri Monti model never gained traction in Spain, with the notable exception of the Sacro Monte of Granada. Nonetheless, with the influence of the Council of Trent’s ideas for renewed forms of devotional practices, the processional routes that commemorated and mimicked the Via Dolorosa and the Holy Sites in Jerusalem proliferated in the forms termed calvarios or Via Cruces. In Antonio Bonet Correa’s definition, a calvario or Via Crucis is a processional route outside a city’s limits or periphery. The processions commence at the foot of a slope and end on a topographical promontory, articulated by a series of markers at each stop or station, which could take the form of a tile embedded on a wall marking the station, aedicule-niches on walls, standalone crosses, or in their most sophisticated iteration, chapels (which could be referred to as capillas, ermitas, or humilladeros). Every time, the stops recreate Christ’s path toward Mount Golgotha via fourteen stations.76 Some examples are the calvario in Seville, in Lorca, in the province of Murcia, and

The grid and the hill

63

the Priego de Córdoba. The Via Cruces in urban settings were much more common, found in practically every Spanish city, and followed a street in an urban setting, sometimes managing to end their processional route at a prominent topographical site.77 The practice of building Via Cruces or calvarios was taken to New Spain and began to appear in cities and rural sites. When it comes to urban environments, Bonet Correa affirms Via Cruces were a mostly Spanish city (repúblicas de españoles) phenomenon, giving as examples the Via Cruces in Mexico City, Puebla de los Ángeles, Cuernavaca, and others. In rural settings in central Mexico, the Via Cruces often appeared linked to the mendicant orders and their monastic complexes, who practiced the Via Crucis procession on Maundy Thursday in their church atriums, with some notable examples of calvarios on sites that were religiously significant before the arrival of the Spanish. In those cases, the missionaries Christianized the sites by establishing places of adoration to Christ, the virgin, and the saints, as well as calvarios, to counter the pre-Hispanic religious significance of those places. A case in point is the calvario in the town of Amecameca on the slopes of the Popocatepetl volcano, a mid-point between an old route between Mexico City and Puebla de los Ángeles. In the early sixteenth century, the Franciscan missionary Friar Martín de Valencia retired to a cave to live his last years as a hermit on a site that was previously a pre-Hispanic adoratory. Another example is the sanctuary of Chalma, another pre-Hispanic adoratory, where, during the viceregal period, a sculpture of Christ inaugurated a prevalent pilgrimage cult that continues to this day.78 The Via Crucis in Puebla is a rare example of a Via Crucis or calvario complex, given that, as mentioned earlier, it has preserved most of its chapels. It continues to hold a prominent place in Puebla’s imagination, as many worshippers continue to practice the ritual every year. Moreover, it combines many of the characteristics of a typical Via Crucis, that is, it consists of a collection of buildings instead of only markers. Further, it possesses a wellmeasured length that is said to be similar to Jerusalem’s. Lastly, it mimics Jerusalem’s topography, making it an outstanding case study in the Spanish American context. Moreover, the Via Crucis in Puebla possesses great significance as an architectural complex, given that its reenactment provides the city’s faithful with the possibility of experiencing the city as a “living body,” an identification that occurs through the remembrance of Christ’s ordeal. Through the participants’ agency, Puebla de los Ángeles is symbolically placed, once a year, on an equal footing with Jerusalem. In Puebla, the Via Crucis establishes an intimate relationship between religious expression and landscape. Through the ritualistic remembrance and physical navigation of the site, the worshipper feels and experiences the city as a “living body,” in other words, carnally. To that effect, Mircea Eliade asserted the idea of how space acquired outstanding characteristics for the religious man, as a sacred manifestation or phenomenon is revealed to participants in that space, thereby providing it with exceptional traits.

64 The grid and the hill “For religious man, space is not homogenous; he experiences interruptions, breaks in it; some parts of space are qualitatively different from others.”79 The fact that the experience does not occur in Jerusalem is of secondary importance. For the poblano (Pueblan) faithful, the processional route, the trails, and the shrines that recreate the Passion acquire qualitative importance that links them directly to the original Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem. As the theologian Thomas Matus argues, topography is an intrinsic element of religious narratives. Christianity and its landscapes are tightly woven together: It was born on the banks of the River Jordan with Christ’s baptism, and it continued with Jesus’ ministry through the barren landscapes of Palestine, with the revelation and temptation in the desert following him as a backdrop to all of his life’s episodes.80 However, a crucial element in a Via Crucis, both the original in Jerusalem and its replicas throughout Europe and later the New World, is topography, namely, how the presence of a hill, mountain, or sloped terrain will frame its development, as mountains are considered sacred topographical features in the Christian tradition.81 From a mystical and religious perspective, mountains and hills bear profound symbolic messages. For one, they are outstanding topographical features representing the place where heaven and earth meet; in that sense, a mountain and a hill are omphaloi, symbolic navels that mark a religiously significant site on the earth. Relatedly, the historian Giovanni Filoramo indicates how this notion repeatedly appears in the literature of the Christian mystics: “Richard of Saint Victor described the degrees of contemplation as the ascension of a mountain; Saint John of the Cross titled one of his most important works, ‘Ascent of Mount Carmel’; and Mechthild of Magdeburg defined God as ‘a mountain.’”82 It is not surprising that the Via Crucis would find at its center the notion of ascent to reach the climax of the story: the crucifixion of Jesus. The city’s viceregal chroniclers, such as Mariano Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Agustín de Vetancurt, and Miguel Alcalá y Mendiola recognized how Puebla’s Via Crucis mimicked Jerusalem’s topography.83 Furthermore, Leopoldo García Lastra and Silvia Castellanos Gómez have recognized other similarities between Puebla’s and Jerusalem’s topography relative to the Via Dolorosa. For one, they claim that two streams of water bordered the east and west sides of first-century AD Jerusalem: the Kidron stream that formed in the valley of that same name and the Hinnom stream that ran through the valley with that same name, joining their streams to the south of the city. In Puebla, there were, strikingly, two bodies of water that geographically enclosed the area of the city’s first founding site – the same site where the Franciscan monastery and the Via Crucis are located. These bodies of water were the San Francisco River and the Xonaca Stream. During his ordeal, the distance presumably walked by Jesus, some 1,321 paces – approximately 1 km – was also observed in Puebla’s Via Crucis, where the devotional procession is approximately 1 km in length.84

The grid and the hill

65

In this form, Puebla’s Via Crucis sequentially plays out similarly to the Via Dolorosa’s topographical cadence. In Puebla’s case, the procession starts at the Franciscan monastery, passes through a short topographical descent, to then begin ascending the Cerro de Belén or Bethlehem Hill. The ritualistic procession in Jerusalem follows a similar order; the procession starts close to the Temple Mount (the Temple and the monastery being analogs) and descends to begin ascending again toward Calvary Hill. In Puebla’s mirroring of this topography, the Cerro de Belén – wherein lies the Iglesia del Calvario or Calvary Church – evokes Jerusalem’s own Calvary Hill, where the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is located. Correspondingly, the Iglesia del Calvario in Puebla contains the last six stations of the Via Crucis, acting as a proxy for the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, which hosts the last five stations of the procession.

The chapels of the Via Crucis, their sponsors, and its processional route The celebration of the Via Crucis during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries followed this approximate sequence: The processional ritual, which took place in the early afternoon of Holy Friday, began inside the Franciscan church, in front of a painting popularly known as El Señor de los Azotes or The Lord of Scourges, where the first station, “Jesus is Presented to Pilate,” inaugurated the procession.85 The second station was the architectural complex’s first chapel. It was located in the San Francisco Monastery’s atrium, attached to the church building, next to the church’s Portiuncula side gate, and no longer exists. This station was titled “Jesus Carrying the Cross on His Back.”86 The third station (and second chapel), “The First Fall,” was attached to the Franciscan monastery’s peripheral wall, which was destroyed together with the chapel in the mid-nineteenth century. Jacinto Rosales, a Franciscan friar, built the chapel with funds raised by himself.87 The fourth station (and third chapel) of the complex initiates the climb up the Cerro de Belén and is popularly known as Los Fieles (or Finos) Amantes (The Faithful Lovers), which is in the vicinity of the Franciscan monastery on present-day 14 Oriente Street (then known as Calle Real de El Alto).88 Two Puebla citizens, Gaspar Toreno and Marcos Nieto, sponsored its construction.89 In 1857, the chapel was sold as private property and used for various nonreligious functions, such as a foundry workshop, until the twentieth century, when it returned to religious use.90 This chapel is exemplary of how all the Via Crucis’ chapels originally possessed two gates. Worshippers would enter through one door and exit through another to ease the flow of people. In this case, the chapel’s second gate has been blocked but is still visible. The chapel’s architecture is simple yet tasteful; it possesses a rectangular plan, a central dome, and a simple Classical-style entry gate,

66 The grid and the hill with a half-arch door and flanking attached plaster pilasters, and a plaster architrave is crowning the entry. The fifth station (and fourth chapel) is called El Cirineo, in an apparent reference to Simon of Cyrine, the character who helped Jesus carry the cross according to the Via Crucis narrative (see Figure 2.7). This chapel is located on 14 Oriente Street, merely some 50 m (164 ft) up the street north of Los Fieles Amantes chapel. This chapel was built by a citizen named Andrés Bañuelos, who built a small residence and garden next to it. According to Leicht, this man also provided a lifetime allowance to cover costs associated with having mass given at this chapel.91 There are records of how Bishop Juan de Palafox took away the Franciscans’ administrative duties over this chapel to hand it to the bishopric around 1640. To this day, this chapel enjoys a good conservation state, although an altarpiece, made of ebony wood, reported by the eighteenth-century historian Veytia, no longer exists.92 The chapel is of a rectangular plan with a single nave. The façade presents an exceptional Classical composition with an interrupted plaster pediment and attached, fluted Doric pilasters flanking the half-arch entry. The gate is crowned with a choir window that interrupts the pediment and

Figure 2.7 The fifth station in Puebla’s Via Crucis, popularly known as El Cirineo (The Cyrenean).

The grid and the hill

67

has, in turn, a semicircular pediment above it. Two small bell towers of differing heights and composition, with tasteful pilasters and cornices in plaster, crown the chapel. The sixth station (and fifth chapel) is popularly still known as La Verónica, a reference to Saint Veronica’s wiping of Jesus’ face in the Via Crucis narrative. This chapel is located on present-day 12 Norte Street (known as the Curato de la Cruz Street during the viceregal period), across a narrow backstreet from the Santa Cruz Church (see Figure 2.8). This chapel’s construction, also sponsored by a private citizen named Antonio Hernández de Priego, has an odd structure: the plan is rectangular with a single nave roofed by a barrel vault, with a chancel or presbytery marked by an octagon-plan dome. A rather odd structural solution in Pueblan architecture.93 The seventh station (and sixth chapel) is called “The Second Fall,” also on present-day 12 Norte Street, some 100 yards up the hill from Saint Veronica. This chapel was known as the Capilla de los Plateros or the Silver Makers’ Chapel, as that guild sponsored it.94 The sixth chapel is one of the complex’s largest ones. It possesses a rectangular plan and one single nave divided into seven bays, with the fifth covered by a dome. The façade is similar in style and manufacture to the previous chapels, with flat plaster pilasters flanking a half-arch entry crowned by a simple plastered cornice, a choir window

Figure 2.8 Façade of the Chapel of St. Veronica, the fourth chapel and sixth station of the Puebla Via Crucis cycle.

68 The grid and the hill above it, rectangular in shape, with finials crowning the façade and a single bell tower. The eighth station (and seventh chapel) is known as Las Plañideras (The Moaners) or Las Piadosas (The Pious Ones), which derives its name from a group of women Jesus briefly addressed on the Via Dolorosa on his way to Mount Golgotha, according to the Via Crucis narrative. This station’s sponsor was Juan Alejandro Fabián, a man now remembered for his epistolary correspondence with Athanasius Kircher. According to the chronicler Veytia, Fabián built himself a residence next to the chapel, dedicating himself to caring for it.95 In 1775, the chapel was heavily remodeled. It possessed a transept in its original form that has now disappeared.96 The building complex of El Calvario (The Calvary) contains the remaining six stations. Within it, are the ninth station, the “Third Fall”; the tenth, “Jesus is Stripped of His Clothes”; the eleventh, “Jesus Is Nailed to the Cross” (popularly known as Capilla de los Pobres or The Chapel of the Poor, since the impoverished inhabitants of the nearby neighborhood sponsored it); the twelfth, “Jesus Dies on the Cross”; the thirteenth, “Jesus Is Taken Down from the Cross”; and the fourteenth and last,“The Holy Sepulcher,” and all have separate chapels dedicated to each station within this more massive architectural complex.97 The El Calvario complex is a remarkable building. It is the highest point in the sequential procession of the Way of the Cross and therefore represents the culmination of the whole ritual. Architecturally, the building articulates three different terraces at different heights that distribute, in turn, the six chapel-stations. The ninth and tenth stations are set in the intermediate-height terrace in the northernmost part of the complex; the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth stations-chapels are set in the highest terrace; and the culminating and last station-chapel, “The Holy Sepulcher,” is set in the lowest terrace in an obvious allusion to its symbolic condition as Jesus’ grave.

Epilogue: the Via Crucis as a collaborative effort The construction of the Via Crucis in Puebla was a joint effort between public and religious corporations – namely, the Franciscan Order of Puebla, the Tertiary Order of Franciscans (a corporation of lay citizens), and several private Pueblan citizens – and in at least one case (the eleventh chapelstation, the Chapel of the Poor), it was a communal effort by anonymous citizens. Some of the patrons were artisans themselves, meaning they donated their labor to decorate the interiors with devotional or ornamental objects, or in the case of a select number of chapels, the whole construction process was entirely sponsored by a private citizen. In the end, however, all the chapels were constructed by the faithful with funds donated by the community. According to eighteenth-century chroniclers Mariano Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia and Miguel de Alcalá y Mendiola and the twentiethcentury historian Hugo Leicht, the construction of the Via Crucis started in

The grid and the hill

69

Figure 2.9 View of the Holy Sepulcher Church, the last and most elaborate building of the Puebla Via Crucis itinerary. It contains six stations of the Via Crucis cycle in its complex.

1606.98 The critical event in the construction of the Via Crucis was marked by the founding of the Tertiary Order of Franciscans, established by the citizens Francisco Mejía, Diego López Botello, Simón Coello, Melchor de Bonilla, Antonio de Vega, and Francisco Barbero, on a plot of land donated by Benito Conte Labaña, a citizen of the city since 1602.99 From 1606, the chronicles provide dates of construction for the Via Crucis chapels that culminated in the Via Crucis complex’s consecration in 1664.100 From there on, the chapels underwent many changes. Some of them turned into private property, and in many cases, the historical records indicate how private citizens continued to maintain the complex through communal efforts. In the city’s municipal archive, council minutes mention the upkeep and improvement of some of the chapels (ermitas) on behalf of private donors and volunteers.101 For instance, there is a request made by a citizen named Francisco Solano, found in the city’s municipal archive and dated March 20, 1688, for a paja de agua, a water allowance to maintain the calvario complex’s grounds.102 The collective participation in the planning and building of this urban-architectural complex is a relevant fact, given it

70 The grid and the hill suggests the idea that architecture, as architectural historian Alberto PérezGómez has noted, “was especially dedicated to the representation of significant human action.”103 Indeed, according to Pérez-Gómez, rituals in the early modern period and the built spaces in which they took place “allowed for the recognition of an individual’s place in society and relation to the natural world.”104 In this light, the communal effort behind Puebla’s Via Crucis adds solidity to the argument of how a city in the early modern period in New Spain could still be based on what Pérez-Gómez deemed the “poetical content of reality, the a priori of the world.”105 Pérez-Gómez’s notion resonates with the idea of how Puebla de los Ángeles operated during the viceregal era under the assumption that its symbolic dimension was at least as necessary as its material fabric. As Pérez-Gómez asserts, before the modern era, architectural intentionality was transcendental, necessarily symbolic. . . . Not only did form not follow function, but the form could fulfill its role as a primary means of reconciliation, one that referred ultimately to the essential ambiguity of the human condition.106 In a similar vein, the architectural and urban historian Françoise Choay articulated a similar idea when she pointed out how there was a significant shift in the relationship with the built environment in European thinking during the period corresponding to the fifteenth century.107 Previously, the relationship between people and organized space was mediated between religious thought and the sacralization of space, including urban space. As she put it, “it is easy to forget that religion and the sacred have traditionally been the major factors organizing human space, either through the action of the spoken word or through the written word.”108 The city’s urban form and the Via Crucis’ architectural-urban complex both served to propel and feed the narrative of Puebla’s mythological origin. On a religious or spiritual level, Puebla’s symbolic order, which is to say its association with Jerusalem and its consistent attempts at singling out its exceptionalism among other cities in New Spain, facilitated, among its inhabitants, a spiritual bond with a sacred Christian universe that they held to be authentic and real. Further, this sense of exceptionalism and the city’s spiritual condition offered the inhabitants a cosmological form that provided meaning not only to the city as lived experience but to the inhabitants through their participation in their ritualistic Catholic universe, which should be understood as an integral part of the city as a whole.109

Notes 1 The first city council minute discussing street paving in the city’s municipal archive dates from 1548. The document is an ordinance decreeing that paving of a street will require a city permit. See AMP, Archivo Municipal de Puebla, Libros de Cabildo, Volume 5, Document 288, Folio 281R and 281V.

The grid and the hill

71

2 Although the literature on the subject is too vast to enumerate here, some titles of the last few decades that discuss, without reaching a consensus, the origins of the gridded model deployed in Spanish American colonial urbanism are: Carlos Chanfón Olmos, ed., Historia de la arquitectura y el urbanismo mexicanos: El periodo virreinal, Tomo I: El Encuentro De Dos Universos Culturales (Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1997); Graziano Gasparini, “The Pre-Hispanic Grid System: The Urban Shape of Conquest and Territorial Organization,” in Settlements in the Americas: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, Ralph Bennett, Ed. (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1993), 78–109; George Kubler, “Mexican Urbanism in the Sixteenth Century,” The Art Bulletin 24, no. 2 (June 1942): 160–71; George Kubler, “Cities of Latin America since Discovery,” in Settlements in the Americas: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1993), 17–27; Richard M. Morse, “The Urban Development of Colonial Spanish America,” in The Cambridge History of Latin America. Volume II. Colonial Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 67–104; Richard M. Morse, “Some Characteristics of Latin American Urban History,” The American Historical Review 67, no. 2 (January 1962): 317–38; Jaime Salcedo Salcedo, Urbanismo Hispanoamericano Siglos XVI, XVII, XVIII, Third edition (Bogotá: Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, 2018); Logan Wagner, Hal Box, and Susan Kline Morehead, Ancient Origins of the Mexican Plaza: From Primordial Sea to Public Space (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013). 3 Eloy Méndez Sáinz, Urbanismo y morfología de las ciudades novohispanas: el diseño de Puebla, Second edition (Puebla: UNAM – BUAP, 1989). 4 Ibid., 155. 5 Carlos Montero Pantoja, Arquitectura y urbanismo: De la Independencia a la Revolución, dos momentos claves en la historia urbana de la ciudad de Puebla (Puebla, Mexico: BUAP, Ediciones de Arte y Cultura, 2010), 14–15. 6 Méndez Sáinz, Urbanismo y Morfología de Las Ciudades Novohispanas, see Chapter IV: “El modelo probado en Puebla.” 7 Ibid., See Chapter IV for a detailed explanation and illustrative plans. 8 O.A.W. Dilke,“Roman Large-Scale Mapping in the Early Empire,” in The History of Cartography, ed. J.B. Harley and David Woodward, vol. 1 (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1987), 212. 9 Joseph Rykwert, The Idea of a Town: The Anthropology of Urban Form in Rome, Italy and the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ: MIT Press, 1988), 62, 65. 10 Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, On Architecture, trans. Richard Schofield, First edition (London: Penguin Classics, 2009), see Book I, Chapter IV, The Site of a City. 11 Keith D. Lilley, City and Cosmos: The Medieval World in Urban Form (London: Reaktion Books, 2009), 120. 12 Ibid., 119. 13 Vicente Bielza de Ory, “La ciudad ortogonal aragonesa del camino de Santiago y su influencia en el urbanismo regular posterior,” Aragón en la Edad Media, no. 16 (2000): 25–44; Manuel Saga, Granada Des-Granada: Raíces Legales de la Forma Urbana Morisca e Hispana (Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes, 2018), 124–27. 14 Saga, Granada Des-Granada: Raíces Legales de la Forma Urbana Morisca e Hispana, 126. 15 María Isabel Navarro Segura, “Las fundaciones de ciudades y el pensamiento urbanístico hispano en la era del descubrimiento,” Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales. Universidad de Barcelona X, no. 218 (43) (August 2006), www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-218-43.htm#_ednref5. 16 Vicente Bielza de Ory,“De la ciudad ortogonal aragonesa a la cuadricular hispanoamericana como proceso de innovación-difusión, condicionado por la utopía,” Scripta Nova: Revista electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad

72 The grid and the hill

17

18 19 20 21 22

23

24

25 26 27

de Barcelona VI, no. 106 (January 15, 2002); López Guzmán, Territorio, poblamiento y arquitectura: México en las Relaciones Geográficas de Felipe II, 158–59; Vicente Bielza de Ory,“De la ciudad ortogonal aragonesa a la cuadricular hispanoamericana como proceso de innovación-difusión, condicionado por la utopía,” Scripta Nova: Revista electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de Barcelona VI, no. 106 (January 15, 2002). Francisco de Solano, Ciudades hispanoamericanas y pueblos de indios (Madrid: Editorial Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas – CSIC Press, 1990), 42; Navarro Segura, “Las fundaciones de ciudades y el pensamiento urbanístico hispano en la era del descubrimiento.” Navarro Segura,“Las fundaciones de ciudades y el pensamiento urbanístico hispano en la era del descubrimiento.” Ibid. Antonio Antelo Iglesias, “La ciudad ideal según fray Francesc Eiximenis y Rodrigo Sánchez de Arévalo,” La ciudad Hispánica, Universidad Complutense de Madrid 6 (1985): 19–24. Lilley, City and Cosmos, 7. Yanes Díaz, for instance, informs us that the Franciscans were responsible for the founding of the Indigenous city of Tlaxcala. Additionally, and in the specific case of Puebla, Yanes also ventures the hypothesis of how the Franciscans, in joint collaboration with the civic authorities, shared the responsibility of designing the urban trace of the city of Puebla: “¿Quiénes trazaron la ciudad: los funcionarios de la Corona o los frailes? Lo más probable es que la decisión de la traza y disposición de los futuros edificios religiosos, administrativos, militares o civiles había quedado en manos tanto de los funcionarios reales como de los franciscanos.” See Gonzalo Yanes Díaz, Desarrollo urbano virreinal en la región Puebla-Tlaxcala (Puebla, Mexico: BUAP-UNAM, 1994). Anáhuac was the name given to the geographical core of the Mexica world; it contained the city of Tenochtitlan, the systems of lakes that surrounded it, and other cities in the central valley of Mexico. Motolinia, in this passage, might have been extending the boundaries of Anáhuac to include the valley where Puebla was founded, for literary effect. “Cibdad de los Ángeles no ay quien crea auer otra syno la del cielo. Aquella está edificada como cibdad en las alturas que es madre nuestra, a la qual deseamos yr . . . Otra nueuamente fundada e por nombre llamada çibdad de los Ángeles, es en la Nueua España, tierra de Anauac.” Benavente, Memoriales: Edición crítica, introducción, notas y apéndice, Nancy Joe Dyer., 363. Translation by author. See, for example, Fustel de Coulanges, La ciudad Antigua. . . . Joseph Rykwert, The Idea of a Town . . . and Pérez-Gómez, Architecture and the Crisis. . . . Lilley, City and Cosmos, 41. These titles discuss at length the issue of the Heavenly Jerusalem and the Temple of Solomon as urban and architectural models. Corboz’s and Lilley’s works are dedicated to medieval and early modern Europe, while Pérez-Gómez’s essay on Juan Bautista Villalpando’s recreation of the Temple of Solomon discusses its relevance as early modern architectural aspiration. Fernández’s works cited here are entirely focused on the Mexican viceregal context. See André Corboz, “La ciudad como templo,” in Dios Arquitecto: J.B. Villalpando y el Templo de Solomón (Madrid: Siruela, 1991), 51–77; Martha Fernández, “La Jerusalén celeste. Imagen barroca de la ciudad novohispana,” in Actas III Congreso Internacional del Barroco Americano: Territorio, Arte, Espacio y Sociedad (Sevilla: Universidad Pablo de Olavide, 2001), 1012–31, https://dialnet.unirioja.es/ servlet/libro?codigo=508346; Martha Fernández, La imagen del Templo de Jerusalén en la Nueva España, First edition, Colección de Arte 52 (Mexico

The grid and the hill

28 29 30 31 32 33

34

35 36 37 38 39

40 41

73

City: UNAM, 2003); Keith D. Lilley, City and Cosmos: The Medieval World in Urban Form (London: Reaktion Books, 2009); Alberto Pérez-Gómez, “Juan Bautista Villalpando’s Divine Model in Architectural Theory,” Chora: Intervals in the Philosophy of Architecture 1, no. 3 (1999): 125–56. Luis Weckmann, La herencia medieval de México, Second edition (Mexico City: El Colegio de México – Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1994), 186. Corboz, “La ciudad como templo”; Fernández, “La Jerusalén celeste. Imagen barroca de la ciudad novohispana.” 2 Chronicles 3: 1. Alberto Pérez-Gómez,“Juan Bautista Villalpando’s Divine Model in Architectural Theory,” Chora: Intervals in the Philosophy of Architecture 1, no. 3 (1999): 126. Juan Antonio Ramírez, “Evocar, reconstruir, tal vez soñar (el Templo de Jerusalén en la historia de la arquitectura),” in Dios arquitecto: J.B. Villalpando y el Templo de Salomón (Madrid: Siruela, 1991), 1–48. Many authors have tackled the subject of the Heavenly Jerusalem or the Temple of Jerusalem as archetypes and their employment in viceregal Mexico. Antonio Rubial has analyzed the presence of the Heavenly Jerusalem in New Spanish painting, and Martha Fernández has studied the “images” of the Temple of Jerusalem in New Spain as symbolic models that inspired the built forms of the monastic complexes erected by the mendicant orders and even as models employed in the configuration of the built forms used for cathedrals and female convents in New Spain. See Antonio Rubial García, “Civitas Dei et novus orbis: La Jerusalén celeste en la pintura de Nueva España,” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas 20, no. 72 (June 8, 1998), 5–37; Martha Fernández, La imagen del Templo de Jerusalén en la Nueva España, First edition, Colección de Arte 52 (Mexico City: UNAM, 2003). Much has been written on Fray Diego de Valadés, but a concise bibliography, which covers his treatise on conversion and his artistic work, follows: Diego Valadés, Retórica cristiana (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2003); Esteban J. Palomera, “Introducción,” in Retórica Cristiana de Fray Diego de Valadés (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1989), VII–XLIX; Francisco de la Maza, “Fray Diego Valadés. Escritor y grabador franciscano del siglo XVI,” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas 4, no. 13 (1945): 15–44; Linda Báez Rubí, Mnemosine novohispánica: retórica e imágenes en el siglo XVI (Mexico City: UNAM, 2005). Jaime Lara, City, Temple, Stage: Eschatological Architecture and Liturgical Theatrics in New Spain (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004), 122. For the Heavenly Jerusalem’s measurements, see Revelation, 21: 12–17. Michael D. Coogan et al., eds., The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, NRSV, Fourth edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 849. Ibid., 849. As historian and chronicler of the city, Mariano Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia noted: “If Divine Providence was liberal on the granting of beautiful qualities of which it filled the City of Angels (i.e., Puebla de los Ángeles), nowhere more liberal it was than in the abundance of water with which it regaled her.” “Si anduvo liberal la Divina Providencia en la copia de bellas cualidades de que colmó a la Ciudad de los Ángeles, en ninguna más que en la abundancia de aguas con que la quizo regalar.” Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado, 1962, I: Vol. I, 233. Translation by the author. Keith D. Lilley, City and Cosmos: The Medieval World in Urban Form (London: Reaktion Books, 2009), 15. Ibid. See chapter one, “Urban Mappings.”

74 The grid and the hill 42 Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado, 1962, I: Vol. I, 41–42. 43 Jean Daniélou, The Angels and Their Mission: According to the Fathers of the Church (Westminster, MD: Thomas More Publishing, 1987), vii–viii. 44 Ibid., 7. 45 Ibid., 48. 46 Ibid., 107. 47 Matthew 24: 31, NRSV. 48 For a more comprehensive discussion on the concept of the altepetl, see Chapter 1. 49 James Lockhart, The Nahuas After the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994), 14. 50 The discussion on Puebla’s urban form as derivative of Cholula’s design began with the eminent art historian Francisco de la Maza, who suggested in 1965 that the grid of Puebla was merely a regurgitation of Cholula’s pre-Columbian urban design. George Kubler later rebutted this assertion in his study of Cholula’s colonial urban traza from 1968. In the 1990s, the debate was stoked by Graziano Gasparini, who published an essay hypothesizing and employing a series of diagrams to suggest Cholula’s urban design should indeed be credited with being Puebla’s originator of its grid. Kubler, in an essay in that same volume, subtlety agreed that Cholula indeed possessed a rectilinear pre-Columbian grid, without commenting anything else on the matter. To this day, scholars such as Francisco González-Hermosillo Adams continue to affirm that Cholula was known, from pre-Columbian times, as a city with a remarkable urban layout, which inspired Puebla’s viceregal design. See: Gasparini, “The Pre-Hispanic Grid System: The Urban Shape of Conquest and Territorial Organization”; Francisco González-Hermosillo Adams, “De tecpan a cabecera. Cholula o la metamorfosis de un reino soberano naua en ayuntamiento indio del rey de España durante el siglo XVI,” Dimensión Antropológica 33 (2005): 7–67; George Kubler, “La traza colonial de Cholula,” Estudios de Historia Novohispana 2, no. 2 (1968): 1–30; Kubler, “Cities of Latin America since Discovery”; Francisco de la Maza, “El arte colonial como expresión histórica de México,” Memoria de la academia Mexicana de la historia 24, no. 4 (1965). 51 Michael E. Smith, Aztec City-State Capitals (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2008), 185. 52 González-Hermosillo Adams, “De tecpan a cabecera. Cholula o la metamorfosis de un reino soberano naua en ayuntamiento indio del rey de España durante el siglo XVI.” 53 Gasparini, “The Pre-Hispanic Grid System: The Urban Shape of Conquest and Territorial Organization.” 54 Michael E. Smith, “The Teotihuacan Anomaly: The Historical Trajectory of Urban Design in Ancient Central Mexico,” Open Archaeology 3, no. 1 (2017): 175–93. 55 González-Hermosillo Adams,“De tecpan a cabecera. Cholula o la metamorfosis de un reino soberano naua en ayuntamiento indio del rey de España durante el siglo XVI.” 56 Eloy Méndez Sáinz, Urbanismo y morfología de las ciudades novohispanas: el diseño de Puebla, Second edition (Puebla: UNAM – BUAP, 1989). 57 Juan Luis Burke, “La teoría arquitectónica clásica en la Nueva España y los tratados arquitectónicos como artefactos colonialistas,” Revista Bitácora, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, no. 43 (2020), www.revistas.unam. mx/index.php/bitacora/issue/archive; Fernando Luiz Lara, “American Mirror: The Occupation of the ‘New World’ and the Rise of Architecture as We Know It,” The Plan Journal 5, no. 1 (May 2020): 1–18.

The grid and the hill

75

58 The decolonial debates that have been occurring now for a couple of decades have begun to distinguish the central role played by the colonization of Latin America in understanding the larger concept of modernity and the role that urbanism and architecture played within a larger colonial apparatus, recognizing that urbanism and architecture cannot be understood merely as derivative, value-free replications of European models in the Americas, but instead as extensions of colonizing systems that were, at its darker times, oppressive and subjugating, but also full of a sense of renewal and inventiveness. For some items that have covered that discussion see: Burke, “La teoría arquitectónica clásica en la Nueva España y los tratados arquitectónicos como artefactos colonialistas”; Lara, “American Mirror: The Occupation of the ‘New World’ and the Rise of Architecture as We Know It”; Walter D. Mignolo, The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality, & Colonization (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998); Enrique Dussel, “Eurocentrism and Modernity (Introduction to the Frankfurt Lectures),” Boundary 2, The Postmodern Debate in Latin America, Duke University Press 2, no. 20 (Autumn 1993): 65–76. 59 Diego Antonio Bermúdez de Castro, Theatro Angelopolitano ó Historia de la Ciudad de la Puebla, escrita por D. Diego Antonio Bermúdez de Castro, Escribano Real y Notario Mayor de la Curia Eclesiástica del Obispado de Puebla (México City, 1746), 148. Translation by author. 60 Fernández, La imagen del Templo de Jerusalén en la Nueva España; Fernández, “La Jerusalén celeste. Imagen barroca de la ciudad novohispana.” 61 Corboz, “La ciudad como templo”; Lilley, City and Cosmos, Chapters 2 and 3. 62 Pérez-Gómez,“Juan Bautista Villalpando’s Divine Model in Architectural Theory.” 63 Fernández, La imagen del Templo de Jerusalén en la Nueva España; Fernández, “La Jerusalén celeste. Imagen barroca de la ciudad novohispana.” 64 Alena Robin, Las capillas del Vía Crucis de la Ciudad de México: Arte, patrocinio y sacralización del espacio (Mexico City: UNAM – Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, 2014), 209. 65 Amédée de Zedelgem, “Saggio storico sulla devozione alla Via Crucis,” in Saggio storico sulla devozione alla Via Crucis a cura di Amilcare Barbero e Pasquale Magro. Edizione originale del 1949, traduzione dal francese di Paolo Pellizzari (Turin, Italy: Centro de Documentazione dei Sacri Monti, Calvari e Complessi devozionali europei, 2004), 67. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid., 70. 68 Kenneth Nebenzahl, Maps of the Holy Lands: Images of Terra Sancta Through Two Millenia, First edition (London: Abbeville Promotional, 1990), 33. 69 Tradition has it that St Francis of Assisi himself traveled to Palestine in 1219, and although he never actually managed to make it there, he indirectly established a long tradition between his order and terrae sanctae. The Franciscan’s presence in Jerusalem and Palestine dates back to the early thirteenth century, when the Franciscan province of Syria was established. Toward the end of this same century, they were allowed to establish themselves in the Cenacle, on Mount Zion. Pope Clement VI declared them the official guardians of the Holy Sites in 1342, and to this day, they are still the official Catholic guardians of the Holy Sites. 70 Franco Cardini,“I Sacri Monti nella tradizione cristiana latina,” in Religioni e Sacri Monti Atti del Convegno Internazionale Torino-Moncalvo-Casale Monferrato, 12–16 ottobre 2004 (Turin: Centro de Documentazione dei Sacri Monti, Calvari e Complessi devozionali europei, 2006), 109. 71 David Leatherbarrow, “The Image and Its Setting: A Study of the Sacro Monte at Varallo,” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, no. 14 (Autumn 1987): 108. 72 de Zedelgem, “Saggio storico sulla devozione alla Via Crucis,” 70. 73 Leatherbarrow, “The Image and Its Setting: A Study of the Sacro Monte at Varallo.”

76 The grid and the hill 74 Antonio Bonet Correa, “Sacromontes y calvarios en España, Portugal y América Latina,” in La “Gerusalemme” di San Vivaldo e i Sacri Monti in Europa. Firenze-San Vivaldo, 11–13 settembre, 1986 (Florence: Centro internazionale di studi “La ‘Gerusalemme’ di San Vivaldo” – Comune di Montaione, 1986), 173–214. 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid. 77 José Miguel Muñoz Jiménez, “Sobre la ‘Jerusalén restaurada’: Los calvarios barrocos en España,” Archivo Español de Arte (AEA) LXIX, no. 274 (June 1996): 157–69. 78 Bonet Correa, “Sacromontes y calvarios en España, Portugal y América Latina.” 79 Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion, trans. Willard R. Trask (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1961). See Chapter One: Sacred Space and Making the World Sacred. 80 Thomas Matus, “Religioni, ambiente, paesaggio,” in Religioni e Sacri Monti Atti del Convegno Internazionale Torino-Moncalvo-Casale Monferrato, 12–16 ottobre 2004 (Turin: Centro de Documentazione dei Sacri Monti, Calvari e Complessi devozionali europei, 2006), 66. 81 Ida Zatelli, “Monti e luoghi elevati nella bibbia ebraica: monti di dio e sacralità di Sion,” in Religioni e Sacri Monti Atti del Convegno Internazionale TorinoMoncalvo-Casale Monferrato, 12–16 ottobre 2004 (Turin: Centro de Documentazione dei Sacri Monti, Calvari e Complessi devozionali europei, 2006), 103. 82 Giovanni Filoramo, “I monti sacri nella storia delle religioni,” in Religioni e Sacri Monti Atti del Convegno Internazionale Torino-Moncalvo-Casale Monferrato, 12–16 ottobre 2004 (Turin: Centro de Documentazione dei Sacri Monti, Calvari e Complessi devozionali europei, 2006), 55–56. 83 Mariano Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado, ed. Efraín Castro Morales, vol. I (Puebla, Mexico: Ediciones Altiplano, 1962), 276; Miguel Alcalá y Mendiola de, Descripción en bosquejo de la imperial cesárea muy noble y muy leal Ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles (paleographic edition of the c.1696 original) (Puebla, Mexico: BUAP, 1992), 155–56; Augustín Vetancurt de, Teatro Mexicano: Descripción Breve de los Sucessos Exemplares, Históricos, Políticos, Militares y Religiosos del Nuevo Mundo Occidental de las Indias, Tratado de la Ciudad de México, y las Grandezas que la Ilustran después que la Fundaron los Españoles. Tratado de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles, y grandezas que la Ilustran (por doña Maria de Benavides viuda de Iuan de Ribera, 1698). 84 Leopoldo García Lastra and Silvia Castellanos Gómez, Utopía Angelopolitana, First edition (Puebla: State Government of Puebla, 2008), see Chapter 5, dedicated to the Via Crucis of Puebla. 85 Juan Manuel Armenta Olvera and Rafael Ruiz Martínez, Las Capillas del Vía Crucis en Puebla, su Historia (Puebla, Mexico: Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, Secretaría de Cultura, 1992), 17. 86 This chapel’s construction was attributed to Diego Marín, author of an altarpiece at the Huejotzingo chapel, an altarpiece at the monastery of Santa Catarina, in Puebla, and the ornamental plasterwork for chapels in the towns of Izúcar de Matamoros and Huamantla. See: Armenta Olvera and Ruiz Martínez, 13,17; Montserrat Báez Hernández and Fabián Valdivia Pérez, eds., Guía de patrimonio religioso de la ciudad de Puebla (Puebla, Mexico: Ayuntamiento de Puebla, 2012), 440–42. 87 Armenta Olvera and Ruiz Martínez, Las Capillas del Vía Crucis en Puebla, su Historia, 17–18. 88 Ibid., 18.

The grid and the hill

77

89 Mariano Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado, ed. Efraín Castro Morales, vol. II (Puebla, Mexico: Ediciones Altiplano, 1962), 277. 90 Armenta Olvera and Ruiz Martínez, Las Capillas del Vía Crucis en Puebla, su Historia, 18. 91 Hugo Leicht, Las calles de Puebla, Tenth edition (Puebla: Secretaría de Cultura, Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, 2009), 266. 92 Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado, 1962, II: 277–78. 93 Armenta Olvera and Ruiz Martínez, Las Capillas del Vía Crucis en Puebla, su Historia, 21. 94 Ibid., 24. 95 Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado, 1962, II: 279. 96 Ibid. 97 Báez Hernández and Valdivia Pérez, Guía de patrimonio religioso de la ciudad de Puebla, 437–51. 98 Although this chapter does not allow for a deeper historiographical analysis, Mariano Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Miguel de Alcalá y Mendiola, and Hugo Leicht all list the patrons in the collective effort that was the construction of the Puebla Via Crucis and identify the year 1606 as the date in which construction of the chapel-stations started, without specifying any subsequent dates thereafter. The chroniclers identify the following patrons: starting with Diego Marín, a local sculptor, who is reported by the chroniclers as having built (or sponsored?) the vault of the second chapel-station, located in the San Francisco monastery’s courtyard. Friar Jacinto Rosales, a Franciscan priest, was the patron of the third chapel-station (now destroyed). Gaspar Toreno had the fourth chapel-station built. Andrés Bañuelos had the fifth chapel-station built, now still popularly identified as the Cirineo chapel (for Simon the Cyrene). Antonio Hernández de Priego was the patron for the sixth chapel-station, the Saint Veronica station. Pedro de Medina was the patron that paid for the construction of the seventh chapel-station, whose expenses were later adopted by the Dean of the Cathedral at the time, don Diego de Victoria Salazar. Don Juan de Alexandro Fabián was the patron of the eighth chapel-station who is also credited with convincing other citizens for the importance to push forward and complete the Via Crucis ritualistic cycle with the remaining chapel-stations. The ninth to the fourteenth stations are all located in the same architectural complex, known as the Iglesia del Calvario. Nicolás Coronado was the patron of the ninth chapel-station within the complex, while two brothers, Melchor and Juan del Hoyo were responsible for building the tenth chapel-station by themselves, known popularly as the “Capilla del Despojo”, the station which sees Jesus stripped of his clothes. The next station the eleventh, also known as the “Capilla de los Pobres”, was collectively built with the work and alms of the neighborhood. The following chapel-station called “Capilla de la Expiración”, the twelfth, is the most architecturally sophisticated of the whole cycle and the largest chapel-station; a man identified as licenciado Martín Fernández was the patron. The next chapel-station, identified as “Capilla de Nuestra Señora de la Piedad”, was built and maintained by Andrés de Illescas. Finally, the last chapel-station, the fourteenth, was built and paid for by Diego Marín, a sculptor, and by the licenciado Juan de Altamirano. See: Alcalá y Mendiola, Descripción en bosquejo de la imperial cesárea muy noble y muy leal Ciudad

78 The grid and the hill

99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

de Puebla de los Ángeles (paleographic edition of the c.1696 original), 155–57; Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado, 1962, II: 276–82; Leicht, Las calles de Puebla, 50–53. Armenta Olvera and Ruiz Martínez, Las Capillas del Vía Crucis en Puebla, su Historia, 12. Ibid., 27; Leicht, Las calles de Puebla, 51. A bachiller in New Spain referred to the lowest university title or diploma a person could obtain, followed by the higher titles of licenciado, maestro and the highest, which was doctor. AMP (Municipal Archive of the City of Puebla), Libros de Cabildo, volume 32, document 8, folio 25V. Alberto Pérez-Gómez, Built Upon Love (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008), 125. Ibid. Alberto Pérez-Gómez, Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983), 6. Ibid., 7. Françoise Choay, The Rule and the Model: On the Theory of Architecture and Urbanism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996), 4. Ibid., 3. It is important to point out that more research needs to be carried out in order to understand key aspects of Puebla’s Via Crucis, such as more details of its patronage and iconographical program. George Kubler, for instance, researched a series of Via Cruces on both sides of the Atlantic, from Northern Italy; Granada, Spain; Braga, Portugal; and Congonhas, Brazil. In every case he found a specific iconographical program that promoted a particular cause or devotion. In the Puebla Via Crucis, no such type of research has been carried out. The Mexico City Via Crucis, for instance, has fared better luck with Alena Robin’s, wonderful study. See: Alcalá y Mendiola, Miguel, de. Descripción en bosquejo de la imperial cesárea muy noble y muy leal Ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles (paleographic edition of the c.1696 original) (Puebla, Mexico: BUAP, 1992).

3

Urban palaces and architectural treatises The New World Renaissance in Puebla de los Ángeles (c. 1570s–1630s)

The question of a New World Renaissance Nihil homini tam naturale, vel Aristotele teste, quam sponte ferri et rapi in sapienta cognitionem. (Nothing comes so natural to humanity, according to Aristotle, as feeling a strong and swift inclination to acquire knowledge.) – Francisco Cervantes de Salazar, Mexico City, 1554.1

The reception of Renaissance humanism in the Hispanic world of the sixteenth century has been a contested matter. A few decades ago, scholars argued that humanism had never really taken root in Spain, given that its isolation from the rest of Europe and its Catholic orthodoxy hindered humanist thought and Classicism from establishing itself there.2 In recent decades, however, the spuriousness of such a claim has been exposed to make way for a better calibrated image, that of a culturally vibrant society that took an interest in Classical culture, producing, along the way, a body of literature, philosophy, and architecture influenced by Classical sources and humanist thought.3 By the late sixteenth century, in turn, novohispanic (New Spanish) society expressed an interest in Classical culture, which, quoting Pilar Gonzalbo Aizpuru, “exalted the precepts of Christian humanism.”4 The circulation of books, not just those imported from Europe but those printed in New Spain as early as 1539, the year the printing press was introduced,5 was highly responsible for the transmission of humanist ideas in the viceroyalty.6 In Puebla, specifically, the establishment of the Jesuit Colegio del Espíritu Santo (College of the Holy Spirit), together with the Tridentine College of San Juan, in 1578 and 1595, respectively, marked the beginning of the forging of a letrado culture in the city.7 The letrados8 were the group that made up the bulk of the educated class in Puebla, who possessed a humanist education and who would go on to become high-ranking clerics and civil

80 Urban palaces and architectural treatises servants.9 The letrados, together with the encomenderos (large estate owners, usually former Spanish conquistadors), the business and elite merchant class of Puebla, many of whom, according to Bühler, were highly educated,10 found in Classical architecture a medium to express their cosmopolitan aspirations, asserting their colonial powers via the built environment. In this context, the rise of humanist culture in novohispanic urban centers operated through the colonization process, which, in turn, posited a series of epistemological challenges to both parties involved: the colonizers and the colonized. On the one hand, the Spaniards began charting, exploring, founding cities, and establishing borders of a colossal territory, thereby putting forward new theological, judicial, and scientific discourses to deal with the countless issues presented to them as they attempted to colonize and subjugate the native societies and native bodies. On the other hand, the Indigenous peoples of New Spain were systematically subjugated in all aspects of life. They were forced into abusive labor regimes and to convert to a new religion and were compelled to accept a new understanding of the world that collapsed and radically transformed their understanding of the world and religious universe. Forced to deal with the language of the conquerors, with novel artistic and architectural forms and, in general, with new ways of public and private life, the Indigenous peoples, mestizos (of mixed race), African communities, and the colonizers together reshaped and transformed the built and cultural world around them. In this context, and from early on in its timeline, it would be accurate to say that Classical culture played a critical role in shaping colonial discourses and their material expressions, including architectural and urban forms. Puebla de los Ángeles is an urban center where the traces of Classical culture are forcefully legible to this day and is capable of revealing the roles that it played in shaping the built environment during the early viceregal period in Central New Spain. This chapter is therefore dedicated to charting the introduction and development of Classical culture in Puebla de los Ángeles during the latter part of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. The buildings, urban culture, images, and books discussed in this chapter speak of how Classicism helped establish the foundations for a rich architectural and urban tradition in Puebla that was to develop over the next two-and-a-half centuries, employing European, mestizo, and native practices.11 Ultimately, this chapter carries the message that instead of conceiving the Renaissance as a solely European phenomenon, it should be thought of as a transatlantic one, as global connections between Spanish America, the Iberian Peninsula, Italy, and other parts of Europe created a global network of artistic and ideological exchanges that demand an expansion of the terms “Renaissance,”“Classical culture,” and “humanism.”

