hispanic research journal, Vol. 10 No. 5, December, 2009, 417–438 Art, Identity, and the Construction of the Church of Santo Domingo in Quito Susan V Webster College of William and Mary, USA The recent rediscovery of an early seventeenth-century mural painting hidden beneath an eighteenth-century painting on canvas on the nave crossing arch of the Church of Santo Domingo provides striking visual evidence of individual and corporate identities and shifting devotional contexts at the Dominican monastery. Complementing and clarifying the visual evidence in the paintings, recently recovered archival documents confirm the identities, roles, and activities of the major protagonists in the Dominican artistic and building campaigns of the early seventeenth century. keywords Quito, Santo Domingo, colonial, architecture, painting, Dávila In the course of restorations undertaken in 2004, an extensive mural painting was discovered adorning the nave crossing arch of the Church of Santo Domingo in Quito (Figure 1 & Col. Pl. III in print edn). The mural had been both hidden and protected beneath a massive oil painting on canvas of the same shape and size (Figure 2 & Col. Pl. IV in print edn). The canvas painting appears to be an early eighteenth-century work, while the mural beneath it certainly dates from the early seventeenth century, shortly after the crossing was constructed. These works document important individual and corporate identities, and highlight the shifting devotional context at the Dominican establishment in Quito during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Recently recovered archival evidence documents the construction of the crossing, and permits the identification of key figures in the paintings and in the construction of the church. The paintings and their devotional context(s) Among the religious personages represented in the mural painting is a somewhat incongruous figure, curiously attired and definitively secular (Figure 3 & Col. Pl. V in print edn). At first glance, he might appear to be the donor of the painting. Occupying a position at the extreme left of the composition, the last in a line of male Dominican saints and friars, this bearded and moustachioed gentleman kneels © Queen Mary, University of London 2009 DOI 10.1179/146827309X12541438268349 418 SUSAN V WEBSTER figure 1 Virgin of the Rosary with Dominican Saints, mural painting, 1620s. Church of Santo Domingo, Quito. Photo: Hernán Navarrete reverently, his hands clasped in prayer. He is clad in the Spanish style of the seventeenth century: a black cape, buttoned doublet, ruffled collar, and lace sleeves grace his form. In the manner of a sacred attribute, he bears in his hands a large compass, the canonical instrument of builders and architects. The highly detailed and individualized face of the figure leaves little doubt that it represents the portrait of a specific individual, whose inclusion in this sacred scene clearly indicates his importance for the Dominicans of that time. Barely visible before the face of the figure is inscribed the word ‘AVILA’. This secular figure participates in a grand devotional scene: the Virgin of the Rosary appears within an illuminated mandorla, encircled by a massive rosary and surrounded by angels and cherubim (Figure 1). The Virgin and Child offer rosaries to flanking groups of male and female Dominican saints, each of whom bears identifying attributes and is crowned with an aureole.1 Indeed, the only figures in the mural painting without haloes are the two that appear on the extreme left of the composition: a Dominican friar holding a rosary with a broad-brimmed pilgrimage hat at his feet, and the aforementioned secular figure with the compass (Figure 3). 1 For example, the male Dominican saints include Santo Domingo de Guzmán, with his crucifix, rosary, and Dominican dog; San Pedro Mártir (patron of the Quiteñan monastery), with his head wound, sword, and crowned palm; and Santo Tomás de Aquino, wearing a birreta and holding a model of a church, a reference to his status as a Doctor of the Church. THE CHURCH OF SANTO DOMINGO IN QUITO 419 figure 2 Virgin Protecting the Dominican Order, oil on canvas, 1730s. Church of Santo Domingo, Quito. Photo: Hernán Navarrete The compositions and figural groups in both the mural and the later canvas painting are strikingly similar, with the notable exception that the Virgin of the Rosary in the mural painting is supplanted in the later work by a Virgin of Mercy, protecting members of the Dominican order beneath her ample cloak (Figure 2). Although devotion to the rosary is substantially muted in the later image, it remains present in the rosary-bearing angels who surround the figure of Mary. The only other substantial changes in the later work are the incorporation of two additional pairs of Dominican saints to either side of the Virgin and the omission of the word ‘AVILA’ that appears in the mural. The canvas painting includes the secular figure with the compass in the same location, although elements of his wardrobe appear to have been updated (Figure 4 & Col. Pl. VI in print edn). The superimposition of the canvas painting, with its few but significant changes, over the original mural suggests that identities were lost over time and that a shift in devotional emphasis occurred at the Dominican monastery during a later period. As neither of the two paintings is signed or dated, we can only speculate as to their authorship. With regard to the mural, numerous native artists were active at Santo Domingo during the first decades of the seventeenth century, including the painters Andrés Sánchez Galque, Alonso Chacha, Francisco Gocial, Jerónimo Vilcacho, Juan Diez Sánchez, Sebastián Gualoto, Francisco Guajal, and Juan Greco Vásquez (Vargas 1983: 53). These artists were members of the Dominican church’s native Confraternity of the Rosary, and may have acquired their proficiency in the arts under the tutelage of fray Pedro Bedón, a noted Dominican painter. Among them, Andrés 420 SUSAN V WEBSTER figure 3 Detail of Figure 1. figure 4 Detail of Figure 2. THE CHURCH OF SANTO DOMINGO IN QUITO 421 Sánchez Galque is perhaps the most closely allied to Santo Domingo, for he served as prioste of the Confraternity of the Virgin of the Rosary in 1599, and again in 1604–05 (Vargas 1983: 53). Sánchez Galque’s signed and dated portrait, Don Francisco de Arobe and His Two Sons (1599), is widely recognized for its mastery of the genre, and some have attributed to the artist several of the mural paintings that adorn the piers in