Redefining the Renaissance To develop this discussion, the employment of the term “Renaissance” deserves some commentary. On the one hand, the word Renaissance has

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

81

traditionally been employed as an encompassing term to refer to European expressions related to the revival of Classical culture in various fields, including architecture, literature, the visual arts, and more, from roughly the midfifteenth to sometime in the seventeenth century. Synecdochally, talk of the Renaissance has generally come to be a reference to the Italian Renaissance. A notion coined, in turn, by nineteenth-century historiographical works such as Jacob Burckhardt’s “The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy” (1860), which has spawned myriad discussions, mostly on account of the term’s appropriateness to define the phenomenon, as well as Burckhardt’s dismissive attitude toward the Middle Ages’ contribution to the concept. However, the term has retained its relevance, given that its principal traits – namely, the emergence of a series of conditions that prompted a novel social and cultural order, specifically located in northern Italy – remain relevant.12 The Renaissance is also intimately tied to the revival of the Greco-Roman architectural tradition, encompassing the fields of architecture and urbanism, as well as its theoretical underpinnings, and to visual and literary traditions, concepts that are tied, in turn, to Renaissance humanism, a term that refers to the revival movement surrounding the study of ancient Classical Greek and Roman culture. Humanism or studia humanitatis, as it was known during the period, was based on medieval Aristotelianism or scholastic philosophy, which ruled the curriculums of important centers of study in Europe and later in New Spain as well. Unlike in Spain or other European contexts, in New Spain and the rest of the Iberian Americas, architectural Classicism cannot be understood as a stylistic or – even more broadly speaking – as a cultural development within the sphere of Renaissance humanism, instead, the introduction of architectural Classicism in New Spain and the whole of the Iberian Americas should be seen as a violent discontinuity in the way the built environment was shaped and understood by the native peoples of New Spain and the rest of the continent. In other words, the concept of Classical architecture in the context of viceregal New Spain and other Spanish American territories served as a strategy that was part of a broader colonial enterprise. As scholar Valerie Fraser noted: “Colonial architecture cannot be value free: its very existence presupposes the suppression of native culture and the exploitation of native labor.”13 Succinctly put, Classicism was both a statement and imposition from those in power, and ultimately, it was also a form of deploying the conquerors’ “civilizing” efforts through the imposition of a new urban and territorial culture, which ordered land and people through the establishment of urban forms, borders, and delimitations that were both physical and social. In this scenario, the establishment of cities and the buildings to represent colonial institutions played a critical role.14 In a colonial context, the term “Renaissance” can also serve to contrast and gauge the processes of cultural translation or hybridization, as the native and mestizo populations participated in the materialization of the built environment under the European notions of humanism and Classical culture.15 One of the arguments in this chapter will be that the Spanish civic

82

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

and religious authorities actively attempted to associate Classicism with an eminently Spanish or European civil and religious decorum. However, the uneven clash between the Iberian, mestizo, and native cultures (with all the ethnic and cultural diversity all of those terms carry) ultimately produced a distinctive regional architectural tradition, which was both uniquely novohispanic and poblano (Pueblan). In this way, a discussion of poblano architecture during this period can serve to reframe our understanding of the Renaissance, to the point that, ultimately, it might prove itself unable to define the cultural processes that took place in colonial settings.16 In the end, new terms and definitions might be necessary to define poblano and novohispanic art, architecture, and urbanism in general, as European terminology and chronologies will not adequately describe the urban and architectural developments in these settings. The discussion in this chapter adds to an ever-growing list of scholarship headed in that direction.17 The contemporary understanding of what continues to be termed “Renaissance architecture” to this day is dependent on works such as Rudolf Wittkower’s “Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism,” published in 1949. In this landmark study, Wittkower established a notion of Renaissance humanism as being, as Liane Lefaivre characterized it, “an almost mythopoeic golden age for architecture.”18 In reality, the truth might be more complicated than that.19 Instead of an idealized view of the works that emanated from the Italian Renaissance, interpreted as the product of an impeccable system of harmonious proportions and neoplatonic correspondences, the scholarship on the Italian Renaissance from the last decades has presented a period characterized instead by inventiveness, and one far less orderly and idealized than Wittkower would have us believe.20 While the scholarship on the effects and influences of the Renaissance beyond the Italian Peninsula are still highly underexplored, looking at the reception and development of Classicism and the humanities in Puebla, the picture that emerges is of cultural processes characterized by vitality, transformation, and inventiveness. Ultimately, the purpose of examining Puebla’s Classical architectural culture is that it will help us calibrate Hispanic humanism’s importance within novohispanic culture, enriched, as it was, by the Indigenous and mestizo contributions.

Puebla during the sixteenth century: urbanism and architecture Puebla de los Ángeles had, by 1570, some 800 households. By 1600, that number had risen to approximately 1,500 households with approximately 120 urban blocks that had been, at least partially, filled with residential buildings. By the late sixteenth century, the city also boasted of having a cadre of civic and religious landmarks, including the city hall, the new cathedral building that was beginning to be built, two hospitals, a Jesuit college, and a number of palatial residences for the city’s elite.21 The city was evidently densest at its central core, known at the time as the traza principal or central

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

83

layout, which must have occupied some seven or eight blocks in the east–west axis and some ten blocks in the north–south axis, with the San Francisco River acting as a barrier to the expansion of the traza principal to the east and south (see Figure 2.1). As early as the 1530s, the periphery of the city began to be settled by Indigenous migrants searching for employment and better life conditions. The city council began granting native settlers solares or land plots as early as 1539.22 The first three Indigenous barrios (neighborhoods) or altepeme (a Nahua ethnic state and the plural form of altepetl) to be formed were San Francisco, also known as Tlaxcaltecapan, in the vicinity of the Franciscan monastery; San Pablo de los Naturales, in the vicinity of the Dominican monastery; and Santiago, also known as Cholultecapan, which was also under the guard of the Dominican Order. Each one was rather independent, and each one possessed a parish church and a tianguis or market.23 The city sprawled out in dozens of urban blocks, many of which were uninhabited or just partially inhabited. A good number of plots were employed as urban gardens, as were the peripheral, uninhabited lots. These circumstances must have provided the impression that Puebla, at the turn of the sixteenth century, was a small, low-density town, with most constructions standing one-story high.24 The heart of the city was undoubtedly the main square or plaza principal, the site of a public fountain, and the pillory. The other half of the square was left unoccupied as it doubled as the main marketplace and on special occasions, as the site for a temporary bullfighting ring. The northern side of the main square was occupied, as it continues to be today, by the casas de cabildo or city council halls. The block occupied by the city halls was split into two halves by an alley crossing across it, which still exists to this day. (The alley is now covered with a steel and glass nineteenth-century roof and is informally known as El Pasaje or The Passageway.) The western halfblock was occupied by the city halls and the house of the alcalde mayor or city mayor right next door. The city halls were one-storied and only acquired a second story sometime at the start of the seventeenth century. The alhóndiga or city granary and the jail occupied the eastern half of that block.25 The main square was arcaded on three sides: north, east, and west (the south side remained open toward the cathedral). Initially, the arcades were wooden and were replaced by stone arcades by the 1580s.26 The town’s first buildings of a temporary nature were made of adobe with rough lime stucco, with flat, compressed earth roof slabs supported by rough timber beams or sloped timber roofs that were thatched. Such are the techniques that are still found in rural settings in the Region and State of Puebla and elsewhere in Mexico today. Toward the last decades of the century, however, those buildings had been replaced by permanent buildings of a more refined quality in terms of their materials, manufacture, and ornamentation, and they were mostly buildings belonging to members of the city’s elite and important civic landmarks. An example is the Casa del Deán, the residence of the Dean of Puebla’s Cathedral Chapter, built c. 1580, and amply discussed later in the chapter.

84

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

In that regard, when a building was constructed with masonry, it was referred to with the term cal y canto, which stands for stone and brick masonry with lime, while the term cantería, meaning stone-carved, referred to elaborate stone ornamentation, usually found in the main gate or portal of a building, or around windows. While some construction materials were difficult to come by and were scarce during the sixteenth century elsewhere in New Spain, such as lime, quarried stone, or brick, this does not appear to have been the case in Puebla.27 As a matter of fact, the quality of the building manufacture of poblano architecture was notable. As Bühler noted, Puebla enjoyed the benefit of having relatively easy access to all the primary construction materials of the time: sand (obtained from the San Francisco River banks), timber, stone, clay for brickmaking, and an abundance of lime. During the archaeological excavations of the 1990s in the San Francisco and El Alto areas of the city, a good number of lime kilns dated to the sixteenth century were discovered, as well as brick and ceramic kilns. During the sixteenth century, brick as a construction material was not as popular as stone masonry for wall construction while ceramic tiles did not become a locally made material until the advent of the Talavera-style glazed ceramic industry in the seventeenth century in Puebla. Also, few buildings appear to have had sloped roofs in Puebla. Roofing techniques in the sixteenth century varied. Timber roofing for religious buildings was common, with examples being Puebla’s old cathedral, the Franciscan monastery at Tecali (2 km to the southeast of Puebla), or the Franciscan monastery at Zacatlán (in the northern mountains of Puebla State), which still possesses its original timber roof structure, covered on the exterior with ceramic tiles. Timber roofs in the City of Puebla were scarce, perhaps due to the lack of treated timber and a range of aggressive insect plagues that attacked wood and the deforestation that occurred in the central parts of Mexico during the sixteenth century. These circumstances led to the eventual replacement of timber roofing structures for masonry barrel vaulting starting in the seventeenth century.28 For the remaining constructions, residential and civic buildings were built with flat roofs, made with a layer of compressed earth, covered on the exterior with a layer of thin bricks, and underneath, in the interior, the earth was retained with a layer of thin board planks and the whole slab was supported with timber beams. The thin wood planks, usually made of pine and fir, are called tejamanil and are probably of Indigenous origin. The availability of good-quality materials and the effective craftsmanship provided by the Calpan, Cholulan, and Tlaxcalan laborers made the architecture of Puebla of a particularly high manufacturing quality. Bühler, having surveyed and cataloged a large percentage of historical buildings in Puebla, noted the scarcity of adobe constructions in most of the city’s historical center, except for the peripheral barrios, where the prevalence of adobe rises considerably. Most of the viceregal buildings surveyed by this scholar appeared to have, from early on, been built in cal y canto.29 According to Kubler, the hotspot of refined and sophisticated constructive knowhow in sixteenth-century New Spain was the Mexico City area, where the

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

85

Figure 3.1 A view of the corner balcony of the Castillo de Altra family residence in downtown Puebla, dating from the early seventeenth century. This corner detail is a relevant example of the high quality of building manufacture present in the city.

Indigenous masons, smiths, and carpenters, applying native techniques that they had mastered for generations, and adding European-taught crafts and techniques, came to be highly regarded. Texcocans and Xochimilcans, for instance, were among the most sought-after construction craftsmen.30 Since Puebla had a sizable community of Indigenous immigrants from Mexico City, including Texcocans, that circumstance might have elevated the quality of Puebla’s construction craftsmanship. Given the quality of the materials and the consolidation of the city’s architectural culture by the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries, it is now essential to understand the theoretical underpinnings behind the articulation of this rich architectural tradition (see Figure 3.1).

The arrival and reception of Renaissance architectural culture in Puebla de Los Ángeles In the year 1550, the first Viceroy of New Spain, Antonio de Mendoza (1494–1552), was about to finish his tenure. As part of his closing

86 Urban palaces and architectural treatises activities, he wrote a letter to his successor, Luis de Velasco y Ruiz de Alarcón (c. 1511–1564). Among the many issues discussed, the letter includes a statement made by Mendoza concerning “the building of monasteries and public works.”31 In essence, the viceroy tells his successor that “there have been a lot of errors [yerros] in their layouts [trazas], and other matters were not carried out properly, for not having anybody to look after them and direct them.”32 Mendoza did not specify the types of errors made, but he did blame them on a lack of professionals to supervise the works. In his words, “because neither in the tracing nor other issues, did they do things conveniently, given they [the mendicant missionaries] did not have anybody to understand them nor anybody to supervise the works.”33 This statement is quite revealing, given that Mendoza was well-read in matters of architecture and urbanism.34 Indeed, as he points out in this same letter, he provided the Franciscan Order with technical advice regarding the trazas or layouts of their monasteries. New Spain’s first viceroy is also known for having supervised the founding of the City of Valladolid (today Morelia) and for having possessed a copy of Leon Battista Alberti’s De re aedificatoria (On the Art of Building) and Vitruvius’ De architectura libri decem (The Ten Books on Architecture).35 Some of his commentaries regarding the founding of new towns, the building of roads, and the correct construction of buildings are evidence of how he perceived the construction of architectural and civil infrastructure as elements of an efficient political administration.36 In any sense, Mendoza’s critique was an “inaugural” statement of sorts. In other words, when Mendoza laments the lack of architects in New Spain, he was, indirectly, presaging the arrival of the first Spanish architects to the viceroyalty.37 In effect, in his letter, Mendoza advises his successor to attract architects from the Iberian Peninsula to New Spain. And indeed, Luis de Velasco’s tenure saw the arrival of the first Classically trained architect to the viceroyalty, Claudio de Arciniega (c. 1527–1593). He first settled in the City of Puebla in 155538 (eventually moving to Mexico City), building a successful career as he took a leading role in some of the most important landmarks constructed at the time – including the cathedrals of Mexico City and Puebla. Arciniega’s work was characterized by a refined Classical design language, which became the staple of his work. Soon, other architects followed suit, such as Francisco Becerra (c. 1540– 1605), another Spanish émigré who had a fruitful career in New Spain, known for his participation in the construction of Puebla’s cathedral. Becerra, unlike Arciniega, was more versatile, as he was able to design either in the Classical or in the Gothic style depending on the project or the client who required or requested it.39 Other Spanish architects or master masons active in Puebla in the latter part of the sixteenth century were Francisco Gutiérrez and Pedro López Florín. Gutiérrez was a maestro mayor, or a master builder of the cathedral works in 1574, while López Florín was a maestro de obra, somewhat akin to a city architect, in charge of the city’s waterworks and infrastructure from 1591 until 1624, which was the year in

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

87

which he was named a maestro mayor for the cathedral works, the highest commission available to an architect at the time in Puebla.40 Another wellknown Spanish architect active in Puebla at the time was Luis de Arciniega, brother to the famed Claudio, who settled permanently in Puebla. He, too, became a maestro mayor of the cathedral works around the year 1591.41 However, apart from recognizing the Spanish architects who practiced in Puebla, credit must be given to the native workers and architects who carried out the bulk of the labor and the design of lesser visible projects in the city. Professional construction activity and labor in sixteenth-century Puebla was, in effect, organized by a guild that followed ordinances decreed and enforced by the city council. The guild’s ordinances, titled Ordenanzas de los carpinteros y alarifes (Ordinances of Carpenters and Builders),42 were first issued in 1570 and ratified in 1605, 1775, and 1800, with few changes made to the original text.43 Puebla’s ordinances for masons predated the Mexico City builder’s guild ordinances of 1599. But perhaps more importantly, Puebla’s ordinances not only allowed Indigenous masons to employ the titles of maestro cantero or maestro albañil but allowed them to practice the profession freely. In this, they differed from Mexico City’s guild ordinances, which banned native practitioners from taking the professional examination to become a master mason, but also of employing those professional titles. Puebla’s mason’s guild ordinances specified that if an individual, a male in every case, wanted to practice and employ the title of maestro, he would have had to have taken the examination either in Puebla or in any of the “lands of the Kingdom of Castile.”44 The ordinances also specify all the subjects related to construction technologies the examinee had to know, and the building and engineering typologies that the individual had to demonstrate how to design, supervise, and execute. These included an assortment of different church building typologies (three-nave or octagonal planned, for instance), residential buildings of various stories, works of infrastructure such as waterworks, aqueducts, bridges, and even defensive infrastructure, such as fortresses and walls. The Puebla ordinances also differed from Mexico City’s in that they grouped the masons (referred to in the document as alarifes and albañiles) with the carpenter’s guild. As with masons, aspiring carpenters had to take an examination and know a catalog of various assortments of structural, mostly roofing, techniques, carpintería de lazo,45 as well as all manner of furniture designs. In practice, all the architects mentioned previously (e.g., Becerra,Arciniega, and Florín) who occupied the top posts in Puebla that were available to architects – namely, the position of maestro mayor or maestro de obra – were all Spaniards.46 However, since the city council allowed Indigenous builders to practice the profession freely, native builders carried out architectural commissions within their social spheres, which is to say, in their native barrios. Such is the case of the construction of a chapel dedicated to Santa Ana in the Indigenous barrio of the same name to the north of the city center, which was built in 1550 by a group of native builders.47 Additionally,

88

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

the city council minutes abound with evidence of how Indigenous maestros directed all manner of works for the city, such as building waterworks, maintaining public infrastructure, and how they participated in the building of the city council building or the casas de cabildo.48 It is essential to point out how the Ordenanzas suggest how a maestro would have to be knowledgeable in various architectural styles, such as Classicism and Mudéjar. This is because the ordinances list the multiple arch and window typologies a practicing architect or examinee had to be able to design, such as Roman arches (referred to as arcos redondos in the text), multilobed (arco carpanel), or horseshoe arches (arco árabe). The ordinances also demanded that the examinee knew how to design and build both a ribbed and a Roman vault, revealing how patrons and clients must have requested designs that incorporated a mixed architectural vocabulary. This idea is corroborated in many of the architectural fragments dating from the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries in Puebla. These show a tendency to articulate façades and other ornamental–structural features employing Classical elements such as Roman arches, friezes, architraves, pedestals, and cornices but allowing, at times, Mudéjar, Indigenous, or even late-Gothic idioms to complement their compositions. Examples would be the Casa del Deán façade, Classical but with Moorish windows, or the Casa del que Mató al Animal (House of the Animal Killer) portal, with its Indigenous and Plateresque reliefs sculpted on Classical lintel, jambs, and pedestals. Indeed, in the sixteenth century, architectural ornamentation was classified by Kubler into three broad categories (medieval, “intermediate,” and Classical), which in turn were subdivided into categories that were either “purely” European or Spanish, Indigenous “adaptations” of those idioms, and a third category in which, according to Kubler, Classical idioms had been fully integrated into an array of “rich and varied models” that spread throughout New Spain.49 Kubler claims the Plateresque was the predominant style in Spain and, when transferred to New Spain, Plateresque variations offered the chance to express both late-Gothic and Italianate idioms. In Puebla, however, medieval architectural expressions are scarce, and the majority of sixteenth-century fragments tend to lean toward Classicism. The only exceptions to that are the lateral gate of the San Francisco Monastery, which has some late-medieval elements, as well as San Francisco’s groined vaults. The gate of a sixteenth-century residence, today highly altered and known as the Casa de las Cigüeñas or Casa de las Garzas (The House of the Storks or Herons), also displays some elements of a Plateresque-medieval nature. However, the medieval ornamentation that Kubler found in an array of sixteenth-century mendicant monasteries scattered throughout Central and Southern Mexico either did not survive in Puebla or never existed. Instead, it can be firmly stated that Puebla was, from the sixteenth century, a city that adopted architectural Classicism and held on to it well into the first half of the seventeenth century.

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

89

The acceptance of a classical language in the visual arts Besides the presence of maestros mayores in Puebla during the latter part of the sixteenth century, the reception and acceptance of the Classical architectural language in Puebla appear in key visual works of the time. Such is the case for painter Luis Lagarto’s work (c. 1556–1624). Born in Andalusia, Spain, Lagarto migrated to New Spain and was active in Mexico City and Puebla. He received the commission for illuminating the choral books of Puebla’s cathedral starting in 1600, spending more than a decade on this project. Of note are some of Lagarto’s miniatures on religious topics painted while he was in the City of Angels, such as “The Annunciation” (1611) and “The Adoration of the Shepherds” (1610), both carried out sometime around 1610. Both of these images display intricate architectural scenography by the artist, who paid particular attention to ornamental detail to develop a carefully designed backdrop of Classical architecture and decor. In Lagarto’s “The Annunciation” (1610), the scene takes place in a palatial interior of marble Corinthian columns, whose frieze is finely decorated with golden vegetative motifs. In this interior, the Archangel Gabriel meets the Virgin Mary, whose presence opens up a window into heaven with God and a cohort of angels watching the scene from above. At the back of the scene, a view out into a Renaissance-style garden shows carefully manicured parterres, a pheasant, and a loggia supported by intriguing, golden caryatids. The opulent environment, the carefully studied use of perspective, and the bright color palette refer to Italian influences – namely, works by Vincenzo Pagani and Agostino Carracci – but also to the famed “The Annunciation” by Spanish painter Alejo Fernández (c. 1475–1545), which dates to the early sixteenth century. Additionally, the setting of the scene in an intimate space, as opposed to an outdoor scene, reveals a probable Flemish or Netherlandish influence, perhaps received via prints imported into New Spain. More importantly, however, Lagarto’s attention to Classical architecture in this work is outstanding as his depiction of entablatures, Corinthian pilasters, columns, Roman vaults, and a technically accomplished perspective point toward a visual proficiency regarding architectural Classicism (see Figure 3.2). What is important to underscore is the existence of an elite poblano audience who appreciated and expected Classical expressions to be part of the artistic products they commissioned. An abundance of painters and works from the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries that received commissions in both Puebla de los Ángeles and Mexico City, the two most important art markets in New Spain, developed architectural backdrops that employed Classical architecture to stage mostly religious scenes. The work of viceregal New Spanish painters such as Simon de Pereyns (c. 1535–1589), Baltazar de Echave Orio (1548– 1620), Alonso Vázquez (c. 1564–1608), and José Juárez (1617 – c. 1670), all accomplished painters of the period and of European origin, are also

90 Urban palaces and architectural treatises

Figure 3.2 Luis Lagarto (Seville 1556 – Puebla (?) c.1624), The Annunciation (1611), Puebla, Mexico, gouache on parchment with gold leaf. 31.43 cm (12.37 in) × 54.61 cm (21.5 in). Source: Gift of the Collection of Frederick and Jan Mayer, Denver Art Museum.

indicative of how Classical architectural backdrops became indispensable when representing urban and interior environments.

Architectural treatises in a viceregal context The acceptance of Classicism is probably also linked to the presence of a good number of architectural treatises in the city. Puebla today possesses two important historical libraries. The first is the Biblioteca Lafragua, which contains a remarkable rare and historical book and document collection that belonged to the Colegio del Espíritu Santo, Puebla’s Jesuit College. The second one is the Biblioteca Palafoxiana, a library with an outstanding rare book collection, which initially belonged to the bishopric’s seminary college and was enriched later with donations and significant parts of the Jesuit libraries’ collections when the Order was expelled from New Spain in

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

91

1767. Incidentally, both libraries possess a significant number of architectural treatises that reveal the influence of these books during the viceregal era, signaling how crucial the study and implementation of the Classical architectural tradition was in the city and region. Treatises found in these libraries range from various copies of Serlio’s treatise, Vitruvius’ treatise in multiple editions and dates, to Alberti’s De re aedificatoria and many others. Before delving into the subject matter further, it is worth noting how critical architectural treatises were and continue to be for the architectural tradition. The architectural treatise is, in effect, a technical, scientific, and literary genre all of its own, which has existed in the Western tradition since at least Greek antiquity.50 However, the modern architectural treatise was undeniably born with the Italian Renaissance in the mid-fifteenth century, somewhat in tandem with the development and propagation of the printing press in Europe. For instance, Leon Battista Alberti’s De re aedificatoria, the most influential treatise after Vitruvius’ during the Renaissance, written around 1450, was intended only to be disseminated in manuscript form in closed humanist circles. Still, printed versions began appearing by 1485, popularizing it and making it a European-wide and then a transatlantic phenomenon.51 Other treatises followed a similar path. What is more, the Renaissance architectural treatise, usually treated as a solely European phenomenon, should be understood as having had a transatlantic and even a global impact. Many factors contributed to the rise and popularization of these artifacts. The circumstance of how the Renaissance architectural treatise, the art of xylography, and the printing press developed along similar timelines is of utmost importance for architectural history. As Mario Carpo has suggested, “the mechanical reproduction of images was to have an important and longlasting consequence for the transmission of scientific knowledge, and even more for technical subjects for the visual arts. Architecture was no exception.”52 Indeed, when the printed word and the woodcut image coalesced, books became the primary vehicles through which images concerning architectural design were disseminated.53 The reality is that Renaissance architectural treatises – understood as disseminators of rhetorical and visual messages – were nowhere near as powerful as in the New World, where the European colonizers encountered unimaginable expanses of territory that they set out to conquer and colonize. This colonization process was not only physical or geographical, as in the act of deploying, populating, exploiting, and settling the land, instituting norms and ordinances for managing territories and the peoples inhabiting them, but also, and perhaps more importantly, the Spanish set out to colonize the people and their territories – that is to convert them – culturally. The colonizers envisioned a built environment that would convey messages about the preeminence and all-encompassing power of the Spanish Crown (reflected in civic architecture and public spaces), the power and preeminence of the Catholic Church (reflected in the myriad buildings associated with the Catholic Church), and in the Spanish way of practicing domesticity

92 Urban palaces and architectural treatises (reflected in residential typologies). Thus, architecture was, without a doubt, central in the forging of the Spanish Empire in the Americas, and the transmission and institutionalization of the Classical architectural tradition became, in no small measure, possible through the reading and studying of architectural treatises. There is ample evidence of how a considerable number of architectural treatises made their way across the Atlantic, starting in the mid-sixteenth century and continuing throughout the viceregal period. Their presence to this day in the Lafragua and Palafoxiana Libraries in Puebla, as noted earlier, is further evidence of this.54 What is more, the research carried out on the presence and employment of architectural treatises by the likes of Vitruvius, Alberti, and Sebastiano Serlio in the Hispanic world of the early modern period demonstrates they had a strong impact in shaping the built environment of Puebla and New Spain.55 In viceregal Puebla and elsewhere, such as Mexico City, treatises constituted an invaluable tool for practicing architects.56 These books not only allowed their readers to build the knowledge needed to articulate Classical works of architecture on their own, ratified by what was considered the ultimate source of knowledge on the subject, moreover, being familiarized with the Classical canons eventually constituted an essential item for those wanting to join the builders’ guilds that controlled the profession in the cities inhabited by the Spanish and criollo (New Spainborn Spanish descendants) communities, such as Mexico City and Puebla de los Ángeles.57 Classicism thus embodied the vocabulary for buildings that represented the civic and religious institutions in Puebla, that is, the city’s civic decorum, intimately linked, in turn, to the notion of policía humana. This concept combined the term urbs, loosely defined as the material fabric of the city (its buildings, urban form, and streets), and the term civitas, which constituted the city’s institutions, as well as the city’s religious and spiritual beliefs, ordinances, its municipal council – the cabildo, in Spanish – and more importantly, its citizens.58 In effect, what set Hispanic culture apart from the rest of Europe, according to Richard Kagan, was the “emphasis accorded to the Aristotelian concept of the city as the locus of civilized life.”59 Indeed, for Kagan and other scholars such as Valerie Fraser, the Spanish were perhaps the most urbancentered European culture in the sixteenth century, and the foundation of cities was the central strategy in their program of conquest and colonization in the Americas. As Kagan wrote: For Spaniards, therefore, policía signified life in a community whose citizens equated a republic. This idea, in turn, was intimately linked to the notion that the town was, again, citing Kagan, an ‘antidote’ for ‘what Spaniards perceived as an alien environment inhabited by hostile peoples.’60

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

93

This “antidote” was undoubtedly employed in the Iberian Peninsula’s Reconquista (reconquest) and was used again in the conquest of the New World. However, the question of why Classical architecture would have been the preferred vocabulary to convey Spanish civic decorum, either in Puebla de los Ángeles or in other repúblicas españolas (Spanish Republics) in the Iberian Americas, is tied to a public display of political and ideological values. In effect, if Spanish architecture during the sixteenth century was characterized by a panoply of styles, such as Gothic, Mudéjar, and Plateresque among them, with buildings sometimes combining many vocabularies at once, why would the viceregal authorities choose Classicism as a prevalent style to represent their institutions? The answer lies in the way that architectural Classicism slowly became the vocabulary that embodied the Spanish monarchy’s political–ideological agenda, exemplified by the Mannerist Palace of Charles V in Granada, begun in 1527 and continued by Philip II in 1572. In effect, it was Philip who would adopt architectural Classicism as the definitive representative of the Spanish Empire and the monarchy. His patronage revealed his preference for Classicism in works such as the Alcázar of Madrid, the Alcázar of Toledo, and the summit of his architectural indulgence, the Royal Palace and Monastery of El Escorial, designed and directed by Juan Bautista de Toledo and Juan de Herrera. This unique complex, finalized around 1584, was characterized by a severe Classical vocabulary, which crowned Classicism as the architectural vocabulary that effectively represented the King of Spain and his global monarchy.61 It follows then that in the New World, the Spanish colonizers’ efforts to evoke a sense of policía humana in the cities they established in territories previously inhabited, as they saw it, by barbaric and pagan peoples, would have made the Classical architectural tradition an obvious choice for articulating decorum for the colonial institutions.62

The annotated Vitruvius in Puebla The Palafoxiana Library was part of the Tridentine Seminary, the city’s primary higher education institution after the Jesuit Colegio del Espíritu Santo. The Tridentine Seminary’s principal objective was the education of diocesan clergy. The seminary started as the small College of San Juan Evangelista, which possessed a modest book collection, and grew into a system of three colleges – the Colleges of San Juan, San Pedro, and San Pablo by the 1640s – largely boosted by the sponsorship of Bishop Juan de Palafox. The library’s collection covered topics that were of interest to the seminary students, such as canon law, theology, philosophy, and others, but also possesses, due to the collection’s eclectic nature, volumes ranging from astronomy and mathematics to music theory and architecture.63 Among the architectural volumes in the library’s collections are the Apparatus urbis ac templi Hierosolymitani, published in 1604, by the Spanish Jesuit and architect Juan Bautista Villalpando, a treatise on the City

94 Urban palaces and architectural treatises of Jerusalem and Solomon’s Temple. Other outstanding volumes in the library’s collection were also the most widely read architectural treatises in New Spain: De re Aedificatoria by Leon Battista Alberti, in a Spanish translation published in 1797; as well as the third and fourth books of the Tutte l’opere d’architettura e prospetiva by Sebastiano Serlio, in a Spanish edition of 1573. There are also two copies of De architectura libri decem by Vitruvius. The first is a 1582 edition of the first Spanish translation by Miguel de Urrea, printed by Juan Gracián at the University of Alcalá de Henares’s printing press. The second Vitruvius is a 1552 edition printed in Lyon, France, characterized by the inclusion of French humanist Guillaume de Philandrier’s commentary on Vitruvius’ text. An outstanding feature of this volume is the high number of handwritten annotations at the margins, with comments written in both Latin and Spanish. The handwriting appears to be carried out by the same reader throughout the treatise, in ink, judging by the handwriting’s consistency throughout the book. The precise origin of the volume is unknown, so the identity of the reader or annotator remains anonymous. However, the book displays a College of San Juan fire mark in the book’s fore edge, indicating the book might have entered the collection through the donation of the prominent cleric Juan de Larios, in 1596, or as part of Bishop Juan de Palafox’s donation in 1642.64 The previous owner(s), and the identity of the annotator, however, remain unknown.65 Another remarkable dimension to the annotations is the occasional drawings and sketches present throughout the book, which illustrate the way the reader, as either an architect or a well-educated scholar (perhaps a priest), engaged with the text actively. The numerous items of technical information recorded by hand-drawing were conveyed either through the reader’s sketches or by markings and annotations superimposed on printed illustrations. Also, a considerable amount of underlining is present throughout the book, as well as several manicules or other marks used to point to or highlight portions of the text (see Figure 3.3). An inventory of the whole volume’s incidences of underlining, comments, and hand sketches by the reader pointed, quantitatively, toward the idea that the anonymous reader’s interest fell mostly on two general subjects. On the one hand, issues related to building technology, such as craftsmanship and design functionality: the production of high-quality pigments for decoration; pavement design patterns; the geometrical tracing of stairs; the correct number of steps to place in a temple’s façade; the recommended height of stairs; and water engineering topics enjoy a great deal of attention too, such as healthy water sources and appropriate soils. On the other hand, the reader seemed intent on studying issues related to the systematic proportionality of the architectural orders and their parts, and subjects related to ornamental questions. Book III of Vitruvius’ treatise, for instance, dedicated to issues regarding the architectural orders, the proportionality between its components and

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

95

Figure 3.3 Three details of marginalia from a 1552 Vitruvius (Lyon), with Guillaume Philandrier’s comments, annotated by an anonymous reader. Source: Courtesy of Gobierno del estado de Puebla/Secretaría de cultura del estado de Puebla/ Organismo público descentralizado denominado “Museos Puebla.”

its relationship to the human body, and the subject of intercolumniation in temples were subjects that greatly attracted the reader’s imagination, as evidenced by the copious number of annotations in those sections of the book. By far, the most consulted parts of the treatise (evidenced by the amount of marginalia and underlining), however, are in Book VII, dedicated to pavements and plasterwork, and in Book VIII, dedicated to aqueducts and hydraulic engineering.66 The presence of the annotated Vitruvius in the Palafoxiana Library coincides with the rise of Classicism as a preferred architectural language adopted by the civic and ecclesiastical authorities in Puebla (see Figure 3.4). The annotations, in turn, provide a unique window into the mind of the reader, which point toward interest in specific topics; namely, the system of proportionalities among the parts and elements of the architectural orders, the philosophical definition of architecture as a discipline, as well as several technical topics, such as the making of capable pigments, floors, and stair design. Another exciting volume found in Puebla’s Lafragua Library rare book collection is a copy of the 1582 edition of Vitruvius’ De architectura libri decem, translated by Miguel de Urrea and printed by Juan Gracián in Alcalá

96 Urban palaces and architectural treatises

Figure 3.4 Marginalia in a 1582 Spanish edition of Vitruvius (Alcalá de Henares), containing handwritten annotations by anonymous reader(s). Source: Courtesy of Biblioteca Histórica José María Lafragua, Benémerita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, reference number 1527.

de Henares. This edition constitutes the first complete translation and edition of Vitruvius’ treatise in the Spanish language. As Fernando Marías notes, this edition was based on the Philandrier one discussed previously and the engravings in the Urrea translation were taken from several other editions, such as those by Cesare Cesariano, Fra Giovanni Giocondo, Daniele Barbaro, and others.67 The Lafragua volume contains a series of hand annotations at the margins, some of them of considerable interest. On page 6, right after the prologue, a hand annotation states: Lo mismo le falta toda la substancia que son las anotaciones (All the same, it is missing all the substance, which are the annotations). As Fernando Marías notes, Urrea’s edition of Vitruvius, although based on Philandrier’s, did not include the French humanist’s commentaries.68 The annotation by the Lafragua Vitruvius reader reveals that he knew Urrea’s edition not only lacked Philandrier’s analysis but that the reader understood the value of Philandrier’s commentary. The reader’s note also reveals the reader’s knowledge regarding Vitruvius and his familiarity with the various editions of the Roman architect’s text. The Lafragua Vitruvius also contains an annotation on page 8, which references Ramón Lull’s Ars

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

97

magna (1305–08; The Great Art) relative to Vitruvius’ comment regarding an architect’s need to be acquainted with various disciplines, such as astrology, medicine, and many others. This note suggests the reader might have been a well-educated priest, a Jesuit perhaps, as the Lafragua Library has its origins in Puebla’s Jesuit college. This interesting volume also contains a series of textual and graphic annotations regarding water pumps and similar machinery, which speaks of the high level of engagement readers had with it over the years. Ultimately, the presence of a considerable number of treatises in the city, and the apparent level of hermeneutic interpretation evidenced by the annotations, prompts us to put forward the idea that in viceregal Puebla, readers were interested in engaging with some of the essential architectural texts of the period.

The Casa del Deán: a New World Renaissance urban palatial residence in Puebla There is no building in the City of Puebla that speaks about the presence of Renaissance humanism louder than the urban residential palace of Don Tomás de la Plaza Goes, the Dean of Puebla’s Cathedral Chapter in the late sixteenth century. His residence demonstrates how Puebla’s elites brought humanist culture to this city through the patronage of architecture, staking a public claim for European cultural authority in the New World, but that ultimately resulted in a hybrid architectural artifact. The urban palace of the early modern Spanish-Atlantic world is key to understanding the urban culture of the period. In the medieval period in the Iberian Peninsula, such residences were known as casas mayores (grand houses) or casas principales (principal houses), while the term palacio or palace referred only to the main hall of the residence, the public space where the family would display its lineage and economic power.69 The term palacio shifted to mean the whole of the residential complex during the subsequent centuries, akin to the Italian Renaissance palazzo, which defined the model for the urban palace in Europe. Furthermore, while traditionally, the concept of the Renaissance palace evokes images of the Florentine palazzi, in reality, the urban residential palace can be said to be a transatlantic architectural phenomenon, found as much in Mexico City or Lima as in Valladolid, Spain, or Florence, Italy. In general terms, the urban residential palace, as a typology, signals the importance that towns acquired as centers of regional and transcontinental imperial power, and such palaces are the product of sophisticated material and intellectual local and global exchanges. In the palace, the aristocratic classes devoted substantial resources to magnificent personal residences alongside their patronage of other urban projects, including churches, male and female cloisters, hospitals, and civic buildings and works.70 In effect, Renaissance theorists promoted architecture as a tool for maintaining cultural authority through the Aristotelian notion of magnificence.

98 Urban palaces and architectural treatises Around 1403, Leonardo Bruni’s Laudatio florentinae Urbis or Praise of the City of Florence posited that the magnificence of Florence resided not in its great fortune nor in its political leadership but in its magnificent buildings, whether these were civic, religious, or private. Such notions had circulated in the Hispanic world since at least the medieval period in, for example, the notion of policía, a term that described the essence of a commonwealth upheld by its citizens, of which the urban fabric was an expression of its success. The dominant class in New Spain consisted mostly of Spaniards, criollos, and a small Indigenous nobility who maintained some privileges in return for their services during the war against the Mexica or Aztecs. Perhaps in memory of that conflict, the first palaces built by the conquering Spaniards in the nascent Tenochtitlán-Mexico City used fortress imagery, with crenellations atop their outer walls and with bare masonry. A well-known plan of Mexico City’s central plaza, from c. 1565, shows a series of buildings with crenellations and unplastered ashlar masonry, alongside some with Classical features in their main portals. As the viceregal institutions in Central New Spain stabilized, the colonizers’ palaces became more refined and cosmopolitan. The masonry walls acquired a plastered finish, lost their crenellations, and acquired more ornamented features, particularly in their main portals, as the plan of Mexico City’s central plaza from 1596 reveals. For the most part, sixteenth-century urban palaces had one or two stories. Their rooms were arranged around open courtyards, the main one, and one or two service yards at the back of the property. Many courtyards in civic and private buildings employed Italianate decorative elements in their configuration, such as Classical columns and Roman arches. The roofs in Mexico City, Puebla, and in other principal cities were flat, allowing them to act as terraces. Stylistically, the palaces of New Spain in this period were in the taste of the late Renaissance, with Plateresque and Mudéjar features, and as Martha Fernández points out, distinctive regional traits.71 These characterizations emerge from the small number of surviving sixteenth-century palaces in Mexico: the Montejo residence in Mérida; La Casa del que Mató al Animal in Puebla; the Casa de la Sirena in San Cristóbal, Chiapas; and the Casa del Deán in Puebla, which is the best surviving example of Renaissance architecture from the New Spanish viceregal period.

Architectural analysis of Casa del Deán The urban palace of Don Tomás de la Plaza Goes, the Dean of Puebla’s Cathedral Chapter, is located just a few steps away from the city cathedral, which evidences how he employed architectural magnificence to display his social and political standing in the city. He was a diocesan priest born in Spain and educated at the University of Salamanca. In 1538, he migrated to New Spain at the age of nineteen, where he built a successful ecclesiastical career and died in 1587. The post of dean was the second most important in the diocese after the prelate. In this role, he was in charge of the essential

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

99

administrative and organizational duties of a Catholic diocese, such as overseeing processions and other religious festivities and ensuring the maintenance of proper decorum in all such activities.72 In 1576, the Spanish architect Francisco Becerra (c. 1540–1605) was named maestro mayor in charge of Puebla’s new cathedral.73 For this reason, the remodeling of the Casa del Deán, including its new façade design, has been attributed to this Spanish-born architect. Both de la Plaza and Becerra were natives of the province of Extremadura in Western Spain and both were working on the new Puebla Cathedral in the 1570s, so it is easy to imagine the Dean hiring Becerra to remodel his official residence. The Dean’s residence is an architectural relic whose very existence is a source of wonder, even in its unfortunate, fragmentary form. Indeed, in 1953, the building was nearly destroyed in its totality when the majority of the viceregal palace was demolished to make room for a modern cinema. The little that remains is thanks to a small group of activists who protested the demolition and managed to preserve a small fraction of it. It is to their credit that the façade and two upper-level halls still exist to this day. These halls contain a series of extraordinary murals that are, along with the façade, a testimony to the presence of humanist culture in the New World.74 The Casa del Deán is part of the rich tradition of early modern Hispanic Renaissance palatial architecture.75 The first Italian models for palaces arrived in Spain through the experience of Spanish architects who had visited Italy and had drawn the remains of ancient Rome or via published treatises circulating among the European nobility. In this way, Filarete’s design for the Medici Bank in Milan, illustrated in his Trattato di Architettura (Architectural Treatise), likely served as a model for the first Renaissance palace in Spain, the Palacio del Cogolludo in Guadalajara, built c. 1492–1495.76 With the new international standing of Italian models, Renaissance Classicism began to displace Gothic and Mudéjar ornament while new approaches to domestic planning also transformed traditional elite house planning. As in the Italian models, novohispanic palacios had an entry directly from the street into a lobby, called zagúan in Spanish, connected in turn to a courtyard that articulated and served as circulation element of a series of rooms around it, a model followed at the Casa del Deán in Puebla (see Figure 3.6). Similarly, the design of the Casa del Deán’s entry portal uses an explicitly Classical vocabulary, whose design is reminiscent of Sebastiano Serlio’s instructions on the design of the Doric and Ionic orders. The entry of the Casa del Deán consists of two levels. The lower is a linteled entry flanked by two engaged Doric columns on pedestals, with fluted shafts and a robust entablature. Serlio recommended placing the Doric column on a rectangular pedestal as at the Casa del Deán, and the fluted Doric columns are reminiscent of Serlio’s engraving on folio XXVIIIr of Book Four.77 The frieze above the street-level entry carries the words Semper sit in nomine JHU ingressus et egressus (May your entries and exits always be in the name of Jesus). The entry’s entablature carries the second-story balcony, which is fitted with

100 Urban palaces and architectural treatises a pair of rusticated jambs and lintels, flanked by Ionic-engaged columns, likewise fluted in their shafts. These support a frieze that develops into a cartouche that originally included Tomás de la Plaza’s family crest of arms, which is today in a fragmentary state, partially destroyed in the early nineteenth century.78 The frieze still displays the words Plaça Decanus (Plaza, the Dean) and the building’s year of completion, 1580. Flanking the upperlevel balcony are two ogee, Moorish-style windows with prominent Classical pediments above them, each with a scallop shell at its center – a possible sign of devotion to St. James, patron saint of Spain – and three finials. The other four windows (which are balconies today) were probably identical in their design to the existing ogee windows (see Figures 3.5 through 3.7). The rest of the Casa del Deán’s physical and programmatic description is difficult to convey, given the little evidence left to reconstruct the building. Among the extant evidence is a 1918 plan and an assortment of earlytwentieth-century photographs of the façade and interior courtyard. The plan shows how the Casa del Deán occupied a solar, the standard plot in sixteenth-century Puebla, which measured 50 by 50 varas, or a one-eighth part of an urban block. When Tomás de la Plaza arrived in Puebla, he was

Figure 3.5 A detail of the Casa del Deán façade, in downtown Puebla, showing the entry portal.

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

101

given an existing, half-built residence under the condition that he finish its construction, including the house’s zaguán. The house originally belonged to Martín de Calahorra, a conquistador who became a Puebla citizen as early as 1533.79 The residence’s layout follows that of the typical Pueblan upper-class residence from the viceregal period: access from the street led to a zaguán, connected, in turn, to a rectangular or square courtyard around which a series of spaces were arranged. Staircases in two-storied residences, as in the Casa del Deán, were located either right across the zaguán at the other side of the courtyard or close to the entry, as was the case with the Casa del Deán. At the back of the house there would usually be another courtyard where the service spaces were found.80 The only sixteenth-century courtyard extant in Puebla is the one found in the Casa de las Cabecitas (House of the Little Heads), which has some similar features seen in existing photographs of the Casa del Deán’s central courtyard prior to its demolition, such as half-arches, upper-story corridors supported by typical Pueblan stone brackets, and plastered masonry rails along the upper-story corridors. Another outstanding feature of the Casa del Deán was a tower on its eastern end, a common element of palaces throughout Spain, such as the Palacio de los Condestables de Castilla in Burgos, the Palacio de Monterrey in Salamanca, or the Palacio de Fernández de Córdoba in Granada, among others. The hypothetical reconstruction of the tower draws heavily on these and other prototypes because the only evidence for the tower’s existence is its mention in de la Plaza’s testament (see Figures 3.6 and 3.7).

The murals at Casa del Deán Besides its architecture, the most intriguing aspect of the Casa del Deán is its murals. In each of its two surviving halls, there is a cycle of mural paintings done al temple or tempera, each one with a specific program and visual imagery. There is the Hall of the Sybils, based on the figures of the Greek oracles-turned Christian prophets, depicted at Casa del Deán in a processional cycle, all of them riding on horseback, each holding a standard and a symbol or emblem of their prophecies. All are elaborately dressed, and their procession takes place against a landscape of varied, picturesque features: rolling hills, patches of woods, bodies of water, mountains, and hamlets. The other hall contains a representation of the “Triumphs” by Petrarch, a series of poems that exalted an allegorical transition from sin to Christian redemption. It is a work written around 1351 and was a favorite theme of poets and artists throughout the late-medieval period and the Renaissance. At the Casa del Deán, the murals in the Hall of the Triumphs depict five Triumphs (as opposed to the original six in Petrarch’s work): Love, Chastity, Time, Death, and Eternity. The Triumph of Fame representation, on the other hand, is missing in the Casa del Deán murals. The Triumphs all ride in chariots against a backdrop of richly populated landscapes, more so than those in the Hall of the Sybils. An array of various scenarios, from urban

102

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

Figure 3.6 A computer model showing a hypothetical reconstruction of Casa del Deán, Puebla, from a bird’s eye view perspective. Source: By the author and Trevor Wood, with some information taken from Penny Morrill’s “La Casa del Deán: New World Imagery in a Sixteenth-Century Mural Cycle.”

Figure 3.7 A hypothetical computer reconstruction of the Casa del Deán’s original façade. Source: By the author and Trevor Wood.

to pastoral scenes, where human figures partake in various activities, such as dancing around a bonfire, unfold as the Triumphs, in chariots, parade around the walls of the room. In both halls, the murals are bounded by two friezes, one above and one below, where floral motifs interlace with cherubim, monkeys, birds, and insects. At first glance, the Triumphs and the sybils closely resemble representations of European artistic imagery, the product of a complex Christian and

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

103

humanist centuries-long tradition. On closer inspection, however, the array of animals depicted, some Indigenous to the Americas, such as jaguars, opossums, coyotes, and javelinas, reveal traces of Amerindian iconography that, according to the research, point toward notions of Nahua rhetorical and religious belief systems.81 In the Hall of the Triumphs, notably, the representations of animals in cartouches, with anthropomorphic attributes, as scribes, musicians, or dancers and the presence of Indigenous objects, such as a jaguar depicted as a warrior, holding a macuáhuitl, an Indigenous mallet used as a war weapon, and a typical pre-Hispanic round shield, render evidence to the Indigenous origin of the artists.82 Furthermore, Morrill has argued that the artists at work in the Casa del Deán might have trained at a Franciscan monastery in the Puebla–Tlaxcala Region.83 The Casa del Deán is a relic of European humanism’s translation to the burgeoning Puebla de los Ángeles. It testifies to the aspiration of an intellectual class made up of singular characters like that of Tomás de la Plaza, a high-ranking and educated cleric, well-read in the culture of the Renaissance, to emulate the culture of the metropole in the heartland of New Spain. de la Plaza, on the other hand, did not hesitate to flaunt imagery and symbols drawn from the Indigenous culture of his adopted land, granted, in a more private sphere, as public displays of de la Plaza’s admiration for Indigenous cultures might have been negatively viewed by some of his peers and fellow Spanish citizens. Undoubtedly, the Casa’s murals have attracted the most attention from scholars given their unicity as sixteenth-century murals in a private residence representing secular themes. Research into the Casa del Deán’s architectural characteristics, on the other hand, has been overlooked. The lack of discussion stems, surely, from its near-total destruction and shortage of evidence. However, despite the limited information available, the digital models presented in this chapter attempt to hypothesize the residence’s sixteenthcentury features, utilizing all evidence at hand. This exercise in historical reconstruction claims how urban residential palaces, as an architectural and historical typology, revealed traits that provide a broader picture of urban life and cosmopolitan aspirations in New Spain.

Other notable New World Renaissance architectural fragments in Puebla de Los Ángeles The number of civic Renaissance buildings beside the Casa del Deán must have been numerous in Puebla. The architect Francisco Becerra built other urban palaces in the city, as he once testified himself.84 One of these could well be the residence of Juan López Mellado (on the present-day corner of 16 de Septiembre and 7 Oriente Streets, across from the Casa del Deán), a relative of Tomás de la Plaza. The façade of this residence presents a purist Renaissance façade that, in essence, comes across as a simplified version of the Casa del Deán’s.85 Still, it is true that time, destruction, and alteration to

104

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

Puebla’s vast architectural heritage have left few remnants of that period’s architecture overall. There are, however, three case studies worth mentioning: the portal of the Casa de las Cabecitas, the portal of Casa del que Mató al Animal, and the façade of the alhóndiga. The Casa de las Cabecitas was originally a residence dating to the first half of the sixteenth century, which belonged to a Spanish conquistador and city council alderman, Alonso Galeote.86 According to Manuel Toussaint, the portal is characterized by a “sober” Plateresque, although certain its characteristics are rightly Classical, too, like the roundels.87 The main portal, the residence’s only sixteenth-century element that has remained unaltered, consists of a flat arch with two sculpted stone medallions at each flank, portraying a man and a woman’s head in each (hence its name, the cabecitas or little heads), representations of Hercules and Hebe. The medallions are an identifiable trait found in palatial urban residences and civic buildings in Spain, such as the Archbishop’s Palace in Cáceres. The arch’s imposts possess a hybridized set of sculpted reliefs of Plateresque and Indigenous inspiration, which reveal the stonecutters’ probable native background. The imposts are prolonged all across the jambs and divided into two horizontal tiers. On the upper tier, we see a set of floral or vegetative motifs while the bottom tier displays a series of diagonal bands with alternating feather-like and scale-like reliefs, reminiscent of pre-Hispanic sculpture, particularly that of central Mexican cultures, like the Nahua. At the intrados, the imposts end with Classical volutes. Further, above the arch’s frieze, a band with a series of sculpted wave-like ornaments crowns the portal’s entry. A very similar pattern appears in an engraving in Serlio’s Fourth Book, suggesting the designer’s employment of that treatise in the hybrid composition (see Figure 3.8).88 The Casa del que Mató al Animal is a rare architectural jewel. The building was originally a residence for the family of the conquistador Hernando de Elgueta, and later belonged to another army man, Francisco Méndez, who might have had the stone portal built. It is located steps away from the main square, it is dated around the mid-1500s and was labeled by Toussaint as Plateresque.89 The main portal is the only sixteenth-century element that remains, as modern interventions dramatically altered the rest of the building (see Figure 3.9). A couple of scenes depicting hunting scenes, in relief sculpture, cover the entirity of the lintel and the jambs. In them, two hunters restrain dogs on leashes, the dogs have torn some animals to pieces, holding parts in their muzzles. The scene is set in abundant vegetation and small game, such as rabbits or hares, surround the scenes. The hunting scenes could have derived from Flemish or French tapestries, as Toussaint proposed,90 and the scenes, in some of their elements, do bear a resemblance to fifteenth- or sixteenthcentury hunting depictions, such as those in the Devonshire hunting tapestries. A local folk tale tells the story of a young man of humble origin, who hunts a monster that is ravaging Puebla, and in exchange for his service, he

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

105

Figure 3.8 Entry to the Casa de las Cabecitas residence, late sixteenth century, located in downtown Puebla.

gets married to the daughter of a conquistador. However, the presence of hunting dogs and the implied violence of the hunting scenes might conjure a message that is related to conquest and subjugation, or more simply, the reliefs are a testament to the taste the owner had for hunting. Further, the Indigenous influence on certain ornamental elements in the composition was cited by Toussaint. For instance, the gate’s imposts depict birds pecking at pomegranates, with the birds’ stylistic features of possible native influence. The jambs’ bases also depict a series of rosettes which, Toussaint affirmed, were also of Indigenous inspiration (see Figure 3.9).91 Another relevant fragment dating from the sixteenth century is the façade of the city’s alhóndiga (see Figure 3.10). Although extraordinarily altered, the building still retains a few elements that reveal the presence of Renaissance architectural influences in the city in the mid-1550s. The building has existed since 1541, the result of the Puebla Region becoming an agricultural powerhouse that needed a public granary to control price gouging and control the distribution of grains. The façade is attributed to Claudio

106 Urban palaces and architectural treatises

Figure 3.9 View of the Casa del que Mató al Animal residence entry portal, dating from the sixteenth century, downtown Puebla.

de Arciniega, who lived and practiced in Puebla during part of the 1550s.92 The façade, which, as noted, has been extremely altered, still presents some elements that date from the sixteenth century. These are a pair of stone sculpted medallions or roundels, a pair of distinguishing foliage grotesques, which, shaped as brackets, are flanking the façade’s central body in its upper story. The upper part of the façade, from a later date, has a central balcony while above it, a sculpted conquistador’s helmet crowns the city’s coat of arms, flanked in turn by two cherubim. At the top, a pilastered pediment crowns the façade (see Figure 3.10).93

Classicism as the foundation for Puebla’s viceregal architectural tradition Founded in 1531, the City of Puebla de los Ángeles became, by the end of the century, a manufacturing and agricultural hub. This is not surprising considering the advantageous conditions the town enjoyed almost from the

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

107

Figure 3.10 A detail of the façade of Puebla’s alhóndiga or public granary, late sixteenth century, Puebla.

outset. Being a social and urban experiment (see Chapter 2), its founding was meant to counter the power of the Mexico City encomenderos. In order to promote its growth, the city enjoyed, as Miguel Ángel Cuenya has investigated, generous tax exemptions and encomienda de indios94 benefits that fueled economic ventures by local entrepreneurs who took advantage of the fertile land, mild climate, the abundant labor by the Indigenous populations of the surrounding towns, and generous natural resources to turn the city into an economic hub by the end of the sixteenth century.95 This condition, in turn, made the city an architectural and artistic center, the second most important after Mexico City. For this reason, the presence of notable artists such as Luis Lagarto, buildings such as the Casa del Deán, or libraries such as those of the Jesuit College of the Holy Spirit, and the Diocesan Seminary (Colegios Tridentinos) became staples of the city’s cultural life by the early seventeenth century. Ultimately, Puebla became the second most important artistic and architectural center in the viceroyalty, which spoke of an eminently urban culture where a small elite composed of proto-capitalist entrepreneurs and letrados fueled an architectural and

108 Urban palaces and architectural treatises artistic tradition that was aspirational of Spain’s, with the added characteristic of an important influence exerted by the native craftsmen. The architectural and artistic objects reviewed in this chapter, inspired by Classicism and Humanist culture, represent the architectural and artistic ethos that defined the aspirational tastes and sensibilities of the Spanish and criollo poblano society, which, as Jorge Manrique and Martha Fernández have argued, represented their efforts at forging a local identity and a nexus with the metropole.96 This phenomenon will be further explored as the architecture of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries become the focus of the following chapters.

Notes 1 Francisco Cervantes de Salazar, México en 1554: Tres diálogos latinos de Francisco Cervantes de Salazar, ed. Miguel León-Portilla and Joaquín García Icazbalceta, First edition (Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas – UNAM, 2001), 248, www.historicas.unam.mx/publicaciones/publicadigital/libros/mexico1554/ mex1554.html. 2 Ottavio Di Camillo, “Interpretations of Humanism in Recent Spanish Renaissance Studies,” Renaissance Quarterly 50, no. 4 (1997): 1190, https://doi.org/10.2307/ 3039407; Tomás González Rolán, “Los comienzos del Humanismo Renacentista en España,” Revista de lenguas y literaturas catalana, gallega y vasca, no. 9 (2003): 23–28. 3 Di Camillo, “Interpretations of Humanism in Recent Spanish Renaissance Studies,” 1190–92; Rolán, “Los comienzos del Humanismo Renacentista en España.” 4 Pilar Gonzalbo Aizpuru, “Facetas de la educación humanista de los novohispanos en el siglo XVII,” Enciclopedia de la literatura en México-Fundación para las letras mexicanas, April 2018, www.elem.mx/estgrp/datos/174. 5 Clive Griffin, The Crombergers of Seville: The History of a Printing and Merchant Dynasty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 89. 6 Gonzalbo Aizpuru, “Facetas de la educación humanista de los novohispanos en el siglo XVII.” 7 Carlos Montero Pantoja, La Arquitectura del Saber: Los Colegios de Puebla 1531– 1917 (Puebla, Mexico: BUAP – Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – EyC, 2013), Chapters 2, El Colegio del Espíritu Santo, 3. Reales Colegios Tridentinos del Obispado de Puebla. 8 The word letrado means, literally, “cultured” in Spanish. In New Spain, however, the term was used to refer to highly educated functionaries, whether in the civil or religious spheres: clerics, barristers, scribes, university professors, etc. 9 Antonio Rubial García, El paraíso de los elegidos: Una lectura de la historia cultural de Nueva España (1521–1804), First edition (Mexico City: FCE – UNAM, 2010), 47. 10 Dirk Bühler, Puebla: Patrimonio de arquitectura civil del virreinato (Munich: Deutsches Museum, 2001), 38. 11 Regarding the terminology employed to analyze and discuss the hybrid nature of the architecture and other arts produced during the viceregal period in New Spain and elsewhere in the Iberian Americas, much has been written without reaching any definitive consensus. The discussions have taken various angles, for instance, whether Spanish American arts are derivative of Spanish or European ones and whether the terms Indo-Christian art, tequitqui, hybrid, and/or mestizo

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

12 13 14

15 16 17

18 19

109

are appropriate to define its complexity and contradictions, and more. The bibliography on the subject is vast and dating to the early twentieth century. The landmark 1942 book by José Moreno Villa on viceregal sculpture in which the author coined the term tequitqui, a Nahuatl word meaning “in-between,” and Constantino Reyes-Valerio’s writings coining the term indo-cristiano art to refer to Indigenous-European Mexican art are two landmark works on the subject. Three recent items that take on these discussions and are representative of contemporary discussions are an essay by Burke et al. that discusses the hybrid nature of a global Renaissance; an essay by Liebsohn and Dean discussing the hybridity of colonial Latin American art; and more recently, Alessandra Russo’s book, The Untranslatable Image, which argues in favor of terming viceregal Mexican art as “mestizo.” See: Peter Burke, Luke Clossey, and Felipe FernándezArmiesto, “The Global Renaissance,” Journal of World History 28, no. 1 (March 2017): 1–30, https://doi.org/doi:10.1353/jwh.2017.0000; Carolyn Dean and Dana Leibsohn, “Hybridity and Its Discontents: Considering Visual Culture in Colonial Spanish America,” Colonial Latin American Review 12, no. 1 (2003): 5–35; José Moreno Villa, La escultura colonial mexicana (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1978); Constantino Reyes-Valerio, Arte indocristiano: Escultura del siglo XVI en México (Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 1942),; Alessandra Russo, The Untranslatable Image: A Mestizo History of the Arts in New Spain, 1500–1600 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2014). Charles Nauert G., Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe, Second edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 1–7. Valerie Fraser, The Architecture of Conquest: Building in the Viceroyalty of Peru, 1535–1635 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 4. See Chapter 1 for a broader discussion on the topics of policía and urban culture understood as a colonizing strategy in the Hispanic world of the sixteenth century, as well as Chapter 2 for a deeper understanding of the late-medieval and Classical understanding of urbanism in the Hispanic world. Burke, Clossey, and Fernández-Armiesto, “The Global Renaissance.” Dean and Leibsohn, “Hybridity and Its Discontents: Considering Visual Culture in Colonial Spanish America.” Some of the works cited in this chapter, like Dean and Leibsohn’s essay on hybridity, are examples of the discussion on the epistemological questions surrounding the way colonial art and architecture have been studied, while others, like Reframing the Renaissance, an edited volume by Claire Farago, broke some ground in the mid-1990s in terms of questioning the Eurocentric bias in the definition and study of the Renaissance, while others, like the edited volume The Routledge Handbook on the Reception of Classical Architecture, is a more recent addition focused on expanding the definition and borders of the architecture of the Renaissance. See Burke, Clossey, and Fernández-Armiesto, “The Global Renaissance”; Dean and Leibsohn, “Hybridity and Its Discontents: Considering Visual Culture in Colonial Spanish America”; Claire Farago, Reframing the Renaissance: Visual Cutlure in Europe and Latin America, 1450–1650 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995); Nicholas Temple, Andrzej Piotrowski, and Juan Manuel Heredia, eds., The Routledge Handbook on the Reception of Classical Architecture, First edition (London and New York: Routledge, 2019). Liane Lefaivre, “Rethinking the Western Humanist Tradition in Architecture,” Design Book Review, Fall 1994. The work by Wittkower is articulated by a common thread, namely, the notions of ideal geometry, “harmonic proportions,” and buildings with idealized forms and programs, which, Wittkower argues, defined Renaissance architecture in

110 Urban palaces and architectural treatises

20

21

22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Italy. See Rudolf Wittkower, Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism, Second edition (London: Alec Tiranti, Ltd., 1952). A handful of recent titles on Renaissance architecture that show the novel approaches to the classic topics are, for instance, Payne’s work on treatises and their role in promoting architectural innovation, or Anderson’s sweeping survey of European Renaissance architecture, breaking down the borders of Italy and discussing other European regions, such as Poland, Czech Republic, Spain, Portugal, etc., or Borys’ monograph on Vicenzo Scamozzi, which highlights the architects’ interest in geography and the natural sciences. See: Alina A. Payne, The Architectural Treatise in the Italian Renaissance: Architectural Invention, Ornament and Literary Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Christy Anderson, Renaissance Architecture, First edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); Ann Marie Borys, Vincenzo Scamozzi and the Chorography of Early Modern Architecture (Burlington, VT: Routledge, 2014). Bühler, citing Castro Morales and other sources, provides the figures of number of households for 1570 and 1600, while Gómez affirms there are, at the sixteenthcentury’s closing, 120 urban blocks inhabited in the city. See: Bühler, Puebla: Patrimonio de arquitectura civil del virreinato, 39; Lidia E. Gómez, “La fundación de la Nobilísima Ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles,” in La Puebla de los Ángeles en el Virreinato (Puebla, Mexico: UPAEP, 2016), 40. AMP (Municipal Archive of the City of Puebla), Libros de Cabildo, Volume 4, Document 146, August 19, 1539. The minute states that the city council has agreed to grant plots of land to those native (naturales) colonizers who so wish to settle in the city, granting them small plots of 18 by 12 varas, less than a fourth of the 100 by 100 varas plots that Spanish settlers got. Guadalupe Pérez-Rivero Maurer,“El gobierno virreinal de la Puebla de los Ángeles (1531–1821),” in La Puebla de los Ángeles en el Virreinato (Puebla, Mexico: UPAEP, 2016), 41. Bühler, Puebla: Patrimonio de arquitectura civil del virreinato, 37–50. Hugo Leicht, Las calles de Puebla, Tenth edition (Puebla: Secretaría de Cultura, Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, 2009), 332–35. Ibid., 341. George Kubler, Arquitectura Mexicana del Siglo XVI (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1983), 220–21. Ibid., 225–27. Bühler, Puebla: Patrimonio de arquitectura civil del virreinato, 117. Kubler, Arquitectura Mexicana del Siglo XVI, 203–04. Anselmo de la Portilla, Instrucciones que los virreyes de la Nueva España dejaron a sus sucesores, vol. 1 (México: Imprenta de Ignacio Escalante, 1873), 46. Ibid., vol. 1: 46–47. Ibid., vol. 1: 46. Guillermo Tovar de Teresa, “La utopía del virrey de Mendoza,” in La utopía mexicana del siglo XVI: Lo bello, lo verdadero y lo bueno, First edition (Mexico City: Editorial Azabache, 1992). Burke, Clossey, and Fernández-Armiesto, “The Global Renaissance”; Tovar de Teresa, “La utopía del virrey de Mendoza.” For a brief discussion on Mendoza’s inclinations toward architectural and urban history, see Chapter 1 of this book. de la Portilla, Instrucciones que los virreyes de la Nueva España dejaron a sus sucesores, 1: 46–49. Here it is important to clarify that the term “architect” was not yet employed in the Spanish language, except in very specialized circles and owing to an Italian influence. Otherwise, builders and, we could argue, architects were known as alarifes, an Arab-Spanish term, maestro mayor, maestro carpintero or maestro cantero, and others. For more information on the history of the architectural

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

38 39

40

41 42

43

44 45

111

profession in New Spain, see Martha Fernández, “El albañil, el arquitecto y el alarife en la Nueva España,” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas XIV, no. 55 (1986): 49–68; Efraín Castro Morales, Constructores de la Puebla de Los Ángeles: Arquitectos, alarifes, albañiles, canteros y carpinteros novohispanos (Puebla: Museo Mexicano, 2004); Efraín Castro Morales, “Luis de Arciniega, Maestro Mayor de La Catedral de Puebla,” Anales Del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas VII, no. 27 (1958): 17–32; Luis Javier Cuesta Hernández, Arquitectura del Renacimiento en Nueva España: “Claudio de Arciniega, Maestro Maior de la Obra de la Yglesia Catedral de Esta Ciudad de México” (Mexico City: Universidad Iberoamericana, 2009). AMP, Archivo Municipal de Puebla, Actas de Cabildo, Volume 7, Document 66, Folio 69V, June 28, 1555. This minute accords Claudio de Arciniega the status of citizen of Puebla. A monograph on the life and work of architect Francisco Becerra has yet to be written, but some of the essays written on his life and work are: Efraín Castro Morales, “Francisco Becerra en el Valle de Puebla,” Anales del Instituto del Arte Americano e Investigaciones Estéticas, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo, no. 13 (1960): 10–33; Yolanda Fernández Muñoz, “El arquitecto Francisco Becerra,” Boletín de Monumentos Históricos – Tercera época, no. 27 (April 2013): 135–50; Cristina García Oviedo, “Francisco Becerra: interpretaciones de la arquitectura española en América,” Anales de Historia del Arte, no. 11 (2001): 121–48; Antonio Molero Sañudo, “Francisco Becerra y Otros Nuevos ‘Arquitectos’ En La Nueva España,” NORBA, Revista de Arte XXXVI (2016): 69–94. AMP, Archivo Municipal de Puebla, Actas de Cabildo. The city council minute in which Gutiérrez is appointed maestro mayor: Document 196, Folio 132V, 133R, January 15, 1574. Some documents that testify as to Pérez Florín’s duties as city architect (not exhaustive as there are a great deal of actas or minutes in the archives that detail Florín’s various works for the city): Document 224, Folio 187V, 189R, August 27, 1591 (regarding the city’s water pipes); Document 332, Folios 291V, June 17, 1594 (this minute records Florín’s naming as maestro mayor or master builder of water works); Document 176, Folio 174R, January 12, 1624 (this minute mentions Florín as maestro mayor of the cathedral works, but his official appointment must have occurred earlier, although a document at Puebla’s Municipal Archives notifying of his appointment could not be located). AMP, Archivo Municipal de Puebla, Actas de Cabildo, Volume 12, Document 225, August 27, 1591. The term alarife derives from an Arab word meaning builder, and in the Hispanic world it referred to a professional builder and designer who was also knowledgeable not just about traditional building technologies, but also of surveying techniques and a panoply of infrastructure works. In New Spain, it was used interchangeably for a maestro cantero or maestro albañil, terms that could be compared, with certain measure, to our contemporary definition of an architect. For a wonderful commentary on the ordinances of masons and carpenters in Puebla, as well as a full transcription of the document’s text, and clarification on technical terminology, see: Patricia Díaz Cayeros, “Las ordenanzas de los carpinteros y alarifes de Puebla,” in El mundo de las catedrales novohispanas (Puebla, Mexico: Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – BUAP, 2002), 91–117. The validity of an examination carried out in Spain explains how architects such as Becerra or Arciniega, who took their professional exams in Spain, were automatically allowed to practice in Puebla upon settling in the city. Carpintería de lazo, also called carpintería de lo blanco, was a type of sophisticated carpentry tradition developed in the Iberian Peninsula with a high degree of influence from the Islamic carpentry and architectural traditions. Utilizing

112 Urban palaces and architectural treatises

46

47

48

49 50 51 52 53 54

55

56

complicated geometric designs and patterns, and combining them with complicated joinery and structural techniques, carpenters built roofing structures, as well as ornamental and furniture designs. A famous example of this tradition in New Spain is the roof structure of the San Francisco Monastery Church in the City of Tlaxcala. Those two interchangeable titles, maestro mayor and maestro de obra, were reserved for those in charge of the cathedral building works, important official projects such as catafalques for public figures, ephemeral triumphant arches, or those in charge of consulting on critical civic buildings and infrastructure works. AMP, Archivo Municipal de Puebla, Actas de Cabildo, Volume 6, Document 99, January 17, 1550. The Santa Ana chapel is today known as the Parroquia del Señor de la Salud de Santa Anita, located to the north of the San Pablo barrio, close to the old road to Tlaxcala. For instance, a construction team was assembled to work on the city council building and finish a series of rooms dedicated to filing and archiving documents, AMP, Archivo Municipal de Puebla, Volume 5, Document 24, Folio 28V, April 27, 1545. In 1560, the City Council hires some Indigenous construction workers to complete “unfinished buildings” in the city, AMP, Archivo Municipal de Puebla, Volume 8, Document 145, Folio 117V, December 9, 1560. The city council hires a team of Indigenous workers, led by Martín Sánchez, master mason and carpenter, to complete water works to bring more potable water from a water spring in the hill of San Cristóbal and into the main plaza, AMP, Archivo Municipal de Puebla, Volume 5, Document 22, Folio 25V-27R. Many more minutes in the city council archive evidence the crucial role of Indigenous workers in the building and the maintenance of private and public works in the city. Kubler, Arquitectura Mexicana del Siglo XVI, 473. Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, On Architecture, trans. Richard Schofield, First edition (London: Penguin Classics, 2009), 194. Bernd Evers and Christof Thoenes, Teoría de La Arquitectura. Del Renacimiento a La Actualidad. Vol. 1 (Cologne: Taschen, n.d.), 25. Mario Carpo, Architecture in the Age of Printing: Orality, Writing, Typography, and Printed Images in the History of Architectural Theory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), 6. Ibid. Another study regarding this topic, added to the ones previously cited, is: Luis Javier Cuesta Hernández, “La teoría de la arquitectura en la Nueva España. La Architectura Mecánica Conforme a la Práctica de esta Ciudad de México, en su contexto,” Revista Destiempos I, no. 14 (April 2008): 442–59. The bibliography on the reception and interpretation of architectural treatises on behalf of viceregal architects is vast. Some interesting and important works are: Luis Javier Cuesta Hernández, “Sobre el estilo arquitectónico en Claudio de Arciniega,” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, no. 76 (2000): 61–88; José Antonio Terán Bonilla, “Serlio en Nueva España. Estudio preliminar,” in Tercero y quarto libro de architectura de Sebastián Serlio Boloñés. Edición facsimilar (Puebla: Secretaría de Cultura, Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, 1996), 13–23; Martha Fernández, Cristobal de Medina Vargas y la arquitectura salomónica en la Nueva España del siglo XVII (Mexico City: UNAM, 2003); Manuel Toussaint, “Vitruvio interpretado por un arquitecto novohispano,” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas 5, no. 18 (1950): 85–92. It is important to recognize that before the arrival of Arciniega, there was a flourishing building scene in New Spain; however, research shows that there was no professionalization of the trade nor was there a defined style present in the civic and religious buildings of the viceroyalty, which changes by the late sixteenth century. See, for instance: Kubler, Arquitectura Mexicana del Siglo

Urban palaces and architectural treatises

57

58 59 60 61

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

71 72 73 74 75 76

113

XVI; Fernández, Cristobal de Medina Vargas y la arquitectura salomónica en la Nueva España del siglo XVII; Martha Fernández, “El nacimiento de la arquitectura barroca novohispana: una interpretación,” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas 14, no. 56 (June 8, 1986): 17–28; Manuel Toussaint, “Vitruvio interpretado por un arquitecto novohispano,” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas 5, no. 18 (1950): 85–92; John McAndrew and Manuel Toussaint, “Tecali, Zacatlan, and the Renacimiento Purista in Mexico,” The Art Bulletin 24, no. 4 (1942): 311–25. Morales, Constructores de la Puebla de Los Ángeles; Fernández, “El albañil, el arquitecto y el alarife en la Nueva España”; María del Carmen Olvera Calvo, “Los sistemas constructivos en las ‘Ordenanzas de albañiles de la ciudad de México de 1599’. Un acercamiento,” Boletín de Monumentos Históricos – Tercera época, no. 22 (August 2011): 7–43. Richard Kagan, Urban Images of the Hispanic World, 1493–1793 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000). Ibid., 26. Ibid., 27. Fernando amercement Checa, Alfredo J. Morales, and Víctor Nieto, Arquitectura del Renacimiento en España. 1488–1599, Manuales de Arte (Madrid: Cátedra, 2009), Chapter VIII. Una imagen definida y precisa. La arquitectura del rey.” en Arquitectura del Renacimiento en España. 1488–1599. Fraser, The Architecture of Conquest: Building in the Viceroyalty of Peru, 1535– 1635. See particularly pages 154–67. Diana Isabel Jaramillo, ed., De libros ingeniosos de la Biblioteca Palafoxiana y un manuscrito (Puebla, Mexico: Gobierno del Estado de Puebla; Biblioteca Palafoxiana, 2018). “Biblioteca Palafoxiana”, online catalog and information site (retrieved May 2019) http://biblioteca.colmex.mx/palafoxiana/sobre-el-sistema/. Information relayed to the author by the then Director of the Palafoxiana Library, Dr. Diana Isabel Jaramillo, in conversation in June 2015, Puebla, Mexico. Chapter division varies slightly across different editions of Vitruvius. For instance, the Philandrier edition of 1552 would not correspond with a modern edition of Vitruvius, such as Richard Schofield’s, or Ingrid Rowland’s. Fernando Marías, “Architectura – Les Livres d’Architecture: Vitruvius Edition of 1582 by Miguel de Urrea in Spanish,” 2012, http://architectura.cesr.univ-tours. fr/traite/Notice/Urrea1582.asp?param=en. Ibid. Jean Passini, “El palacio urbano: formación de un modelo en la Edad Media,” Anales de Historia del Arte 23, no. Número Especial II (2013): 510–11. Víctor Manuel Mínguez Cornelles and María Inmaculada Rodríguez Moya, Las ciudades del absolutismo: Las ciudades del absolutismo en Europa y América en los siglos XV-XVIII (Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I, 2006), 11–22; 59–75. Martha Fernández, “La casa en la Nueva España,” in Casas señoriales del Banco Nacional de México (Mexico City: Fomento Cultural Banamex, 1999), 17–45. Penny C. Morrill, The Casa Del Deán: New World Imagery in a Sixteenth-Century Mexican Mural Cycle (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2014), 26. AGI,Archivo General de Indias, Patronato, 191, ramo número dos, nombramiento de F. Becerra como maestro mayor de la catedral de Puebla, January 24, 1575, 9V, 10R. Morrill, The Casa Del Deán, 1–4. Checa, Morales, and Nieto, Arquitectura del Renacimiento en España. 1488– 1599, 35. Ibid., 36–37.

114 Urban palaces and architectural treatises 77 Sebastiano Serlio, On Architecture, Volume One, Books I-V of “Tutte l’Opere d’Architettura et Prospetiva” by Sebastiano Serlio, trans. Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), 254, 302–03. 78 Efraín Castro Morales, “Algunas consideraciones acerca del deán de Tlaxcala,” in Profecía y Triunfo: La Casa del Deán Tomás de la plaza. Facetas plurivalentes (Madrid: Vervuert-Iberoamericana, 2013), 33. 79 Ibid., 20. 80 Bühler, Puebla: Patrimonio de arquitectura civil del virreinato, 192–210. 81 Serge Gruzinski, El águila y la sibila. Frescos indios de México, First edition (Barcelona: Moleiro Editor, 1994); Morrill, The Casa Del Deán, see particularly Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 7; Erwin Walter Palm,“El sincretismo emblemático en los Triunfos de la Casa del Deán,” in Profecía y Triunfo. La Casa del Deán Tomás de la Plaza. Facetas plurivalentes (Frankfurt-Madrid: Iberoamericana Vervuert, 2013), 289–95. 82 Palm, “El sincretismo emblemático en los Triunfos de la Casa del Deán.” 83 Morrill, The Casa Del Deán, see, particularly, Chapter 7. 84 Ibid., 62. 85 Ibid., 60. 86 Marc de Ramon Carmona and Pablo Posada González, Guía arquitectura representativa de a ciudad de Puebla (Puebla, Mexico: L’anxaneta EdicionesAyuntamiento de Puebla, 2008), 38. 87 Manuel Toussaint, Colonial Art in Mexico (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1967), 116–24. 88 José Antonio Terán Bonilla, “Serlio en Nueva España. Estudio preliminar,” in Tercero y quarto libro de architectura de Sebastián Serlio Boloñés. Edición facsimilar (Puebla, Mexico: Secretaría de Cultura, Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, 1996), 13–23. 89 Manuel Toussaint, Colonial Art in Mexico (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1967), 116–24. 90 Ibid., 124. 91 Ibid. 92 AMP (Municipal Archive of the City of Puebla), Libros de Cabildo, Volume 07, Document 66, June, 1550. A minute from the city council meetings grants “Ilabdio” Arciniega “arquiticos” (sic) the title of city resident. 93 Cuesta Hernández, Arquitectura del Renacimiento en Nueva España, 76–82. 94 The term employed to designate a forced-labor system that exploited Indigenous people in favor of Spanish colonizers. 95 Miguel Ángel Cuenya Mateos, Puebla de los Ángeles en tiempos de una peste colonial: una mirada en torno al matlazahuatl de 1737 (Puebla, Mexico: El Colegio de Michoacán-Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, 1999), 58–60. 96 Fernández, Cristobal de Medina Vargas y la arquitectura salomónica en la Nueva España del siglo XVII, 19–21.

4

The Bishop and his cathedral Juan de Palafox’s ideal Christian Republic (c. 1600s–1650s)

On the early morning of Sunday, April 18, 1649, Bishop Juan de Palafox y Mendoza (1600–1659) began the consecration ceremonies for the new city cathedral. The recently finished structure was the result of over seven decades of work, which started in 1573. Puebla, which had been the seat of the Tlaxcala Bishopric since 1543, required a regal cathedral worthy of its status as the viceroyalty’s second most important urban center. When Palafox arrived in New Spain in 1640 to take up his post as Bishop of Puebla, the new cathedral project was unfinished and delayed.1 One of Palafox’s principal objectives as bishop was to finish the construction of the new edifice. He tried to resolve any cases of misappropriation and pilfering of funds that he came across, which had contributed to the delay in the cathedral’s construction.2 Upon his arrival in Puebla, the bishop, according to himself, led a successful fund-raising campaign.3 Palafox himself allegedly contributed a considerable part of his funds to the construction efforts.4 After nine years of pushing forward the construction works, by 1649, the new cathedral structure – namely, the walls, the vaults, and the domes – had been completed (see Figure 4.1). The main façade, the side façades, the bell towers, and most interior decoration would be carried out over the following decades until the early nineteenth century (see Figure 4.4). Nevertheless, completing the building’s fabric sans ornamentation and bell towers and supplying it with the essential interior elements needed to make the building act as a temple – the main altar screen, known as the Altar de los Reyes (Altar of the Kings), located at the apse, and a baldachin that marked the main altar – was by any measure an admirable feat.5 This chapter starts by providing a short description of the cathedral’s consecration ceremony.6 It continues by recounting the cathedral’s construction history up to Palafox’s tenure, shifting to a discussion of Palafox’s overall plan for converting Puebla into his concept of an ideal Christian Republic. This chapter describes some of his architectural and institutional patronages, namely, the San Pedro Hospital, the Colleges of San Juan and San Pedro, several Indigenous parishes, and the San Miguel del Milagro Shrine in nearby Tlaxcala. Overall, this chapter’s discussion extensively focuses on Palafox’s admirable contribution to Puebla’s architectural and social fabric.

116 The Bishop and his cathedral

Figure 4.1 An aerial view of Puebla Cathedral. Source: Courtesy of Rubén Olvera.

It is fair to claim that Puebla’s seventeenth century would be impossible to conceive without addressing its most memorable bishop and his political, religious, and architectural aspirations. When Palafox arrived at the cathedral’s atrium the morning of that Sunday of 1649 for the consecration ceremony, a large multitude had already convened despite the early hour, along with a congregation of essential clergymen. Puebla’s Bishop, along with a retinue of guests, entered the empty cathedral and lit twelve candles, each accompanied by a cross, each of the twelve nailed to a different wall of the cathedral building. After lighting the candles, they exited the temple, and, once again, in the atrium, Palafox engaged in personal prayer. After finishing, the bishop, together with a large contingent of guests, clerics, and acolytes, entered the cathedral, and the ceremony thus began in earnest with the chanting of an antiphon. After the bishop pronounced the litany, he exited the cathedral again and began the ritual of blessing the lower, middle, and upper parts of the exterior walls.7 Palafox then began the consecration and exorcism of the temple’s interior, traversing the building in its entirety.8 After having completed the ceremony, Palafox exited the temple again. At the atrium, a large crowd awaited. After a series of psalms and antiphons were chanted, the bishop preached to the crowds on the uses and special significance of having and using a temple.9 On Tuesday, April 20, two days after the consecration rituals, a final ceremony sealed the whole ritualistic cycle: the Holy Sacrament’s transferal into the new cathedral. The consecration was thus considered complete.10 Together with the subsequent celebrations, the consecration ceremony was

The Bishop and his cathedral

117

the last public ritual led by Palafox as Bishop of Puebla. According to one of his biographers, that same Friday, Palafox decided that he could no longer delay returning to his native Spain.11 It was the end of his brilliant career as a statesman and a high dignitary of the Catholic Church. Forced to return to Spain, much against his will, his career ended in disgrace. Palafox left Puebla in May 1649, forced by the Spanish Crown due to a series of convoluted political confrontations with, among others, the Society of Jesus, the Archbishop of Mexico, and the then-viceroy, Don Diego López Pacheco, Duke of Escalona (1640–1642). These confrontations eroded his political reputation to the point that he was finally recalled to Spain. These troubles occurred in parallel with Palafox’s role as Bishop of Puebla and were decidedly a result of his political and reformist zeal.12

Bishop Juan de Palafox’s ideal Christian Republic Toward the mid-seventeenth century, the City of Puebla was a diverse and multiethnic society that needed to remain loyal to the King, to the Viceroy of New Spain, and to itself as a patria chica13: a city inhabited by peninsulares (Spaniards), criollos (persons of pure Spanish descent), and numerous racial groups including mestizos (persons of mixed ethnic origin) and Blacks, and by Indigenous peoples, the largest, fastest-growing, and one of the most neglected groups in the city. Palafox, in his role as shepherd of Puebla’s society, firmly believed it was his responsibility to reconcile all of these communities’ interests, both spiritually and earthly. Bishop Palafox’s tenure is thus tightly linked to what will be defined here as the “ideal Christian Republic,” a Palafox political-religious project for the City of Puebla and its diocese, which identified Palafox as a central architectural and artistic patron for the city. The argument at hand is that Palafox employed architecture to articulate this ideal Republic, starting with the city cathedral and continuing with the sponsorship of other public institutions, such as a hospital, a diocesan seminary, and an arrangement of Indigenous parishes. Furthermore, the ideal Christian Republic concept also seeks to acknowledge Puebla as an urban republic composed of a series of corporations that articulated the city’s body politic. However, beyond this, the term attempts to extend the notion of the urban republic into the specific territory of Juan de Palafox’s political philosophy and his expectations for political life:14 namely, his political philosophy balanced the marriage between good governance, which sought the individual and communal good, with Catholic piety, which sought the individual’s eternal salvation.15 During his tenure as Bishop of Puebla, art and architecture were prominent concerns for Palafox. However, his figure as an architectural and artistic patron has been understudied. This is not surprising, given that Palafox scarcely wrote anything concerning these two subjects, apart from a few ideas scattered in his correspondence and in his political, ethical, and theological writings.16 It becomes evident that he was not interested in writing on

118 The Bishop and his cathedral the subject of artistic or architectural creation from a theoretical standpoint. This is indicated by the lack of any significant piece of writing addressing architecture or art directly. However, art and architecture – in Bishop Juan de Palafox’s universe – not only served the Catholic, post-Tridentine role of enlightening and spiritually educating the devotees’ imagination but also served to reaffirm his role as shepherd or guardian of his flock, acting as a guide in the articulation of the ideal Christian Republic. In short, architectural and artistic sponsorship was a primary obligation to fulfill his role as bishop.17 Palafox drew much of his insight on a bishop’s duties from the Council of Trent. However, Palafox took these precepts to heart, and his architectural endeavors are a testament to this idea. For him, architecture served to articulate the res publica (commonwealth); in other words, it served to define the notion of the ideal Christian Republic. Through architecture, the bishop would carry out his mission as a representative of human and divine institutions and, therefore, reshape the Christian Republic of Puebla based on a completely different model from that on which it had initially been founded. This is quite an essential point because it demonstrates the flexibility and potential of an early modern city in New Spain to refashion, reinvent, or reconfigure itself according to a changing political and social agenda. The feat of consecrating the cathedral’s structure, for Palafox, resided in the act of providing a regal city with a splendid temple, an act that can be interpreted as a case of bishopric magnificence, as argued elsewhere.18 The argument in this chapter instead puts forward the idea that the cathedral’s construction and consecration were, in reality, more closely related to the act of urbanization. In other words, the cathedral, as an architectural work, possessed the agency to play out a symbolic function of utmost importance for the City of Puebla – establishing a concrete form and concurrently sealing, symbolically, the bond between God, Viceroy, King, and Puebla’s citizenry.

Puebla de Los Ángeles’ cathedral As early as 1573, native Tlaxcalans traveled to Puebla to construct the city’s new cathedral, as reported by the sixteenth-century Tlaxcalan chronicler, Diego Muñoz Camargo, who specifies that some 60 to 70 people were employed in the cathedral’s works every week.19 However, the works officially started in 1575, when Viceroy Martín Ramírez de Almansa appointed the architect Francisco Becerra as maestro mayor or master builder for the cathedral works, together with Francisco Gutiérrez as aparejador or building supervisor and Juan de Cigorondo as obrero mayor or administrative supervisor for the works, as stated in a viceregal edict dated January 24, 1575.20 Becerra traces the cathedral’s layout, which, with slight alterations, will be the architectural plan that will inform the cathedral’s design until its completion in the early nineteenth century. Becerra and Cigorondo presented this layout to the Cathedral Chapter council members and its dean

The Bishop and his cathedral

119

in November of 1575.21 It is essential to mention that there was an “old” cathedral that existed previous to the start of the new one, which, according to the chronicler Veytia, was finished in 1539, had three longitudinal naves, and occupied the area where the Tabernacle Chapel, the Altar de los Reyes, and the Chapel of the Ochavo (octagon plan) are located within the current cathedral layout. It faced onto the plaza pública or main square.22 By 1544, the old cathedral appeared to be experiencing damage to its fabric, which indicates its probable low construction quality. The deterioration advanced into the 1570s.23 By 1576, the city’s civil and religious authorities decided to build a new cathedral, demolish the old one, while a temporary cathedral church building, which the Cathedral Chapter in the council minute refers to as “xacal,”24 was built in order to host the city’s religious festivities temporarily.25 Becerra’s plan was rectangular, approximately 110 m in length and 80 m in width (361 by 262 ft, approximately). It possessed three longitudinal naves and two naves at each end occupied by lateral chapels. The central nave was slightly wider in proportion to the other two, as it was the nave that accommodated the chorus, the main altar, and the main retable. The whole plan was divided into ten transversal modular units, with the transept module being wider than all others, in order to match the width of the central nave’s width to allow an octagonal drum, inscribed in a square, to sit on the transept, which is crowned, in turn, by the church’s central dome. Another dome crowns the Altar de los Reyes altar screen and chapel at the building’s apse (see Figure 4.2). Becerra’s Puebla Cathedral plan bears a particular resemblance to Andrés de Vandelvira’s layout for Jaén Cathedral in Spain, which follows a similar modular and spatial organization scheme as its Pueblan counterpart. Becerra was in charge of the cathedral works until his departure to the Viceroyalty of Perú in 1580, but during the five years he was in charge of Puebla Cathedral, he kept in contact with his colleague, Claudio de Arciniega, who was the maestro mayor of the Mexico City Cathedral works.26 This fact has placed doubt on Becerra’s authorship of Puebla’s layout, attributing it to Arciniega instead, although it is now more widely accepted that Becerra authored the plan but was likely advised by Arciniega, who had been in New Spain since 1555,27 twenty years before the Puebla Cathedral works started. Ultimately, Arciniega’s professional experience in New Spain in the construction field greatly surpassed Becerra’s, and his advice most likely proved quite beneficial to Becerra.28 After Becerra’s departure to Perú, Francisco Gutiérrez (1582–1586) and then Luis de Arciniega (1589–1599), Claudio’s brother, became instrumental in Puebla Cathedral’s progress as maestros mayores in charge of its construction. During the sixteenth century, the works appeared to advance steadily, but in 1610, signs of trouble appeared. From that year, a royal document requested that New Spain’s viceroy inform the Spanish Crown as to why the works were not advancing as expected. The document singles out the

120 The Bishop and his cathedral

Figure 4.2 Plan of Puebla Cathedral. Source: By Trevor Wood.

obrero mayor of “defrauding” the building’s construction29, and an audit of the books determined a fraud of 34,000 pesos,30 which, as Molero Sañudo notes, was nothing short of a scandalous amount of money.31 The next major event in Puebla Cathedral’s construction history came in 1634 when the Viceroy of New Spain charged the architect Juan Gómez de Trasmonte, one of the most renowned architects in New Spain at the time, who was in charge of Mexico City’s Cathedral since 1622 as aparejador,32 to visit Puebla Cathedral and produce a technical report on the structure’s state of conservation, as the works had stalled since 1626, despite its high-costing payroll.33 Gómez de Trasmonte’s detailed report described the building’s state, indicating how the lateral chapels were practically finished, with the vaulting needing only an outer-roof brick finish, while the Chapel of the Kings, which constituted the apse, was also finished and ready to be vaulted. Trasmonte recommended raising the central nave’s height and maintaining the lateral naves at a lower height to allow light to flood the structure through clearstory windows. Despite Trasmonte’s visit, from 1635

The Bishop and his cathedral

121

until 1640, the year Bishop Juan de Palafox arrived in New Spain, Puebla Cathedral had not advanced significantly, while a stratospheric amount of money had already been dispensed, by some accounts, more than a millionand-a-half pesos.34 As Tamariz de Carmona wrote in his chronicle of the cathedral’s consecration, Puebla Cathedral was known popularly as the “Silver Temple,” given the exorbitant amount of money spent on it.35 An overpriced, delayed, and apparently interminable construction site was what Palafox found on his arrival in Puebla. When, in 1649, Palafox finally managed to consecrate the cathedral, the overall aspect of the building was of a massive masonry shell, with no exterior ornamentation on its façades and no bell towers, finished with the gray basalt stone quarried from the hills of San Cristóbal and Manzanilla in the city’s outskirts, which must have provided it with a cumbersome appearance. Contrastingly, inside the shell, the most refined artistic and religiously meaningful objects in the building were the main retable, known as the Altar de los Reyes, and the baldachin, placed on the main altar at the building’s transept. The altar today exists in an altered form, after a Neoclassical renovation by the sculptor José Manzo in 1855, while the baldachin was replaced by a Neoclassical one at the turn of the nineteenth century by famed sculptor – architect Manuel Tolsá. The Altar de los Reyes is set against the apse’s back wall, the apse constituting the so-called Chapel of the Kings, today crowned by the famed dome decorated with the oil paintings by artist Cristóbal de Villalpando from 1688. The altar, initially built in green jaspers, with a base and four horizontal bodies, is divided into three vertical bodies. This retable’s outstanding feature was the employment of the Solomonic column in its design, making the introduction of this Baroque order the first of its kind on this side of the Atlantic, or at the very least, one of the first instances of it.36 The retable was designed, according to Palafox himself, by a known Spanish sculptor, Juan Martínez Montañés, although historians now believe it was Pedro García Ferrer, the preferred sculptor, painter, and architect at the service of Palafox, who designed it (see Figure 4.3). The pictorial program, dedicated to the Virgin of the Holy Conception, is articulated with a series of oil paintings by García Ferrer and also features a cadre of sculptures of saints associated with the Hapsburg family, such as St. Louis, King of France, and St. Leopold, made by Diego de Folch and Francisco de Gándara, replaced sometime in the nineteenth century. The artist-architect Pedro García Ferrer deserves a special note. He came from Spain as part of Bishop Palafox’s retinue and acted in many of the bishop’s architectural and artistic projects as a most trusted collaborator – working closely with Palafox and following his instructions diligently in all artistic and architectural decisions. García Ferrer was also in charge of overseeing the works at Puebla Cathedral during Palafox’s tenure, although the bishop and he were also advised by the architect Juan Gómez de Trasmonte in charge of the Mexico City Cathedral project.37

122 The Bishop and his cathedral

Figure 4.3 A view of the Altar de los Reyes at Puebla Cathedral, c. 1649, by Pedro García Ferrer, with important modifications in the early nineteenth century by José Manzo.

The baldachin, also designed by García Ferrer, only survives in a description provided by Tamariz de Carmona, the author of the cathedral’s consecration ceremony cited earlier. Thanks to his description, Joaquín Lorda carried out a hypothetical reconstruction that highlights the unusual trait of having had four altars, one on each side, and it was dedicated to the Virgin of the Holy Conception, too, as was the retable. This way, the baldachin established a theological dialogue with the Altar de los Reyes. Lorda also believed Puebla’s baldachin, probably influenced by the baldachin at San Isidro’s Chapel in the Church of San Andrés, in Madrid, also featured Solomonic columns, just like its Madrid counterpart did. In that sense, it is relevant to cite how Palafox viewed his cathedral as an artifact resonant with the notion of Solomon’s Temple as representative of an idealized architecture revealed by God, a popular topic in the Hispanic world, and exemplified by the treatise of Juan Bautista Villalpando and Jerónimo de Prado, In Ezechielem explanations, et apparatus Urbis ac temple Hierosolymitani (Rome, 1604), dedicated to reconstructing the Temple of Solomon.38 In that

The Bishop and his cathedral

123

sense, Palafox’s cathedral continued to perpetuate the notion of Puebla as the embodiment of a city that resonated with the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, Bishop of Puebla de Los Ángeles How Juan de Palafox y Mendoza came to occupy Puebla de los Ángeles’ Bishopric see is a compelling story. He was born in Fitero, a small town in Navarra, northern Spain, on January 24, 1600,39 the son of an Aragonese nobleman. He studied Canonical Law at the Universities of Alcalá de Henares and Salamanca, graduating in 1620 and occupying a post in the Aragonese Courts or Cortes de Monzón, the regional parliament for the Kingdom of Aragon, in 1626. In 1629, he was appointed, for a brief sojourn, a jurist in the Council of the Indies and in that same year, Gaspar Guzmán, the Count-Duke of Olivares (1587–1645), Philip IV’s principal minister, or valido (a term for a favorite minister in early modern Spain), appointed Palafox as Chaplain to Maria of Austria, Holy Roman Empress (1528–1603), daughter of Emperor Charles V. In July 1633, Palafox rejoined his post at the Council of the Indies as a jurist and was quickly promoted to a councilor. Palafox’s post as a jurist at the Council of the Indies served as a platform for his subsequent appointment as Bishop of Puebla de los Ángeles. In order to understand Palafox as an architectural patron of Puebla, it is vital to understand that his political philosophy regarding the reform of temporal and secular powers in his diocese hinged on one basic idea: the appropriateness of the Church’s role in establishing a political, ethical, and moral leadership and mandate in a society. For Palafox, the idea that each sector of society occupied a specific role was central to the conceptualization of political and religious normative roles and society’s shaping through them. These ideas are contained in his work Manual de estados y profesiones (A Manual of States and Professions), published in 1762. In this text, Palafox runs through a whole catalog of societal groups, both civilian and ecclesiastical, ascribing to them what he considered to be their responsibilities and duties to society at large.40 Palafox placed a great deal of responsibility on the highest society members, ecclesiastical and civil servants, and oligarchs.41 When it came to the clergy, Palafox recognized that as representatives of God on Earth, all priests carried great responsibility, but a bishop carried, consequently, even more, as the souls of all of his brethren were under his direct care.42 Palafox deemed the bishop’s role to be one of a caretaker of souls and as a leader, a “channel” for both temporal and spiritual goods.43 When discussing the role of nobility in society, the bishop believed they were “born to rule” and therefore had to be well-educated and honorific at all costs.44 Of the common people, or súbditos or subjects, as he addresses them, Palafox reserves a series of somewhat paternalistic considerations and assigns to the bulk of the population the responsibility of obeying the law,

124 The Bishop and his cathedral because, as he states, “in adherence and fulfillment of the laws, one finds all the virtues of professions and states.”45 Palafox was fond of comparing the human body to the corpus of society. As Palafox stated: From the head, according to the physicians, all ills come down into the body. The clerics are the spiritual head of the seculars. While the secular superiors are temporal heads of the subjects. . . . Now, what would happen to the body if when the head ordered the hand to bring food to the mouth, the sustenance of it all, the hand would not obey the head?46 Given the importance Palafox assigns to the Church’s governance – the “head” – it is not surprising that his most important architectural enterprise was Puebla Cathedral, given that the cathedral played the role of a city’s most loaded symbolic edification in the Hispanic world of the early modern period. The cathedral is an emblematic building that expresses and represents the city as a whole, and in the distribution of its architectural program, it encapsulated the city’s body politic in its order and hierarchy. First, the cathedral stands at the heart of the city, in clear architectural dialogue with secular power institutions – namely, the city hall – which flanks the main square, the most important public space in the city. The cathedral’s interior program provided space for all of the city’s representatives: the presbytery was reserved for the highest secular authorities, members of the city council, and other civil authorities. The choir housed the bishop’s see, together with the rest of the cathedral council. The lateral chapels were regional expressions of cultural piety, and they could even be said to concretize the city’s economic dynamics, having been sponsored by local confraternities and corporations.47 The interior architectural layout allowed processional rituals to be carried out along the length of the nave, passing by the apse and back down the nave before exiting to the atrium, which acted as a connector between the interior and exterior sacred space, and outward to the rest of the city’s urban space (see Figure 4.1, the cathedral’s aerial view). In a pastoral letter addressed to the city, the cathedral’s Council, and the bulk of the populace, and written upon the cathedral’s consecration in 1649, Bishop Palafox adeptly traces for his brethren the original meaning of a temple, invoking the biblical passage of Jacob’s Ladder – popular and oft-cited in cases of the consecration of temples – drawn from the Book of Genesis. A seminal part of the passage relates the enabling and creation of sacred architectural space, as Jacob creates an altar by consecrating a stone.48 In that same pastoral letter, he employs the biblical passage of Jacob’s Ladder to introduce one of his most important political ideas: regionalism. Palafox thought that he could contribute and guarantee the Spanish Empire’s unification and prosperity by promoting this concept.49 Palafox communicated to his poblano (Pueblan) brethren the message of regionalism through the notion of belonging to the land, a seminal part of Jacob’s passage: “And the Lord stood beside him and said, ‘I am the Lord,

The Bishop and his cathedral

125

Figure 4.4 The façade of Puebla Cathedral, latter part of the seventeenth century. Source: Courtesy of Rubén Olvera.

the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and your offspring.’”50 In effect, Palafox’s ultimate architectural endeavor, the consecration of Puebla Cathedral, marked poblano society’s definitive claim to the land. The bishop’s sermon enlarged the idea of regional identification and pride, in other words, to the concept of the patria chica. Indeed, the construction and consecration of a cathedral building, particularly in the New World, signals the triumph of Christian doctrine. The consecration of the most sophisticated cathedral in New Spain at the time signaled the definitive establishment, the culmination of a veritable Christian Republic. This Christian Republic, as a concept, is clarified in the sermon contained in Palafox’s pastoral letter in which the bishop declares to his congregation that upon the consecration of the temple, the land around it would be divinely granted to them and that their descendants would inherit that land as well.51 In this way, Palafox identified both promises that a temple can deliver to its builders: one, the linkage to heaven, the building becoming the passageway to the divine. Second, the establishing of a world, in this case, the ideal Christian Republic, in which poblano society could find its harmony and prosperity, as long as it acknowledged the rule of God, the King, its Bishops, and its ruling class.52

Palafox and his patronage of social-assistance institutions Besides the consecration of Puebla Cathedral, an act of enormous politicalreligious assertion, Palafox also sought to strengthen the city’s social institutions.

126 The Bishop and his cathedral For him, the bishop was the caretaker of his brethren, and in his writings, he asserted that his subjects’ spiritual and physical health was his direct responsibility. In a pastoral letter written in 1658 and titled “Ezekiel’s Trumpet,” or La trompeta de Ezequiel, based on the biblical passage of Ezekiel 33, 1–9, which compares the prophet to a guard or sentinel for the City of Jerusalem, Palafox observed his role as bishop in close parallel to Ezekiel’s personification of a sentinel.53 Today, charitable institutions are thought of as a governmental or secular responsibility. However, in the early modern Hispanic world, social assistance was a duty entrusted to the Church, which worked in tandem, in certain instances, with secular authorities to fulfill the social need of establishing and maintaining hospitals, mental institutions, hospices, and other social institutions. In early modern Catholic nations, hospitals were, by convention, a religious concern. The Council of Trent (1545–1563) established that “the places commonly called hospitals, or other pious places [were] instituted especially for the use of pilgrims, of the infirm, the aged, or the poor,”54 and these were institutions inscribed in Catholic principles: “Those who cherish hospitality receive Christ in (the person of) their guests.”55 The Council also established that hospitals or other charitable institutions, whether created by private or ecclesiastical interests, had to be placed under the care and rule of the bishop: “The bishop shall take care that what is ordained be observed, or, if that be not possible, he shall as above, regulate the matter in a useful manner.”56 This meant that the bishops would oversee the budgets of any hospital in their bishopric.57

San Pedro hospital In New Spain, consistent with the Tridentine precepts of episcopal rule over charitable institutions, the Archbishopric of Mexico had established, at the outset, a scheme dedicating a fixed amount of its tithes to the construction and maintenance of an episcopal hospital, and sometime around 1545, the Royal Hospital of San Pedro was founded in Puebla by the Cathedral Chapter and by decree of Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza.58 For the following three centuries, San Pedro Hospital would become, as Escamilla González asserted, one of Puebla’s Bishopric’s leading political and social projects.59 In fact, since the sixteenth century, the Tlaxcala–Puebla Diocese had struggled to force its rival religious and secular institutions to relinquish control over health institutions. The subject of its efforts was, on the one hand, the three mendicant orders in charge of hospitals for Indigenous peoples – the Franciscans, Dominicans, and Augustinians – and, on the other hand, the city council, responsible for Puebla’s second hospital, the San Juan de Letrán Hospital. Bishop Palafox not only managed to take control over San Juan de Letrán but he also succeeded in completely remodeling and reinvigorating San Pedro Hospital in both architectural and administrative terms. Palafox’s reforms included strengthening the hospital’s Council and instituting the

The Bishop and his cathedral

127

Congregación (Congregation) of San Pedro, a confraternity of high-ranking secular clerics, among them members of Puebla’s Cathedral Chapter. At the same time, Palafox provided the confraternity with a new charter. He planned to elevate the confraternity’s intellectual, ethical, and moral level.60 In his address to the congregation, Palafox raised the concept of charity from an Aquinian perspective. Based on theological principles, charity is one of Christianity’s highest virtues. The notion of caritas (charity) links to the act of assisting the needy, the poor, and the sick. This he clarified to the members of the San Pedro Congregation in the following terms: “Charity I call divine love, which is what gives us and administers this inferior charity and sacred love of creatures to take them to God.”61 Besides strengthening the hospital’s administrative structure, Palafox contributed enormously to its architectural fabric. Around 1570, a report by the standing bishop and city council had described the hospital building as built “on flimsy ground and lean edifices”; in other words, it was a collection of poorly constructed barracks.62 However, after a series of interventions and improvements, by the end of the viceregal period, San Pedro Hospital represented one of the most sophisticated buildings dedicated to medicine and healthcare in the City of Puebla and the whole viceroyalty. In effect, Palafox’s tenure represented the beginning of an era of significant improvement and transformation for the building. From an architectural perspective, San Pedro Hospital was an architectural complex that possessed the hospital grounds and a church building attached to it to the south. The hospital’s architectural layout is a cruciform shape that splits the complex into four sections (see Figure 4.5).

Figure 4.5 An aerial view of San Pedro Hospital, Puebla. Source: Courtesy of Rubén Olvera.

128 The Bishop and his cathedral The cross is, in effect, two very long wards (the longest, which runs northsouth, is approximately 85 m (290 feet) in length) that intersect at their middle points, where the transept is marked on the upper floor by a dome. The southeast quarter is articulated by a strikingly large square courtyard, some 20 m (65 ft.) per side, that also connects the building to the street through its main portal. The cruciform ward was a common typology in late medieval and early modern hospitals, exemplified by the famed Ospedale Maggiore of Milan by Filarete (1456), and in the Spanish world by the Hospital of the Holy Cross in Toledo (1504–1515), one of the first Renaissance buildings in Spain. The cruciform model allowed for more efficient surveillance by the staff stationed at the cross’s center, and it was where mass was conducted. Furthermore, one ward was exclusively for males and the other ward for females, a change introduced during Palafox’s tenure, as he turned the San Juan de Letrán Hospital, formerly a women’s hospital, into a female orphanage, transferring female patient care to San Pedro Hospital. The hospital’s grand courtyard articulated a two-storied arcaded cloister, whose half-arches were supported by robust Doric columns built toward the beginning of the seventeenth century. In 1998, archaeological excavations found several mass graves along the courtyard’s western wing, as bodies were buried there when several epidemics in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries struck the city. In turn, the wards were organized by types of disease and ailment, so that traumatology patients, for instance, were separated from those with ailments that were considered infectious diseases, or “malignant fevers” as an eighteenth-century chronicler described them, in order to avoid contagion.63 Although detailed documentation of Palafox’s architectural contribution to the hospital is limited, he wrote of having created a labor and maternity wing. Besides, he has been credited with remodeling the hospital’s façades in the traditional seventeenth-century poblano style of red brick, herringbone-patterned finish, with white stuccoed jambs, cornices, and architraves.64 However, the hospital reached its splendor more than a century after Palafox left Puebla. By the late 1700s, the hospital was characterized by an austere series of long, tall, vaulted wards intended to promote air circulation. A series of domes with pierced lanterns on the roof of the hospital’s wards also facilitated the natural flow of air and light, an architectural feature promoted by the acceptance, at this time, of the capacity of diseases to spread via air. Finally, the addition of twin wards in its northwestern quadrant, the completion of the present state of the church building, and a state-of-the-art pharmacy, marked the hospital’s grandest moment in the 1790s. However, Palafox’s critical contributions should be considered to have begun the hospital’s transformation into one of the most important and advanced healthcare institutions in New Spain.

The Bishop and his cathedral

129

The project for the Tridentine Seminary Complex of the City of Puebla: the colleges of San Juan Evangelista, San Pedro, and San Pablo Practically since its founding, Puebla de los Ángeles possessed important higher education institutions. In 1578, the Jesuits established their second college in New Spanish territory, the Colegio del Espíritu Santo (College of the Holy Spirit).65 Not long after, at the break of the seventeenth century, the Bishop of the Puebla–Tlaxcala Diocese, Diego Romano y Gobea (tenure: 1578–1606), and the influential cleric Juan de Larios founded the Colegio de San Juan Evangelista or College of Saint John Evangelist. That institution was derived from Tridentine precepts on diocesan spiritual and pastoral education, later ratified by the Third Provincial Mexican Council of 1585.66 According to the college’s foundational charter, the students who aspired to gain acceptance into the college had to be of a low-income background, had to fulfill all requirements for eventual ordination into the priesthood, and had to serve in one of the cathedral’s ministries, such as the choir, the altar services, or others, as necessary.67 The Colegio de San Juan Evangelista maintained a modest profile in terms of its body of students and infrastructure until the arrival of Bishop Palafox to Puebla. At that point, the bishop undertook the administrative and architectural renovation of the college and, more importantly, he saw the opportunity to incorporate this college into a more massive, more ambitious, and betterorganized project for a regal seminary that occupied a whole urban block in the city’s central core.68 The bishop’s zeal regarding diocesan rule over other ecclesiastical corporations and Tridentine canons’ firm observance were the central elements sealing his determination to create a grand seminary and college complex that would indelibly mark the intellectual history of the city. A good instance of the bishop’s sentiments regarding pastoral objectives is found in a treatise written in 1646, entitled “Pastoral Directions,” in which Palafox clearly states the critical role that a well-trained army of clerics would play in establishing and maintaining diocesan rule over the rest of the ecclesiastical congregations operating in his diocese.69 The power struggle between the bishopric and the mendicant orders would be a central issue during the New Spanish seventeenth century, in light of the power structures the mendicant orders had built since their arrival in New Spain. Palafox mistrusted the regular clergy (a point he repeatedly stresses in his treatise) and aimed explicitly at forming a diocesan clergy army to make them the bishop’s closest and most reliable allies. To this effect, he stressed the importance of their quality education and training: “procuring their perfection and exemplary nature.”70 The Colegio de San Pedro stood out from other important educational institutions in Puebla regarding its intellectual and educational statutes, students’ profiles, and curriculum. In stark contrast to Jesuit education, which catered to the children of wealthy criollos and Spaniards, with the occasional Indigenous or mestizo

130 The Bishop and his cathedral student who received a stipend or scholarship to attend their prestigious institution, Palafox set up his educational institution to cater to the dispossessed, the poor, and perhaps more importantly, to young Indigenous boys and men. When Bishop Palafox officially founded the Colleges of San Pedro and San Pablo, he notified Pope Innocent X, and the hierarch signaled his approval in a bull dated May 22, 1648, titled Supremi Nostri Apostolatus (Our Superior Apostolate). The papal bull established that the seminary would be located in a dedicated building next to the city’s cathedral (see Figure 4.6).71 The bull also states how the students would preferably be of Indigenous origin, stating the need for them to be multilingual and stipulating that speaking Nahuatl, the linguam Mexicanam, would be a minimal qualification.72 The issue of educating an array of multilingual priests appears to have been central to Palafox and evidences his interest in strengthening ties with the Indigenous communities near the city and his diocese.73 Architecturally, the seminary complex complemented and reinforced a stylistic construction tradition representative of Puebla at that time. It contributed, conclusively, to the city’s assemblage of ecclesiastical buildings, since it was situated next to the massive cathedral building and completed a striking architectural arrangement. Bishop Palafox was responsible for providing the seminary complex – except for the Colegio de San Pantaleón, built around the mid-eighteenth century – with the architectural character it still displays today.74 A view from the intersection of present-day 5 Oriente Street and 16 de Septiembre Street, looking east, will reveal an extraordinarily cohesive urban streetscape highlighted by architectural uniformity and unity in the succession of buildings that comprise the entire block (see Figure 4.7). The

Figure 4.6 A map of Puebla’s historical center highlights Palafox’s primary architectural sponsorships. Source: Google Maps.

The Bishop and his cathedral

131

Figure 4.7 A view of the Tridentine Seminary, sponsored by Bishop Juan de Palafox during the 1640s, Puebla. Source: Courtesy of Rubén Olvera.

block displays, in this order, the façades of Episcopal House, the bishop’s residential palace, the entrance to Colegio de San Juan Evangelista, then the Colegio de San Pedro, and finally, at the intersection of the 5 Oriente and 2 Sur Streets, stands the Colegio de San Pantaleón, the last element to the seminary complex that Palafox never saw completed. Palafox’s architectural intervention began with the remodeling and expanding of the Episcopal Palace upon his arrival in New Spain in 1640. The newly appointed bishop modified the building’s spatial configuration, providing it with larger living quarters and an elegant courtyard with a water fountain at its center, which he made accessible to the public. (It is useful to point out that public water fountains scattered throughout the city provided the bulk of the population with access to potable water while having a water fountain in a building generated a special tax that only wealthy citizens could pay for.)75 Palafox also had direct access from the Episcopal Palace to the Colegio de San Juan Evangelista, a connection that was established for practical purposes, and he had the building’s façade remodeled in its still-extant style: red clay bricks arranged in a herringbone pattern, interspersed with glazed ceramic tiles, a popular and well-known poblano product better known as Talavera.76 Unlike the Episcopal Palace, the Colegio de San Pedro constituted an entirely new construction project, built on Palafox’s instructions, with the

132 The Bishop and his cathedral works directed by Pedro García Ferrer.77 The Colegio de San Pedro possesses a simple layout; it was built in two levels – like the rest of the seminary complex – and in a very cohesive manner, with each architectural complex, or college, following a logical spatial arrangement around courtyards. In the Colegio de San Pedro, the whole building possesses a refined simplicity in the layout of its halls and the frugal elegance of its finishes. The courtyard is lined on the lower floor with a series of carved stone columns in a robust Doric style, supporting a series of round arches of a smoothly rendered finish. The courtyard’s upper floor has a series of masonry pillars, all finished with the same smooth render. Of particular note is the Colegio de San Pedro’s façade because of its more intricate ornamentation. The college entrance, the jambs, and the lintel are distinguished by the stone-carved frame with a floral arrangement, and above the lintel, an inscription celebrates the college’s foundation. The next level of the façade has a balcony that is also elegantly framed with carved floral patterns, and two shields flank the balcony: that of Palafox’s Bishopric and his family crest. Above the balcony, a niche displays a sculpture representing Saint Peter, comfortably placed in the middle of a broken pediment. The Colegio de San Pedro’s architectural configuration is of particular interest since it was built on the bishop’s direct orders and completed within his tenure, unlike the cathedral. In other cases, Palafox’s architectural taste is difficult to interpret since many of his sponsored buildings have been extensively modified. However, the Colegio de San Pedro clearly reveals Palafox’s and Pedro García Ferrer’s sensibilities in architecture and architectural ornamentation; it is, for all accounts and purposes, measured, elegant, and pragmatic in its spatial configuration.

Bishop Palafox and the Indigenous parishes and shrines in the Puebla–Tlaxcala Diocese Perhaps the least studied and understood aspect of Bishop Palafox’s social and cultural influence in the City of Puebla’s history and its surrounding territories (demarcated in the seventeenth century by the diocese’s administrative limits) is the relationship between the bishop and his Indigenous devotees. As noted earlier, when Palafox challenged the regular clergy in 1640, the repercussions were varied, but the principal effect was to breach the gap between the diocese and the Indigenous parishes, both in the city proper and its surrounding territories. The mendicant missionaries were suddenly removed from their parishes because of the diocesan anxiety over exercising its authority. In this context, Palafox had to replace the mendicant friars with his diocesan priests, and in many cases, he had to have new parish churches built to replace the mendicant’s architectural complexes and temples, given that mendicant orders would never allow the secular clergy to occupy them. In the City of Puebla, he undertook the construction of new parishes in

The Bishop and his cathedral

133

the peripheral Indigenous barrios (neighborhoods).78 An important reason why the construction of church parishes in Indigenous barrios and towns during Palafox’s Bishopric has not been studied in much detail is that the Diocesan Archive of Puebla has not been opened nor properly cataloged by researchers.79 The Diocesan Archive is presumed by some historians, such as Montserrat Galí, to hold the key to understanding Palafox’s actions regarding the construction and patronage of the many parishes and altarpieces he claimed to have built.80 Indeed, Palafox – during his nine-year tenure – claimed at some point to have been responsible for the creation of more than forty-four church buildings, various shrines, and over one hundred altarpieces in an apologetic text written after Palafox’s removal from his post.81 While it is difficult to ascertain whether Palafox was indeed responsible for the construction of fortysomething church buildings due to the lack of primary sources to clarify his claims, the presence of alternative sources of documentation, such as notarial certificates or contemporary chronicle accounts, has aided in determining his involvement in the construction of individual buildings, particularly Indigenous church parishes. These include the Parish Church of San Pedro Cholula; the urban parish of the barrio of Xonaca, an Indigenous neighborhood in the City of Puebla; and the San Miguel del Milagro Shrine, close to the town of Nativitas, in Tlaxcala, 32 km (20 miles) to the northwest of Puebla.82 All these architectural projects – sponsored or promoted by Bishop Palafox – were located in Indigenous communities, which is by no means coincidental. In the words of Álvarez de Toledo, Palafox was attempting “a successful ethnic integration of the Indigenous groups in his diocese” as a central part of his socioreligious project.83 In fact, Palafox authored a short treatise on the “nature” of the Indigenous peoples of New Spain, titled De la naturaleza y virtudes del indio (On the Nature and Virtues of the Indian).84 The treatise must have been written shortly after 1649, once he found himself back in Spain.85 One reason Palafox’s treatise stands out in the literature produced by Europeans regarding the Indigenous condition in New Spain is its optimism regarding native peoples’ evangelization. During the first years of their evangelization campaigns, the mendicant missionaries were generally optimistic regarding the natives’ potential to become exemplary Christians. Toward the midseventeenth century, however, this attitude shifted to pessimism regarding the natives’ abilities to renounce their religious beliefs.86 Juan de Palafox’s treatise runs counter to that tendency, stressing the native peoples’ acceptance of the Christian faith, and he blames the persistence of “idolatrous” beliefs on the lack of ministers and the lack of effective teaching of the Catholic faith.87 Furthermore, a crucial tenet of Palafox’s interpretation of the Indigenous communities’ role in the bishop’s ambitious socioreligious project – that is, the articulation of the ideal Christian Republic in Puebla – is linked to how Palafox believes in the Indigenous peoples’ aptitude for the intellectual arts.88

134 The Bishop and his cathedral While the mendicant friars had, by the seventeenth century, conceded that Indigenous men and women should, in general, be barred from joining the ranks of the regular clergy, Palafox went to great lengths to make sure that native youths had access to education and the diocesan priesthood.89 The recognition of the natives’ suitability and superlative appropriateness for all kinds of crafts and labor was not gratuitous. It must be noted that despite the laudatory tone Palafox employed to describe the Indigenous condition in his treatise, Palafox was far from displaying the interest that the outstanding sixteenth-century Franciscan missionary-scholars, such as Toribio de Benavente, Gerónimo de Mendieta, Diego de Valadés, or Bernardino de Sahagún, showed toward native cultures. These missionaries’ interests, in the form of profound investigations into the Indigenous peoples’ cultural practices, have been passed down to us in the form of treatises and chronicles. Palafox, on the other hand, never appeared to be interested in the cultural practices of the native peoples – before the Conquest – at all. What sets his vision of the Indigenous condition apart from the sixteenth century’s great missionaries is the notion that the Indigenous peoples of his diocese and throughout New Spain were a valuable source of labor for viceregal industry, just as they were fit to be loyal servants to both the Spanish Crown and the Church. Indeed, Palafox interprets and elaborates on the Indigenous condition only in terms of the Indigenous peoples’ status as Christian converts, while their pre-Hispanic past, in contrast, an undesirable condition, was transcended only thanks to their – successful – conversion to Christianity.90 This curious blindness to cultural difference while championing equality is, if anything, a sign of the modernity of his social and political project. Palafox considered the native peoples to be very resourceful and able in intellectual activities and the mechanical arts. However, the bishop also insisted on praising and stressing their hardworking and obedient nature. This view contrasted with the misrepresentations that had formed surrounding the figure of the native, widely disseminated in the mid-seventeenth century, which included notions of alleged pusillanimity, weakness, and cowardice.91 Palafox consistently counters these commonplaces, defending the natives’ valor, predisposition for hard work, and industriousness, but he does so to edify the figure of the Indigenous subject as a commodity of sorts and from a highly paternalistic stance. The bishop pictured the native population as an obedient, loyal, able, and hardworking subject, worthy of consideration only in direct proportionality to its value for the kingdom’s economic and social well-being.92 Palafox procured the administration of various Indigenous parishes on the periphery of the city, where the bulk of the Indigenous population began settling in a series of barrios shortly after Puebla’s foundation. The administration of pastoral activities in these barrios during the sixteenth century was similar to that of the repúblicas de indios (majority-Indigenous settlements); in other words, in the City of Puebla, as in the Indigenous towns, the peripheral parishes were initially administered by the mendicant clergy.93 As part of his general scheme regarding the procurement of the administrative

The Bishop and his cathedral

135

and doctrinal rights over Indigenous parishes, Palafox seized various urban churches from the regular clergy. The Parish Church of the barrio of Santiago de Cholultecapan, west of the main square, fell within the administrative area assigned to the Dominican friars and was seized from them by Palafox in 1640 (see Figure 4.9).94 On the other side of the city, and across the San Francisco River, the Indian barrios of Analco and El Alto had been administered by the Franciscan priests since the early origins of the city, as their conventual complex was in the vicinity. Bishop Palafox procured the doctrinal and pastoral administration of the Analco, San Juan del Río, Xonaca, and El Alto or Santa Cruz Churches, incorporating them into the diocese in 1640.95 An example of Palafox’s architectural patronage is the Parish Church building of the Indigenous barrio of Xonaca in the city’s northeast periphery. The façade of that building, its most appealing element, remodeled in 1642, has a central body made of dark gray basaltic stone, similar to that of the cathedral. According to Manuel Toussaint, the design’s author was García Ferrer, Palafox’s preferred sculptor and painter.96 Its gate, flanked by sober Doric, fluted pilasters, displays sculpted angels in the spandrels and a frieze decorated with vegetative motifs. The upper body of the façade contains a choir window framed with Mannerist, rusticated ashlars. The atrium’s entrance gate, which is even more sober in its Classicism, is of similar craftsmanship (see Figure 4.8).

Figure 4.8 A view of Xonaca Parish Church’s gate. The Church’s gate and façade are attributed to Pedro García Ferrer and sponsored by Bishop Palafox. Source: Courtesy of Rubén Olvera.

136 The Bishop and his cathedral

Figure 4.9 Façade of Santiago Parish Church, an Indigenous barrio, sponsored by Bishop Juan de Palafox. Source: Courtesy of Rubén Olvera.

Given his administrative and architectural actions, it is apparent that Palafox believed the way to integrate the Indigenous communities into his diocese was through the ministering of pastoral activities and by sponsoring architectural works. By deploying a small army of well-prepared clergymen to the city’s peripheral barrios and improving the physical state of the parishes, he sought to propagate the doctrines necessary to try to integrate the native communities into Puebla’s societal apparatus – under his terms. Procuring the Indigenous barrios in the city’s periphery and the parishes in repúblicas de indios in the surrounding diocesan parishes proved to be a task that was essential to the successful articulation of his ideal Christian Republic.

The San Miguel del Milagro Shrine Besides seizing parishes in Indigenous communities that were formerly under mendicant administration, Palafox actively practiced the promotion and

The Bishop and his cathedral

137

sponsoring of important Indigenous religious sites, such as the San Miguel del Milagro Shrine. The story of this site begins before Palafox arrives in New Spain. On April 25, 1631, a young Indigenous man named Diego Lázaro de San Francisco was purportedly the witness of an apparition of the Archangel Saint Michael. The extraordinary event occurred on the outskirts of a town named Santa María Nativitas, some 32 km (20 miles) to the northeast of the City of Puebla, and in the heart of the Puebla–Tlaxcala Diocese.97 A chronicle of the details surrounding these events was written by a Jesuit priest named Francisco de Florencia (1619–1695) in 1692.98 Florencia recounted in his chronicle that the Archangel Saint Michael appeared before Diego Lázaro.99 The archangel ordered the young man to communicate to the region’s inhabitants that in a ravine nearby, there was a fountain of miraculous water that healed anybody who drank from it.100 Diego Lázaro paid no heed to the apparition, and after recovering from the disease known as cocoliztli, a viral hemorrhagic fever that greatly afflicted people of native origin, causing epidemics throughout the viceregal period, Diego Lázaro received a second visit from the archangel, who took him to the ravine. Once there, according to legend, the archangel touched the ground with a staff of gold, thereby marking the site of the miraculous water spring.101 Shortly after the apparition, as soon as the news of the events spread, the locals began visiting the spring, crediting its water with miraculous properties. They dug a small cove out of the ravine’s slope, placed images of saints, and offered flowers and burning incense to the spring.102 The diocese, headed by Bishop Bernardo de Quirós (tenure: 1627–1638), sent a representative to investigate the situation. The envoy, Alonso de Herrera, testified to the water’s miraculous properties, the veracity and sanctity of Saint Michael’s apparitions, and declared the site as holy ground.103 From an architectural perspective, the diocese failed to adapt the site or improve it to accommodate the rapidly growing number of visitors. Florencia reports that at first, a small and modest shrine replaced the dugout cove or cave. It had a thatched roof to shelter the spring itself. When mass was celebrated at the site, the faithful had to stand around the shrine, in very sloped terrain, and the pilgrims that arrived at the place had to improvise their lodgings, many sleeping in human-made caves in the vicinity.104 Bishop Quirós died in 1638, and his successor Juan de Palafox y Mendoza first visited the site in 1643. Starting then, Palafox went to great lengths to modify the site and build a dignified architectural complex, designed to host a large retinue of pilgrims and honor the location of Saint Michael’s apparition. It is also clear that a great degree of religious hybridity occurred at this site. Maria Rodríguez-Shadow and Robert Shadow claim this is a site where “popular religiosity” – a term they employ to represent a mixture of preHispanic religious expressions and popular Spanish Catholicism – is manifested.105 It is important to note that the apparitions’ site was, before the arrival of the Spaniards, already a sacred site for the local inhabitants. Florencia noted that the ravine was “a place of demonic adoration prior to the

138 The Bishop and his cathedral archangel’s apparitions.”106 Contemporary archaeological evidence suggests that the area’s Indigenous peoples rendered adoration to the pre-Columbian deity Camaxtle, a warrior–hunter god, who was readily replaced by the warrior archangel in the seventeenth century.107 An essential characteristic of popular religiosity expressed by the Indigenous peoples during the viceregal period was, apparently, its pragmatic dimension.108 That is to say that the faithful carried out certain ritual practices to gain what we may consider practical benefits, such as health, work, and material or spiritual welfare. They satisfied quotidian needs, as opposed to expressing philosophical beliefs regarding the afterlife.109 Among the rituals required to gain a deity’s favor were pilgrimages, the organization of exuberant festivities, and the structuring of a system of charges or positions – a rotating system in which members of the community assumed roles to carry out specific responsibilities, such as organizing festivities, maintaining the church’s architectural and decorative fit, or managing collective monetary resources.110 This system is quite widespread and active in Indigenous communities throughout Mexico and known as mayordomías. This is a relevant point, given that San Miguel del Milagro, as a religious sanctuary, provided every potential for the continuity of ritual needs for the native inhabitants, with the added benefit of the ecclesiastical authorities’ open and enthusiastic endorsement. Architecturally speaking, the site’s dramatic transformation from its earlyseventeenth-century state should be credited to Palafox. The site’s topography was transformed following the bishop’s instructions. A large, level platform was constructed on the hill’s side at the spring’s site, which required massive earth movements. A visit to the site today still reveals the scope of the works. A series of masonry containment walls retain the inclined natural topography, while below, a large artificial plateau contains the shrine’s site. Palafox built a proper church building and decided to keep the spring outside the temple instead of the early shrine that existed before, which contained the spring in its interior. Instead, Palafox built a small, gracious shrine to shelter the spring. It still displays an alabaster relief showing Saint Michael appearing before Lázaro, planting his staff firmly on the ground and marking the water spring. The shrine is decorated on its exterior walls with ceramic, glazed tiles, and Palafox’s diocesan shield (see Figure 4.10). Palafox’s zeal for the San Miguel del Milagro site was remarkable. He often visited the site, consecrating the church building himself shortly before he left for Spain in 1649, pointing to how the shrine was indicative of his attitude toward the Indigenous members of his diocese. That is, architectural works such as these provided Indigenous communities with dignified temples of adoration to promote their inherent piety. Furthermore, in accommodating spiritual needs, such sites propitiated the societal roles expected from the native population, namely, a propensity and willingness to engage in labor, obedience, loyalty, and piousness, just as Palafox’s extensive writings advocate. As with Puebla Cathedral, whose goal was the sealing of a

The Bishop and his cathedral

139

Figure 4.10 A view of the San Miguel del Milagro Shrine, sponsored by Bishop Juan de Palafox, Nativitas, Tlaxcala, Mexico. Source: Wikimedia Commons, Isaacvp, CC BY-SA 4.0.

sacred bond between all strata of poblano society, from the Spanish and criollo aristocracy to the Indigenous communities of the city, the establishment of the sanctuary at San Miguel del Milagro – and for that matter, all parish churches reclaimed, built, or reinvigorated by Palafox and his diocese administration – aimed to seal a pact between the Indigenous communities and the diocese that would, in parallel with their faith, propitiate the values expected of them as a community.

Epilogue: Palafox’s vision for the Republic of Puebla The articulation of the ideal Christian Republic was Bishop Juan de Palafox’s ambitious project of reform of the City of Puebla and its outlying sphere of influence – the diocese’s geographical boundaries. By revealing Palafox’s socioreligious philosophy as articulated in his writings, connecting it to his architectural endeavors and offering interpretations of some of his major projects, it becomes evident how every one of his architectural efforts resonated deeply with a specific aspect of his thinking. Palafox’s urban influence might be construed as a subtle one, meaning that his urban intervention was not represented by a massive number of constructions, nor did he alter Puebla’s urban design physically. Rather, his intervention operated at a symbolic level, construing an analogy of an idealized Christian order, one that effectively set a rule and compass for a society with earthly needs but still set on reaching out for spiritual guidance offered by the Church.

140 The Bishop and his cathedral Central elements of Palafox’s philosophy resonate with a range of sacred philosophical traditions at the heart of Christian thinking, including the analogy of the earthly and the heavenly cities. However, the most explicit source of theological–doctrinal thinking in Juan de Palafox’s universe is post-Tridentine Catholicism. Ultimately, as an ecclesiastical hierarch and as a bishop, Palafox realized that the diocesan clergy were effective agents for the moral and political compass of the City of Puebla and its outlying territories. However, architecture was the apparatus through which Palafox was able to promote his moral and political agenda. The diagram labeled as Figure 4.6 serves to illustrate this final point. At the heart of the City of Puebla stands Puebla Cathedral, Palafox’s major ecclesiastical, political, and architectural project; it marks the symbolic center sealing the pact between God, the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and the diverse ethnic groups that made up the city’s population. Next to the cathedral still stands the Tridentine Seminary Complex, representing the perpetuation of diocesan power through the education of their clerical ranks. The San Pedro Hospital embodies Palafox’s exercise of charitable ministry, or caritas, a central tenet of Christian philosophy, and a major political project for the diocese at the time. Finally, and perhaps even more importantly, the Indigenous parishes Palafox seized from the mendicant orders represent his efforts to indoctrinate and add the city’s largest ethnic group to his social project. Bishop Juan de Palafox’s creation of the ideal Christian Republic was a compelling attempt at providing the city with an articulated meaning that was effective in two dimensions: the sociopolitical and the religious. During his tenure of barely nine years, Palafox managed to transform the city’s understanding of itself, departing radically from the symbolism that had been ascribed to it a hundred years previously, namely, the sacred city inspired by a celestial model, a mythology so powerful that it provided a model for the city’s urban and spiritual substance for a century. Palafox’s praxis, both modern (inclusive) and profoundly Catholic (hierarchical and controlling), revitalized the city’s understanding of itself for decades to come.

Notes 1 In a letter written to Philip IV, Palafox described the construction site as abandoned, with the pillars of the building only halfway finished; no arches or vaults had been built; and the construction site was, according to the bishop, occupied by groups of derelicts, outlaws, and homeless people. However, Molero Sañudo has proven the bishop exaggerated and in fact lied about the state of the cathedral construction, as documentation in the Cathedral Council Chapter’s archive describes the building at the time of Palafox’s arrival as having its peripheral walls finished, the lateral chapters vaulted, the apse’s walls and structural arches erected although unvaulted, and the piers stood as far up as the lateral walls. This completely contradicted Palafox’s description of the cathedral’s works in his letter, which claimed the piers were only half-finished and that there was no vaulting or arches finished. See Antonio Molero Sañudo, La catedral de Puebla: historia de su construcción hasta la remodelización neoclásica de José

The Bishop and his cathedral

2 3

4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14

141

Manzo y Jaramillo (Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 2014), 383; Miguel Zerón Zapata y Manuel Fernández de Santa Cruz, La Puebla de los Ángeles en el Siglo XVII: Crónica de la Puebla (Mexico City: Editorial Patria, 1945), 151. Ibid., 151–52. Ibid., “Rogué al Cabildo Eclesiástico también que cuidase en conformidad de la cédula que Vuestra Majestad fué servido de darme al intento con que, añadiendo yo, otros tres mil a los doce, ayudó él con nueve. Con esto se alentó la Ciudad y cuidó por su parte y muchos ciudadanos y eclesiásticos a quien yo hablé y exorté, viendo que se comenzaba, socorrieron muy considerablemente.”, 151. Ibid., “librando luego en mis rentas doce mil pesos para su prosecución por dar ejemplo en los otros.”, 151. Galí Boadella has investigated the iconography and history of the making of the Altar de los Reyes, the main altar screen in Puebla cathedral, designed and built under Palafox’s orders. Lorda has researched the history and the design of Paslafox’s baldachin, replaced in the late eighteenth century by Manuel Tolsá’s neoclassical baldachin that stands today. See: Montserrat Galí Boadella, “Juan de Palafox y el arte. Pintores, arquitectos y otros artífices al servicio de Juan de Palafox,” en Palafox: Iglesia, cultura y Estado en el siglo XVII. Congreso Internacional IV Centenario del Nacimiento de Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza (Pamplona, Spain: Universidad de Navarra, 2000), 367–79; Joaquín Lorda, “Puebla y Madrid: ciprés o baldaquino,” en Palafox: Iglesia, Cultura y Estado en el siglo XVII. Congreso Internacional IV Centenario del Nacimiento de Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza (Pamplona, Spain: Universidad de Navarra, 2001), 427–41. Antonio Tamariz de Carmona, Relación y descripción del templo real de la ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, y su Catedral (Puebla, Mexico: s.n., 1650). Ibid., 22R – 24R. Ibid., 24V – 25R. Tamariz de Carmona, Relación y descripción del templo real de la ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, y su Catedral, 25R, 25V, 26R, 26V, 27R. Ibid., 30R. Ibid., 215. A great deal has been written concerning Juan de Palafox and his confrontations with important political and religious actors in New Spain while he acted as Visitador General and Bishop of Puebla, which even led him to spend a short stint as viceroy of New Spain for five months (from June to November 1642), due to the removal of Viceroy Duke of Escalona from the post and his expulsion to Spain. A few informative contemporary books and essays describing his political actions, particularly his feud with the Jesuits in New Spain, include those by Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo, Ernesto de la Torre Villar, and his twentieth century biographer, Genaro García. Another vital source for understanding Palafox’s political actions in New Spain is Palafox’s own autobiography, titled Vida interior. See Álvarez de Toledo, Juan de Palafox; Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo, Politics and Reform in Spain and Viceregal Mexico: The Life and Thought of Juan de Palafox 1600–1659 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); García, Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza; Palafox y Mendoza, Vida Interior; de la Torre Villar, Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza: Pensador político. Patria chica, literally “little homeland,” was a term employed to refer to a person’s hometown, which was a source of personal pride and regional identity. The term “Christian Republic” has been employed in relation to Bishop Palafox’s tenure before. In that regard, the employment of the term “Christian Ideal Republic” in relation to Palafox’s work and mission in the city of Puebla

142 The Bishop and his cathedral

15

16

17

18

19 20 21

22

23

is indebted to an essay by scholar Dolores Bravo Arriaga. See: María Dolores Bravo Arriaga, “Juan de Palafox y la perfecta integración de la República Cristiana,” en La pluma y el báculo: Juan de Palafox y el mundo hispano del seiscientos, First edition (Puebla, Mexico: Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – BUAP, 2004). The Leyes de Indias, a compilation produced from a series of decrees issued over the course of several decades and then applied to the Spanish possessions in America and Asia, in its Título Quarto, titled “Del patronazgo real de las Indias”, stated: “Que el patronazgo de todas las Indias, sea reservado al Rey, y Corona Real, sin que en todo ni en parte pueda salir de ella. Que no se erija Iglesia, Monasterio, Hospital, lugar por ni Arzobispado, Obispado, Dignidad, ó beneficio eclesiástico, sin conocimiento, y presentación del Rey.” (“The patronage of the whole of the Indies shall be reserved for the King and the Royal Crown, the whole and the parts being forbidden from standing outside its scope. No church, monastery, hospital, archbishopric, bishopric, dignity, or ecclesiastical benefit shall be extended without knowledge and authorization from the King.”) See: Rodrigo de Aguiar y Acuña and Juan Francisco Montemayor y Córdoba de Cuenca, Sumarios de la Recopilación General de Leyes de las Indias, First edition (Mexico City: UNAM – Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1994), Título Quarto, Del Patronazgo Real de las Indias, http://biblio.juridicas. unam.mx/libros/libro.htm?l=1379. One document that does reveal Palafox as an architectural dilettante is a letter written to King Philip IV, on May 1, 1646, in which Palafox briefs him on the construction of Puebla’s cathedral. In this document, Palafox employs specialized terminology to carefully describe the cathedral building and its architectural and ornamental elements. As he wrote concerning his role as a bishop: “A bishop’s obligation are as large as his ministry, given he’s the angel of peace, and mediator between God and men, successor of apostles, shepherd of souls, guide of sinners so that they may find the truth.” Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, “Direcciones pastorales,” in Obras del ilustrissimo, excelentissimo, y venerable siervo de Dios Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, vol. IV (Madrid: Imprenta de Don Gabriel Ramírez, 1762), 11. Nancy H. Fee, “Proyecto de magnificencia Trentina: Palafox y el patrocinio de la Catedral de la Puebla de los Ángeles,” in La catedral de Puebla en el arte y la historia, First edition (Puebla, Mexico: Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – BUAP; Arzobispado de Puebla; Gobierno del estado, 1999), 153–76. Diego Muñoz Camargo, Suma y epíloga de toda la descripción de Tlaxcala (Tlaxcala: Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala, Secretaría de Extensión Universitaria y Difusión Cultural, 1994), 210. AGI, Archivo General de Indias, Patronato 191, Ramo 2, México, January 24, 1575, quoted in: Molero Sañudo, La catedral de Puebla: historia de su construcción hasta la remodelización neoclásica de José Manzo y Jaramillo, 219. Hugo Leicht, Las calles de Puebla, Tenth edition (Puebla: Secretaría de Cultura, Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, 2009), 142; Manuel Toussaint, La catedral y las iglesias de Puebla (Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa, 1954), 64; Molero Sañudo, La catedral de Puebla: historia de su construcción hasta la remodelización neoclásica de José Manzo y Jaramillo, 208. Mariano Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado, ed. Efraín Castro Morales, vol. II (Puebla, Mexico: Ediciones Altiplano, 1962), 35–39. Molero Sañudo, La catedral de Puebla: historia de su construcción hasta la remodelización neoclásica de José Manzo y Jaramillo, 89.

The Bishop and his cathedral

143

24 Xacal or jacal comes from the Nahuatl word, zacatl, meaning “reeds.” The term is employed (up to this day in Mexico), metonymically, to designate a cheap or provisional building, as some vernacular native constructions employed reed or hay roofs. 25 ACCP, Archivo del Cabildo Catedralicio de Puebla, Actas de Cabildo, Volume 0, Folios 37V-38R, October 5, 1576, quoted in: Molero Sañudo, 110. 26 ANP, Archivo de Notarías de Puebla, Notaría 4, Juan de Bedoya, Caja 17, 1577, Folios 315R-315V, April 21, 1577. 27 AMP, Archivo Municipal de Puebla, Actas de Cabildo, Volume 7, Document 66, Folio 69V, June 28, 1555. This council minute ratifies Claudio de Arciniega’s merced de vecindad, or certificate of citizenship in the city of Puebla. 28 Molero Sañudo, La catedral de Puebla: historia de su construcción hasta la remodelización neoclásica de José Manzo y Jaramillo, 212–16. 29 ACCP, Archivo del Cabildo Catedralicio de Puebla, Libro de Reales Cédulas y Ejecutorias, 1540–1588, Folio 120R, quoted in: Molero Sañudo, 280. 30 Eduardo Merlo Juárez, José Antonio Quintana Fernández, y Miguel Pavón Rivero, La catedral basílica de la Puebla de los Ángeles, First edition (Puebla, Mexico: UPAEP, 2006), 42. 31 Molero Sañudo, La catedral de Puebla: historia de su construcción hasta la remodelización neoclásica de José Manzo y Jaramillo, 282. 32 Efraín Castro Morales, “Los maestros mayores de la catedral de México,” Artes de México, núm. 182/183 (1975): 140. 33 Merlo Juárez, Quintana Fernández, y Pavón Rivero, La catedral basílica de la Puebla de los Ángeles, 43; Molero Sañudo, La catedral de Puebla: historia de su construcción hasta la remodelización neoclásica de José Manzo y Jaramillo, 325. 34 Merlo Juárez, Quintana Fernández, y Pavón Rivero, La catedral basílica de la Puebla de los Ángeles, 42–43. 35 Antonio Tamariz de Carmona, Relación y descripción del templo real de la ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, y su Catedral (Puebla, Mexico: s.n., 1650), 16–17. 36 Galí Boadella, “Juan de Palafox y el arte. Pintores, arquitectos y otros artífices al servicio de Juan de Palafox”; Merlo Juárez, Quintana Fernández, y Pavón Rivero, La catedral basílica de la Puebla de los Ángeles, 183–211. 37 Elisa Vargaslugo, “Juan de Palafox Y Mendoza Y El Arte Barroco En Puebla,” Palafox : Iglesia, Cultura Y Estado En El Siglo XVII : Congreso Internacional IV Centenario Del Nacimiento de Don Juan de Palafox Y Mendoza, n.d., 357. 38 Martha Fernández, La imagen del Templo de Jerusalén en la Nueva España, First edition, Colección de Arte 52 (Mexico City: UNAM, 2003); Antonio Rubial García, “Los ángeles de Puebla. La larga construcción de una identidad patria,” en Poder civil y catolicismo en México, siglos XVI al XIX (Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas UNAM – Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades BUAP, 2008), 103–28. 39 Genaro García, Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza. Facsimile of original published in 1918. With an introduction by Efraín Castro Morales (Puebla, Mexico: Museo Mexicano, 2011), 15. 40 María Dolores Bravo Arriaga, “Juan de Palafox y la perfecta integración de la República Cristiana,” in La pluma y el báculo: Juan de Palafox y el mundo hispano del seiscientos, First edition (Puebla, Mexico: Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – BUAP, 2004), 191. 41 “En los subditos, hijo mio, cada pecado es un pecado no mas, cada merito es un merito; pero en los Superiores, yá Eclesiasticos, yá seglares, cada pecado suele pesar por muchos pecados.” Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, “Manual de estados

144 The Bishop and his cathedral

42 43 44 45 46

47

48 49

50 51

52 53

54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

y profesiones,” in Obras del ilustrissimo, excelentissimo, y venerable siervo de Dios Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, vol. Tomo V (Madrid: Imprenta de Don Gabriel Ramírez, 1762), 299. “La primera virtud del Obispo ha de ser la vigilancia. No cesemos un punto de procurar las causas de Dios, y el bien de las almas de nuestro cargo.” Ibid., 308. Ibid. Ibid., 338. “En la sujeción, y cumplimiento de las Leyes, se hallan todas las virtudes de los oficios, y estados.” Ibid., 342. De la cabeza, dicen los Fisicos, bajan todos los males al cuerpo. Son los Eclesiasticos Cabeza espiritual de los seglares. Son los Superiores seglares Cabeza temporal de los subditos. [.  .  .] ¿Mira qué sucediera al cuerpo, si quando le ordena la cabeza á la mano que trayga á la boca el alimento que ha de sustentar el todo, no quisiesse obedecer á su cabeza? Ibid., 341, 344. María Leticia Garduño, in an unpublished doctoral thesis, has investigated the complex relationship that existed between the silversmith’s guild and Puebla’s cathedral council, its business relationships, contracts, and patronages. See María Leticia Garduño Pérez, “Un siglo de platería en la Catedral de Puebla a través de sus Inventarios de Alhajas” (Doctoral Thesis, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras – Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2011), 54–58. Genesis 28: 18–22, NRSV. “Palafox consideraba la aplicación de un sistema único de leyes para regiones diversas como impráctico, ineficiente, y contrario a la creación de Dios de una red de regiones variadas e interdependientes.” Nancy H. Fee, “Rey versus reino(s): Palafox y los escudos de la catedral de Puebla,” ed. Montserrat Galí Boadella, trans. Laura Flores, First edition (Puebla, Mexico: Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – BUAP, 2004), 64. Genesis 28: 13, NRSV. “Te dare la tierra sobre que duermes, y dormía sobre la piedra, que significa á Christo, esto es te daré a Iesu Christo, y al Mesías verdadero a ti, y a tu descendencia, y al género humano dare vna eterna piedra sobre que se edifique la Iglesia, su remedio, y redempción, y te hare eterna tu descendencia. No solo (añade) sera esta tierra tuya, sino de tus sucessores.” Ibid., 60V – 62R. Ernesto de la Torre Villar, Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza: Pensador político (Mexico City: UNAM, 1997), 265, http://biblio.juridicas.unam.mx/libros/libro. htm?l=802. “Cuida de todos los hombres de su pueblo, grandes, pequeños, ricos, pobres, presentes, ausentes; amigos, enemigos, deudos, estraños, de todos debes de cuidar, pues son hombres.” Juan Palafox y Mendoza, La Trompeta de Ezequiel: A curas y sacerdotes (facsimilar edition of the 1658 original) (Puebla, Mexico: BUAP, 2012), 17–22. “The Council of Trent: Acts and Sessions,” Session 25, Chapter VIII, accessed October 10, 2015, http://thecounciloftrent.com. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. López de Villaseñor, Cartilla Vieja de la Nobilísima Ciudad de Puebla. Facsimilar edition of the 1781 original, 108–09. Escamilla González, “La caridad episcopal: El Hospital de San Pedro de Puebla en el siglo XVII,” 242. Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, Carta Pastoral a la venerable congregación de San Pedro de la Ciudad de los Angeles (México: Bernardo Calderón, 1640), 2R – 2V. Ibid., 7R – 7V. Luis García Pimentel, Relación de los obispados de Tlaxcala, Michoacán, Oaxaca y otros lugares en el siglo XVI. Manuscrito de la colección del señor Don

The Bishop and his cathedral

63 64

65

66

67 68 69 70 71

72

73

74 75 76

145

Joaquín García Icazbalceta (Mexico City: Casa del Editor, Donceles No. 9, 1904), 1–2. Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado, 1962, II: 532. Eduardo Merlo Juárez, José Antonio Quintana Fernández, and Juan Pablo Salazar Andreu, Palafox: Constructor de La Angelópolis (Puebla, Mexico: UPAEP, 2011), 80. There are counter-narratives. Author Martha Fernández credits instead Bishop Manuel Fernández de Santa Cruz (1637–1699) – famous for his friendship with literary author Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz (1651–1695) and for his architectural endeavors during his tenure as Bishop of Puebla (1677–1699) – with the exterior appearance of San Pedro Hospital. However, there are no primary sources that prove that Fernández de Santa Cruz ordered the remodeling of the façades. What has been proven is that he ordered much of the remodeling works of the Hospital’s interior. See Martha Fernández, Retrato hablado: Diego de la Sierra, un arquitecto barroco en la Nueva España (Mexico City: UNAM, 1986), 88–90. AMP, Libros de Cabildo, Volume 11, document 46, folios 47V, January 5, 1580. See also: Carlos Montero Pantoja, La Arquitectura del Saber: Los Colegios de Puebla 1531–1917 (Puebla, Mexico: BUAP – Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – EyC, 2013), 92–94. Vicente Emilio Maceda Vidal, “Reales Colegios Tridentinos del Obispado de Puebla. San Juan, San Pedro, San Pablo y San Pantaleón, 1596–1862,” in La arquitectura del saber: Los colegios de Puebla 1531–1917, First edition (Puebla, Mexico: BUAP – Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – EyC, 2013), 216–18. Ibid., 223. Ernesto de la Torre Villar and Ramiro Navarro de Anda, El Colegio de San Juan: Centro de formación de la cultura poblana (Puebla, Mexico: Universidad de las Américas – Puebla, 2007), 25. “Direcciones pastorales,” in Obras del ilustrissimo, excelentissimo, y venerable siervo de Dios Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoz, Tomo III. Parte I, 37. Ibid., 37. “Seminarium Clericorum sub invocatione S. Petri Principis Apostolorum assignantes pro illius fabrica, domum sitam prope Ecclesiam Cathedralem inter Episcopale Palatium, & Collegium Sancti Joannis,” Bullarum, privilegiorum ac diplomatum Romanorum Pontificum amplissima collectio . . . A. S. Leone Magno . . . Clementis XII opera. Caroli Cocquelines (Mainardi, 1760), 154. “Quod Collegiales debeant esse Patrimoniales hujus Nostrae Dioecesis; si vero in ea non reperiantur, assume debeant ex nova Hispania, dummodo sint legitimi, & paupers (non exclusis ditionibus) . . . Semper praeferendo Dioecesanos (ut sunt Totonaci, Ottomites, Chocchi, Mistechi, & Thapaneci ratione Ideomatis istarum linguarum), caeteris etiamsi expertis in lingua Mexicana; isti vero, qui callent linguam Mexicanam praeferantur illam ignorantibus.” Ibid. “Para que no faltassen Ministros y sobrassen siempre merecimientos y sujetos en el Clero viendo quanto importa la noticia de las lenguas pues es la llave de la ciencia de estas administraciones . . .” Palafox y Mendoza, Obras del Ilustríssimo, Excelentísimo, y Venerable Siervo de Dios Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, Tomo III. Parte I, 131. Montero Pantoja, La Arquitectura del Saber: Los Colegios de Puebla 1531– 1917, 228. Merlo Juárez, Quintana Fernández, and Salazar Andreu, Palafox: Constructor de La Angelópolis, 84. In honor of a famous production center of a similar product in Spain, the town of Talavera de la Reina, in the province of Castile.

146 The Bishop and his cathedral 77 Galí Boadella, “Juan de Palafox y el arte. Pintores, arquitectos y otros artífices al servicio de Juan de Palafox,” 371; Merlo Juárez, Quintana Fernández, and Pavón Rivero, La catedral basílica de la Puebla de los Ángeles, 46; Vargaslugo, “Juan de Palafox Y Mendoza Y El Arte Barroco En Puebla,” 357. 78 Galí Boadella, “Juan de Palafox y el arte. Pintores, arquitectos y otros artífices al servicio de Juan de Palafox,” 370. 79 In 2012, the diocese announced that it would work toward cataloguing their archive, working in conjunction with a local university and that in turn would eventually lead it to be opened for public consultation. However, there is no indication of when this will actually happen. See: http://blog.udlap.mx/ blog/2012/10/udlapyarquidiocesis/. Accessed on September 2020. 80 Galí Boadella, “Juan de Palafox y el arte. Pintores, arquitectos y otros artífices al servicio de Juan de Palafox,” Galí denounces what many historians and scholars interested in Puebla have for a long time lamented: “Desgraciadamente el Archivo Diocesano del Arzobispado de Puebla no está abierto a la consulta, lo que nos ha impedido avanzar en la identificación de las supuestas cincuenta fundaciones palafoxianas,” 370. 81 “Gran fruto es haberse edificado tantos Templos, que pasan de quarenta y quatro sin otras muchas Ermitas, y mas de cien retablos muy lucidos.” Palafox y Mendoza, Obras del Ilustríssimo, Excelentísimo, y Venerable Siervo de Dios Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, Tomo XI, 263–64. 82 Galí Boadella, “Juan de Palafox y el arte. Pintores, arquitectos y otros artífices al servicio de Juan de Palafox,” 370. 83 Álvarez de Toledo, Juan de Palafox, 129. 84 Contained in Volume X of his Obras. Palafox y Mendoza, Obras del Ilustríssimo, Excelentísimo, y Venerable Siervo de Dios Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, Tomo X, 444. 85 Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, Virtudes del indio, First edition (Puebla, Mexico: BUAP, 2012), this can be inferred from Palafox’s own admission in the treatise’s text, when he writes passages such as: “[Y] unos pocos meses antes de que yo partiese de aquellas provincias,” 24. 86 Rubial García, El paraíso de los elegidos: Una lectura de la historia cultural de Nueva España (1521–1804): the idea that the Mendicant missionaries, toward the end of the sixteenth century, held a general attitude of defeat regarding their efforts to evangelize the natives of New Spain is generally accepted among contemporary historians. For a general description of this phenomenon, see the chapter entitled “La edad dorada de la evangelización y las fortalezas de la fe,” 160–74. 87 Palafox y Mendoza, Virtudes del indio, 22. 88 Ibid., 54. 89 Merrim, The Spectacular City, Mexico, and Colonial Hispanic Literary Culture, 15–16. 90 “Así como estos fidelísimos vasallos de Vuestra Majestad son dignos de su Real amparo por la facilidad y constancia con que recibieron y conservaron la fe . . . por santísimos motivos, y una justa conquista y jurídica acción, para introducir estas almas en la Iglesia y apartarlos de muchas idolatrías y sacrificios humanos y otras barbaridades que les enseñaba el demonio, á quien servían.” Ibid., 25. 91 Cañeque, The King’s Living Image, 80. 92 “Así como los indios son los vasallos que menos han costado á la Corona, no son los que menos la han enriquecido y aumentado. Porque no puede dudarse que muchos de los demás reinos de Vuestra Majestad . . . no igualan ni llegan á la menor parte de los tesoros que en tan breve tiempo ha fructificado la Nueva España.” Palafox y Mendoza, Virtudes del indio, 32, 33, 53. 93 Mariano Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y

The Bishop and his cathedral

147

presente estado, ed. Efraín Castro Morales, vol. II (Puebla, Mexico: Ediciones Altiplano, 1962), 238. 94 Hugo Leicht, Las calles de Puebla, Tenth edition (Puebla: Secretaría de Cultura, Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, 2009), 435. 95 Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado, 1962, II: 251. 96 Manuel Toussaint, La catedral y las iglesias de Puebla (Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa, 1954), 209. 97 José Rojas Garcidueñas, “San Miguel del Milagro,” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas I, no. 4 (1939): 55; María Rodríguez-Shadow and Robert D. Shadow, “La religiosidad popular en el Santuario de San Miguel del Milagro,” Dimensión Antropológica 14 (December 1998), www.dimensionantropologica. inah.gob.mx/?p=1295. 98 Rojas Garcidueñas, “San Miguel del Milagro,” 55. 99 Francisco de Florencia, Narración de la maravillosa aparición que hizo el Arcángel San Miguel a Diego Lázaro de San Francisco, Indio feligrés del Pueblo de S. Bernabé, de la Jurisdicción de Sta. María Natívitas. Fundación del Santuario que llaman S. Miguel del Milagro, de la Fuente Milagrosa (Puebla, Mexico: Colegio Pio de Artes y Oficios, 1898), 15. 100 Ibid., 15–16. 101 Florencia, Narración de la maravillosa aparición que hizo el Arcángel San Miguel a Diego Lázaro de San Francisco, Indio feligrés del Pueblo de S. Bernabé, de la Jurisdicción de Sta. María Natívitas. Fundación del Santuario que llaman S. Miguel del Milagro, de la Fuente Milagrosa, 17–19. 102 Rojas Garcidueñas, “San Miguel del Milagro,” 56; Florencia, Narración de la maravillosa aparición que hizo el Arcángel San Miguel a Diego Lázaro de San Francisco, Indio feligrés del Pueblo de S. Bernabé, de la Jurisdicción de Sta. María Natívitas. Fundación del Santuario que llaman S. Miguel del Milagro, de la Fuente Milagrosa, 30–32. 103 “Terribilis est locus iste. Locus, in cuo, stas, terra sancta est.” Ibid., 33. 104 Ibid., 35–36. 105 Ibid., 66–67. 106 Ibid. 107 Paula Carrizosa,“Presentaron libro de Eduardo Merlo sobre el culto a San Miguel del Milagro,” La Jornade de Oriente, March 12, 2010, www.lajornadadeoriente. com.mx/2010/03/12/puebla/cul616.php. 108 Rodríguez-Shadow and Shadow, “La religiosidad popular en el Santuario de San Miguel del Milagro.” 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid.

5

Decline and splendor Puebla de los Ángeles’ Baroque era (c. 1660s–1790s)

Puebla de los Ángeles experienced a period of architectural richness beginning in the latter part of the seventeenth century, which faded toward the 1790s, marking over a century of remarkable architectural output. Not long after the architectural effervescence waned, the viceroyalty engaged in an armed and political struggle to gain independence from the Spanish Crown (1808–1821), putting an end to New Spain’s viceregal period. A continued stretch of economic growth, which permeated the latter part of the seventeenth century, accompanied the start of that architectural maturity. Contrastingly, the outset of the eighteenth century, inaugurated with the death of King Charles II and the arrival of the Bourbon Dynasty to the Spanish throne, signaled the start of an economic downturn, which might have slowed architectural production but did not interrupt the output of notable works until the latter part of that century. This chapter focuses on providing an overview of Puebla’s most prolific period in its architectural history. It will commence by outlining the city’s historical context, shifting to a discussion on Puebla’s Baroque culture, in order to describe then Puebla’s urban profile based on a detailed, perspectival bird’s eye view of the city from 1754 and then by surveying the city’s architecture produced during this period. The survey will start by tracking the development of religious architecture in the city, examining key works that speak of various architectural approaches in the city and region. It continues by analyzing some residential buildings, a testament to the criollo1 elite’s provincial architectural refinement and tastes. This chapter also highlights how Puebla’s Bishopric, led by outstanding figures such as Manuel Fernández de Santa Cruz (1676–1699) and Francisco Fabián y Fuero (1764– 1773), prominent art and architecture patrons, continued to be instrumental in shaping the city’s artistic and architectural character. The chapter’s final part will analyze the Chapel of El Rosario and the Church of Tonantzintla, representing two of the region’s most accomplished forms of Baroque architecture: the former located in downtown Puebla and the latter in the Indigenous village of Tonantzintla in the municipality of San Andrés Cholula, 17 km (10.5 miles) from downtown Puebla. While El Rosario represented criollo architectural, artistic, and religious sensitivities,

Decline and splendor

149

Tonantzintla embodies an Indigenous community’s vitality responding to hardship and change by resorting to an amalgamation of native and European worldviews expressed through architecture. The chapter’s thread will be the Baroque culture of the Puebla Region, which was the product of various cultural factors: the consolidation of a criollo regional identity, the influence of the Indigenous and mestizo2 communities in the shaping of the city’s built environments, and a global Baroque ethos, which gave form to many cultural traits and aspects of life in Puebla de los Ángeles.

Puebla’s rise and decline in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries During the latter part of the seventeenth century, Puebla was a well-established and wealthy urban center and maintained its status as the viceroyalty’s preeminent agricultural and industrial hub. The city’s extensive manufacturing industry, which the Spanish and criollos had established a century previously, continued to fuel economic growth at this time. The textile factories, known as obrajes, were still employing a significant number of workers by the late seventeenth century.3 Further, Puebla was New Spain’s agricultural powerhouse, to the extent that the region’s prosperous agricultural output – corn, beans, barley, cattle, and especially its massive grain production – was unmatchable.4 Indeed, the city’s wealthy criollos and Spaniards had managed to establish hundreds of haciendas (rural estates) in the city’s hinterland, comprised of the fertile lands of Tepeaca, Atlixco, Huejotzingo, Cholula, and Tecamachalco, exploiting the cheap labor of the native and mestizo populations.5 Further, the city was famed for its pork industry, glass and ceramic ware production, its various wheat mills, and bakeries, which produced and exported industrial quantities of bread and wheat flours to Mexico City, the central lowlands of New Spain (known as the Bajío Region), and, at times of surplus, to the Antilles.6 However, many factors converged that dragged the city into an economic slump as it moved into the eighteenth century. The decline made the city council order a report from a Dominican cleric, Fray Juan de Villa Sánchez, produced in 1746 on the city’s downturn. In his report, he cited five reasons for the city’s decline: the lack of a free market economy (the product of a protectionist policy dictated by the Spanish Crown); high taxes (also dictated by the Spanish authorities in the Iberian Peninsula); the move of the viceregal bureaucracy that administered the azogue (mercury) employed in the mining industry from Puebla to Mexico City, which stripped the city of 10,000 to 12,000 pesos of income; price increases for gambling permits and licenses for pulque7 distribution and sale; and a high crime rate, coupled with what Villa Sánchez termed “laziness and public vice,” much of it due to alcohol abuse.8 On top of the reasons cited by Villa Sánchez, the Puebla Region suffered a change in climatic conditions and droughts that caused a series of bad

150

Decline and splendor

harvests, battering the agricultural sector.9 Furthermore, epidemics, which had hit the city regularly since the sixteenth century, only seemed to ravage poblano society harder during the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, thanks to the deteriorated economic situation. Some particularly severe epidemics occurred during this period: measles and the plague (matlazahuatl) in 1693,10 another calamitous matlazahuatl in 1737,11 and smallpox and the plague in 1761.12 According to Cuenya Mateos, by 1740, Puebla had lost almost 50% of its population due to the epidemics and migration.13 Adding to these misfortunes, the city’s manufacturing industries experienced sharp downturns as they encountered fierce competition from the Bajío Region and due to the Spanish Crown’s decision to cease commerce between New Spain and the Viceroyalty of Perú – a move that was part of the protectionist policy cited earlier.14 The combination of such circumstances was, according to Villa Sánchez, evident. A considerable slice of Puebla’s population lived in poverty, to the point that, according to the Dominican cleric, children, women, and men dressed in rags scraping a living, and begging for alms in the streets of Puebla became a common sight.15 Despite the economic downturn, Puebla remained essential to New Spain’s industrial, trade, and agricultural sectors. Its demographic size was a testament to its relevance. To put it in perspective, during the eighteenth century, and despite the sharp decrease in its population toward mid-century, Puebla de los Ángeles remained the second largest town during the rest of the viceregal period. The population of the city was 56,859 inhabitants, according to the New Spain census ordered by Viceroy Revillagigedo (tenure: 1789–1794) in 1792.16 Just as a point of comparison, the City of Antequera (present-day Oaxaca), an important town in southern New Spain, had 19,000 inhabitants in 1777,17 while the largest city in the viceroyalty, Mexico City, registered a population of 104,000 in 1792, according to the city’s census of that year.18 In short, Puebla, despite its economic decline, continued to be the viceroyalty’s second most important city during the 1700s.

Puebla’s Baroque culture Up to this day in the Mexican popular imagination, Puebla is identified as a city with a Baroque identity. This is presumably apparent in such traits as its lavish and elaborate cuisine, which blends a series of ingredients, practices, and flavors of both local and European origin. At the same time, another popular reference to Puebla’s “baroqueness” is its lavish and opulent architectural character, recognized by the layperson and the specialist alike, to the point that famed Mexican art historian Manuel Toussaint referred to Puebla as Mexico’s Baroque city par excellence.19 However, to label Puebla’s viceregal culture as Baroque without reflecting on that term’s significance could be problematic. This is because the Baroque in Spanish America, identified by Hispanic scholars as barroco iberoamericano or barroco americano,

Decline and splendor

151

requires European, mainly Spanish, notions of Baroque culture to be deciphered since it originated from it. Nevertheless, once nestled in the Spanish American territories, it adopted regional traits defined by a series of cultural expressions – including architecture – that provided it with a unique character. In this sense, the Spanish American Baroque, or rather, the various “baroques” (there are distinct qualities to the novohispanic Baroque, as opposed to the Andean Baroque, for instance), adopted regional characters but participated, at the same time, in transatlantic and global exchanges. Thus, the Spanish American Baroque is not, like its European counterpart, manifested in courtly displays of monarchic power, as the American viceroys lacked veritable courts and had limited power compared to European sovereigns. However, the Spanish American Baroque shares the effervescent expression of religious faith with its European counterpart that translated into ritualistic and theatrical displays in art and everyday life. Further, while counter-reform European Catholicism placed its discourse of action on the Protestant advance, in the Spanish American territories, as Gutiérrez stipulated, where the Protestant threat to Catholic orthodoxy was mostly absent, Baroque religious effervescence was instead a “deepening” (profundización) of evangelizing programs based on the employment of novel “instruments of persuasion.”20 Thus, the barroco iberoamericano will appear recognizable to anybody familiarized with its European counterpart by any measure. However, at the same time, the differences between the Baroque in the Spanish American territories and Europe’s become ever more profound the more we look to encapsulate them utilizing Eurocentric canons, their limitations proving, at specific points, ill-equipped to understand the novohispanic context. In this sense, material expressions, such as architecture, ornamentation, and urban public festivities, all discussed in this chapter, are crucial in fleshing out the Baroque character of novohispanic and poblano identities. The novohispanic Baroque period was when narratives and discourses that defined and expressed regional identities (a concept termed in Spanish patria chica or little homeland) became consolidated. That is certainly the case with Puebla de los Ángeles. As discussed in Chapter 2, the process of defining the city’s mythology began in the sixteenth century with the chronicle of the city’s founding, written by Toribio de Benavente Motolinia, which remained unpublished during the viceregal period. Nevertheless, other Franciscans, such as Juan de Torquemada and Agustín de Vetancurt, who did publish their accounts of Puebla’s founding myth, primarily employing Motolinia’s account, managed to popularize and aggrandize it. In the 1600s, different versions of Puebla’s mythological narrative continued to be written, incorporating the chronicles of, among many, Gil González Dávila, a Spaniard who never set foot in the Americas, who narrated Puebla’s mythological origin, the role played by angels in the process, and the peculiar nature of Puebla’s coat of arms. On more than one occasion, Bishop Palafox also highlighted in his vast writings the supposed angelic

152 Decline and splendor and heavenly character of Puebla de los Ángeles.21 The 1700s, on the other hand, was the period that saw the writing of a series of historical chronicles of the city (which included descriptions of architectural landmarks), such as those by Mariano Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia and Diego Bermúdez de Castro, among others. Perhaps more importantly, however, Puebla’s mythological founding and heavenly origin were, at least since the late 1500s, a prevalent oral narrative tradition that remained widely popular during the rest of the viceregal period and beyond it.22

The city’s urban characteristics and the Medina urban view of 1754 There is a shortage of cartographic material about Puebla de los Ángeles dating from the 1500s and 1600s that could shed light on the city’s physical characteristics during that period.23 Contrastingly, the eighteenth century provides us with a handful of city views. Among them, the most detailed and intriguing one is a perspectival bird’s eye view dating from 1754 drawn by José Mariano de Medina, a cleric and astronomer, and which was engraved by José Ortiz Carnero (see Figure 5.1).24 Medina’s background says a lot about the nature of the city view that he authored. As a criollo from Puebla, Medina was a well-educated cleric. It was individuals such as Medina who, starting in the seventeenth century, began to consider themselves as more novohispanic than Spanish, developing a regional pride inspired and localized in the cities and the landscapes of New Spain. The criollos often manifested a dislike for the peninsulares or Spaniards who not only considered them inferior for having been born in the Americas but barred them from occupying high-ranking posts in the viceregal institutions. In this way, criollos during the eighteenth century, from their positions of power, such as clerics, college professors, entrepreneurs, and others, articulated narratives that attempted to project their hegemony and control over the spheres of knowledge and material production in the Viceroyalty of New Spain, over the detriment, and alongside the Spanish bureaucracy and their imperial representatives. One such expression of criollo identity-making was the narratives that exalted the uniqueness and magnificence of New World towns such as Puebla. As already mentioned, the narratives that celebrated Puebla’s condition as a heavenly city, both the oral tradition of the city’s founding myth and the various written chronicles of the city’s history written in the 1600s and 1700s, all pointed to the theme of civic pride and the definition of regional identity. Medina, like other more famous novohispanic criollo figures before him, such as Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, the famed poetess nun, or Francisco de Sigüenza y Góngora, famed writer, poet, and scientist, prided themselves in being children of the New World, their intellectual work often exalting the Edenic and exceptional qualities of New Spain.

Source: Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps. Image in the public domain.

Figure 5.1 A view of Puebla, 1754, drawn by José Mariano de Medina and engraved by José Ortiz Carnero in Puebla.

Decline and splendor 153

154

Decline and splendor

A byproduct of criollo regional pride was the production of what Richard Kagan termed “communicentric” urban views in the Spanish American world, that is, pictorial depictions that focused on a town and that attempted to convey “folkloric elements and genre scenes” that would provide glimpses of a city’s character. These communicentric views differed from what Kagan deemed “chorographic” views, depictions that focused on representing, accurately, material aspects of a city, its urban fabric, and architectural landmarks, including convincing representations of a site’s topography.25 In part chorographic, Medina’s view does strive to represent the city’s urban fabric accurately, down to the last street and urban block. However, it is also communicentric, in that it provides glimpses of everyday life in Puebla, as peripheral details such as urban parks, some human characters in the margins, public water fountains, and urban agricultural gardens that indirectly reveal to us glimpses of the city’s character, which suggest how everyday life was conducted in it. As meticulous as Medina’s view is, his inexperienced – even naïve at times – perspectival technique speaks of the provincial character of the document, as compared to views of Mexico City, such as the one from 1690 painted on a folding screen by an anonymous artist or the 1628 view of the city by Juan Gómez de Trasmonte, both characterized by a more refined pictorial and perspectival technique. Regarding the view’s communicentric aspects, for one, it possesses an original re-interpretation of Puebla’s coat of arms, with two angels in the plan’s upper-left corner holding a shield with a fortified city on it, the letters K and V that stand for Karolus Quintus (Emperor Charles V), and an undulating banner with a fragment from Psalm 91.26 Further, Medina’s plan shows a detailed representation of the city’s architecture, given it was a source of pride for poblanos at the time, as the eighteenth century chronicles, which exalted the city’s architectural landmarks, demonstrate. Further, the view also represents Puebla’s infrastructure in a detailed manner: from bridges to aqueducts and from urban gardens to the city’s slaughterhouse. Medina’s view is also careful to show every urban block at its different development stages: from completely vacant lots employed as urban gardens to partially or fully developed blocks. The plan reveals a vast amount of information about the city’s peripheries – perhaps its greatest virtue – evidencing, among many things, the contrasting living conditions between the upper classes that inhabited the traza central or central grid and the mestizos and Indigenous communities of the peripheries. The city view evidences the city’s urban planning ordinances, showing industrial infrastructure, such as the slaughterhouse or lime kilns, located in the periphery to avoid pollution in the most densely populated areas. This was an ordinance contained in Philip II’s famed Laws of the Indies. At first glance, Medina’s plan shows how the central plaza (square) articulated the city’s order and social hierarchy through urban space. The most elaborate architecture and the most developed part of the city are found

Decline and splendor

155

around the cathedral and public square and toward the north, forming an axis to the San Francisco River, which acted as a natural barrier for development. Puebla’s otherwise ordered central grid and its regular-sized urban blocks were only interrupted by some of the religious male and female monasteries, which occupied, at times, more than one urban block, as with the Dominican and Augustinian Monasteries (see Figure 5.1, in the Medina view of Puebla, the Dominican Monastery, roughly in the middle of the view, occupied two urban blocks, for instance). During the 1600s and 1700s, the city was divided into six parishes, which were divided, in turn, into several barrios (neighborhoods). Parishes in New Spain were the most effective urban administrative apparatuses since the Church, through the administering of its sacraments, kept counts on births, marriages, the deceased, and even maintained ethnic classifications. The parishes were, first, El Sagrario, which included the traza central, the city’s original footprint, inhabited by the wealthier Spanish and criollo vecinos or citizens. There was also the Parish of San José to the north of the traza central, an ethnically mixed territory with a large Spanish community. San José Parish, together with the Sagrario, made up for little over half of the city’s population. San José Parish included the barrios of San José, Xanenetla, Refugio, and others. The Parish of Santo Ángel de Analco was located to the southeast of the central plaza and across the river. It was the third most crucial parish, initially settled by Indigenous Tlaxcalans in the second half of the sixteenth century. By the 1700s, it was ethnically mixed, with a numerous mestizo population, a majority-Indigenous population, and a smaller Spanish presence. Analco included the barrios of Analco, La Luz, Los Remedios, and others. Then there were the smaller San Sebastián Parishes to the south of the plaza, mostly Indigenous, including the barrios of Santiago, San Diego, and others. There was also the Parish of Santa Cruz to the northeast of the traza central and across the river, mostly Indigenous as well, which included the barrios of Xonaca, San Juan del Río, Xonacatepec, and others. Finally, the Parish of San Marcos at the north end of the city, which included the barrios of Santa Ana and San Pablo de los Naturales, was mostly Indigenous as well.27 Medina’s view illustrates how, by the 1700s, Puebla had outgrown its original urban design grid and how, in the peripheral settlements, particularly in the Parishes of Analco and Santa Cruz, the urban layout had lost some of its orthogonality and rigid order (see Figure 5.1, in the Medina view, those barrios are visible in the left register of the view). Besides the plaza principal, Medina’s view reveals the city’s other public spaces or plazas. These were referred to as plazuelas and were located in the front of or in a religious building’s vicinity. Among the principal plazuelas, there was the San José plazuela, which acted as a city park or alameda, the plazuela of San Agustín, northwest of the central square, employed as a tianguis or marketplace, the plazuela de la Compañía, located in front of the Jesuit College of the Holy Spirit, and others (see Figure 5.1). Another important urban element present in the 1600s and 1700s Puebla was the huertas

156

Decline and splendor

or urban gardens. Huertas acted as buffers between the traza principal and the mostly Indigenous barrios to the west. In Medina’s view of the city (see Figure 5.1), huertas can be seen clearly to the north and south of the traza principal, and a few can be spotted to the west, intermingling with the street blocks of the barrios.28 Overall, Medina’s glimpse of the city’s urban and architectural landscape in the mid-eighteenth century reveals how the peripheral barrios displayed a lower density, evidenced by the buildings, mostly one-storied and intermingling with humble abodes, some jacales or shacks built in an Indigenous manner, with thatched roofs and adobe walls, dotted by huertas, with the parish church buildings dominating the architectural landscape of the barrios. The landscapes of poblano barrios in the 1700s, as represented in the Medina view, resemble the built and natural environments of rural towns in Central Mexico, even as of today. This environment must have starkly contrasted with the lush two- or three-storied urban residential palaces of the wealthy elite in the traza central and with the outline of the religious buildings and their massive forms, heights, and material and ornamental sumptuousness.

Public festivities and urban space The most complex and revealing urban expression of Puebla’s Baroque culture, as in other cities of the early modern Spanish world, were public festivities. In Puebla, these events acted as social expressions of the city’s socioeconomic framework. Each of the city’s communities participated in them, displaying a stratified and ossified social hierarchy and strict adherence and a continuous pledge to largely unmovable religious and social mores. Public celebrations in Puebla were lavish and profligate during the 1600s, adapting to a stricter fiscal regime in the eighteenth century during the Bourbon rule. The cabildo municipal or city council participated in the organization of the most important festivals, whether secular or religious.29 The patronage of these festivities was how the local authorities expressed sensitivity to the general population’s needs.30 On the other hand, the Church in New Spain had established a celebratory hierarchy, with commemorations dedicated to Jesus’s life and the Virgin Mary at the top of the scale. Then came local celebrations for the patron saints of each city. In Puebla’s case, some of the most revered patrons were St. Michael and St. Joseph, and then came celebrations for each barrio’s patron saints.31 Secular celebrations were various, and they ranged from the ascension to power of a new monarch, the birth of an heir to the Spanish throne, or the arrival of a new viceroy to New Spain, which was the most relevant secular celebration in Puebla. A newly appointed viceroy arrived from Spain at the port of Veracruz and then made the journey to Mexico City, culminating with the regal entry or entrada of the new officer into the capital, an event

Decline and splendor

157

celebrated with great lavishness and ritual proceedings. The viceroy’s journey included stops at various cities along the way, such as Jalapa, Tlaxcala, and Puebla. The passing of the viceroy through the City of Angels was the second most important and anticipated stop of the whole journey, right after the official entrance into Mexico City.32 These celebrations altered life in Puebla, as its inhabitants, at least temporarily, took possession of the most critical public venues available, invited and promoted by the city council itself. During these events, the city saw the mobilization of thousands of people, with the higher ranking city and clergy officials parading, attired in regalia, while the viceroy led the entourage through the city riding on horseback. When they arrived at the city’s symbolic heart, the plaza principal, an ephemeral arch there, and at the cathedral’s main portal, awaited the viceroy and his retinue.33 The passing of a viceroy through the City of Puebla would last about a week. However, peripheral activities associated with the viceroy’s passing went on for days or even weeks after he had left the city.34 These activities included competitions like jousting and bullfighting, as well as masquerades and theater plays.35 The city, in order to cover the expenses collected by celebratory events, such as the entrada and the activities associated with it, often incurred debt by acquiring loans from the Church and private lenders.36 This situation would eventually change with the arrival of the Bourbon Dynasty to the Spanish Crown. At that point, the Hapsburg administrations’ profligate ways became frowned upon, with stricter fiscal concerns adopted in Puebla and the whole of New Spain.37 Religious festivities were crucial to Puebla’s urban life because they had the capacity, during their duration, to affect the populace’s perception of their shared public space and to reaffirm each citizen’s place and role in society. Each person played the role their barrio and the city itself conferred upon them, providing civic life with a sense and purpose in the overall sphere of the New Spanish universe. Devotional feasts dedicated to figures such as St. Teresa of Ávila, St. Philip of Jesus, St. Joseph, or the Santo Ángel Custodio (the barrio of Analco’s patron saint), and many others are referenced throughout the libros de cabildo or city registrar books. The most famous religious festivity in Puebla during the 1600s and 1700s was the feast of Corpus Christi.38 People of all walks of life, social strata, or background participated in the processions dedicated to this feast while the celebrations included the performance of liturgical music39 and burlesque comedies.40 Documents in the city council archive relate how some plays were deemed contentious. In a city council minute, there is testimony of how in 1650, the Corpus play was so controversial that some aldermen requested the play be carried out in private for them to judge whether it was “decent” enough to be played for the public.41 Public festivities, including processions and the various corollary activities associated with these celebrations, were manifestations of Puebla’s Baroque urban culture, which revealed intricate relationships of power and defined

158

Decline and splendor

the process of constructing and fashioning a diversified and stratified society. However, while all strata of poblano society participated in the festivities, hierarchies were still clearly revealed and reinforced during public events. As an example of this, during the juegos de cañas (jousting) and the bullfighting events, the main participants were members of Puebla’s elite, who took the opportunity to portray themselves as descendants of conquistadors. The city council members and ecclesiastical authorities were always at the head of processions and parades, their role as sponsors and organizers appearing unequivocal, while in contrast, the role of the large communities of mestizos, Indigenous peoples, and Blacks was always lesser in one aspect or another and barring their participation in dances and the preparation of some elements for the festivities, such as commemorative arches, their role was, for the most part, as spectators.

Religious architecture in Puebla: 1660s–1770s Public festivities had as a backdrop the rich array of religious architecture present throughout the city. In Puebla’s historic district, it is difficult to walk more than two blocks without encountering a religious building, and the majority of them date from the 1600s and 1700s. Indeed, traces of religious architecture in Puebla before 1600 are scarce, given that most of these buildings suffered remodelings or transformations, which accounts for the city’s identification as Baroque. Perhaps the only religious architectural landmark that preserves integral elements dating from the 1500s is the Church of the San Francisco Monastery, whose single-nave plan design is characteristic of the sixteenth century’s Franciscan monasteries of Central New Spain. San Francisco’s choir loft in the narthex, with its groined vault and depressed arch, attributed to architect Francisco Becerra, and the church nave with its groined vaults, and the church’s northern gate, also attributed to Becerra, are the most concise late Gothic architectural idioms left in the city. The religious architecture of Puebla in the 1600s and 1700s, instead, is based on the replication, improvement, and mastery of several architectural elements and construction techniques that, albeit reduced, managed to spawn an astonishing number of variables, producing one of the most vibrant architectural traditions in New Spain. Religious buildings in Puebla are, most of the time, cruciform or three-aisled plans with domes at the transept with a barrel and cross vaulting to allow side windows (sail vaults were also standard, as in the lateral naves of the cathedral) as well as choir lofts at the narthex. An exception regarding plan typologies was female monasteries or convents. In New Spain, they generally had single-nave plans, and entry into their temples was lateral, as opposed to frontal, and usually possessed twin portals. Generally, they also possessed one single bell tower. Further, female convents possessed cloisters with two stories attached to the temples, where the rest of the architectural program unfolded. In the seventeenth century in Puebla, some female convents acquired a great

Decline and splendor

159

deal of financial power, as the dowries of novices entering these religious communities compounded great fortunes that got reinvested in real estate or other economic ventures. Some religious communities acquired such fortunes that they acted as financial lending institutions.42 These structures, invariably built in masonry, required buttresses to counter the lateral forces of such massive volumes. These were mostly attached buttresses, but, in a few cases, as in the cathedral, we find examples of flying buttresses. Buildings were usually finished in lime stucco and painted in colorful palettes employing mineral pigment, lime-based paint. Quarried stone was employed for ornamentation in façades and gates and rarely would a building be wholly finished in stone – a sumptuous building such as the cathedral is an exception. The most common stone employed in Puebla for relief ornamentation and sculptures is a local dark gray basalt stone, such as the one employed to finish the cathedral externally. Domes came in all sizes and with many variables. Often, domes possessed drums, usually pierced with windows, while lanterns, with pierced windows, were quite common as well. As in Santa Clara (c. 1714) or San Cristóbal (c. 1687), some domes were square in plan and inscribed within polygons, usually octagons, but domes on pendentives were quite common too. Examples of the latter are El Carmen (c. 1650) and the Holy Trinity (1673) Churches. Elliptical-plan domes were less common, and the dome that crowns the main altar at the cathedral is an example of that typology. The dome at the Jesuit Church of the Holy Spirit, popularly known as La Compañía (c. 1767), possesses an exceptional cimborrio or lantern tower roofed with a cloister dome due to its rectangular, elongated plan (see Figure 5.2). Dome exteriors were

Figure 5.2 An aerial view of the Church of La Compañía de Jesús, c. 1760, Puebla. Source: Courtesy of Rubén Olvera.

160 Decline and splendor decorated with an array of Pueblan ceramic glazed tiles, known as Talavera. An example is the cathedral’s central dome (see Figure 4.1). When it comes to roof typologies, timber, hipped roofing for religious buildings might have been a solution for some sixteenth-century structures, such as the first cathedral building. However, by the first half of the 1600s, masonry vaulting was the most widespread and universal solution for religious buildings in Puebla, and flat slabs supported with timber beams were employed for all other building typologies. No ceilings in the Mudéjar tradition, which is to say coffered with polygonal panels, termed artesonados in Spanish, or the alfarje type, a wooden ceiling of intricate interlacing decorative panels, have survived in Puebla. Overall, the reproduction and exploitation of these architectural features – the cruciform plan, dome, and mass in scale and volume – produced structural shells, characterized by a set of orthogonal, predictable spatial arrangements, which were ornamented principally at the entry and sometimes at the lateral gates. Similar to European Romanesque or early Gothic church architecture, the iconographic and ornamental elements were concentrated at the temples’ portals, where the faithful would find a series of iconographic messages that merged with an ornamental profusion that would beckon them and generate anticipation prior to entering the building. Inside, the abundance and exhilaration of ornamentation became coupled with the flooding of natural light on the main altar and materials such as gold leaf on retables would glitter, increasing the perceptual and sensual intensity of the religious experience. The solemnity, the flickering of candlelight, and the smell of incense must have enshrouded the space with a religious aura and elevated the congregation’s spirits during rituals. In the typical poblano church’s interior, the apse would be furnished with the main retable, as would the naves and the lateral chapels. During the first half of the seventeenth century, the most crucial element incorporated into poblano church architecture was stucco ornamentation on walls and vaults. It would be an understatement to say that stucco came to be, in the latter 1600s and the 1700s, one of the defining features of poblano Baroque architecture. Puebla was, in fact, one of the first places where strapwork on vaulting, at the Santo Domingo Monastery Church, first appeared, probably introduced by Spanish, perhaps Andalusian, artisans, brought to New Spain by the Dominican friars to work on their monasteries in Puebla, Oaxaca, and elsewhere.43 However, Santo Domingo’s stucco ornamentation paled in comparison to the wonderful strapwork carried out in the interior of the Church of San Cristóbal Orphanage, inaugurated in 1687, surpassed shortly after by the Rosary Chapel in 1690. There, the stucco strapwork would testify to the unimaginable possibilities of this craft. Interestingly, for a style that came to define a city’s architecture, the emergence of the Baroque in Puebla was initially met with resistance by a Classical, sober tradition that was well established in the city. In effect, Puebla’s Classical tradition, which originated around the 1570s (see Chapter 3),

Decline and splendor

161

persisted beyond the 1650s. An excellent example of Classical sobriety early in the seventeenth century is the main façade of the Santo Domingo Monastery (see Figure 5.3). The façade, finished in 1611 and manufactured in the local basalt gray stone, is composed of two horizontal sections and a crowning, while a double set of paired, attached Doric columns flank the main arched entry. The columns turn into attached, rectangular-sectioned Ionic pilasters on pedestals in the following section, with a rectangular framed choir window in the middle. Crowning the ensemble is a set of paired Doric, relatively flat, pilasters that frame a sculpture in relief, in local onyx stone, of St. Dominic. A sober Mannerist style characterizes the façade of San Pedro Hospital Church, completed in the 1670s. Also manufactured in local basalt stone, the half-arch entry is flanked by paired, rectangular-sectioned Doric attached pilasters. In the middle section, two finials flank a frame made of Ionic pilasters, and a sober frieze and cornice that might have displayed a seal of arms, probably of the Spanish Crown, is now gone. The top section displays an oval window flanked by a pair of caryatid-like pilasters. A pair of ascending

Figure 5.3 A view of Santo Domingo Monastery’s main entry, c. 1611, Puebla. Source: Wikimedia Commons, Victhor, CC BY-SA 4.0.

162 Decline and splendor cornices–volutes make space for a bell gable located in the façade’s midsection, an unusual architectural element in the city (see Figure 5.4). San Pedro’s Church façade introduces some Mannerist idioms, which, only timidly, anticipate the Baroque explosion that was just around the corner. Other sober, Classical façades of this period, more restrained than San Pedro’s, are found in the St. Agnes of Montepulciano Church (c. 1663), a female monastery found in present-day 3 Sur Street, and right across the street, in the façade of St. Philip Neri Church (c. 1680). Both constitute examples of the persistence of sober Classicism in the city’s architectural culture during the late 1600s. The irruption of explicit Baroque expressions in the poblano architectural repertoire became visible around the mid-1600s in buildings such as the façade of the Carmelite Monastery Church. The façade is a Mannerist composition that features a Roman arch entry with an odd-fitting semicircular pediment above it, and two oversize Carmelite seals in the middle section, flanking the choir window. The top section, however, was covered in colorful Talavera tiles, including parts of its triangular pediment that crowns the whole façade, probably in the late eighteenth, or in the nineteenth century. The employment of colorful glazed tiles, dull red brick, gray basalt stone, and white stucco as the formula for poblano Baroque became more explicit at the San José Parish Church (1653–1693), where the walls of the building are covered with red brick in a herringbone pattern, with a plinth made of gray

Figure 5.4 San Pedro Hospital Church façade, Puebla, seventeenth century. Source: Courtesy of Rubén Olvera.

Decline and splendor

163

basalt stone lining the lower part of the walls. The portal, articulated with a Roman arch, is flanked with a pair of Corinthian attached columns at each side, on pedestals, and a niche in the middle of the paired columns on each side bearing sculptures probably of St. Peter and St. Joseph (see Figure 5.5). Similarly, the upper section of the portal displays a pair of attached pilasters of rectangular section, Ionic, which flank a panel with a sculpture in relief of St. Joseph holding the hand of Jesus as a young child. The outstanding element at San José is the way the column and pilaster shafts are covered with colorful Talavera glazed tiles, while a thin, white stucco cornice and a pair of finials crown the portal, thereby fulfilling the red brick, glazed tile, gray basalt, and white stucco quartet of poblano Baroque. However, one of the most accomplished and beautiful churches that employ the poblano material quartet is the Sanctuary of Guadalupe (1694– 1722), on present-day Reforma Avenue at Paseo Bravo Park. Its portal, a Roman arch, is sculpted in gray basalt stone, with fluted, Doric pilasters and with profuse decorations on the arch’s spandrels. The upper sections

Figure 5.5 A view of the San José Parish Church (1653–1693), Puebla. Source: Wikimedia Commons, Isaacvp, CC BY-SA 4.0.

164 Decline and splendor of the portal are finished in white stucco, forming pilasters and a broken pediment that frame two choir windows, a rectangular one underneath and a semicircular one on top. Surrounding the portal is an array of colorful glazed tiles arranged by their color palette and forming an arch at the top of the central section of the façade. The bell tower shafts are finished in red brick and contain a series of vignettes made in glazed tiles, which narrate the story of the apparition of the Virgin of Guadalupe. The bell towers are incredibly ornate, slim, and tall, with three sections, each adorned with Solomonic columns. An array of rocailles, swirls, and vegetative motifs, all finished in white stucco, render the composition profusely ornamented, yet highly coherent and balanced in its proportions (see Figure 5.6). Religious Baroque architecture in Puebla sometimes took other avenues, as at the Church of the Orphanage of San Cristóbal (1676–1687), one of the most accomplished religious buildings from the late 1600s. The façade and the church’s bell towers are finished in the typical gray basalt stone and are teeming with vines, floral, vegetative motifs, and small sculptures of children – pertinent to the building’s function as an orphanage – that dot the

Figure 5.6 Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe, Puebla. Source: Courtesy of Rubén Olvera.

Decline and splendor

165

portal. The entire façade is a beautiful display of a Baroque artifice adorning an otherwise simple set of Classical architectural elements, such as a Roman arch, paired Corinthian columns on pedestals, an entablature, finials, and a framed, rectangular choir window, flooded with an extraordinary array of saturating, moving details (see Figure 5.7) Another outstanding example of religious architecture that employs an alternative material and spatial solution is the Church of the Jesuit College of the Holy Spirit (1661–1748), designed by the Jesuit priest Juan Gómez and executed by the master mason José Miguel de Santa María.44 It has a three-ailed plan and a lantern tower or cimborrio at the transept. The façade’s lower portion, whose main gate is a tri-lobulated arch, forms a loggia and the other two Roman arches flanking it. The loggia is a unique element in the city, which preserves its outstanding ironwork and is wholly rendered in gray basaltic stone, while the upper section of the façade and the bell towers are, contrastingly, finished in stucco. The façade is a vernacular interpretation of a Baroque ornament of outstanding ingenuity, where rocailles, volutes, vines, vegetative motifs, and even estípite45 pilasters on

Figure 5.7 Detail of the façade of the Church of the Orphanage of San Cristóbal, Puebla.

166 Decline and splendor the first section of the bell towers coexist harmoniously, thanks to a series of vertical axes that render the ensemble geometrically coherent. The façade of the San Francisco Church at the Franciscan Monastic Complex, however, is an unusual case among Baroque façades in Puebla. Although initially constructed in the latter 1500s, the church received a significant remodeling c. 1740, which transformed its façade into a veritable and superior example of poblano Baroque. The façade (1743–1767), for one, employed red brick, gray stone, and glazed tiles to produce a central portal section manufactured exclusively out of gray basalt stone and articulated by a series of estípite pilasters. The estípite Baroque was never as extensively propagated in Puebla as in other New Spain cities, such as Guanajuato, so the San Francisco façade remains an outstanding work in Puebla for that reason as well (see Figure 5.8). The final note on this short and partial survey should go to a lesser known but impressive religious building in the city, the Church of Our Lady of the Light, popularly known as La Luz, in the Indigenous barrio of the same name in the Parish of Analco, across the river from the plaza central. La Luz Church possesses a Greek-cross plan, unusual in Puebla, and embodies the

Figure 5.8 Façade of the San Francisco Church and Monastery in Puebla.

Decline and splendor

167

Figure 5.9 Façade of the Church of La Luz, finished in 1805, Puebla.

transition from Baroque to Neoclassicism, a style that never enjoyed much popularity in viceregal Puebla. Its façade is a sober Classical composition, in which a Roman arch entry is flanked by paired, attached Doric, fluted columns on pedestals, which on the upper section become Ionic, attached rectangular pilasters, topped by a semicircular pediment crowned with three finials (see Figure 5.9). The bell tower shafts are finished in red brick and interspersed with glazed ceramic tiles in blue and white designs. The interior, dating from the early 1800s, is entirely Neoclassical, with pillars and structural arches made of gray basalt stone, congruent with the exterior’s sobriety.

Puebla’s residential Baroque architecture: 1685–1790 The most interesting residential building from the latter part of the seventeenth century in Puebla is the outstanding Casa de las Bóvedas (The House of the Vaults) by architect Diego de la Sierra (1656–1711), finished in 1685. Sierra, a prolific architect, originally from Seville, who migrated and settled in Mexico City, created a masterpiece in Puebla, a city where he carried out

168 Decline and splendor many other commissions (see Figure 5.10). The residence follows the typical program of an upper-class poblano residence, which remained mostly unchanged during the viceregal period: namely, a two- or three-storied building, with the central courtyard connected to the street, with the lower story dedicated to a series of rooms with a street opening for rent, and interior rooms dedicated to storage or also for rent, and a back-service courtyard. The upper story acted as piano nobile (noble floor), containing the family rooms for socializing, the kitchen, and the private family chambers. The house, commissioned by Diego Peláez, a high-ranking church cleric, in 1684, turned out to be one of the most ingenious works of architecture in the city. In it, Sierra managed to design a building that energized poblano architecture, inaugurating the Baroque era for civic architecture by introducing unprecedented construction and ornamental solutions. The house derives its name from the vaulting employed throughout the residence as a roofing solution instead of employing the more straightforward, cheaper alternative of flat slabs supported with timber beams. The profusion of this roofing solution adds magnificence to the house’s interior spaces. However, the house’s most original trait remains its decorative character. Indeed, around the main courtyard, in both stories, critical architectural elements, such as columns, arches, lintels, jambs, and vaults, were complemented with carved zigzagging lines – a Mexican Baroque substyle identified as barroco de estrías móviles or moving fluting Baroque by González Galván.46 On window jambs, lintels, arch intrados, and pilasters, the lines were carved in stucco, while on columns and corner piers, made of basalt stone, the zigzagging lines were sculpted into the column shafts. The façade is outstanding on its terms, as it also exploits the notions of instability and movement. The lack of symmetry in the façade’s organization, with the main portal, pushed to the left east end, is in itself a statement of rebellion, as gates

Figure 5.10 Two details of the Casa de las Bóvedas residence, Puebla.

Decline and splendor

169

generally opened in the middle of the façade. The unorthodox character continues with the façade’s upper-level balconies and their eccentric combination of rustication, custom Corinthian pilasters, and triangular pediments inscribed in semicircular ones (similar to della Porta’s Il Gesù pediments). The lower façade level has a plinth in gray basalt stone, while the rest of the façade is covered in a pattern of red brick in a herringbone pattern, interspersed with blue and white glazed ceramic tiles, a feature that appears to have been added later (see Figure 5.10).47 Another outstanding residence from the period is the House of the Count of Castelo, popularly known as the Casa de los Muñecos or House of the Male Dolls. This palatial urban residence belonged to a prominent city politician and judge, Agustín de Ovando y Villavicencio, and was built toward 1792. This building stands out as one of the largest and most massive residences in the late 1700s, taller than the city hall when built (see Figure 5.11). Another outstanding feature is the close to twenty vignettes of male figures, in briefs, in different body poses, made of glazed ceramic tiles, scattered on the façade, which lends the residence its popular name. For many years, scholars saw in them caricatures of the city council aldermen. After struggling to obtain a permit for such a tall structure and finally obtaining it, the story goes that the vignettes stood as open defiance and mockery to city hall authorities for resisting to issue Ovando with a construction permit for such a tall structure. However, recent scholarship argues these representations of Hercules represent the Ovando family, who identified with this mythological figure.48 The Ovando residence is outstanding in the city’s architectural landscape, as it epitomizes the criollo elite’s privileges and the tremendous inequity between Puebla’s wealthiest families and the overwhelming majority of the population, embodied in the building’s striking mass and height. The building is probably the first three-storied civic building in the city, but it also occupies almost half an urban block’s short end (see Figure 5.11). On the other hand, the residence’s façade also exemplifies the material application of the poblano Baroque’s material quartet. White stucco frames the balconies and windows, and brick arranged in a herringbone pattern and dotted with glazed ceramic tiles cover the walls, with the Hercules vignettes distributed in the second and third stories. The entry portal, on the other hand, is framed in basaltic stone. The entablature that crowns the whole ensemble is in itself wondrous and the façade’s formal highlight. It is an undulating entablature with a series of round pilasters extending below the entablature’s lower line, to turn into a series of small sculptures in stucco. From the same period is the Casa de Alfeñique or Sugar Candy House, which constitutes in the popular imagination of poblanos and other Mexicans up to this day, a paradigm of poblano Baroque architecture. With its flamboyant stucco ornamentation of rococo lineage lining its windows and balconies, this residence represents the pinnacle and mastery of this technique in Puebla, revealing its spatial and plastic possibilities. The swirls,

170 Decline and splendor

Figure 5.11 Detail of the façade of the Casa de los Muñecos residence, Puebla.

volutes, rocailles, and vegetative motifs in bright white stucco resemble a baker’s fanciful ornamental creation, lending its famous name to the building (see Figure 5.12). The three-storied residential palace (the middle story is a mezzanine level, destined for the back-of-house activities and the services) was commissioned by the blacksmith entrepreneur Juan Ignacio Morales, who hired the architect Antonio de Santa María Inchaúrregui to carry out the design. From a programmatic and spatial perspective, the residence, which is about a fourth of the size of the Casa de los Muñecos, lacks the typical service courtyard at the back, somewhat unprecedented in poblano residential architecture. In contrast, the principal courtyard, reduced in size, still manages to articulate a residential program that reveals the criollo elite’s domestic lives toward the end of the viceregal period. The residence possesses a typical poblano kitchen, a small chapel that attempted to replicate the famed Rosary Chapel in miniature, and many other domestic life traits in Puebla’s late 1700s. Puebla’s residential architecture during the 1600s and 1700s not only tracks the development of Baroque architecture in the city but also reveals the aspirations of a small elite class that, despite the economic downturn, maintained a sufficient grip on the economic and political landscape of Puebla to guarantee their privileged positions. The residential architecture

Decline and splendor

171

Figure 5.12 The façade of the Casa Alfeñique, Puebla.

of this period by the criollo elite also speaks about how moneyed families in the city managed to express their pride in their patria chica, distinguishing themselves from other regional and very distinct architectural traditions, such as Mexico City’s, where residential architecture took on different avenues of expression. While Mexico City’s viceregal architecture is characterized by the porous, volcanic reddish stone, called tezontle, that covers many of its façades, Puebla’s regional brand of Baroque architecture resides in the material quartet of red brick, basalt stone, glazed tile, and white stucco, and the ingenuity expressed by the city’s architects and master masons.

The Bishopric of Manuel Fernández de Santa Cruz (1667–1699) Bishop Juan de Palafox’s project for an ideal Christian Republic, as discussed in Chapter 4, was fulfilled, in many ways, years after his death, during the Bishopric of Manuel Fernández de Santa Cruz (tenure: 1677–1699). This notable bishop’s tenure was critical in shaping Puebla’s Baroque age. His tenure fulfilled Puebla’s transformation into a city adorned with an array of ecclesiastical and civic institutions embodying a corpus of architectural splendor. Fernández de Santa Cruz advanced many of the cathedral’s key elements, particularly the Capilla del Ochavo or Octagonal Chapel, a receptacle of the cathedral’s most treasured artworks located on the cathedral’s southeast corner. Under Fernández’s auspices, famed artist Cristóbal de Villalpando

172 Decline and splendor (1649–1714) painted the cathedral’s apse dome, a theater of heavenly Baroque fancy portraying the ascension of the Virgin Mary to the heavens.49 When Octavio Paz wrote his iconic work on the author–nun Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, an intimate friend of Bishop Fernández de Santa Cruz, Paz described the bishop as having two passions in life: theology and nuns.50 Perhaps, for this reason, he was the patron of several feminine convents, among them the Santa Rosa and Santa Mónica Convents.51 Curiously enough, the bishop was also a grand sponsor of the San Miguel del Milagro Shrine; he provided the complex with a hostel for its pilgrims, and he enriched the church’s interior decoration. In another parallel with Palafox, Fernández de Santa Cruz promoted an active agenda of creating or strengthening public welfare institutions. He built the Orphanage of San Cristóbal, and he invested heavily in improving the infrastructure of San Pedro Hospital.52 Fernández de Santa Cruz’s Bishopric proved how, at the eighteenth-century threshold, Puebla’s architectural and artistic landscape was still shaped, significantly, by the powerful institution of the diocese.

The Palafoxiana library The establishment of a library was part of the Tridentine Seminary’s grander educational project, destined for the students’ consultation and education. Surprisingly for the time, the library was open to the public too. In the library’s charter, drafted by Bishop Palafox, he specified how the principal reason that moved him to create the library was to provide students and the general public with a reading and studying space.53 In reality, the College of San Juan, in existence for some five decades before Palafox arrived in New Spain, possessed a modest library from its inception. However, with Palafox’s encouragement, the Palafoxiana project would develop over the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries into one of the most important libraries and one of the most relevant cultural projects in all of New Spain. Palafox first donated some 5,000 volumes to the library and then provided a dedicated locale for the collection.54 The library’s collection continued to grow through the book donations of successive bishops such as Manuel Fernández de Santa Cruz (tenure: 1676– 1699) and Francisco Fabián y Fuero (tenure: 1764–1773).The latter provided the library with its elaborate, ornate, and elegant reading hall, graced by two levels of bookcases made of cedarwood, and an elaborate wooden altarpiece at the end of the hall gracefully covered in gold leaf (see Figure 5.13). Fabián y Fuero also managed to incorporate into the library the vast collections of the three Jesuit colleges that existed in the City of Puebla after the Order’s expulsion from New Spain in 1767.55

The completion of Puebla’s cathedral While Bishop Palafox managed to consecrate the cathedral building in 1649, the building must have appeared as a shell, with the main walls and vaulting complete but without bell towers. The central, north, and south façades

Decline and splendor

173

Figure 5.13 A view of the Palafoxiana Library, Puebla.

had not been ornamented nor were the lateral chapels or the choir begun. In general, it would take the remainder of the seventeenth century and the whole of the eighteenth century to see the building completed to its present state. The cathedral undoubtedly continued to be the most appreciated project on which the bishopric and the city council continued to vest significant amounts of resources and efforts during the latter part of the seventeenth century and the eighteenth century to see it completed. The main façade consists of three portals, each with a Roman arch and attached Doric columns flanking them. The two lateral sections of the cathedral façade display reliefs celebrating feminine sainthood above their portals. Above the northern portal, a relief made of local opaque white marble shows a scene of St. Rosa of Lima’s life, while a relief of St. Teresa of Ávila, of the same material, is displayed above the southern portal. The three portals also have a section with a choir window, centered and framed, providing the façade with a heightened sense of coherence and symmetry. The central portal has a pediment at its top containing another rectangular window in its middle, flanked by attached Doric pilasters and a seal of the Spanish

174

Decline and splendor

Crown crowning the whole façade with two imposing finials flanking the seal. The main façade, completed in 1664 by architect Francisco Gutiérrez, possesses a sense of Classical sobriety that must have significantly influenced and marked the city’s tendency and taste for sober Classicism as late as the mid-1600s. An outstanding structure within the Cathedral Complex is the Ochavo Chapel, whose name derives from its octagonal plan. The chapel, localized on the southeast corner of the cathedral’s block, was planned as a small, confined chamber of treasured objects. The architect for this small chapel was Carlos García Durango, who had directed the works for the northern bell tower and the façade of San Cristóbal Church. The construction project began in the interior. Each of the chapel’s eight walls displays an array of mostly oil paintings, but the chapel’s collection also contains some feather-work paintings and a Philippine crucified Jesus in white marble from the seventeenth century. Other treasures include paintings by the famed seventeenth-century artists Cristóbal de Villalpando and Juan Tinoco. This chapel was conceived in the 1670s, and its construction lasted from 1682 until 1688.56 In 1678, works for the north bell tower began, and the 1680s saw a considerable amount of activity. In 1684, the Spanish architect Diego de la Sierra took over the works of the north façade, and the next year the transept dome was decorated by renowned artist Cristóbal de Villalpando. The next wave of works began in the first half of the eighteenth century, with the impressive wooden choir seating in a Mudéjar style completed in 1722, while the south tower was built from 1731 to 1768. The last major element that was added to the cathedral, completing its present state, was the Neoclassical baldachin, designed by the famed Spanish sculptor and architect Manuel Tolsá (1757–1816) and finished by the poblano architect and artist José Manzo (1789–1860) and begun in 1797. This baldachin substituted the one designed by Pedro García Ferrer under Palafox’s directions, inaugurated during the 1649 consecration. It was a Baroque structure with Solomonic columns, the first in Puebla and one of the first Solomonic structures built in New Spain. The Tolsá–Manzo baldachin, on the other hand, constitutes one of the most accomplished and relevant works of Neoclassical architecture in the city previous to the closing of the viceregal period. The new baldachin is an impressive structure that almost reaches up to the height of the central nave. It sits on the main altar, and its structure allows entry into the cathedral’s crypt, found directly below the main altar. On the exterior, the baldachin possesses an octagonal plan, with a set of four double-fluted Corinthian columns and on each intercolumnar space, a sculpture of a Doctor of the Church. In the middle of the baldachin, a sculpture of the Immaculate Conception, the cathedral’s advocacy, by Tolsá, crowns the baldachin’s iconographic program. Manzo finished the baldachin in 1819, shortly before New Spain gained independence from the Spanish Crown.

Decline and splendor

175

El Rosario and Tonantzintla: Baroque gardens of heavenly and earthly delights The Rosary Chapel is the most renowned Baroque architectural landmark in the City of Puebla. In it, the Baroque spatial and material experience is localized on the shimmering gold on the stucco swirls, together with the piercing of natural light that bathes the baldachin in the main altar, and, in general, the impossibility of capturing the complexity of the intricate wall surfaces, vaults, and arches with human sight (see Figure 5.14). The chapel is a subsidiary space of the Dominican Monastery’s church building. The friars opened a portal on the southern end of the main church’s transept to build the Rosary Chapel as a small, cruciform plan building extension with a choir loft at the narthex, a domed transept, and a baldachin placed right under the dome. The Rosary is a form of ritual and contemplative prayer practice that harks back to early Christianity but became associated with the Dominican Order due to a story in which the Virgin Mary, in an apparition, transmits the notion

Figure 5.14 Detail of the Chapel of El Rosario, Puebla. Source: Wikimedia Commons, Maurice Marcellin, CC BY-SA 4.0

176

Decline and splendor

of the Rosary to St. Dominic in 1214. Thus, the Dominicans propagated the practice of the praying of the Rosary and the formation of confraternities devoted to this practice. The first Rosary confraternity in New Spain appeared in 1538 in Mexico City, followed by Puebla in 1555. Bishop Palafox, in the 1640s, also propagated and popularized the praying of the Rosary. Eventually, the Dominicans, c. 1650, began the construction of the first chapel in New Spain, in Puebla, dedicated to the praying of the Rosary and to the advocation of the Virgin Mary, who handed St. Dominic the Rosary.57 The chapel is a wondrous building that encapsulates a sophisticated theological program devised by a Dominican friar named Agustín Hernández, where every stucco swirl and the cherubim, angels, and anthropomorphic figures formed part of a theological message. As de la Maza pointed out, each one of the three bays that make up the barrel vault before the transept is dedicated to each one of the three theological virtues: Faith, Hope, and Charity, in that order, from entry to the transept. Each one was represented by a feminine sculpted figure, located in the middle of each vaulted bay, surrounded by a maze of strapwork. The three theological virtues allow humankind’s salvation through the grace of God, represented, also by a feminine figure, in the chapel’s dome, which is divided into eight sections. The section dedicated to Grace sits right across from the barrel vault as a sign that the virtues will lead unto God’s grace. The rest of the dome sections reference the seven gifts granted by the Holy Spirit: Understanding, Fortitude, Piety, Knowledge, Counsel, Wisdom, and Fear of God, which all revolve around God’s Grace and are watched, above, by a representation of the Holy Spirit, located in the dome’s lantern. The theological program continues in the dome’s drum, where sixteen sculptures represent a cadre of feminine saints, among them St. Agueda, St. Agnes, St. Rose of Viterbo, and others, attesting to the feminine clout in the Catholic pantheon and serving, in de la Maza’s reading, as the Virgin’s courtly entourage.58 The choir loft’s vault stands out among the ornamental inventory, representing a children’s orchestra playing various instruments, intertwined in swirls and curls of stucco strapwork. At the same time, the chapel is lined on its lateral walls with paintings by artist José Rodríguez Carnero, representing key moments in the life of the Virgin as Jesus’ mother. These moments are identified in the Rosary prayer regimen as “mysteries” and classified as sorrowful, glorious, luminous, and joyful. The baldachin is a magnificent structure made up of two vertical sections and a plinth, carved in local onyx stone. The first section contains a sculpture of Our Lady of the Rosary, surrounded by two pairs of Tuscan columns with onyx shafts on each of its four sides, while the upper level pays homage to the Order’s founder, St. Dominic Guzmán, whose sculpture is flanked on each side by a pair of Solomonic columns. The baldachin’s design appears inspired by the cathedral’s seventeenth-century one, consecrated by Palafox, and today replaced by a Neoclassical one. The baldachin’s gold finish completes the chapel’s character as a shimmering jewel box.

Decline and splendor

177

The Rosary Chapel is a monument to femininity and Catholic counterreformation, sensual piety, embodied in the form of an extravagant garden populated by children, cherubim, a cadre of saints rejoicing among a forest of vines, grape bunches, sprouts, and fruits, scattered in a forest of swirls and curls of golden stucco. A book was published at the time of the chapel’s consecration to celebrate the occasion. It was titled Octava Maravilla del Nuevo Mundo en la Gran Capilla del Rosario Dedicada y Aplaudida en el Convento de N.P.S. Domingo de la Ciudad de los Ángeles (Eighth Wonder of the New World in the Great Chapel of the Rosary, Dedicated, and Applauded in the Convent of Our Father, Saint Dominic in the City of Angels).59 It is worth spelling out the title in full, given that the laudatory monograph, which included a detailed architectural description of the building and a history of its construction, is meaningful in its intent – namely, to stake a claim for the chapel’s outstanding qualities, architectural, artistic, and religious, as a New World building worthy of global attention and worthy, in fact, of being considered one of the wonders of the world. In this way, poblano society was, in its way, attempting to place its city on the map of the global Spanish world of the early modern period through an architectural feat, expressing its aspiration to stand on an equal footing with a metropolitan city through the expression of piety and artistic and architectural ingenuity. While Puebla’s civil and clerical society expressed its pride in a monument finished in gold, a testament to its collective piety and prowess as the viceroyalty’s second city, another Baroque landmark, 17 km (10.5 miles) from downtown Puebla in the Indigenous town of Tonantzintla, exemplifies the constant struggle of colonial resistance and adaptation by the Indigenous communities of the Puebla Region and their employment of similar artistic and architectural vocabularies to create a building that merges and compounds Indigenous and European symbols. The town of Tonantzintla was founded as a new altepetl60 in the midsixteenth century by groups of Indigenous people that inhabited the slopes of Poxtécatl Hill on the outskirts of the present-day town. At this hill, there was a temple dedicated to the deity Tonantzin, which means “Our Little Mother” in Nahuatl while Tonantzintla translates as “The Place of Our Little Mother.” The Franciscan missionaries, who possessed monasteries in the vicinity, one at San Pedro Cholula and another one at San Andrés Cholula, established a Christian temple at this place dedicated to the Immaculate Conception, in order to curtail the cult of Tonantzin. They baptized the town as Santa María Tonantzintla: a marriage between the figure of the Virgin Mary and the Goddess Tonantzin.61 The church was built starting in the late sixteenth century and, formally, is a typical poblano church in a cruciform plan with a domed transept and choir loft in the narthex, oriented east-west, with the apse looking east. It has some subsidiary rooms attached to the temple, such as a sacristy and a baptistery, all built in masonry with local basalt stone. There is a courtyard next to the church building and the whole complex is surrounded by gardens

178 Decline and splendor and delimited by an atrium wall. The signature stucco decorations were carried out from the late seventeenth century to the early eighteenth century, inspired by the Rosary Chapel’s construction and completion in Puebla.62 A tri-lobulated arch marks the temple’s façade as a portal, flanked by attached, rectangular Tuscan pilasters, crowned with a simple entablature, and on the upper section, niches with sculptures of St. Peter and St. Paul flanking a choir window with the whole façade crowned by a balustrade as a semicircular pediment. The façade finished with red brick and interspersed with glazed ceramic tiles is unimpressive, particularly compared to the fantastic Indigenous Baroque façade of the nearby Church of San Francisco Acatepec, of similar manufacture and materials. The Indigenous inhabitants of Tonantzintla transferred their religious piety from their ancient Goddess Tonantzin to the Virgin Mary, triggering a religious hybridity process in which Catholic and pre-Hispanic beliefs became intertwined, as they remain to this day. The Church of Santa María Tonantzintla, thus, is the most prodigious example of Indigenous novohispanic Baroque architecture in the Puebla Region, whose formal and

Figure 5.15 Detail of the decoration at the Church of Tonantzintla, Puebla. Source: Wikimedia Commons, Daniellerandi, CC BY-SA 4.0

Decline and splendor

179

ornamental qualities, superficially, might resonate with those of buildings such as the Rosary Chapel; however, at a deeper level, their symbolic and iconographic programs can be profoundly dissimilar. The temple’s interior, as in the Rosary Chapel, is wholly covered in stucco decoration, with swirls and curls creating an intricate maze that covers walls, vaults, and the dome, complemented by the lush main golden retable and a baldachin wherein sits a sculpture of the temple’s advocation: Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception. The stucco swirls finished with color paint and gold accents are dotted with the appearance of small sculptures of Christian saints, representations of God, Jesus, and particularly of note, a significant number of children. Upon visiting the church in 1933, the author Aldous Huxley wrote that: To see the importance of Indianization, one must go to Santa María Tonantzintla. From the exterior, it could resemble any other Mexican church. The same cupola, the same pleasant and colorful façade. However, when you come inside, you find yourself in what is probably the most eccentric church of Christianity.63 The religious symbols at Tonantzintla are challenging to unpack, and readings of its iconographic program remain contested. For one, while the temple contains a clear Catholic iconographic program, one dedicated to Marian qualities in their advocation of the Immaculate Conception, representations of the Holy Trinity, and a representation of a Christian paradise populated with a small army of angels, the temple’s iconography contains attributes of Tonantzin, a deity associated with Cihuacoatl, a mythical feminine figure (literally “serpent woman”), and to Centeotl, the deity of corn and the earth. Tonantzin, it must be remembered, was also the deity adored in Tepeyac Hill, north of Mexico City, the site where the Sanctuary of Guadalupe was built in the early eighteenth century in another similar process of religious hybridity. Tonantzin, thus, was a deity associated with a wide array of concepts related to the earth, to fertility, to the health of children, to the blossoming of flowers, and agricultural fecundity, particularly of corn and fruits.64 This interpretation of Tonantzintla’s program points toward the notion of how the temple is a sophisticated interpretation of Tlalocan and Temoanchan, mythical places in the Mesoamerican tradition that became associated with Earthly Paradise and the Christian paradise of the afterlife.65 On the other hand, or rather, in dialogue with these Mesoamerican religious and mythical notions, the Catholic iconographic program revolves around, as mentioned earlier, Marian qualities, namely, the notion of the crowning of Mary as the queen of heaven and the Virgin as a mother. Additionally, there are references to the Holy Trinity, to the Christian paradise of the afterlife, and there are mentions of the eternal battle between good and evil, embodied by the Archangel St. Michael battling the dragon. The dome at Tonantzintla, for instance, has been interpreted as a representation of the Holy Trinity, wherein the Holy Spirit occupies the central position in

180 Decline and splendor the lantern, surrounded by cherubs. The transept arms display dedications, on the one hand, to God and, on the other, to Jesus. The art historian Pedro Rojas also found in the representation of a child strategically located on the intrados of an arch at the transept the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary’s figure, a representation of the Incarnation.66 At the same time, alternate readings of the temple’s iconography have pointed in different directions, with Glockner, inspired by the work of other scholars such as Gordon Wasson, finding references, indicated by the presence of small children populating the walls and vaults, to pre-Hispanic rainmaking and fertility rituals. These rituals in pre-Hispanic times involved the consumption of psychoactive mushrooms, called Teonanacatl in Nahuatl (literally “the Flesh of God”), also known as Plitzintli (“Little Children”), given that, according to tradition, consumption of the drug involved visions of small children during trance.67 To this day, Tonantzintla remains a temple dedicated to celebrating and reinforcing rituals of fertility, child-rearing, and fertility of the earth, dressed as Catholic rituals on the surface but with Indigenous elements and content. This is evident in the celebration of baptizings, first communions, weddings, and rituals in the Catholic calendrical cycle, such as the Via Crucis (Way of the Cross), and the patron saint’s feast, Our Lady of the Assumption, on August 15, which is celebrated by laying the sculpture of the Virgin on a bed made of pears, apples, and peaches. These rituals, together with the temple’s landscape, surrounded by agricultural land (today mostly developed due to Puebla’s enlarging urban sprawl), close to the range formed by the Iztaccihuatl and Popocatepetl volcanoes, operated in such a way as to celebrate and remind the town’s inhabitants of their perennial worldview. In this sense, at Tonantzintla, we find indications of how viceregal Mexican Baroque could operate in distinct and unique terms via-à-vis its European counterpart. At Tonantzintla, traces of pre-Hispanic religiosity and Indigenous, colonial culture acted through architecture as an artifact that aided this community in maintaining its ritual and religious framework, profoundly transformed but resisting annihilation in the face and pressures of colonialism, adapting to Christian demands, yet reinforcing, in a nuanced manner, its ancestral worldviews.

Epilogue: Puebla’s architectural splendor and the scholarship on Spanish American Baroque From a formal and materialistic perspective, Puebla in the 1600s and 1700s produced a significant number of landmarks characterized by ingenuity and creativity, based on a simple set of architectural, spatial, and ornamental devices and formulas. Chief among them is the poblano “material quartet” of red brick, gray basalt stone, glazed ceramic tile, and white stucco. Simultaneously, in religious buildings, gilded retables and stucco strapwork complemented the lavish and impressive interiors. Spatial solutions for civic

Decline and splendor

181

and religious buildings employed tried and proven formulas and typologies that remained, for the most part, fixed and constant throughout the 1600s and 1700s. This is one reason why European definitions of Baroque architecture, which rely, partially but significantly, on the notion of spatial experimentation fail to capture and sometimes even deny Spanish American architecture of the 1600s–1700s the category of Baroque. This is evident in how, historically, Spanish American Baroque architecture has been palpably neglected in the scholarship. For instance, famed British scholar Anthony Blunt, in his “Baroque and Rococo Architecture and Decoration” (1978), dedicated eight paragraphs to discussing Spanish American Baroque architecture (by comparison, Italian Baroque was amply discussed for some 83 pages). Before addressing the topic, Blunt assured his readers that, “however brilliant and fascinating” Spanish American Baroque architecture could ever be, it “burst through any acceptable definition of the Baroque.”68 Blunt should be credited for acknowledging Spanish and Spanish American architecture in his edited volume. However, in his short discussion on the topic, he denied the possibility that Indigenous peoples in Spanish America were able “to introduce elements of their ancient pagan symbolism” into the ornamentation programs of Baroque buildings in Spanish America. This was, in Blunt’s opinion, most probably a baseless claim.69 Contrastingly, architectural historian Christian Norberg-Schulz, in his volume “Baroque Architecture” (1979), did not even mention Spanish America in his survey, shunning Spain from his analysis as well, given that, in his opinion, Spain’s “wretched” state during the early modern period did not allow for “a true Baroque architecture” to ever flourish there.70 In NorbergSchulz’s view, a “true” Baroque architecture was based on Eurocentric religious and philosophical developments, which produced an architectural system characterized by notions such as movement, extension, and centralization. Moreover, while the author acknowledges that colonialism was an intrinsic part of the Baroque period, in his opinion, its consequence was merely that of “extending the social and cultural orders of European pluralism” while still managing to negate that pluralism by denying the American continent’s colonized territories – and Spain – the opportunity to participate in the dialogue of the architectural production of the era. Furthermore, recent volumes on the subject such as Lemerle and Pauwels’ “Baroque Architecture” (2008), while acknowledging Spanish American architecture as part of a broader Baroque tradition, base their analysis and understanding of architecture in the region as mostly derivative of European developments. While a scholarship review is not in order, nor is it the objective of this discussion, it is undeniable that Spanish American Baroque has been overlooked in mainstream European and North American scholarship. Instead, the task of incorporating this architectural tradition into a broader conversation has been relegated to Spanish-language scholarship from Latin America and Spain and a handful of English-speaking European and North American scholars specialized in the region. Given the scant attention granted to the

182 Decline and splendor topic, there is much left to be said regarding Latin American Baroque architecture, particularly in developing frameworks to analyze it and incorporate it into a global conversation regarding the Baroque. For the most part, categories employed to analyze the Baroque artistic and architectural production in Spanish America are primarily European in origin, which is necessary, initially, to decipher it. The work of scholar Martha Fernández on novohispanic architecture is exemplary of this. Fernández has convincingly employed categories such as the arrival and propagation of the Solomonic order in New Spain, including Puebla, and the theological qualities of light as a palpable element in architectural design, and the symbolic weight of the Heavenly Jerusalem as a design paradigm in the architecture of New Spain, including Puebla’s cathedral, to categorize and analyze the architectural production during the Baroque period. Perhaps the most pressing issue in need of deeper understanding, however, is the role and influence played by Indigenous peoples, Blacks, and mestizos in the design and construction of the architecture of Puebla and elsewhere. The case of Tonantzintla is paradigmatic of how Eurocentric categories fall short of their objectives and rendered ineffective when attempting to correctly decipher and understand hybrid works of architecture in novohispanic contexts. Otherwise, the Baroque culture of Puebla and New Spain has been calibrated through the lenses of the criollo elites, given they exerted a great deal of control over media such as book and pamphlet publishing, as well as university and clerical positions from which they promoted and amplified their messages. Regarding the criollo elite and its cultural production, a crucial organization to take into account in forging a Baroque culture in New Spain was the Society of Jesus. Its role as the educator of the criollo elite and its intellectual and theological output weighed very heavily in defining a regional intellectual tradition in New Spain. The Jesuits forged a philosophical and theological institution that adapted itself to a novohispanic context, and this philosophical tradition, under which a significant number of influential criollos were educated, was not necessarily that of a colonial setting, understood as the attempt of a colonial power to establish a replicated model in an occupied territory, wherein intellectual traditions are controlled and replicated after those of the metropole. Instead, New Spain in the first half of the 1700s was the site where a society was forging itself under an ethos of, according to Kuri Camacho, the notions of invention, revitalization, and synthetization, which generated a pragmatic philosophical discourse that called for action in the world that was cognizant and inclusive of the Other.71 According to this thesis, aspects of native, mestizo, Spanish, and criollo culture were part of its discourses, and these discourses appealed to a liberty of action to shape the world, both spiritual and material. As Kuri Camacho described it, the Jesuit Baroque enterprise was neither about thinking nor representing the world as a fait accompli but rather as a “world in the making.” Furthermore, according

Decline and splendor

183

to Kuri Camacho, the Jesuits employed the Spiritual Exercises as a tool to awaken the subject’s affections and create a sense of consciousness that responded to the needs of shaping the world in its making. This criollo ethos (created by the Jesuits but subscribed to by the criollo elite) translated into an architecture that was populated by signs, symbols, and metaphors, wherein fruits, vegetative motifs, cherubim, rocaille, or the strapwork that populated a Baroque façade, retable, or vault, was expressing that call to action and world-making.72 The fact that so many influential criollos were educated in the Jesuit system guaranteed, according to Higgins, that the brand of modernity articulated by the novohispanic criollos differed significantly from that of Europe.73 On that point, Kuri Camacho holds a similar view. In other words, novohispanic Baroque philosophy and theology borrowed from scholasticism, Classicism, Baroque poetics, empiricism, and Enlightenment or Neoclassical scientific impulses to create a hybrid brand of philosophy that fitted neither the notions of the Baroque nor the Enlightenment as defined in Europe.74 As Kuri Camacho affirms, unlike the enlightened European modernity that sought unity in its desire for uniformity and clarity, the novohispanic Baroque celebrated complexity and alterity. Puebla’s Baroque architecture, seen under this light, clearly partook from that convolution that projected a stirring and exhilarating sensation of overwhelming sensuality that was the essence of novohispanic Baroque.

Notes 1 Descendants of Spaniards born in New Spain. 2 Persons of mixed ethnic origin. 3 Miguel Ángel Cuenya Mateos, Puebla de los Ángeles en tiempos de una peste colonial: una mirada en torno al matlazahuatl de 1737 (Puebla, Mexico: El Colegio de Michoacán-Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, 1999), 93–94; Miguel Marín Bosch, Puebla neocolonial, 1777–1831. Casta, ocupación y matrimonio en la segunda ciudad de Nueva España (Puebla, Mexico: El Colegio de Jalisco-Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, BUAP, 1999), 55. 4 Cuenya Mateos, Puebla de los Ángeles en tiempos de una peste colonial: una mirada en torno al matlazahuatl de 1737, 82–97; Marín Bosch, Puebla neocolonial, 1777– 1831. Casta, ocupación y matrimonio en la segunda ciudad de Nueva España, 50; Juan Villa Sánchez, Puebla sagrada y profana. Informe dado a su muy ilustre ayuntamiento el año de 1746, por el M.R.P. Fray Juan de Villa Sánchez (Puebla: Imprenta de José María Campos, Calle de la Carnicería no. 18, 1835), 37. 5 Juan Carlos Garavaglia and Juan Carlos Grosso, “La región Puebla Tlaxcala y la economía novohispana,” in Puebla de la Colonia a la Revolución (Puebla, Mexico: Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, 1987), 82–83; Marín Bosch, Puebla neocolonial, 1777–1831. Casta, ocupación y matrimonio en la segunda ciudad de Nueva España, 55; Villa Sánchez, Puebla sagrada y profana. Informe dado a su muy ilustre ayuntamiento el año de 1746, por el M.R.P. Fray Juan de Villa Sánchez, 37. 6 Antonio Carrión, Historia de la ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles, vol. II (Puebla, Mexico: Viuda de Dávalos e hijos, editores, 1896), 43–44; Cuenya Mateos, Puebla de los Ángeles en tiempos de una peste colonial: una mirada en torno al

184 Decline and splendor

7

8

9 10

11 12 13 14

15 16 17

18 19

matlazahuatl de 1737, 95; Marín Bosch, Puebla neocolonial, 1777–1831. Casta, ocupación y matrimonio en la segunda ciudad de Nueva España, 55; Villa Sánchez, Puebla sagrada y profana. Informe dado a su muy ilustre ayuntamiento el año de 1746, por el M.R.P. Fray Juan de Villa Sánchez, 37–38. Pulque was the name of an alcoholic beverage that dated from the pre-Hispanic era. It is produced from the sap extracted from a maguey plant, a type of agave, and fermented. It has always been mostly consumed in the central valleys of Mexico and was popular during the viceregal period and until the nineteenth century, when European drinks, such as beer, became more popular. It is viscous and milky white, often drunk in combination with fruit juices, in which case it is known as a curado (cured). Regarding Puebla’s licentiousness and proclivity for drinking, which was Villa Sánchez’s fifth reason for Puebla’s decline, Ramos has indeed documented a great number of taverns and sheds with licenses to sell pulque and aguardiente. The high number of impoverished and unemployed people brought on by the economic crisis also might have increased the crime rate. See Cuenya Mateos, Puebla de los Ángeles en tiempos de una peste colonial: una mirada en torno al matlazahuatl de 1737, 253–54; Marín Bosch, Puebla neocolonial, 1777–1831. Casta, ocupación y matrimonio en la segunda ciudad de Nueva España, 58–59; Frances L. Ramos, Identity, Ritual, and Power in Colonial Puebla, First edition (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2012), 16–17; Villa Sánchez, Puebla sagrada y profana. Informe dado a su muy ilustre ayuntamiento el año de 1746, por el M.R.P. Fray Juan de Villa Sánchez, 49–54. Cuenya Mateos, Puebla de los Ángeles en tiempos de una peste colonial: una mirada en torno al matlazahuatl de 1737, 97. The Nahuatl word matlazahuatl was employed to refer to a disease that scholars believe was either the plague or typhus. Other reoccurring epidemics in New Spain and Puebla were caused by fiebre, a term probably employed to refer to typhus, hueyzahuatl (chicken pox), zahuatltepiton (measles), pleurisy, pneumonia, diphtheria, and others. Another disease known as cocoliztli, a Nahuatl word meaning literally “disease” or “pest,” has been associated with either plague, an unidentified hemorrhagic fever caused by a virus, or Salmonella. Cuenya Mateos, see particularly Chapter IV: El Matlazahuatl en la Puebla de los Ángeles. Cuenya Mateos, Puebla de los Ángeles en tiempos de una peste colonial: una mirada en torno al matlazahuatl de 1737, 47–55. Cuenya Mateos, Puebla de los Ángeles en tiempos de una peste colonial: una mirada en torno al matlazahuatl de 1737, 97. Cuenya Mateos, Puebla de los Ángeles en tiempos de una peste colonial: una mirada en torno al matlazahuatl de 1737, 97–98; Marín Bosch, Puebla neocolonial, 1777– 1831. Casta, ocupación y matrimonio en la segunda ciudad de Nueva España, 57–58; Villa Sánchez, Puebla sagrada y profana. Informe dado a su muy ilustre ayuntamiento el año de 1746, por el M.R.P. Fray Juan de Villa Sánchez, 52–53. Villa Sánchez, Puebla sagrada y profana. Informe dado a su muy ilustre ayuntamiento el año de 1746, por el M.R.P. Fray Juan de Villa Sánchez, 42. Cuenya Mateos, Puebla de los Ángeles en tiempos de una peste colonial: una mirada en torno al matlazahuatl de 1737, 110. Luis Alberto Arrioja Díaz-Viruell and Carlos Sánchez Silva, “Antequera en el siglo XVIII. Espacio urbano, demografía, economía y vida social,” in 475 Años de la Fundación de Oaxaca. I. Fundación y Colonia (Oaxaca, Mexico: Ayuntamiento de Oaxaca-Fundación Harp Helú, 2007), 122. Manuel Miño Grijalva, “El Censo de La Ciudad de México de 1790,” Historia Mexicana 41, no. 4 (1992): 665–70. Manuel Toussaint, La catedral y las iglesias de Puebla (Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa, 1954), 43.

Decline and splendor

185

20 Ramón Gutiérrez, “Repensando el barroco americano,” in Actas III Congreso Internacional del Barroco Americano: Territorio, Arte, Espacio y Sociedad. Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla, 8 al 12 de octubre de 2001 (Sevilla: Universidad Pablo de Olavide, 2001), 47. 21 Antonio Rubial García, “Los ángeles de Puebla. La larga construcción de una identidad patria,” in Poder civil y catolicismo en México, siglos XVI al XIX (Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas UNAM – Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades BUAP, 2008), 108–09. 22 Rubial García, “Los ángeles de Puebla. La larga construcción de una identidad patria.” 23 An exception is a pictographic map by Nicolás de Zamudio of the city of Puebla and its region, depicting topographic features like the Popocatépetl volcano and nearby towns, which is not in a very good conservation state. AGN, Archivo General de la Nación, Civil, Volume 1276, Folio 103. 24 Medina authored an astronomical prognosis or calendar for the year 1753. See José Mariano de Medina, Heliotropio Crítico Racional Prognóstico, computado a el meridiano de la Puebla de los Ángeles para el Año de 1753 (Puebla: Imprenta de la viuda de Miguel de Ortega, en el portal de las flores, 1752), www.archivo. cehmcarso.com.mx/janium/BCEHM/30025/index.html. 25 Richard Kagan, Urban Images of the Hispanic World, 1493–1793 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 108–32. 26 Angelis suis mandavit de te ut custodiant te in omnibus viis tuis (For he has given his Angels charge over you, so as to preserve you in all your ways). 27 Marín Tamayo, “La división racial en Puebla de los Ángeles bajo el régimen colonial,” 110–16; Cuenya Mateos and Contreras Cruz, Puebla de los Ángeles: Historia de una ciudad novohispana, 114–25. 28 Montero Pantoja, Arquitectura y urbanismo: De la Independencia a la Revolución, dos momentos claves en la historia urbana de la ciudad de Puebla, 19–23. 29 Miguel Ángel Cuenya Mateos and Carlos Contreras Cruz, Puebla de los Ángeles: Historia de una ciudad novohispana (Puebla: BUAP, Gobierno del estado de Puebla, 2007), 84. 30 Linda A. Curcio-Nagy, The Great Festivals of Colonial Mexico City: Performing Power and Identity (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 2004), 9. 31 Pilar Gonzalbo Aizpuru, Vivir en Nueva España: Orden y desorden en la vida cotidiana, First edition (Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 2009), 306. 32 Juan Chiva Beltrán et al., La fiesta barroca. Los virreinatos americanos (1560– 1808) (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, 2012), 90; Irving A. Leonard, La época barroca en el México Colonial, 17th ed. (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2004), 17–42. 33 J. Dávila Galindo, Atlante Allegorico, político diseño del govierno prudente de un principe acertado que la muy illustre augusta Ciudad de los Ángeles dedicó en los emblemas, y poesias de la Real Portada al Excellentissimo señor don Juan de Leyua y de la Cerda . . . (Puebla, Mexico: n.p., 1660). 34 Chiva Beltrán et al., La fiesta barroca. Los virreinatos americanos (1560–1808), 97–98. 35 Archivo Municipal de Puebla (AMP), Volume 28 of the Libros de Cabildo, Document 92, folios 202V-203V, September 29, 1673. 36 Cuenya Mateos and Contreras Cruz, Puebla de los Ángeles: Historia de una ciudad novohispana, 90–91. 37 Curcio-Nagy, The Great Festivals of Colonial Mexico City, 74. 38 Luis Weckmann, La herencia medieval de México, Second Edition (Mexico City: El Colegio de México – Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1994), 207. 39 Andrew Cashner, “Playing Cards at the Eucharistic Table: Music, Theology, and Society in a Corpus Christi Villancico from Colonial Mexico, 1628,” Journal of Early Modern History, no. 18 (2014): 384.

186 Decline and splendor 40 Archivo Municipal de Puebla (AMP), Volume 23 of Libros de Cabildo, Document 63, folios 131R-131V, May 31, 1651. 41 Archivo Municipal de Puebla (AMP), Volume 14 of Libros de Cabildo, Document 176, folio 106R, May 6, 1605. 42 The literature on female monasticism in Puebla and New Spain is quite extensive. Some relevant titles related to the topic are, for instance: Pablo Escalante Gonzalbo and Antonio Rubial García, “Los pueblos, los conventos y la liturgia,” in Historia de la vida cotidiana en México: Mesoamérica y los ámbitos indígenas de la Nueva España, Second edition, vol. I, V vols. (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2009); Antonio Rubial García, Monjas, Plebeyos y Cortesanos: La Vida Cotidiana En La Época de Sor Juana, First edition (Mexico City: Taurus, 2005); Rosalva Loreto López, “La función social y urbana del monacato femenino novohispano,” in La Iglesia en Nueva España. Problemas y perspectivas de investigación (Mexico City: UNAM – Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, 2010), 237–65. 43 James Early, The Colonial Architecture of Mexico (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1994), 77. 44 Toussaint, La catedral y las iglesias de Puebla, 177. 45 The estípite is a Spanish and Spanish American column order, present in some Churrigueresque works, and characterized by the use of inverted pyramidal or conic forms. 46 Manuel González Galván, “Modalidades del barroco mexicano,” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, no. 30 (1961): 46–47. 47 Dirk Bühler, Puebla: Patrimonio de arquitectura civil del virreinato (Munich: Deutsches Museum, 2001), 144. 48 Ibid., 153. 49 Montserrat Galí Boadella, “El patrocinio episcopal en la ciudad de Puebla; el caso del obispo Manuel Fernández de Santa Cruz (1677–1699)” (Actas III Congreso Internacional del Barroco americano: Territorio, arte espacio y sociedad, Seville: Universidad Pablo de Olavide, 2001), 73, www.upo.es/depa/webdhuma/ areas/arte/actas/3cibi/documentos/006f.pdf. 50 Octavio Paz, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz o las trampas de la fe, 522. 51 Galí Boadella, “El patrocinio episcopal en la ciudad de Puebla; el caso del obispo Manuel Fernández de Santa Cruz (1677–1699),” 74. 52 Escamilla González, “La caridad episcopal: El Hospital de San Pedro de Puebla en el siglo XVII.” 53 Torre Villar and Navarro de Anda, El Colegio de San Juan: Centro de formación de la cultura poblana, “Ordenanzas de Palafox, de la librería y bibliotecario,” 67. 54 Ibid., “Escritura de donación de Don Juan de Palafox,” 63. 55 Ibid., 59. 56 Eduardo Merlo Juárez, José Antonio Quintana Fernández, and Miguel Pavón Rivero, La catedral basílica de la Puebla de los Ángeles, First edition (Puebla, Mexico: UPAEP, 2006), 395–413. 57 Francisco de la Maza, “La Decoración Simbólica de La Capilla de Rosario de Puebla,” Anales Del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, no. 23 (1955): 7–8. 58 Ibid., 16. 59 Octava Maravilla del Nuevo Mundo en la gran Capilla del Rosario: Dedicada y aplaudida en el Convento de N.P.S. Domingo de la ciudad de los Angeles. El dia 16 del Mes de Abril de 1690 . . . [Con ocho sermones que se predicaron en la Octava] (Puebla, Mexico: Imprenta de Diego Fernández de León, 1690). 60 Altepetl (pl. altepeme) refers to the Nahuatl concept of social and urban organization, which in turn can be divided into calpullis, similar to the notion of a barrio. For a full explanation of the concept and its integration into the world of viceregal Puebla, see Chapter 1.

Decline and splendor

187

61 Julio Glockner, El paraíso barroco de Santa María Tonantzintla (Puebla: Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, BUAP-Ediciones EyC, 2016), 16. 62 Ibid., 91. 63 Aldous Huxley, Oltre la Baia del Messico (Padova: Franco Muzzio Editore, 1994), quoted in: Julio Glockner, “The Baroque Paradise of Santa María Tonantzintla (Part I),” Ethnologia Actualis 16, no. 1 (2016): 17. 64 Glockner, El paraíso barroco de Santa María Tonantzintla, 45–50. 65 Ibid., 109–41. 66 Pedro Rojas, Tonantzintla, Second edition (Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1978). 67 Glockner and Wasson remind us that contemporary shamans, like Maria Sabina, a woman that conducted and guided other people in psychoactive rituals in the highlands of Oaxaca in the 1960s and 1970s, also reported visions of small children in her trances. See Glockner, El paraíso barroco de Santa María Tonantzintla, 55–57. 68 Anthony Blunt, ed., Baroque and Rococo Architecture and Decoration (Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions, 1978), 299. 69 Ibid., 315–16. 70 Christian Norberg-Schulz, Baroque Architecture (New York: Electa/Rizzoli, 1979), 187. 71 Ramón Kuri Camacho, “Barroco jesuita, teología de los afectos y educación estética en el siglo XVII novohispano,” Revista de Filosofía, no. 55 (2007): 55–83. 72 Ibid. 73 Antony Higgins, Constructing the Criollo Archive: Subjects of Knowledge in the Bibliotheca Mexicana and the Rusticatio Mexicana (Indiana: Purdue University Press, 2000), 236. 74 Ramón Kuri Camacho, El barroco jesuita novohispano la forja de un México posible (Xalapa: Universidad Veracruzana, 2008), 29 and ss.

Bibliography

Archival Resources ACCP: AGI: AGN: AMP: ANP:

Archivo del Cabildo Catedralicio de Puebla Archivo General de Indias, Seville, Spain Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico Archivo Municipal de la Ciudad de Puebla Archivo de Notarías de Puebla

Chapter 1 Albi Romero, Guadalupe. “La sociedad de Puebla de los Ángeles en el siglo XVI.” In Ángeles y Constructores: Mitos y realidades en la historia de Puebla, siglos XVI y XVII, 127–206. Puebla: BUAP, Gobierno del estado de Puebla, 2006. Altman, Ida, Sarah Cline, and Juan Javier Pescador. The Early History of Greater Mexico. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003. Antigüedades, Real Academia de la Historia (Spain) Gabinete de, Jorge Maier, and Martín Almagro Gorbea. Antigüedades siglos XVI-XX. Real Academia de la Historia, 2005. Aquinas, Thomas. On Kingship to the King of Cyprus (De Regno Ad Regem Cypri). Translated by Gerald Phelan. Toronto: The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1949. http://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeRegno.htm. Aristotle. The Politics. Edited by Trevor J. Saunders. Translated by T.A. Sinclair. London: Penguin, 1981. Augustine. The City of God. 2 Vols. Translated by Marcus Dods. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871. Basalenque, Diego. Historia de la provincia de San Nicolás de Tolentino de Michoacán, del orden de N. P. S. Augustín. Mexico City: Tip. Barbadillo y Comp., 1886. http://cdigital.dgb.uanl.mx/la/1080027706/1080027706.html. Benavente, Fray Toribio de. Memoriales: Edición crítica, introducción, notas y apéndice, Nancy Joe Dyer. Edited by Nancy Joe Dyer. Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 1996. Bernal García, María Elena, and Angel Julián García Zambrano. “El altépetl colonial y sus antecedentes prehispánicos: contexto teórico-historiográfico.” In Territorialidad y paisaje en el altépetl del siglo XVI. First edition, 31–113. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2016.

Bibliography

189

Bonet Correa, Antonio. El Urbanismo en España e Hispanoamérica. Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra, 1991. Castro Morales, Efraín, ed. Suplemento de El Libro Número Primero de La Fundación y Establecimiento de La Muy Noble y Muy Leal Ciudad de Los Ángeles (Paleographic Edition of Puebla Town Hall Records Compiled in the 16th and 17th Centuries). Puebla, Mexico: Ayuntamiento de Puebla, 2008. Cervantes de Salazar, Francisco. México en 1554: Tres diálogos latinos de Francisco Cervantes de Salazar. Edited by Miguel León-Portilla and Joaquín García Icazbalceta. First edition. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas – UNAM, 2001. www.historicas.unam.mx/publicaciones/publicadigital/libros/mexico1554/ mex1554.html. Chanfón Olmos, Carlos, ed. Historia de la arquitectura y el urbanismo mexicanos: El periodo virreinal, Tomo I: El Encuentro De Dos Universos Culturales. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1997. Chevalier, François. Significación social de la fundación de la Puebla de los Ángeles. Puebla, Mexico: Centro de estudios históricos de Puebla, 1957. Cicero. On the Commonwealth and on the Laws. Edited by James E.G. Zetzel. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Cortés, Hernán, and Anthony Pagden. Hernán Cortés: Letters from Mexico. Revised second edition. New Haven: Yale Nota Bene, 1986. Cuenya Mateos, Miguel Ángel, and Carlos Contreras Cruz. Puebla de los Ángeles: Historia de una ciudad novohispana. Puebla: BUAP, Gobierno del estado de Puebla, 2007. Díaz del Castillo, Bernal, and Davíd Carrasco. The History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Díaz Del Castillo. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 2008. Escalante Gonzalbo, Pablo, and Antonio Rubial García. “Los pueblos, los conventos y la liturgia.” In Historia de la vida cotidiana en México: Mesoamérica y los ámbitos indígenas de la Nueva España. Second edition. Vol. I. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2009. Fernández, Martha. “La Jerusalén celeste. Imagen barroca de la ciudad novohispana.” In Actas III Congreso Internacional del Barroco Americano: Territorio, Arte, Espacio y Sociedad, 1012–31. Sevilla: Universidad Pablo de Olavide, 2001. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/libro?codigo=508346. Fernández Christlieb, Federico, and Angel Julián García Zambrano. Territorialidad y paisaje en el altepetl del siglo XVI. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2006. Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Mariano. Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado. Edited by Efraín Castro Morales. Vol. I. II vols. Puebla, Mexico: Ediciones Altiplano, 1962. Floris Margadant, Guillermo. “La política de congregación de indios en su etapa más áspera (1598–1605).” In Estudios en honor del doctor Luis Recaséns Siches. First edition, 627–49. Mexico City: Instituto de Investgaciones Jurídicas – UNAM, 1980. Gerhard, Peter. “Congregaciones de indios en la nueva España antes de 1570.” Historia Mexicana – El Colegio de México 26, no. 3 (March 1977): 347–95. Gibson, Charles. Tlaxcala en el siglo XVI. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1991.

190

Bibliography

Gómez García, Lidia. “El cabildo indio en la Puebla de los Ángeles, siglos XVI y XVII.” In Estampas de la vida angelopolitana: Ensayos de historia social del siglo XVI al XX/ María de Lourdes Herrera Feria (coord.), 11–24. Puebla, Mexico: BUAP – El Colegio de Tlaxcala, 2009. Gómez García, Lidia.“La fundación de la Nobilísima Ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles.” In La Puebla de los Ángeles en el Virreinato, 13–27. Puebla, Mexico: UPAEP, 2016. Gómez García, Lidia. Los anales nahuas de la ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles, siglos XVI y XVIII. Escribiendo historia indígena como aliados del rey católico de España. Puebla, Mexico: Ayuntamiento de Puebla-Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences, 2018. Gómez García, Lidia, Celia Salazar Exaire, and María Elena Stefanón López. Anales del Barrio de San Juan del Río: Crónica indígena de la Ciudad de Puebla, siglo XVII. First edition. Puebla, Mexico: Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – BUAP, 2000. Hirschberg, Julia. “La fundación de Puebla de los Ángeles: Mito y realidad.” Historia Mexicana – El Colegio de México 28, no. 2 (1978): 185–223. Hirschberg, Julia.“Social Experiment in New Spain: A Prosopographical Study of the Early Settlement at Puebla de Los Angeles, 1531–1534.” The Hispanic American Historical Review 59, no. 1 (February 1979): 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/2514134. Hunter, Richard. “Land Use Change in New Spain: A Three-Dimensional Historical GIS Analysis.” The Professional Geographer 66, no. 2 (May 2, 2013): 260–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2013.784951. Illades Aguiar, Lilián. “La Puebla de los Ángeles: Fundación de Tierra Adentro.” In XXII Coloquio de Historia Canario-Americana, 23: 1–8. XXII. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 2017. Jiménez Abollado, Francisco Luis. “Sobre la conveniencia o no de establecer congregaciones de indios en los reales de minas.” Relaciones, no. 133 (Winter 2013): 143–66. Kagan, Richard. Urban Images of the Hispanic World, 1493–1793. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000. Kubler, George. “Mexican Urbanism in the Sixteenth Century.” The Art Bulletin 24, no. 2 (June 1942): 160–71. Leicht, Hugo. Las calles de Puebla. Tenth edition. Puebla: Secretaría de Cultura, Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, 2009. León-Portilla, Miguel, and Carmen Aguilera. Mapa de México Tenochtitlan y sus contornos hacia 1550. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas UNAM – Ediciones Era, 2016. López Austin, Alfredo. “Las Columnas del Cosmos.” Arqueología Mexicana, Cosmogonía y geometría cósmica, no. 83 (December 2018): 13–37. López de Velasco, Juan. Geografía y descripción universal de las Indias. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia Española, 1894. López de Villaseñor, Pedro. Cartilla Vieja de la Nobilísima Ciudad de Puebla. Facsimilar Edition of the 1781 Original. Mexico City: UNAM, 1961. López Guzmán, Rafael. Territorio, poblamiento y arquitectura: México en las Relaciones Geográficas de Felipe II. First edition. Granada, Spain: Editorial Universidad de Granada, 2007. Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo. Tenochtitlan. Mexico City: El Colegio de México – Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2006. Mínguez Cornelles, Víctor Manuel, and María Inmaculada Rodríguez Moya. Las ciudades del absolutismo: Las ciudades del absolutismo en Europa y América en los siglos XV-XVIII. Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I, 2006.

Bibliography

191

Morales Folguera, José Miguel. La construcción de la Utopía: El proyecto de Felipe II (1556–1598) para Hispanoamérica. Madrid: Universidad de Málaga, 2001. Morse, Richard M. “The Urban Development of Colonial Spanish America.” In The Cambridge History of Latin America. Volume II. Colonial Latin America, 67–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Mundy, Barbara E. The Death of Aztec Tenochtitlan, the Life of Mexico City. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2015. Olivera, Mercedes, and Ma. de los Ángeles Romero. “La Estructura Política de Oaxaca En El Siglo XVI.” Revista Mexicana de Sociología 35, no. 2 (1973): 227–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/3539586. Ortega Noriega, Sergio. Breve Historia de Sinaloa. Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 1999. Peña Espinoza, Jesús Joel. “El Cabildo eclesiástico de la Diócesis Tlaxcala-Puebla, sus años de formación, 1526–1548.” Historia y antropología de Puebla – Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, no. 78 (2005): 12–22. Peñafiel, Antonio. La Ciudad Virreinal de Tlaxcala. Ciudades Coloniales y capitales de la República Mexicana. Mexico City: Imprenta y fototipia de la Secretaría de Fomento, 1909. Pérez-Rivero Maurer, Guadalupe. “El gobierno virreinal de la Puebla de los Ángeles (1531–1821).” In La Puebla de los Ángeles en el Virreinato, 29–59. Puebla, Mexico: UPAEP, 2016. Pitzl, Gerald Rudolph. Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004. Ramos, Frances L. Identity, Ritual, and Power in Colonial Puebla. First edition. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2012. Recasens. El primer obispo de Tlaxcala, d. fr. Julian Garcés: estudio biografico. Mexico City: Tip. Barbedillo y comp., 1884. Serrano y Sanz, Manuel. Orígenes de la dominación española en América; estudios históricos. Madrid: Bailly-Bailliere, 1918. Sevilla, Isidoro de. Etimologías. Versión bilingüe. Translated by José Oroz Reta and Manuel Marcos Casquero. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos (BAC), 2004. Sluyter, Andrew.“Landscape Change and Livestock in Sixteenth-Century New Spain: The Archival Data Base.” Yearbook. Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers 23 (January 1, 1997): 27–39. Solano, Francisco de. Cedulario de tierras: Compilación agraria colonial (1497–1820). Fuentes, textos y estudios legislativos 52. Mexico City: Instituto de Investgaciones Jurídicas – UNAM, 1992. Vélez Pliego, Francisco. “El paisaje cultural de Valle de Cuetlaxcoapan.” Cuetlaxcoapan. Revista del centro histórico de Puebla 1, no. 1 (2015): 3–9. Villa Sánchez, Juan. Puebla sagrada y profana. Informe dado a su muy ilustre ayuntamiento el año de 1746, por el M.R.P. Fray Juan de Villa Sánchez. Puebla: Imprenta de José María Campos, Calle de la Carnicería no. 18, 1835. Wagner, Logan, Hal Box, and Susan Kline Morehead. Ancient Origins of the Mexican Plaza: From Primordial Sea to Public Space. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013. Zavala, Silvio. Epistolario de Nueva España, 1505–1818. Vol. 16. Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa, 1942. Zavala, Silvio. La encomienda indiana. Madrid: Helénica, 1935.

192

Bibliography

Chapter 2 Armenta Olvera, Juan Manuel, and Rafael Ruiz Martínez. Las Capillas del Vía Crucis en Puebla, su Historia. Puebla, Mexico: Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, Secretaría de Cultura, 1992. Báez Hernández, Montserrat, and Fabián Valdivia Pérez, eds. Guía de patrimonio religioso de la ciudad de Puebla. Puebla, Mexico: Ayuntamiento de Puebla, 2012. Báez Rubí, Linda. Mnemosine novohispánica: retórica e imágenes en el siglo XVI. Mexico City: UNAM, 2005. Bermúdez de Castro, Diego Antonio. Theatro Angelopolitano ó Historia de la Ciudad de la Puebla, escrita por D. Diego Antonio Bermúdez de Castro, Escribano Real y Notario Mayor de la Curia Eclesiástica del Obispado de Puebla. México City, 1746. Bielza de Ory, Vicente. “La ciudad ortogonal aragonesa del camino de Santiago y su influencia en el urbanismo regular posterior.” Aragón en la Edad Media, no. 16 (2000): 25–44. Bonet Correa, Antonio. “Sacromontes y calvarios en España, Portugal y América Latina.” In La “Gerusalemme” di San Vivaldo e i Sacri Monti in Europa. Firenze-San Vivaldo, 11–13 settembre, 1986, 173–214. Florence: Centro internazionale di studi “La ‘Gerusalemme’ di San Vivaldo” – Comune di Montaione, 1986. Burke, Juan Luis. “La teoría arquitectónica clásica en la Nueva España y los tratados arquitectónicos como artefactos colonialistas.”Revista Bitácora, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, no. 43 (2020). www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/bitacora/ issue/archive. Cardini, Franco. “I Sacri Monti nella tradizione cristiana latina.” In Religioni e Sacri Monti Atti del Convegno Internazionale Torino-Moncalvo-Casale Monferrato, 12–16 ottobre 2004, 109–16. Turin: Centro de Documentazione dei Sacri Monti, Calvari e Complessi devozionali europei, 2006. Chanfón Olmos, Carlos, ed. Historia de la arquitectura y el urbanismo mexicanos: El periodo virreinal, Tomo I: El Encuentro De Dos Universos Culturales. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1997. Choay, Françoise. The Rule and the Model: On the Theory of Architecture and Urbanism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996. Coogan, Michael D., Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins, eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, NRSV. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Corboz, André. “La ciudad como templo.” In Dios Arquitecto: J.B. Villalpando y el Templo de Solomón, 51–77. Madrid: Siruela, 1991. Dussel, Enrique.“Eurocentrism and Modernity (Introduction to the Frankfurt Lectures).” Boundary 2, The Postmodern Debate in Latin America, Duke University Press 2, no. 20 (Autumn 1993): 65–76. Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1961. Fernández, Martha. La imagen del Templo de Jerusalén en la Nueva España. First edition. Colección de Arte 52. Mexico City: UNAM, 2003. Fernández, Martha. “La Jerusalén celeste. Imagen barroca de la ciudad novohispana.” In Actas III Congreso Internacional del Barroco Americano: Territorio, Arte,

Bibliography

193

Espacio y Sociedad, 1012–31. Sevilla: Universidad Pablo de Olavide, 2001. https:// dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/libro?codigo=508346. Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Mariano. Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado. Edited by Efraín Castro Morales. Vol. I. II vols. Puebla, Mexico: Ediciones Altiplano, 1962. Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Mariano. Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado. Edited by Efraín Castro Morales. Vol. II. II vols. Puebla, Mexico: Ediciones Altiplano, 1962. Filoramo, Giovanni. “I monti sacri nella storia delle religioni.” In Religioni e Sacri Monti Atti del Convegno Internazionale Torino-Moncalvo-Casale Monferrato, 12–16 ottobre 2004, 49–56. Turin: Centro de Documentazione dei Sacri Monti, Calvari e Complessi devozionali europei, 2006. García Lastra, Leopoldo, and Silvia Castellanos Gómez. Utopía Angelopolitana. First edition. Puebla: State Government of Puebla, 2008. Gasparini, Graziano. “The Pre-Hispanic Grid System: The Urban Shape of Conquest and Territorial Organization.” In Settlements in the Americas: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, Ralph Bennett, Ed., 78–109. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1993. González-Hermosillo Adams, Francisco. “De tecpan a cabecera. Cholula o la metamorfosis de un reino soberano naua en ayuntamiento indio del rey de España durante el siglo XVI.” Dimensión Antropológica 33 (2005): 7–67. Kubler, George.“Cities of Latin America since Discovery.” In Settlements in the Americas: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, 17–27. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1993. Kubler, George. “La traza colonial de Cholula.” Estudios de Historia Novohispana 2, no. 2 (1968): 1–30. Kubler, George. “Mexican Urbanism in the Sixteenth Century.” The Art Bulletin 24, no. 2 (June 1942): 160–71. Lara, Fernando Luiz. “American Mirror: The Occupation of the ‘New World’ and the Rise of Architecture as We Know It.” The Plan Journal 5, no. 1 (May 2020): 1–18. Lara, Jaime. City, Temple, Stage: Eschatological Architecture and Liturgical Theatrics in New Spain. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004. Leatherbarrow, David. “The Image and Its Setting: A Study of the Sacro Monte at Varallo.” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, no. 14 (Autumn 1987): 107–22. Leicht, Hugo. Las calles de Puebla. Tenth edition. Puebla: Secretaría de Cultura, Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, 2009. Lilley, Keith D. City and Cosmos: The Medieval World in Urban Form. London: Reaktion Books, 2009. Lockhart, James. The Nahuas After the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994. Matus, Thomas. “Religioni, ambiente, paesaggio.” In Religioni e Sacri Monti Atti del Convegno Internazionale Torino-Moncalvo-Casale Monferrato, 12–16 ottobre 2004, 63–76. Turin: Centro de Documentazione dei Sacri Monti, Calvari e Complessi devozionali europei, 2006. Maza, Francisco de la. “El arte colonial como expresión histórica de México.” Memoria de la academia Mexicana de la historia 24, no. 4 (1965). Maza, Francisco de la. “Fray Diego Valadés. Escritor y grabador franciscano del siglo XVI.” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas 4, no. 13 (1945): 15–44.

194

Bibliography

Méndez Sáinz, Eloy. Urbanismo y morfología de las ciudades novohispanas: el diseño de Puebla. Second edition. Puebla: UNAM – BUAP, 1989. Mignolo, Walter D. The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality, & Colonization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998. Morse, Richard M. “Some Characteristics of Latin American Urban History.” The American Historical Review 67, no. 2 (January 1962): 317–38. Morse, Richard M. “The Urban Development of Colonial Spanish America.” In The Cambridge History of Latin America. Volume II. Colonial Latin America, 67–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Muñoz Jiménez, José Miguel. “Sobre la ‘Jerusalén restaurada’: Los calvarios barrocos en España.” Archivo Español de Arte (AEA) LXIX, no. 274 (June 1996): 157–69. Navarro Segura, María Isabel. “Las fundaciones de ciudades y el pensamiento urbanístico hispano en la era del descubrimiento.” Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales. Universidad de Barcelona X, no. 218 (43) (August 2006). www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-218-43.htm#_ednref5. Nebenzahl, Kenneth. Maps of the Holy Lands: Images of Terra Sancta Through Two Millenia. First edition. London: Abbeville Promotional, 1990. Palomera, Esteban J. “Introducción.” In Retórica Cristiana de Fray Diego de Valadés, VII–XLIX. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1989. Pérez-Gómez, Alberto. Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983. Pérez-Gómez, Alberto. Built Upon Love. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008. Pérez-Gómez, Alberto. “Juan Bautista Villalpando’s Divine Model in Architectural Theory.” Chora: Intervals in the Philosophy of Architecture 1, no. 3 (1999): 125–56. Ramírez, Juan Antonio. “Evocar, reconstruir, tal vez soñar (el Templo de Jerusalén en la historia de la arquitectura).” In Dios arquitecto: J.B. Villalpando y el Templo de Salomón, 1–48. Madrid: Siruela, 1991. Robin, Alena. Las capillas del Vía Crucis de la Ciudad de México: Arte, patrocinio y sacralización del espacio. Mexico City: UNAM – Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, 2014. Saga, Manuel. Granada Des-Granada: Raíces Legales de la Forma Urbana Morisca e Hispana. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes, 2018. Salcedo Salcedo, Jaime. Urbanismo Hispanoamericano Siglos XVI, XVII, XVIII. Third edition. Bogotá: Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, 2018. Smith, Michael E. Aztec City-State Capitals. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2008. Smith, Michael E. “The Teotihuacan Anomaly: The Historical Trajectory of Urban Design in Ancient Central Mexico.” Open Archaeology 3, no. 1 (2017): 175–93. Solano, Francisco de. Ciudades hispanoamericanas y pueblos de indios. Madrid: Editorial del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas – CSIC Press, 1990. Valadés, Diego. Retórica cristiana. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2003. Vetancurt, Augustín, de. Teatro Mexicano: Descripción Breve de los Sucessos Exemplares, Históricos, Políticos, Militares y Religiosos del Nuevo Mundo Occidental de las Indias, Tratado de la Ciudad de México, y las Grandezas que la Ilustran después que la Fundaron los Españoles. Tratado de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles, y grandezas que la Ilustran. por doña Maria de Benavides viuda de Iuan de Ribera, 1698.

Bibliography

195

Vitruvius Pollio, Marcus. On Architecture. Translated by Richard Schofield. First edition. London, UK: Penguin Classics, 2009. Wagner, Logan, Hal Box, and Susan Kline Morehead. Ancient Origins of the Mexican Plaza: From Primordial Sea to Public Space. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013. Zatelli, Ida. “Monti e luoghi elevati nella bibbia ebraica: monti di dio e sacralità di Sion.” In Religioni e Sacri Monti Atti del Convegno Internazionale Torino-MoncalvoCasale Monferrato, 12–16 ottobre 2004, 95–108. Turin: Centro de Documentazione dei Sacri Monti, Calvari e Complessi devozionali europei, 2006. Zedelgem, Amédée de. “Saggio storico sulla devozione alla Via Crucis.” In Saggio storico sulla devozione alla Via Crucis a cura di Amilcare Barbero e Pasquale Magro. Edizione originale del 1949, traduzione dal francese di Paolo Pellizzari. Turin, Italy: Centro de Documentazione dei Sacri Monti, Calvari e Complessi devozionali europei, 2004.

Chapter 3 Anderson, Christy. Renaissance Architecture. First edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Borys, Ann Marie. Vincenzo Scamozzi and the Chorography of Early Modern Architecture. Burlington, VT: Routledge, 2014. Bühler, Dirk. Puebla: Patrimonio de arquitectura civil del virreinato. Munich: Deutsches Museum, 2001. Burke, Peter, Luke Clossey, and Felipe Fernández-Armiesto. “The Global Renaissance.” Journal of World History 28, no. 1 (March 2017): 1–30. https://doi.org/ doi:10.1353/jwh.2017.0000. Castro Morales, Efraín. “Algunas consideraciones acerca del deán de Tlaxcala.” In Profecía y Triunfo: La Casa del Deán Tomás de la plaza. Facetas plurivalentes, 11–46. Madrid: Vervuert-Iberoamericana, 2013. Castro Morales, Efraín. “Francisco Becerra en el Valle de Puebla.” Anales del Instituto del Arte Americano e Investigaciones Estéticas, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo, no. 13 (1960): 10–33. Castro Morales, Efraín.“Luis de Arciniega, Maestro Mayor de La Catedral de Puebla.” Anales Del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas VII, no. 27 (1958): 17–32. Cervantes de Salazar, Francisco. México en 1554: Tres diálogos latinos de Francisco Cervantes de Salazar. Edited by Miguel León-Portilla and Joaquín García Icazbalceta. First edition. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas – UNAM, 2001. www. historicas.unam.mx/publicaciones/publicadigital/libros/mexico1554/mex1554.html. Checa, Fernando,Alfredo J. Morales, and Víctor Nieto. Arquitectura del Renacimiento en España. 1488–1599. Manuales de Arte. Madrid: Cátedra, 2009. Cuenya Mateos, Miguel Ángel. Puebla de los Ángeles en tiempos de una peste colonial: una mirada en torno al matlazahuatl de 1737. Puebla, Mexico: El Colegio de Michoacán-Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, 1999. Cuesta Hernández, Luis Javier. Arquitectura del Renacimiento en Nueva España: “Claudio de Arciniega, Maestro Maior de la Obra de la Yglesia Catedral de Esta Ciudad de México”. Mexico City: Universidad Iberoamericana, 2009. Dean, Carolyn, and Dana Leibsohn. “Hybridity and Its Discontents: Considering Visual Culture in Colonial Spanish America.” Colonial Latin American Review 12, no. 1 (2003): 5–35.

196

Bibliography

Díaz Cayeros, Patricia. “Las ordenanzas de los carpinteros y alarifes de Puebla.” In El mundo de las catedrales novohispanas, 91–117. Puebla, Mexico: Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – BUAP, 2002. Di Camillo, Ottavio. “Interpretations of Humanism in Recent Spanish Renaissance Studies.” Renaissance Quarterly 50, no. 4 (1997): 1190–201. https://doi. org/10.2307/3039407. Farago, Claire. Reframing the Renaissance: Visual Cutlure in Europe and Latin America, 1450–1650. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995. Fernández, Martha. Cristobal de Medina Vargas y la arquitectura salomónica en la Nueva España del siglo XVII. Mexico City: UNAM, 2003. Fernández, Martha. “El albañil, el arquitecto y el alarife en la Nueva España.” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas XIV, no. 55 (1986): 49–68. Fernández, Martha. “El nacimiento de la arquitectura barroca novohispana: una interpretación.” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas 14, no. 56 (June 8, 1986): 17–28. Fernández, Martha. “La casa en la Nueva España.” In Casas señoriales del Banco Nacional de México, 17–45. Mexico City: Fomento Cultural Banamex, 1999. Fernández Muñoz, Yolanda. “El arquitecto Francisco Becerra.” Boletín de Monumentos Históricos – Tercera época, no. 27 (April 2013): 135–50. Fraser, Valerie. The Architecture of Conquest: Building in the Viceroyalty of Peru, 1535–1635. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. García Oviedo, Cristina. “Francisco Becerra: interpretaciones de la arquitectura española en América.” Anales de Historia del Arte, no. 11 (2001): 121–48. Gómez, Lidia E. “La fundación de la Nobilísima Ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles.” In La Puebla de los Ángeles en el Virreinato, 13–27. Puebla, Mexico: UPAEP, 2016. Gonzalbo Aizpuru, Pilar. “Facetas de la educación humanista de los novohispanos en el siglo XVII.” Enciclopedia de la literatura en México-Fundación para las letras mexicanas, April 2018. www.elem.mx/estgrp/datos/174. Griffin, Clive. The Crombergers of Seville: The History of a Printing and Merchant Dynasty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Gruzinski, Serge. El águila y la sibila. Frescos indios de México. First edition. Barcelona: Moleiro Editor, 1994. Jaramillo, Diana Isabel, ed. De libros ingeniosos de la Biblioteca Palafoxiana y un manuscrito. Puebla, Mexico: Gobierno del Estado de Puebla; Biblioteca Palafoxiana, 2018. Kagan, Richard. Urban Images of the Hispanic World, 1493–1793. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000. Kubler, George. Arquitectura Mexicana del Siglo XVI. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1983. Leicht, Hugo. Las calles de Puebla. Tenth edition. Puebla: Secretaría de Cultura, Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, 2009. Marías, Fernando. “Architectura – Les Livres d’Architecture: Vitruvius Edition of 1582 by Miguel de Urrea in Spanish,” 2012. http://architectura.cesr.univ-tours.fr/ traite/Notice/Urrea1582.asp?param=en. McAndrew, John, and Manuel Toussaint. “Tecali, Zacatlan, and the Renacimiento Purista in Mexico.” The Art Bulletin 24, no. 4 (1942): 311–25. Mínguez Cornelles, Víctor Manuel, and María Inmaculada Rodríguez Moya. Las ciudades del absolutismo: Las ciudades del absolutismo en Europa y América en los siglos XV-XVIII. Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I, 2006.

Bibliography

197

Molero Sañudo, Antonio. “Francisco Becerra y Otros Nuevos ‘Arquitectos’ En La Nueva España.” NORBA, Revista de Arte XXXVI (2016): 69–94. Montero Pantoja, Carlos. La Arquitectura del Saber: Los Colegios de Puebla 1531– 1917. Puebla, Mexico: BUAP – Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – EyC, 2013. Morales, Efraín Castro. Constructores de la Puebla de Los Ángeles: Arquitectos, alarifes, albañiles, canteros y carpinteros novohispanos. Puebla, Mexico: Museo Mexicano, 2004. Moreno Villa, José. La escultura colonial mexicana. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1978. Morrill, Penny C. The Casa Del Deán: New World Imagery in a Sixteenth-Century Mexican Mural Cycle. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2014. Museo Nacional de Arte (MUNAL). José Juárez: Recursos y discursos del arte del pintor. Mexico City: Banamex-Patronato MUNAL, 2002. Nauert, Charles, G. Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Olvera Calvo, María del Carmen. “Los sistemas constructivos en las ‘Ordenanzas de albañiles de la ciudad de México de 1599’. Un acercamiento.” Boletín de Monumentos Históricos – Tercera época, no. 22 (August 2011): 7–43. Palm, Erwin Walter. “El sincretismo emblemático en los Triunfos de la Casa del Deán.” In Profecía y Triunfo. La Casa del Deán Tomás de la Plaza. Facetas plurivalentes, 289–95. Frankfurt-Madrid: Iberoamericana Vervuert, 2013. Passini, Jean. “El palacio urbano: formación de un modelo en la Edad Media.” Anales de Historia del Arte 23, no. Número Especial II (2013): 509–20. Payne, Alina A. The Architectural Treatise in the Italian Renaissance: Architectural Invention, Ornament and Literary Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Pérez-Rivero Maurer, Guadalupe. “El gobierno virreinal de la Puebla de los Ángeles (1531–1821).” In La Puebla de los Ángeles en el Virreinato, 29–59. Puebla, Mexico: UPAEP, 2016. Portilla, Anselmo de la. Instrucciones que los virreyes de la Nueva España dejaron a sus sucesores. Vol. 1. 2 vols. México: Imprenta de Ignacio Escalante, 1873. Ramon Carmona, Marc de, and Pablo Posada González. Guía arquitectura representativa de a ciudad de Puebla. Puebla, Mexico: L’anxaneta Ediciones-Ayuntamiento de Puebla, 2008. Reyes-Valerio, Constantino. Arte indocristiano: Escultura del siglo XVI en México. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 1942. Rolán, Tomás González. “Los comienzos del Humanismo Renacentista en España.” Revista de lenguas y literaturas catalana, gallega y vasca, no. 9 (2003): 23–28. Rubial García, Antonio. El paraíso de los elegidos: Una lectura de la historia cultural de Nueva España (1521–1804). First edition. Mexico City: FCE – UNAM, 2010. Russo, Alessandra. The Untranslatable Image: A Mestizo History of the Arts in New Spain, 1500–1600. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2014. Serlio, Sebastiano. On Architecture, Volume One, Books I-V of “Tutte l’Opere d’Architettura et Prospetiva” by Sebastiano Serlio. Translated by Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996. Temple, Nicholas, Andrzej Piotrowski, and Juan Manuel Heredia, eds. The Routledge Handbook on the Reception of Classical Architecture. First edition. London and New York: Routledge, 2019.

198

Bibliography

Terán Bonilla, José Antonio. “Serlio en Nueva España. Estudio preliminar.” In Tercero y quarto libro de architectura de Sebastián Serlio Boloñés. Edición facsimilar, 13–23. Puebla, Mexico: Secretaría de Cultura, Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, 1996. Toussaint, Manuel. Colonial Art in Mexico. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1967. Toussaint, Manuel. “Vitruvio interpretado por un arquitecto novohispano.” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas 5, no. 18 (1950): 85–92. Tovar de Teresa, Guillermo. “La utopía del virrey de Mendoza.” In La utopía mexicana del siglo XVI: Lo bello, lo verdadero y lo bueno, First edition. Mexico City: Editorial Azabache, 1992. Wittkower, Rudolf. Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism. Second edition. London: Alec Tiranti, Ltd., 1952.

Chapter 4 Aguiar y Acuña, Rodrigo, de, and Juan Francisco Montemayor y Córdoba de Cuenca. Sumarios de la Recopilación General de Leyes de las Indias. First edition. Mexico City: UNAM – Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1994. http://biblio.juridicas.unam. mx/libros/libro.htm?l=1379. Álvarez de Toledo, Cayetana. Juan de Palafox: obispo y virrey. Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2011. Bravo Arriaga, María Dolores. “Juan de Palafox y la perfecta integración de la República Cristiana.” In La pluma y el báculo: Juan de Palafox y el mundo hispano del seiscientos. First edition. Puebla, Mexico: Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – BUAP, 2004. Bullarum, privilegiorum ac diplomatum Romanorum Pontificum amplissima collectio . . . A. S. Leone Magno . . . Clementis XII opera. Caroli Cocquelines. Mainardi, 1760. Cañeque, Alejandro. The King’s Living Image: The Culture and Politics of Viceregal Power in Colonial Mexico. First edition. New York: Routledge, 2004. Carrizosa, Paula. “Presentaron libro de Eduardo Merlo sobre el culto a San Miguel del Milagro.” La Jornade de Oriente, March 12, 2010. www.lajornadadeoriente. com.mx/2010/03/12/puebla/cul616.php. Coogan, Michael D., Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins, eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, NRSV. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. “The Council of Trent – Session 23.”Accessed November 16, 2015.www.thecounciloftrent. com/ch23.htm. Escamilla González, Iván. “La caridad episcopal: El Hospital de San Pedro de Puebla en el siglo XVII.” In El mundo de las catedrales novohispanas. Edited by Montserrat Galí Boadella. First edition, 239–52. Puebla, Mexico: Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – BUAP, 2002. Fee, Nancy H. “Proyecto de magnificencia Trentina: Palafox y el patrocinio de la Catedral de la Puebla de los Ángeles.” In La catedral de Puebla en el arte y la historia. First edition, 153–76. Puebla, Mexico: Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – BUAP; Arzobispado de Puebla; Gobierno del estado, 1999. Fernández, Martha. La imagen del Templo de Jerusalén en la Nueva España. First edition. Colección de Arte 52. Mexico City: UNAM, 2003. Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Mariano. Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, su descripción y presente estado.

Bibliography

199

Edited by Efraín Castro Morales. Vol. I. II vols. Puebla, Mexico: Ediciones Altiplano, 1962. Florencia, Francisco de. Narración de la maravillosa aparición que hizo el Arcángel San Miguel a Diego Lázaro de San Francisco, Indio feligrés del Pueblo de S. Bernabé, de la Jurisdicción de Sta. María Natívitas. Fundación del Santuario que llaman S. Miguel del Milagro, de la Fuente Milagrosa. Puebla, Mexico: Colegio Pio de Artes y Oficios, 1898. Galí Boadella, Montserrat. “Juan de Palafox y el arte. Pintores, arquitectos y otros artífices al servicio de Juan de Palafox.” In Palafox: Iglesia, cultura y Estado en el siglo XVII. Congreso Internacional IV Centenario del Nacimiento de Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, 367–79. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad de Navarra, 2000. García, Genaro. Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza. Facsimile of original published in 1918. With an introduction by Efraín Castro Morales. Puebla, Mexico: Museo Mexicano, 2011. García Pimentel, Luis. Relación de los obispados de Tlaxcala, Michoacán, Oaxaca y otros lugares en el siglo XVI. Manuscrito de la colección del señor Don Joaquín García Icazbalceta. Mexico City: Casa del Editor, Donceles No. 9, 1904. Garduño Pérez, María Leticia. “Un siglo de platería en la Catedral de Puebla a través de sus Inventarios de Alhajas.” Doctoral Thesis, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras – Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2011. Leicht, Hugo. Las calles de Puebla. Tenth edition. Secretaría de Cultura, Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, 2009. López de Villaseñor, Pedro. Cartilla Vieja de la Nobilísima Ciudad de Puebla. Facsimilar edition of the 1781 original. Mexico City: UNAM, 1961. Lorda, Joaquín. “Puebla y Madrid: ciprés o baldaquino.” In Palafox: Iglesia, Cultura y Estado en el siglo XVII. Congreso Internacional IV Centenario del Nacimiento de Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, 427–41. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad de Navarra, 2001. Merlo Juárez, Eduardo, José Antonio Quintana Fernández, and Miguel Pavón Rivero. La catedral basílica de la Puebla de los Ángeles. First edition. Puebla, Mexico: UPAEP, 2006. Merrim, Stephanie. The Spectacular City, Mexico, and Colonial Hispanic Literary Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2010. Molero Sañudo, Antonio. La catedral de Puebla: historia de su construcción hasta la remodelización neoclásica de José Manzo y Jaramillo. Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 2014. Montero Pantoja, Carlos. La Arquitectura del Saber: Los Colegios de Puebla 1531–1917. Puebla, Mexico: BUAP – Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades – EyC, 2013. Morales, Efraín Castro. “Los Maestros Mayores de La Catedral de México.” Artes de México, no. 182/183 (1975): 137–44. Muñoz Camargo, Diego. Suma y epíloga de toda la descripción de Tlaxcala. Tlaxcala: Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala, Secretaría de Extensión Universitaria y Difusión Cultural, 1994. Palafox y Mendoza, Juan. Carta Pastoral a la venerable congregación de San Pedro de la Ciudad de los Angeles. México: Bernardo Calderón, 1640. Palafox y Mendoza, Juan. “Direcciones pastorales.” In Obras del ilustrissimo, excelentissimo, y venerable siervo de Dios Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, Vol. IV. Madrid: Imprenta de Don Gabriel Ramírez, 1762.

200

Bibliography

Palafox y Mendoza, Juan. La Trompeta de Ezequiel: A curas y sacerdotes (facsimilar edition of the 1658 original). Puebla, Mexico: BUAP, 2012. Palafox y Mendoza, Juan. “Manual de estados y profesiones.” In Obras del ilustrissimo, excelentissimo, y venerable siervo de Dios Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, Tomo V, 295–345. Madrid: Imprenta de Don Gabriel Ramírez, 1762. Palafox y Mendoza, Juan. Virtudes Del Indio/The Virtues of the Indian. Translated by Nancy Fee. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009. Rodríguez-Shadow, María, and Robert D. Shadow. “La religiosidad popular en el Santuario de San Miguel del Milagro.” Dimensión Antropológica 14 (December 1998). www.dimensionantropologica.inah.gob.mx/?p=1295. Rojas Garcidueñas, José. “San Miguel del Milagro.” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas I, no. 4 (1939): 55–63. Rubial García, Antonio. El paraíso de los elegidos: Una lectura de la historia cultural de Nueva España (1521–1804). First edition. Mexico City: FCE – UNAM, 2010. Rubial García, Antonio. “Los ángeles de Puebla. La larga construcción de una identidad patria.” In Poder civil y catolicismo en México, siglos XVI al XIX, 103–28. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas UNAM – Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades BUAP, 2008. Tamariz de Carmona, Antonio. Relación y descripción del templo real de la ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles en la Nueva España, y su Catedral. Puebla, Mexico: s.n., 1650. Torre Villar, Ernesto de la. Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza: Pensador político. Mexico City: UNAM, 1997. http://biblio.juridicas.unam.mx/libros/libro.htm?l=802. Torre Villar, Ernesto de la, and Ramiro Navarro de Anda. El Colegio de San Juan: Centro de formación de la cultura poblana. Puebla, Mexico: Universidad de las Américas – Puebla, 2007. Toussaint, Manuel. La catedral y las iglesias de Puebla. Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa, 1954. Vargaslugo, Elisa.“Juan de Palafox y Mendoza y El Arte Barroco En Puebla.” Palafox: Iglesia, Cultura y Estado En El Siglo XVII: Congreso Internacional IV Centenario Del Nacimiento de Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, n.d., 351–65. Zerón Zapata, Miguel, and Manuel Fernández de Santa Cruz. La Puebla de los Ángeles en el Siglo XVII: Crónica de la Puebla. Mexico City: Editorial Patria, 1945.

Chapter 5 Arrioja Díaz-Viruell, Luis Alberto, and Carlos Sánchez Silva. “Antequera en el siglo XVIII. Espacio urbano, demografía, economía y vida social.” In 475 Años de la Fundación de Oaxaca. I. Fundación y Colonia, 111–53. Oaxaca, Mexico: Ayuntamiento de Oaxaca-Fundación Harp Helú, 2007. Blunt, Anthony, ed. Baroque and Rococo Architecture and Decoration. Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions, 1978. Bühler, Dirk. Puebla: Patrimonio de arquitectura civil del virreinato. Munich: Deutsches Museum, 2001. Carrión, Antonio. Historia de la ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles. Vol. II. II vols. Puebla, Mexico: Viuda de Dávalos e hijos, editores, 1896. Cashner, Andrew. “Playing Cards at the Eucharistic Table: Music, Theology, and Society in a Corpus Christi Villancico from Colonial Mexico, 1628.” Journal of Early Modern History, no. 18 (2014): 383–419.

Bibliography

201

Chiva Beltrán, Juan, Pablo González Tornel, Víctor Manuel Mínguez Cornelles, and Inmaculada María Rodríguez Moya. La fiesta barroca. Los virreinatos americanos (1560–1808). Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, 2012. Cuenya Mateos, Miguel Ángel. Puebla de los Ángeles en tiempos de una peste colonial: una mirada en torno al matlazahuatl de 1737. Puebla, Mexico: El Colegio de Michoacán-Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, 1999. Cuenya Mateos, Miguel Ángel, and Carlos Contreras Cruz. Puebla de los Ángeles: Historia de una ciudad novohispana. Puebla: BUAP, Gobierno del estado de Puebla, 2007. Curcio-Nagy, Linda A. The Great Festivals of Colonial Mexico City: Performing Power and Identity. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 2004. Dávila Galindo, J. Atlante Allegorico, político diseño del govierno prudente de un principe acertado que la muy illustre augusta Ciudad de los Ángeles dedicó en los emblemas, y poesias de la Real Portada al Excellentissimo señor don Juan de Leyua y de la Cerda . . . Puebla, Mexico: n.p., 1660. Early, James. The Colonial Architecture of Mexico. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1994. Escalante Gonzalbo, Pablo, and Antonio Rubial García. “Los pueblos, los conventos y la liturgia.” In Historia de la vida cotidiana en México: Mesoamérica y los ámbitos indígenas de la Nueva España. Second edition. Vol. I. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2009. Garavaglia, Juan Carlos, and Juan Carlos Grosso. “La región Puebla Tlaxcala y la economía novohispana.” In Puebla de la Colonia a la Revolución, 73–124. Puebla, Mexico: Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, 1987. Glockner, Julio. “The Baroque Paradise of Santa María Tonantzintla (Part I).” Ethnologia Actualis 16, no. 1 (2016): 8–29. Glockner, Julio. El paraíso barroco de Santa María Tonantzintla. Puebla: Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, BUAP-Ediciones EyC, 2016. Gonzalbo Aizpuru, Pilar. Vivir en Nueva España: Orden y desorden en la vida cotidiana. First edition. Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 2009. González Galván, Manuel.“Modalidades del barroco mexicano.” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, no. 30 (1961). Gutiérrez, Ramón. “Repensando el barroco americano.” In Actas III Congreso Internacional del Barroco Americano: Territorio, Arte, Espacio y Sociedad. Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla, 8 al 12 de octubre de 2001, 46–54. Sevilla: Universidad Pablo de Olavide, 2001. Higgins, Antony. Constructing the Criollo Archive: Subjects of Knowledge in the Bibliotheca Mexicana and the Rusticatio Mexicana. Indiana: Purdue University Press, 2000. Kagan, Richard. Urban Images of the Hispanic World, 1493–1793. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000. Kuri Camacho, Ramón. “Barroco jesuita, teología de los afectos y educación estética en el siglo XVII novohispano.” Revista de Filosofía, no. 55 (2007): 55–83. Kuri Camacho, Ramón. El barroco jesuita novohispano la forja de un México posible. Xalapa: Universidad Veracruzana, 2008. Leonard, Irving A. La época barroca en el México Colonial. Seventeenth edition. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2004.

202

Bibliography

Loreto López, Rosalva. “La función social y urbana del monacato femenino novohispano.” In La Iglesia en Nueva España. Problemas y perspectivas de investigación, 237–65. Mexico City: UNAM – Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, 2010. Marín Bosch, Miguel. Puebla neocolonial, 1777–1831. Casta, ocupación y matrimonio en la segunda ciudad de Nueva España. Puebla, Mexico: El Colegio de JaliscoInstituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, BUAP, 1999. Maza, Francisco de la. “La Decoración Simbólica de La Capilla de Rosario de Puebla.” Anales Del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, no. 23 (1955): 5–29. Medina, José Mariano de. Heliotropio Crítico Racional Prognóstico, computado a el meridiano de la Puebla de los Ángeles para el Año de 1753. Puebla: Imprenta de la viuda de Miguel de Ortega, en el portal de las flores, 1752. www.archivo. cehmcarso.com.mx/janium/BCEHM/30025/index.html. Merlo Juárez, Eduardo, José Antonio Quintana Fernández, and Miguel Pavón Rivero. La catedral basílica de la Puebla de los Ángeles. First edition. Puebla, Mexico: UPAEP, 2006. Miño Grijalva, Manuel. “El Censo de La Ciudad de México de 1790.” Historia Mexicana 41, no. 4 (1992): 665–70. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. Baroque Architecture. New York: Electa/Rizzoli, 1979. Octava Maravilla del Nuevo Mundo en la gran Capilla del Rosario: Dedicada y aplaudida en el Convento de N.P.S. Domingo de la ciudad de los Angeles. El dia 16 del Mes de Abril de 1690 . . . [Con ocho sermones que se predicaron en la Octava]. Puebla, Mexico: Imprenta de Diego Fernández de León, 1690. Ramos, Frances L. Identity, Ritual, and Power in Colonial Puebla. First edition. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2012. Rojas, Pedro. Tonantzintla. Second edition. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1978. Rubial García, Antonio. “Los ángeles de Puebla. La larga construcción de una identidad patria.” In Poder civil y catolicismo en México, siglos XVI al XIX, 103–28. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas UNAM – Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades BUAP, 2008. Rubial García, Antonio. Monjas, Plebeyos y Cortesanos: La Vida Cotidiana En La Época de Sor Juana. First edition. Mexico City: Taurus, 2005. Toussaint, Manuel. La catedral y las iglesias de Puebla. Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa, 1954. Villa Sánchez, Juan. Puebla sagrada y profana. Informe dado a su muy ilustre ayuntamiento el año de 1746, por el M.R.P. Fray Juan de Villa Sánchez. Puebla: Imprenta de José María Campos, Calle de la Carnicería no. 18, 1835. Weckmann, Luis. La herencia medieval de México. Second edition. Mexico City: El Colegio de México – Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1994.

Index

Note: Page numbers in italics indicate a figure on the corresponding page. Page numbers followed by “n” indicate a note. 3 Sur Street 162 5 Oriente Street 130 12 Norte Street 67 14 Oriente Street 65 16 de Septiembre Street 130 abodes 156 Abraham (biblical character) 125 actas 111n40 adelantados 48 “Adoration of the Shepherds, The” 89 Adrichem, Christian Kruik van 61 Africa 28, 80 Agnes, Saint 176 aguardiente 184n8 Agueda, Saint 176 alameda 155 Al-Andalus 47 alarifes 22, 39n59, 87, 110n37, 111n42 albañiles 87 Alberti, Leon Battista 86, 91, 92, 94 Albi Romero, Guadalupe 15, 33, 34 Alcalá de Henares (city) 17, 95, 96 Alcalá y Mendiola, Miguel 64, 68, 77n98 alcalde indio 28 alcalde mayor 29, 30, 83 alcaldes 28 alcaldes ordinarios 29 Alcázar of Madrid 93 Alcázar of Toledo 93 Alcocer, Pedro de 2 aldeas 24 Alexandro Fabián, Don Juan de 77n98 alfarje 160 alférez mayor 29 Alfonso X, King 47

Alfonso XI, King 47 alguacial mayor 28, 29 alhóndiga 83, 104, 105, 107 Alseseca River 54 Altamirano, Juan de 77n98 Altar de los Reyes (Altar of the Kings) 115, 119, 121, 122, 122, 141n5 altarpiece 66 altars 115, 119, 121, 122, 124, 159, 160, 174, 175 altar screen 115, 119, 141n5 al temple 101 altepeme 55, 83, 186n60 altepetl 2, 26–28, 55, 83, 177, 186n60 Alto, El 16, 25, 27, 28, 84, 135 Álvarez de Toledo, Cayetana 133, 141n12 Alvaro of Córdoba, Saint 62 Amalucan 13 Amerindian iconography 103 Anahuac 51, 72n23 Analco 135, 155, 166 Ancient Romans 46 Andalusia 43, 89 Anderson, Christy 110n20 anejos 24 Ángel Custodio, Santo 157 angelology 55 angels 55 “Annunciation, The” (Fernández) 89 “Annunciation, The” (Lagarto) 89, 90 Antequera 32, 58, 150 Antilles 48, 149 aparejador 118, 120 Apparatus urbis ac templi Hierosolymitani see In Ezechielem

204

Index

explanations, et apparatus Urbis ac temple Hierosolymitani apse 115, 119, 120, 121, 124, 140, 160, 172, 177 aqueducts 87, 95, 154 Aquinas, Thomas 11 Aragón 43, 47, 48, 123 arcades 83, 128 Archbishop of Mexico 117 Archbishop’s Palace in Cáceres 104 arches 112n46, 140n1, 158, 167, 168, 175, 180; depressed 158; half- 66, 67, 101, 128; horseshoe 88; multilobed 88; Roman 88, 98, 162, 163, 165, 173; round 132; tri-lobulated 178 architect 110n37, 111n42 architectural ornamentation 88, 132 “Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism” 82 architectural relic 99 architectural scenography 89 architectural treatises 59, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99, 104, 122, 110n20, 112n55 architecture 79, 81, 82, 86, 91, 92, 93, 95, 101, 104, 108, 108n11, 117, 118, 132, 140, 148, 149, 151, 154, 158, 160, 168, 170, 171, 180, 182, 183; as a tool for cultural authority 97; urbanism and architecture during the sixteenth century 82–85; see also Baroque; Classical architecture; Neoclassical; novohispanic Baroque; novohispanic culture; Puebla; Renaissance architraves 65, 88, 128 Arciniega, Claudio de 86, 87, 106, 111n38, 111n44, 112n56, 119, 143n27 Arciniega, Luis de 87, 119 arco árabe 88 arco carpanel 88 arcos redondos 88 Aristotelianism 81, 92, 97 Aristotle 10, 47 Ars magna (The Great Art) 97 artesonados 160 “Ascent of Mount Carmel” 64 ashlars 98, 135 Atlixco 32, 149 Atoyac River 14, 37n29, 54 atrium 63, 116, 124, 178 Audiencia 8, 12, 15, 32, 33, 40n77, 42n99 Augustine, Saint 11, 55

Augustinian doctrine 54 Augustinian monasteries 155 Augustinian Order of Missionaries 13, 28 Ávila, Pedro Arias de 48 axis mundi 54 azogue (mercury) 149 Aztec 22 Bajío Region 149, 150 bakeries 149 balconies 99, 100, 106, 132, 169 baldachin 115, 121, 122, 141n5, 174, 175, 176, 179 balustrade 178 Bañuelos, Andrés 66, 77n98 baptistery 177 Barbaro, Daniele 96 Barbero, Francisco 69 Baroque 151, 162, 167, 181, 182, 183; see also Baroque architecture; Jesuit Baroque; novohispanic Baroque; poblano Baroque; Puebla; Spanish American Baroque “Baroque and Rococo Architecture and Decoration” 181 Baroque architecture 121, 148, 163, 165, 166, 167–71, 174, 175, 177, 178, 181, 183; see also Latin American Baroque architecture; novohispanic Baroque; poblano Baroque; Puebla; Spanish American Baroque “Baroque Architecture” (Lemerle and Pauwels) 181 “Baroque Architecture” (NorbergSchulz) 181 barroco americano 150 barroco de estrías móviles 168 barroco iberoamericano 150, 151 barrios 16, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 40n72, 49, 83, 84, 87, 133, 134, 135, 136, 155, 156, 157, 166, 186n60 Basque 47 Becerra, Francisco 86, 87, 99, 103, 111n39, 111n44, 118, 119, 158 bell towers 67, 68, 115, 121, 158, 163, 164, 166, 167, 172, 174 Benavente Motolinia, Friar Toribio de 8, 9, 12, 15, 19, 32, 33, 35, 36n1, 50, 51, 57, 72n23, 134, 151 Bermúdez de Castro, Diego Antonio 152 Bernal García, María Elena 21, 26 Biblioteca Lafragua 90, 92, 95, 96, 97 Biblioteca Palafoxiana 90, 92, 93, 95, 172, 173

Index Bishop of Puebla (post) 115, 117, 123, 141n12, 145n64 Black people 117, 158, 182 Blunt, Anthony 181 Bologna 61 Bonet Correa, Antonio 62 Bonilla, Melchor de 69 books 79, 80, 91, 92 Borys, Ann Marie 110n20 Bourbon Dynasty 148, 156, 157 brackets 101, 106 Bravo Arriaga, Maria Dolores 5, 142n14 bricks 84, 128, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169, 171, 178, 180 bridges 87, 154 Briviesca 47 Bruni, Leonardo 1, 98 Bühler, Dirk 80, 84, 110n21 bullfighting: events 157, 158; ring 83 Burgos (province) 47, 101 Burckhardt, Jason 81 Burke, Peter 109n11 cabildo 4, 10, 17, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 92 cabildo municipal 156 Cáceres 104 cacique indio 28 Calahorra, Martín de 101 Calle Real de El Alto 65 Calpan 32 Calpan people 84 calpolli 26, 27, 28 Calpullis 186n60 calvario 62, 63 Calvario, El (The Calvary) 68 Calvary Church see Iglesia del Calvario (Calvary Church) Calvary Hill 61, 65 cal y canto 84 Camaxtle 138 Camino de Tierra Adentro 23 Canary Islands 48 cantería 84 “Capilla de la Expiración” 77n98 “Capilla del Despojo” 77n98 Capilla del Ochavo (Octagonal Chapel) 119, 171, 174 Capilla de los Plateros (Silver Makers’ Chapel) 67 Capilla de los Pobres 68, 77n98 “Capilla de Nuestra Señora de la Piedad” 77n98 capillas 62 cardines 46

205

cardo maximus 45, 46, 47 cardus see cardo maximus Caribbean 14, 29 caritas (charity) 127, 140 Carmelite Monastery Church 162 Carmen Church, El 159 Carmen, El (barrio) 159 Carnero, José Ortiz 152, 153 Carnero, José Rodríguez 176 Carolense Diocese 12 carpintería de lazo 111n45 carpintería de lo blanco 111n45 Carpo, Mario 91 Carracci, Agostino 89 Cartilla Vieja 38n33 Casa de Alfeñique (Sugar Candy House) 169, 171 Casa de las Bóvedas (The House of the Vaults) 167, 168 Casa de las Cabecitas (House of the Little Heads) 101, 104, 105 Casa de las Cigüeñas/Casa de las Garzas (The House of the Storks or Herons) 88 Casa de la Sirena in San Cristóbal, Chiapas 98 Casa del Deán 84, 88, 100, 102, 103, 107; architectural analysis 98–101; murals 101–03 “Casa del Deán, La” 102 Casa de los Muñecos (House of the Male Dolls) 169, 170, 170 Casa del que Mató al Animal (House of the Animal Killer) 88, 98, 104, 106 casas de cabildo 83, 88 casas mayores (grand houses) 97 casas principales (principal houses) 97 Castellanos Gómez, Silvia 64 Castilla de Oro 12 Cathedral Complex 174 Cathedral Council Chapter 140n1 cathedrals 73n33, 124; see also Puebla Cathedral Catholic 10, 29, 118, 133, 140, 176, 177, 178, 179; diocese 99; orthodoxy 79, 151; principles 126; rituals 62, 70, 180 Catholic Church 10, 31, 32, 33, 60, 91, 117, 155, 157 cédula 50 Cenacle 75n69 Centeotl 179 Central America 12 Central Mexico 1, 12, 23, 26, 63, 156 Central New Spain 80, 98, 158

206

Index

central plaza 22, 30, 31, 45, 56, 98, 154, 155, 166 centro histórico 16 ceramic tiles 84, 131, 138, 160, 167, 169, 180 Cerro de Belén (Bethlehem Hill) 15, 46, 65 Cerro de la Paz 15, 46 Cerro de Loreto 46 Cerro de San Cristóbal 15 Cerro de San Juan 15, 46 Cervantes de Salazar, Francisco 2, 22, 30, 41n84, 79 Cesariano, Cesare 96 chancel 67 Chapel of El Rosario 148, 175, 175 Chapel of the Kings 120, 121 Chapel of the Ochavo see Capilla del Ochavo (Octagonal Chapel) chapels 62, 65, 66, 67 charitable institutions 125, 126 Charlemagne 47 Charles II, King 148 Charles V, Emperor 33n38, 54, 123, 154 Chevalier, François 33, 34, 42n99 Choay, Françoise 70 choir loft 52, 158, 175, 176, 177 choir window 66, 67, 135, 161, 162, 164, 165, 173, 178 Cholula (city) 5, 13, 15, 25, 32, 56, 57, 57, 58, 74n50, 149 Cholulan people 25, 84 Cholultecapan see Santiago de Cholultecapan (barrio) chorographic views 154 Christ see Jesus Christ Christian doctrines 50, 54 Christian humanism 79 Christianity 51, 52, 64, 134, 175, 179 Christian Republic 5, 115, 117–18, 125, 133, 136, 139, 140, 141n14, 171 Christian theology 11, 55 Chronicles, Book of 51 church building typologies 87 churches 17, 21, 52, 61, 63, 65, 69, 83, 87, 127, 128, 133, 135, 136, 138, 142, 156, 158, 159, 162, 163, 165, 166, 166, 167, 177, 178, 179 Church of La Compañía de Jesús see Compañía, La Church of Our Lady of the Light see Luz Church, La Church of San Andrés 122

Church of San Francisco Acatepec 178 Church of Santa Maria Tonantzintla 6, 148, 178, 178, 179, 180 Church of the Holy Sepulcher 61, 65, 69 Church of the Jesuit College of the Holy Spirit 165 Church of the Orphanage of San Cristóbal 159, 160, 164, 165, 174 Churrigueresque 186n45 Cicero 11 Cigorondo, Juan de 118 Cihuacoatl 179 cimborrio 159, 165 Cirineo, El (The Cyrenean) 66, 66, 77n98 city hall 3, 16, 17, 83, 124, 169 City of God see Civitas Dei (The City of God) ciudad (city) 15, 24, 47, 50 cives 10 civic architecture 91, 168 civic decorum 92, 93 “Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, The” 81 civitas 10, 11, 24, 25, 92 civitas caelestis (Heavenly City) 49 Civitas Dei (The City of God) 11, 34, 35, 55 civitas Diaboli (City of the Devil) 49 Classical architecture 5, 65, 66, 80, 81, 82, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 98, 100, 104, 162, 165, 167, 174 Classical canon 92 Classical culture 5, 47, 79, 80, 81, 82 Classical expressions 89 Classical Greek culture 81 Classical Roman culture 81 Classicism 5, 79, 82, 88, 90, 92, 93, 95, 108, 135, 162, 174, 183; as the foundation for Puebla’s viceregal architectural tradition 106; as a statement and imposition from those in power 81; see also Renaissance Classicism Clement VI, Pope 61, 75n69 climate change 149 cloisters 97, 128, 158 cocoliztli 137, 184n10 Coello, Simón 69 Colegio de San Juan Evangelista (College of Saint John Evangelist) 79, 93, 94, 115, 129, 131 Colegio de San Pablo 93, 115, 129, 130

Index Colegio de San Pantaleón 130, 131 Colegio de San Pedro 93, 129, 130, 132 Colegios Tridentinos 107 colonization 2, 3, 10, 12, 17, 18, 22, 48, 49, 75n58, 80, 91, 92 columns 89, 100, 168; Classical 98; Corinthian 89, 163, 165, 174; Doric 99, 128, 132, 161, 167, 173; fluted 167; Ionic-engaged 100; Solomonic 121, 122, 164, 174, 176; Tuscan 176 comendador 17 communicentric views 154 Compañía de Jesus’ plaza, La (The Society of Jesus) 31 Compañía, La 155, 159, 159, 165 concilios catedralicios 12, 13 congregación 20 congregaciones 17 Congregación (Congregation) of San Pedro 127 Conte Labaña, Benito 69 convents 32, 73n33, 158, 172 Corboz, André 72n27 Córdoba 32 cornices 67, 88, 128, 161, 162, 163 Coronado, Nicolás 77n98 Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum (Corpus of Roman Surveying) 46, 47 Corpus Christi, feast 157 corridors 32, 101 Cortes de Monzón 123 Cortés, Hernán 10, 22, 30 cos místic 49 cosmological symbolism 46 cosmopolitan aspirations 80, 103 Council of the Indies 15, 123 Council of Trent 118, 126 courtyards 98, 100, 101, 128, 131, 168, 177 crenellations 98 Crestià, Lo (The Christian) 49 criollo 2, 22, 24, 92, 98, 108, 117, 129, 139, 148, 149, 152, 154, 182, 183 criollo vecinos 155 Crown of Aragón 47 cruciform shape/ward 127, 128, 158, 160, 175, 177 Cruz, Sor Juana Inés de la 145n64, 152, 172 Cuauhtinchan 13, 18, 32 cuaxicalli 14 Cuellar, Diego Velasquez de 10 Cuenya Mateos, Miguel Ángel 31, 107, 150

207

Cuernavaca 63 Cuetlaxcoapan 13, 14 Culiacán 34 cupola 179 curado 184n7 Curato de la Cruz Street 67 Czech Republic 110n20 Daniélou, Jean 55 David (biblical character) 51 Davila, Pedro Arias 12 Dean, Carolyn 109n11, 109n17 Dean of Puebla’s Cathedral Chapter 84, 97, 98 De architectura libri decem (The Ten Books on Architecture) 86, 94, 95 decamanus maximum 45, 46, 47 decumani 46 De la naturaleza y virtudes del indio (On the Nature and Virtues of the Indian) 133 “Del patronazgo real de las Indias” 142n15 Denver Art Museum 90 De re aedificatoria (On the Art of Building) 86, 91, 94 De re publica (On the Commonwealth) 11 Diaz, Yanes 72n22 Diocesan Archive of Puebla 133, 146n79 Diocesan Seminary 107, 117 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1 Divine Law 49 Doctor of the Church 174 domes 65, 67, 121, 128, 158, 159, 160, 172, 177 Dominican Monastery 83, 155, 175 Dominican Order 28, 83, 126, 135, 155, 160, 175, 176 Dominic Guzman, Saint 161, 176 Doric order 99 Doric style 66, 99, 128, 132, 135, 161, 163, 167, 173 drums 159 Durango, Carlos García 174 Easter 60 ecclesiastical buildings 130 Echave Orio, Baltazar de 89 Egidus 54 Eiximenis, Friar Francesc 2, 43, 48, 49, 50, 54 ejidos y dehesas 29, 31 Elgueta, Hernando de 104

208

Index

Eliade, Mircea 63 empiricism 183 encomenderos 15, 18, 33, 34, 38n32, 80, 42n107, 107 encomia 2 encomienda de indios 107 encomienda system 15, 17, 18, 25, 32, 33, 34 encomium urbis see panegyrics Enlightenment 183 entablatures 89, 99, 165, 178 entrada 156 epidemics 1, 5, 20, 29, 128, 137, 150, 184n10 Episcopal Palace 131 ermitas 62 eschatology 54 Estella (town) 47 estípite 165, 166, 186n45 Etymologiae (The Etymologies) 11 Europe 46, 54, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 72n27, 79, 80, 81, 91, 92, 97, 183 European Catholicism 151 European Renaissance 5, 45, 51, 54, 61, 62, 70, 72n27, 110n20 European urbanism 26–27 extispicy 46 extraordinarias 29 Extremadura 99 Ezekiel 126 “Ezekiel’s Trumpet” (La trompeta de Ezequiel) 126 Fabián y Fuero, Francisco 148, 172 façades 67, 68, 99, 100, 100, 103, 105, 106, 107, 115, 121, 125, 132, 135, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 165, 166, 169, 174 Fabián, Juan Alejandro 68 Farago, Claire 109n17 female monasticism 186n42 Fernández, Alejo 89 Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Mariano 2, 3, 16, 64, 66, 68, 73n39, 77n98, 119, 152 Fernández de Santa Cruz, Bishop Manuel 145n64, 148, 171–72 Fernández, Martha 72n27, 73n33, 98, 108, 111n37, 145n64, 182 Fernández, Martín 77n98 Fernando (Spanish monarch) 17 fiebre 184n10 Fieles (Finos) Amantes, Los (The Faithful Lovers) 65, 66

Filarete 99, 128 Filoramo, Giovanni 64 finials 68, 100, 165, 167, 174 First Punic War 1 Fitero 123 flank 104 flat arch 104 Flemish 89 Florence, Italy 1, 97 Florencia, Francisco de 137 Florin, Pérez 87, 111n40 Floris Margadant, Guillermo 17 “flower wars” 14 Folch, Diego de 121 fortresses and walls 49, 87, 98, 116 foundry workshop 65 Fourth Book (Serlio) 99, 104 Franciscan monasteries 16, 25, 56, 60, 64, 65, 84, 103, 158, 177 Franciscan Monastery of Tecamachalco 52, 52 Franciscan Monastic Complex 166 Franciscan Order (of Puebla) 1, 9, 12, 16, 19, 25, 28, 32, 48–51, 52, 53, 61, 66, 68, 69, 72n22, 83, 86, 103, 126, 134, 135, 151, 177 Francis of Assisi, Saint 53, 75n69 Fraser, Valerie 81, 92 friezes 88, 99, 100, 104, 135 fueros 47 Gabriel, Archangel 89 Galeote, Alonso 104 Galí Boadella, Montserrat 133, 141n5 Galván, González 168 Game, Pedro de 19 Gándara, Francisco de 121 Garcés, Bishop of Tlaxcala, Julián 12, 13, 37n22, 54 García Bravo, Alonzo 22 García Ferrer, Pedro 121, 122, 122, 132, 135, 135, 174 García, Genaro 141n12 García Lastra, Leopoldo 64 García Zambrano, Angel Julián 21, 26 Garden of Gethsemane 61 gardens 43, 177; see also huertas; Puebla Garduño Perez, María Leticia 144n47 Gasparini, Graziano 74n50 gates 49, 54, 65, 66, 105, 135, 158, 159, 160, 168 Genesis, Book of 124 Gerson, Juan 52, 52

Index Gibson, Charles 37n22 Giocondo, Fra Giovanni 96 Girona 48 Glockner, Julio 180, 187n67 gobernador 28, 29, 30 God 9, 11, 49, 51, 54, 55, 64, 89, 118, 122, 123, 125, 127, 140, 142n17, 176, 179, 180 Gómez, Juan 165 Gómez, Lidia E. 110n21 Gonzalbo Aizpuru, Pilar 79 González Dávila, Gil 151 González, Escamilla 126 González-Hermosillo Adams, Francisco 56, 74n50 Good Friday 60 Gothic architecture 86, 88, 93, 99, 158, 160 Gracián, Juan de 94, 95 Granada 48, 62, 78n109, 93, 101 granary 3, 83, 105, 107 Greco-Roman architectural tradition 81 grotesques 106 Guadalajara 99 Guanajuato 23, 166 guardianes 12, 25 Gulf Coast 12 Gulf of Mexico 10, 29, 30 Gutiérrez, Francisco 86, 111n40, 118, 119, 150, 174 Guzmán, Gaspar, Count-Duke of Olivares 123 Guzmán, Nuño de 34, 36n3 haciendas (rural estates) 28, 149 Hall of the Sybils 101 Hall of the Triumphs 103 Hapsburg 157 harmonic proportions 109n19 haruspicy 46 Havana 48 Heavenly Jerusalem 34, 35, 47, 51–55, 52, 59, 72n27, 73n33, 123, 182 Hernández, Agustín 176 Hernández de Priego, Antonio 67, 77n98 Herrera, Alonso de 137 Herrera, Juan de 93 Higgins, Antony 2, 7, 183 Hinnom stream 64 hinterland 39n58 Hirschberg, Julia 42n107 Hispanic culture 1, 2, 92 Hispanic humanism 82

209

Hispanic Marches 47 Hispanic Renaissance 99 Hispanic world 79, 92, 98, 111n42, 122, 124, 126 Hispaniola, La 17 Historia de la fundación de la Ciudad de la Puebla de los Ángeles (History of the Foundation of the City of Puebla de los Ángeles) 2 historical reconstruction 103 Holy Land 61, 62 Holy Sepulcher see Church of the Holy Sepulcher Holy Sites 75n69 Holy Spirit 176, 179, 180 Holy Trinity 179 Holy Trinity Church 159 Hospital of the Holy Cross 128 hospitals 82, 117, 126, 127, 127, 128 House of the Count of Castelo see Casa de los Muñecos (House of the Male Dolls) Hoyo, Melchor and Juan del 77n98 Huamantla 76n86 Huaquechula 32 Huastec 27 Huejotzingo 13, 15, 25, 34, 76n86, 149 huertas 156 hueyzahuatl 184n10 humanism 79, 80, 81, 82, 103; see also Renaissance humanism humanist culture 80, 97, 99 humanist ideas/thought 79 humilladeros 62 Huxley, Aldous 179 hybridity 109n17; see also religious hybridity hybridization 81, 104, 108n11 hydraulic engineering 95 Hystoria o Descripción de la Ymperial Cibdad de Toledo (History or Description of the Imperial City of Toledo) 2 Iberian America 59, 81, 93, 108n11 Iberian culture 11, 82 Iberian Peninsula 14, 17, 29, 47, 48, 80, 86, 93, 97, 111n45, 149 “Ideal Atrium, The” 53 ideal geometry 109n19 Iglesia del Calvario (Calvary Church) 65, 77n98 Ignatius of Loyola, Saint 62 Illades Aguiar, Lilián 41n86

210

Index

Illescas, Andrés de 77n98 Immaculate Conception 174, 177, 179 imposts 104, 105 Inchaúrregui, Antonio de Santa María 170 Indianization 179 Indigenous-European Mexican art 109n11 Indigenous parishes 132–36 Indigenous peoples of New Spain 3, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 53, 58, 83, 85, 98, 117, 129, 130, 132, 138, 149, 154, 155, 158, 166, 177, 178, 182; as construction craftsmen/labor 2, 84–85, 87, 107, 112n48, 114n94, 118; culture 103, 134; evangelization of 133; first three barrios formed 83; influence 105; maestros 88; reliefs 104; ritual practices 138; subjugation of 80 indo-cristiano (Indo-Christian) arts 108–09n11 In Ezechielem explanations, et apparatus Urbis ac temple Hierosolymitani 52, 93, 122 Innocent X, Pope 130 Instrucciones (Instructions) 48 intrados 104, 168, 180 Ionic order 99 Ionic style 100, 161, 163, 167 Isaac (biblical character) 125 Isabel (Spanish monarch) 17 Isidore of Seville, Archbishop 11 Italianate decorative elements 98 Italianate idioms 88 Italian Peninsula 46, 82 Italian Renaissance 81, 82, 91, 97 Italy 54, 80, 81, 97, 99, 110n20 Iztaccihuatl volcano 180 Izúcar de Matamoros 76n86 Jaca (town) 47 jacal 143n24 jacales 156 Jacob (biblical character) 124 Jacob’s Ladder 124 Jaén Cathedral 119 jail 83 Jalapa (city) 157 jambs 88, 100, 104, 105, 128, 132, 168 James, Saint 100 Jerusalem 51, 54, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 70, 75, 75n69, 94, 126 Jesuit Baroque 182

Jesuit Church of the Holy Spirit see Compañía, La Jesuit Colegio del Espíritu Santo (Jesuit College of the Holy Spirit) 79, 82, 90, 93, 107, 129, 155 Jesuit order 90, 129, 141n12, 182, 183 Jesus Christ 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65–68, 77, 99, 126, 156, 163, 174, 176, 179, 180 John of the Cross, Saint 64 John the Divine, Saint 51, 52, 54 Joseph, Saint 156, 157, 163 Juárez, José 89 Judeo-Christian tradition 51 juegos de cañas (jousting) 158 juntamente 17 Kagan, Richard 10, 11, 92, 154 Karolus Quintus see Charles V, Emperor Kidron stream 64 Kingdom of Aragón see Aragón Kingdom of Castille 47 King of France 121 Kings, Book of 51 Kircher, Athanasius 68 Kubler, George 10, 22, 23, 41n86, 74n50, 78n109, 84, 88 Kuri Camacho, Ramon 182, 183 Lagarto, Luis 89, 90, 107 land surveying 46, 47 Larios, Juan de 94, 129 Latin American art 109n11 Latin American Baroque architecture 182 Laudatio florentinae Urbis (Praise of the City of Florence) 1, 98 laudes civitatum see panegyrics Laws of the Indies 154 Lázaro de San Francisco, Diego 137 Leatherbarrow, David 62 Lefaivre, Liane 82 Leicht, Hugo 41n86, 68, 77n98 Lemerle, Frederique 181 Leo X, Pope 12 Leopold, Saint 121 letrados 79–80, 107, 108n8 Leyes de Burgos (Laws of Burgos) 18 Leyes de Indias 142n15 Leyes Nuevas (New Laws) 18, 34 libros de cabildo 157 licenciado 77n98 Liebsohn, Dana 109n11, 109n17

Index Lilley, Keith D. 51, 54, 72n27 Lima 97 linguam Mexicanam 130 lintels 88, 99, 100, 104, 132, 168 living quarters 131 Lizarra (town) 47 Lockhart, James 55 loggia 89, 165 Lombardy 62 López Botello, Diego 69 López de Villaseñor, Pedro 38n33 López Florín, Pedro 86 Lopez Pacheco, Viceroy Don Diego, Duke of Escalona 117, 141n12 Lorca 62 Lorda, Joaquín 122, 141n5 Louis, Saint 121 lugares 24 Lull, Ramón 96 Luz Church, La 166, 167 Luz, La (barrio) 155 Lyon, France 94, 95 macuáhuitl (pre-Hispanic round shield) 103 Madrid 122 maestro albañil 87, 111n40 maestro cantero 87, 110n37, 111n40 maestro carpintero 110n37 maestro de obra 86, 87, 112n46 maestro mayor 86, 87, 89, 99, 110n37, 111n40, 112n46, 118, 119 main square 22, 30, 45, 46, 49, 83, 104, 119, 124, 135 “malignant fevers” 128 Mannerist art 135, 161, 162 Mannerist Palace of Charles V in Granada 93 Manrique, Jorge 108 Manual de estados y profesiones (A Manual of States and Professions) 123 Manzanilla Hills 121 Manzo, José 121, 122, 174 Margadant, Guillermo Floris 17 marginalia 95, 96 Maria of Austria, Holy Roman Empress 123 Marías, Fernando 96 Marín, Diego 76n86, 77n98 market 22, 23, 26, 29, 83, 155 Mary Magdalene 61 mason’s guild ordinances 92; difference of Puebla from Mexico City’s ordinances 87; subjects related

211

to construction technologies the examinee had to know 87 mass graves 128 material quartet 163, 169, 171, 180 matlazahuatl 150, 184n10 Matthew, Saint 55 Matus, Thomas 64 Maundy Thursday 63 Mayan culture 27 Mayer, Frederick 90 Mayer, Jan 90 mayordomías 138 Maza, Francisco de la 74n50, 176 measles 150, 184 Mechthild of Magdeburg 64 Medici Bank 99 Medina, José Mariano de 152–56, 153, 185n24 Medina, Pedro de 77n98 Mejía, Francisco 69 Mellado, Juan López 103 Memoriales 8, 12, 15 Méndez, Francisco 104 Méndez Sáinz, Eloy 45, 57 mendicant order 21, 25, 28, 49, 51, 52, 63, 73n33, 86, 88, 129, 132, 133, 134, 136, 140, 146n86 Mendieta, Gerónimo de 19, 134 Mendoza, Viceroy Antonio de, First Viceroy of New Spain 12, 13, 19, 34, 85–86, 126 Mesoamerican 26, 27, 55, 56, 179 mestizos people and culture 2, 3, 25, 29, 30, 80, 81, 82, 108n11, 117, 129, 149, 154, 155, 158, 182 Mexican art 150, 109n11 Mexican Baroque see novohispanic Baroque Mexica people 14, 22, 33 Mexico 2, 21, 39n59, 58, 72n23, 73n33, 84, 90, 139 Mexico City 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22, 23, 24, 30, 32, 35, 38n32, 38n33, 42n99, 48, 58, 59, 60, 63, 78n109, 79, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 97, 98, 107, 149, 150, 154, 156, 157, 167, 171, 176, 179, 184n7 Mexico City Cathedral 119, 121 Mexico City Diocese 12 Michael the Archangel, Saint 137, 138, 156, 179 Michoacán 19 microcosms 26 Middle Ages 46, 51, 61, 81

212

Index

migration 25, 150 Milan 1, 99, 128 Miletus 43 Mínguez Cornelles, Víctor Manuel 42n107 Mirabilia Urbis Romae (Wonders of the City of Rome) 1 Mixe-Zoque 27 Molero Sañudo, Antonio 120, 140n1 Monarquía Indiana (Monarchy of the Indies) 15 monasteries 3, 16, 21, 31, 49, 52, 53, 62, 65, 76n86, 86, 88, 142, 162, 166, 155, 158, 160, 177 Monastery of Saint Stefano 61 Monastery of Scala Coeli 62 Montañés, Juan Martínez 121 Montejo residence in Mérida 98 Morales, Efraín Castro 110n21 Morales, Juan Ignacio 170 Morelia see Valladolid, Spain Morrill, Penny 102, 103 Morse, Richard 10, 23 Mount Golgotha 60, 62, 68 Mount Moriah 51 Mount of Olives 61 Mount Sinai 75n69 Mudéjar 88, 93, 98, 99, 160, 174 Muñoz, Yolanda Fernández 111 Muñoz Camargo, Diego 118 murals 99, 101–03 Murcia (province) 62 Nahua (people and state) 26, 27, 55, 83, 103, 104 Nahuatl 13, 36n1, 109, 130, 143, 177, 180, 184n10, 186n60 Nahua urbanism 26–27 narthex 158, 175, 177 Nasrid Kingdom 48 native cultures 26, 81, 82, 134 Nativitas (town) 133, 139 Navarra (province) 47, 123 naves 66, 67, 87, 119, 120, 124, 158, 160, 174 Nebrija, Antonio de 12 Neoclassical 121, 141n5, 167, 174, 176, 183 Netherlandish 89 New Mexico 24 New Spain 2, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36n3, 43, 45, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 53, 55, 58, 59, 63, 70, 73n33, 79, 80,

81, 84, 86, 88, 90, 92, 94, 103, 108, 111n37, 111n42, 112n45, 112n56, 115, 119, 120, 121, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131, 133, 134, 137, 141n12, 146n86, 148, 149, 150, 152, 156, 157, 158, 166, 172, 174, 176, 181, 182, 184n10, 186n42; dominant class 98; independence movement from Spain 1; two important art markets 89 New World 5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 21, 22, 41n87, 45, 48, 49, 53, 55, 58, 59, 62, 64, 91, 93, 99, 125, 152; missionaries 11; Renaissance 79–108; urban palatial residences 97–98, 103–06 Nieto, Marcos 65 Nono, Giovanni da 54 Norberg-Schulz, Christian 181 novohispanic Baroque: architecture 168, 178, 180, 182; palacios 99; philosophy 183; theology 183 novohispanic culture 46, 79, 80, 82, 151, 152 Oaxaca City 32, 58, 150, 160, 187n67 obrajes (textile factories) 28, 149 obrero mayor 118, 120 Ochavo Chapel see Capilla del Ochavo (Octagonal Chapel) Octava Maravilla del Nuevo Mundo en la Gran Capilla del Rosario Dedicada y Aplaudida en el Convento de N.P.S. Domingo de la Ciudad de los Ángeles (Eighth Wonder of the New World in the Great Chapel of the Rosary, Dedicated, and Applauded in the Convent of Our Father, Saint Dominic in the City of Angels) 177 oidor 8, 12 Olvera, Rubén 116, 125, 127, 131, 135, 136, 159, 162, 164 omphaloi 64 Ordenanzas de descubrimiento, nueva población y pacificación de las Indias (Ordinances of discovery, new foundings, and pacification of the Indies) 48 Ordenanzas de los carpinteros y alarifes (Ordinances of Carpenters and Builders) 87, 88 Ordinances of Alcalá 47 ordinarias 29 Orizaba 32 Orphanage of San Cristóbal 172

Index orthogonal urbanism 47, 55, 56, 58 Ospedale Maggiore of Milan 128 Our Lady of the Assumption (patron saint) 180 Our Lady of the Rosary (sculpture) 176, 179 Ovando, Nicolás de 17 Ovando y Villavicencio, Agustín de 169 Padua 54 Pagani, Vincenzo 89 paja de agua 69 palaces 26, 43, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 131, 156, 170 palacio 97 Palacio de Fernández de Córdoba 101 Palacio del Cogolludo 99 Palacio de los Condestables de Castilla 101 Palacio de Monterrey 101 Palafox, Bishop Juan de 5, 66, 93, 94, 122, 130, 131, 135, 140, 140n1, 141n5, 141n12, 141n14, 142n16, 142n17, 146n85, 171; arrival in New Spain 115, 121; differences with Franciscan missionaries toward native cultures 133; differences with the mendicant order 133–34; his fondness of comparing the human body to the corpus of society 124; his ideal Christian Republic 117–18, 171; the mendicant order and 132; his occupation of the Bishopric 123; Palafoxiana Library 172; pastoral letters 124, 125, 126; his patronage of social-assistance institutions 125; principal objective as bishop 115; his relationship with the Indigenous people 132–36; treatise on the “nature” of the Indigenous peoples of New Spain 133 Palafoxiana Library see Biblioteca Palafoxiana palatial residences 82, 97, 104, 169 palazzi 97 palazzo 97 Palestine 62, 75n69 Panama (city) 13, 48 panegyrics 1, 2 Parish Church of San Pedro Cholula 133, 177 parishes 25, 83, 115, 117, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 140, 155 Parish of San José 155

213

Parish of San Marcos 155 Parish of Santa Cruz 67, 135, 155 Parish of Santo Ángel de Analco 155, 166 Parroquia del Señor de la Salud de Santa Anita 112n47 parterres 89 Partidor, El see Perez, Alonso Martín Paseo Bravo Park 163 Passageway (El Pasaje) 83 Passion of Christ 60, 61 “Pastoral Directions” 129 pater piorum 53 patria chica 2, 117, 125, 141n13, 151, 171 patterns 104, 128, 131, 162, 169 Paul, Saint 178 Pauwels, Yves 181 pavements 94, 95 Payne, Alina A. 110n20 Paz, Octavio 172 pedestals 88, 99, 161, 163, 165, 167 pediments 66, 67, 100, 106, 132, 162, 163, 164, 167, 169, 173, 178 Peláez, Diego 168 Peña, Jesús Joel 37n22 Peñafiel, Antonio 37n21 peninsulares 117, 152 Pereyns, Simon de 89 Perez, Alonso Martín 30, 41n86 Pérez-Gómez, Alberto 51, 59, 70, 72n27 Peter, Saint 132, 163, 178 Petrarch 101 Petronius, Saint 61 pheasant 89 Philandrier, Guillaume de 94, 95, 96 Philip II of Spain, King 37n21, 48, 93, 154 Philip IV of Spain, King 123, 140n1, 142n16 Philip of Jesus, Saint 157 Piadosas, Las (The Pious Ones) 68 piano nobile 168 Piedmont 62 pierced lanterns 128 pilasters 66, 67, 89, 106, 135, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 173, 178 Pilate, Pontius 60 pillars 132, 140n1, 167 pillory 83 Plaça Decanus (Plaza, the Dean) 100 Plañideras, Las (The Moaners) 68

214

Index

plasterwork 76n86, 95 Plateresque reliefs 88, 93, 98, 104 Plato 47 plaza central see central plaza Plaza Goes, Don Tomás de la 97, 98, 100, 103 Plaza Mayor 22 plaza principal (main square) 19, 30, 31, 45, 83, 155, 157 plaza pública 30, 119 plazas 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 31, 55 plazuela de la Compañía 155 plazuelas 155 plinth 162, 169, 176 Plitzintli 180 poblano architecture 67, 82, 84, 128, 156, 160, 162, 163, 168, 169, 170, 177, 180 poblano Baroque 160, 162, 163, 166, 169 poblano culture 151 poblano products 131 poblano society 4, 29, 64, 89, 108, 124, 125, 139, 150, 154, 158, 177 Poland 110n20 policía 20, 21, 39n51 policía humana 92, 93, 98, 109n14 polis 10, 39n51 Politics 10 Popocatepetl volcano 180, 185n23 portals 84, 88, 98, 99, 100, 104, 106, 128, 157, 158, 160, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 173, 175, 178 Portiuncula 65 Portugal 78n109, 110n20 Poxtécatl Hill 177 Prado, Jerónimo de 122 pre-Hispanic 4, 18, 21, 26, 45, 55, 56, 63, 104, 134, 137, 178, 180, 184n7 presbytery 67 presidios 24 Priego de Córdoba 63 printing press 79, 91, 94 profundización 151 Psalms, Book of 54 public fountain 29, 83, 131 public spaces 91, 155 public square 21, 30, 155 Puebla 1–6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36n2, 42n107, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 56, 57, 57, 58, 66, 67, 69, 72n22, 72n23, 74n50, 76n86, 77n98, 78n109, 79, 80,

82, 89, 90, 92, 95, 100, 100, 102, 105, 106, 107, 111n44, 115, 116, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141n14, 153, 154, 155, 157, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 166, 167, 172, 175, 176, 177, 178, 182, 184n8, 186n60; arrival and reception of Renaissance architectural culture 85–88; Baroque culture 5, 148, 150–52, 156; Bishop Palafox’s ideal Christian Republic project 117–18; circumstances that favored the city’s success 32–35; the city as a missionary and colonial endeavor 8–10; Classicism as the foundation for Puebla’s viceregal architectural tradition 5, 80–82, 106–08; coat of arms 50, 50, 54, 106, 154; construction materials 84–85; first three Indigenous barrios 83; five reasons for the city’s decline 149; founding of 4, 15–17; an important art market 89; mestizos’ contribution 3; mythology 2, 70, 151–52; other notable New World Renaissance architectural fragments 103–06; palatial residences 82; as a patria chica 117; pre-Hispanic influence in Puebla de Los Ángeles’ urban form 55–58; public festivities 156–58; relevance of the city in the early modern Hispanic world 10–11; religious architecture 158–67; residential Baroque architecture 167–71; resiliency 1; rise and decline 149–50; rivalry with Mexico City 15, 38n33; similarities between Puebla’s and Jerusalem’s topography relative to the Via Dolorosa 64–65; structures in the city 82–83; two important libraries 90; two prominent hills 46; urban gardens 83, 154, 156; as an urban and theological experiment 8–35; urbanism and architecture during the sixteenth century 82–85; the viceregal Heavenly Jerusalem 51–55; whites’ contribution 3; see also Via Crucis (Way of the Cross) Puebla Cathedral 115, 116, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 122, 124, 125, 125, 130, 132, 135, 138, 140, 140n1, 141n5, 142n16, 144n47, 155, 158, 159, 181; completion 172–74;

Index consecration ceremony 115–17; known as the “Silver Temple” 121 Puebla de Los Ángeles see Puebla Pueblan architecture see poblano architecture Puebla–Tlaxcala Diocese 129, 132–39 Puebla–Tlaxcala Region 51, 103 pueblos de encomienda 15 pulque 149, 184n7, 184n8 Pyrenees 47 Quiroga, Bishop Vasco de 19, 42n99 Quirós, Bishop Bernardo de 137 rails 101 Ramírez de Almansa, Viceroy Martín 118 Ramírez de Fuenleal, Sebastián 36n3 Ramos, Frances L. 184n8 Reconquista (reconquest) 93 Real Audiencia 11, 12, 36n2 real de minas 23, 24 Reforma Avenue 163 Reframing the Renaissance 109n17 Refugio 155 regidores 29 Regiment de la cosa pública (Regiment of the Public Sphere) 2 regionalism 124 Relaciones Geográficas 57 relief 104 religious festivities 157 religious hybridity 137, 178, 179 Remedios, Los 155 Renaissance 45, 80, 82, 98, 101, 103, 109n11; definition 80–81; principal traits 81; redefining 80–82; theorists 97 Renaissance architecture 82, 98, 105, 109n19, 110n20 Renaissance Classicism 99 Renaissance humanism 79, 81, 82, 97 repartimiento 48 repartimiento de indios 33 repúblicas 25, 32 repúblicas (de) españoles (Spanish Republics) 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 33, 34, 93 repúblicas de indios 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 32, 134 res publica (commonwealth) 11, 49, 118 retable 119, 121, 122, 160 Revelation, Book of 51, 54 Revillagigedo, Viceroy 150 Reyes, Luis 26

215

Reyes-Valerio, Constantino 109n11 Rhetorica Christiana (Christian Rhetoric) 53, 53 Richard of Saint Victor 64 Río Alseseca 14 Robin, Alena 78n109 Rodríguez-Shadow, Maria 137 Rojas, Pedro 180 Roman Antiquities 1 Roman castrametation 43, 47 Romano y Gobea, Diego, Bishop of the Puebla–Tlaxcala Diocese 129 roof structures and techniques 83, 84, 98, 112n45, 120, 160 Rosales, Friar Jacinto 65, 77n98 Rosa of Lima, Saint 173 Rosary Chapel 6, 160, 175, 177, 178 Rose of Viterbo, Saint 176 rosettes 105 roundels 104, 106 Routledge Handbook on the Reception of Classical Architecture, The 109n17 Royal Palace and Monastery of El Escorial 93 Rubial, Antonio 2, 73n33 Russo, Alessandra 109n11 Rykwert, Joseph 46 Sabina, Maria 187n67 Sacri Monti (Sacred Mountains) 62 Sacro Monte 62 sacristy 177 Sagrario, El 155 Sahagún, Bernardino de 134 Salamanca 101 Salmerón, Juan de 8, 12, 15, 16, 25, 33, 34, 57 Salmonella 184n10 San Agustín plaza/plazuela 31, 155 San Andrés Cholula 148, 177 Sánchez, Martín 40n72, 112n48 Sánchez de Arévalo, Rodrigo 48 Sancho Ramírez, King 47 San Cristóbal Church see Church of the Orphanage of San Cristóbal San Cristóbal de la Laguna 48 San Cristóbal de las Casas 23 San Cristóbal Hill 112n48, 121 Sanctuary of Guadalupe 163, 179 San Diego (barrio) 155 San Francisco Church 166, 166 San Francisco Monastery 65, 77n98, 88, 112n45, 158, 166 San Francisco plaza 31

216

Index

San Francisco River 14, 16, 25, 30, 31, 45, 54, 57, 64, 83, 84, 135, 155 San Francisco Totimehuacan 13, 32 San Isidro’s Chapel 122 San José Parish Church 155, 162, 163 San José plazuela 155 San Juan de Letrán Hospital 126, 128 San Juan del Río (barrio) 135, 155 San Martín Texmelucan 32 San Miguel del Milagro Shrine 115, 133, 136–39, 139, 172 San Pablo (de los Naturales) (barrio) 28, 83, 112n47, 155 San Pedro Cholula 177 San Pedro Hospital 115, 126, 145n64, 172 San Pedro Hospital Church 161, 162, 162 San Sebastián Parishes 155 Santa Ana (barrio) 155 Santa Ana Chapel 87, 112n47 Santa Catarina Monastery 76n86 Santa Clara Church 159 Santa Cruz Church see Parish of Santa Cruz Santa Fe de Granada 43, 48 Santa Fe, Mexico 42n99 Santa María, José Miguel de 165 Santa María Nativitas 137 Santa María Tonantzintla (town) see Church of Santa Maria Tonantzintla; Tonantzintla (town) Santa Mónica Convent 172 Santa Rosa Convent 172 Santiago (de Cholultecapan) (barrio) 27, 28, 31, 83, 135, 155 Santiago Parish Church 136 Santo Domingo 48 Santo Domingo Monastery Church 160, 161, 161 Sañudo, Molero 120 Scamozzi, Vicenzo 110n20 scholasticism 183 scholastic philosophy 81 Scripture 54, 55 sculpted stone medallions 104, 106 seals 162, 173 Second Coming 55 Segura de la Frontera 30 Seneca 47 Señor de los Azotes, El (The Lord of Scourges) 65

Serlio, Sebastiano 91, 92, 94, 99 service yards 98 seven gifts of the Holy Spirit 176 Seville 11, 62, 90, 167 Shadow, Robert 137 shafts 99, 100, 176 shells: masonry 121; scallop 100 shrine 61, 64, 132, 133, 137, 138, 139, 164 Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe 164 Sierra, Diego de la 167 Siete Partidas (Seven Entries) 47 Sigüenza y Góngora, Francisco de 152 Simon of Cyrine 66 Sinaloa 34 smallpox 150 social institutions 126 Society of Jesus 117, 182 Solano, Francisco 69 solar(es) 22, 30, 47, 83, 100 Solomon (biblical character) 51 Solomonic order 182 Solomon’s Temple see Temple of Solomon Sorbonne University 12 Spain 48, 79, 81, 88, 89, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 108, 110n20, 111n44, 117, 119, 121, 123, 128, 133, 138, 141n12, 145, 156, 181 spandrels 135, 163 Spaniards 56, 98, 137, 149, 152, 183n1 Spanish America 43, 80, 81, 154, 181, 182 Spanish American architecture 181, 182 Spanish American arts 108n11 Spanish American Baroque 150–51, 181, 182 Spanish colonizers 55 Spanish conquistadors 18, 36, 38, 80, 101, 104, 105, 158 Spanish Crown 10, 15, 18, 20, 33, 47, 49, 50, 54, 57, 91, 117, 119, 134, 142n15, 148, 149, 150, 157, 161, 174 Spanish culture 55 Spanish Empire 92, 93 Spiritual Exercises 62, 183 St. Agnes of Montepulciano Church 162 staircases 94, 100 stone masonry 84 St. Philip Neri Church 162 stucco ornamentation 83, 128, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 168,

Index 169, 170, 171, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 studia humanitatis 81 súbditos 123 Suma política que fabla como deven ser fundadas e edificadas cibdades e villas (Political summa that speaks of how towns and cities should be founded) 48 Suplemento de el Libro Número Primero 38n33, 40n77 Supremi Nostri Apostolatus (Our Superior Apostolate) 130 Syria 75n69 Tabernacle Chapel 119 Talavera de la Reina 145n76 Talavera tiles 84, 131, 160, 162, 163; see also ceramic tiles Tamariz de Carmona, Antonio 121, 122 tapestries 104 Tapia, Juan de 19 Tecali 32 Tecamachalco 32, 149 tecpan 26 tejamanil 84 Temoanchan 179 Temple Mount 65 Temple of Jerusalem 73n33 Temple of Solomon 51, 52, 59, 72n23, 94, 122 temples 54, 55, 95, 116, 118, 124, 125, 132, 138, 158, 160, 177, 179, 180 Tenochtitlán-Mexico City 2, 22, 72n23, 98 teocalli 26 Teonanacatl 180 Tepeaca 15, 25, 30, 32, 34, 149 Tepeyac Hill 179 Tepeyac-Iztapalapa causeway 22 tequitqui 108n11 Teresa of Ávila, Saint 157, 173 terraces 68, 98 terrae sanctae (The Holy Land) 61, 75n69 Tertiary Order of Franciscans 68, 69 Texcocan people 25, 85 tezontle 171 Thales 43 Third Provincial Mexican Council of 1585 129 Thumen, Johann Heinrich von 39n58 tianguis 83, 155 tianquiztli 26 título 24

217

Título Quarto 142n15 Tlachihualtepetl (Manmade Mountain) 56, 57 Tlachihualtepetl Temple 58 Tlalocan 179 Tlatelolcans 26 tlatoani 26 Tlaxcala (state) 12, 13, 15, 25, 34, 37n22, 115, 133, 139, 157 Tlaxcala Bishopric 115 Tlaxcala City 72n22, 112n45, 112n47 Tlaxcalan people 84, 118, 155 Tlaxcaltecapan 83 tlaxilacallis 26 Toledo 128 Toledo, Juan Bautista de 93 Toledo, Viceroy Francisco de 20 Tolsá, Manuel 121, 141n5, 174 Tonantzin (goddess) 177, 178, 179 Tonantzintla (town) 6, 13, 148, 177, 178 topography 1, 9, 13, 18, 21, 46, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64 Toral, Francisco del 19 Toreno, Gaspar 65, 77n98 Torquemada, Friar Juan de 15, 16, 50, 151 Torre Villar, Ernesto de la 141n12 Totimehuacan 13 Totonac 27 Toussaint, Manuel 104, 105, 135, 150 towers 52, 54, 101 transept 119, 121, 128, 158, 165, 175, 177, 180 Trasmonte, Juan Gómez de 120, 121, 154 Trattato di Architettura (Architectural Treatise) 99 traza central 31, 43, 154, 155 traza principal 83 trazas 27, 32, 86, 74n50 treatises 15, 53, 73, 129, 133, 134; see also architectural treatises Tridentine precepts on diocesan spiritual and pastoral education 126, 129 Tridentine Seminary Complex 129, 131, 140, 172 “Triumphs” 101 Tuscany 62 Tutte l’opere d’architettura e prospetiva 94 typology 87, 88, 92, 97, 103, 128, 158, 159, 160, 181 Umayyad Moors 47 University of Alcalá de Henares 94, 123

218

Index

University of Salamanca 98, 123 Untranslatable Image, The 109n11 urban culture 3, 11, 28, 39n51, 80, 97, 107, 109n14, 157 urban element 45, 58, 155 urban form 2, 3, 5, 21, 22, 24, 30, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 70, 74n50, 92 urban gardens see gardens; huertas; Puebla urban grids 2, 5, 17, 21, 22, 33, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 56, 57, 58, 71n2, 74n50, 155 urbanism 1, 4, 5, 10, 23, 26, 43, 45, 47, 56, 75n58, 81, 82, 86; see also European urbanism; Nahua urbanism Urbanismo y morfología de las ciudades novohispanas: el diseño de Puebla (Urbanism and Morphology of New Spanish Cities: Puebla’s Design) 45 urbanitas 20 urban life 103 urban palaces see palaces urban planning 48 urban republic 117 urbis 11 urbs 10, 11, 24, 92 Urrea, Miguel de 94, 95, 96 Valadés, Friar Diego de 53, 53, 73n34, 134 Velasco y Ruiz de Alarcón, Viceroy Luis de 19, 86 Valencia 2, 49 valido 123 Valladolid, Spain 2, 13, 23, 48, 58, 86, 97 Vandelvira, Andrés de 119 Varallo 62 varas 45, 100 vaults 77n98, 115, 140n1, 158, 160, 168, 175, 179, 180, 183; barrel 67, 176; groined 88, 158; ribbed 52, 88; Roman 88, 89; sail 158 Vázquez, Alonso 89 vecinos 30, 34, 43, 48; see also criollo vecinos Vega, Antonio de 69 Velasco, Juan Lopez de 29 Velasquez de Cuellar, Diego 10 Veracruz 10, 14, 15, 156 Veracruz road 15 Verónica, La (Chapel of St. Veronica) 67, 67, 77n98

Veronica, Saint 67 Vetancurt, Agustín de 64, 151 Veytia see Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia, Mariano Via Crucis (Way of the Cross) 5, 59–70, 60, 66, 67, 69, 77n98, 78n109, 180; chapels of the Via Crucis, their sponsors, and its processional route 65–68; origin 60–61 Via Dolorosa (Way of Suffering) 62, 64, 68 viceregal Mexico/Viceroyalty of New Spain 2, 58, 73; see also New Spain Viceroyalty of Perú 119, 150 Victoria Salazar, Don Diego de 77n98 Vida interior 141n12 Villa de Carreón 32 Villa, José Moreno 109n11 Villalpando, Cristóbal de 121, 171, 174 Villalpando, Juan Bautista 52, 59, 72n27, 93, 122 Villa Real de Chiapa 23 Villa Real de la Santa Fé, La 22 Villa Rica de la Veracruz 10 villas 23, 24, 32 Villa Sánchez, Friar Juan de 149, 184n8 Virgin Mary 61, 89, 156, 172, 175, 176, 178, 180 Virgin of Guadalupe 163 Virgin of the Holy Conception 121, 122 virtues 176 Visitador General 141n12 Vitruvius 43, 46, 86, 91, 93, 94, 95, 95, 96, 96, 97 volutes 104, 162, 165, 170 walls see fortresses and walls wards 128 Wasson, Gordon 180, 187n67 waterworks 86, 87, 88 Western Spain 99 wheat mills 149 windows: clerestory 120; Moorish 88, 100; ogee 100; pierced 159 Wittkower, Rudolf 82, 109n19 Wood, Trevor 44, 102, 120 xacal 119, 143n24 Xanenetla 155 Xochimilcan people 85 Xochiyaólotl 14 Xonaca (barrio) 133, 135, 155

Index Xonaca Parish Church 135 Xonaca Stream 64 Xonacatepec 155 xylography 90 yaotlalli 14

Zacatecas 23 zacatl 143n24 zagúan 99, 100, 101 zahuatltepiton 184n10 Zamudio, Nicolás de 185n23 Zapotec 27

219