the nave of the Church of San Francisco (Navarro 1991: 36). The Dominicans frequently called upon indigenous artists to carry out their decorative programmes, as was the case, for example, with the native master sculptor Juan Benítez Cañar, who in 1620 signed a contract with fray Pedro Bedón to create the main altar of the church (ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 29, 1620, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fols 552–55).2 While any number of artists may be suggested as the individual designer of the nave crossing mural in Santo Domingo, its realization was undoubtedly a collaborative effort that included both master painter(s) and assistants. The celebrated Dominican friar, Pedro Bedón (d. 1621), was also a renowned painter, and the author of various images depicting the Virgin of the Rosary, an advocation to which he was fervently devoted (Vargas 1986: 80–82). Bedón was a practised painter of murals, and authored several important such works in the Dominican Recoleta de la Peña de Francia in Quito, including a famed image of the Virgin of the Rosary, known as the ‘Virgen de la Escalera’ (Navarro 1950: 57). Upon his return to Quito from Lima in 1586, Bedón assumed the responsibility of serving as chaplain to the Confraternity of the Rosary. To that end, he oversaw the construction of the confraternity chapel, and reorganized its membership, dividing it into separate groups composed of Spaniards, natives, and blacks (Vargas 1983: 46–47). Additionally, he compiled the new reglas of the confraternity in 1588, adorning it with the now-famous drawing of the Virgin of the Rosary (Figure 5 & Col. Pl. VII in print edn). Bedón was an indefatigable promoter of the Dominican building campaigns during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries: he founded the Recoleta de la Peña de Francia in Quito and monasteries in Ibarra and Riobamba, embarked on extensive pilgrimages to visit the Dominican establishments of the province, and penned letters to the king seeking funding for building campaigns (AGI, Quito, 83, N.32, 1600, n.p.; AGI, Quito 85, N.21, 1606, n.p.; Vargas 1986: 118–22, 136–37, 185).3 Given these circumstances, it is plausible that the original design for the mural on the nave crossing arch was made by Bedón, although it was not completed in his lifetime. In this light, the Dominican friar who accompanies the secular figure on the extreme left of the mural in all likelihood represents him (Figure 3).4 His inclusion would 2 3 4 For a more extensive study of Juan Benítez Cañar and the identities and works of numerous Andean masters in colonial Quito, see Webster 2009: 10–29. Bedón served as Prior of the Quiteñan monastery during various periods between 1595 and 1618. He was elected Provincial of the order in 1618, and served in that capacity until his death in 1621 (Vargas 1986: 104, 184). In his roles as Prior and Provincial, he was responsible for fostering construction and travelling throughout the province to visit the establishments of the order. A 1621 death portrait of Bedón at the Dominican monastery in Quito bears an unmistakable resemblance to that of the figure in the mural painting. Bedón was born in Quito c. 1566, and would thus have been approximately fifty-five years of age at the time of his death in 1621. If the figure of the Dominican friar in the mural painting is a portrait of Bedón, it was probably painted shortly after the time of his death. Other portraits of Bedón exist; however, they appear to derive from the portrait mentioned above. 422 SUSAN V WEBSTER figure 5 Pedro Bedón, Virgin of the Rosary, pen and ink on paper, 1588. Reglas of the Confraternity of Our Lady of the Rosary, Monastery of Santo Domingo, Quito. After Damián Bayón and Murillo Marx, 1989. History of South American Colonial Art and Architecture (Barcelona: Polígrafa), fig 291. THE CHURCH OF SANTO DOMINGO IN QUITO 423 certainly be justified, given his passionate devotion to the Rosary, his lengthy service to the Quiteñan monastery, and his commitment to the Dominican building campaigns. The Dominican church was reportedly completed in 1623, and what is today the first section of the Chapel of the Confraternity of the Rosary was finished at almost the same time, between 1621 and 1624 (Navarro 1950: 7). Given that the mural painting could hardly be undertaken until the ceiling and roof were in place, it was probably realized some time after 1623. The murals that adorn the interior of the crossing depict images of archangels and doctors of the church, and bear a date of 1631 (Figures 6 and 7 & Col. Pls VIII and IX in print edn). Several distinct hands are visible in these paintings, none of which resemble those of the mural on the exterior of the nave crossing arch. The central importance of the advocation of the rosary and the prominent location of the mural on the nave crossing arch indicate that it is likely to have been executed before those on the interior of the crossing, thereby suggesting that it was painted between 1623 and 1631 — in the decade following the completion of the church and the death of fray Pedro Bedón in 1621. Under these circumstances, the mural bears witness to Bedón’s passionate devotion to the cult of the rosary, his leadership in the confraternity, and his role in the construction and decoration of the church, and the rosary chapel. Devotion to the rosary was clearly the principal focus of this early decorative programme. figure 6 View showing murals within crossing. Church of Santo Domingo, Quito. Photo: Hernán Navarrete 424 SUSAN V WEBSTER figure 7 Detail showing 1631 date of murals within crossing. Church of Santo Domingo, Quito. Photo: Hernán Navarrete The later painting on canvas that was superimposed on the mural appears to date from the early eighteenth century, and bears affinities with paintings executed by the workshop or followers of Miguel de Santiago, perhaps most notably with those of Nicolás Javier Goríbar. As Goríbar’s oeuvre is based primarily on attributions, the series of prophets that adorn the pillars of the Church of la Compañía in Quito cannot necessarily be accepted as artist’s work (Figure 8 & Col. Pl. X in print edn).5 Regardless of their authorship, however, these paintings, which probably date from the first third of the eighteenth century (Navarro 1991: 102), exhibit numerous similarities to the canvas painting in Santo Domingo in terms of brushwork, colouration, and quality of chiaroscuro. For example, a comparison of the head and hands of the Prophet Zacharias (Figure 8) and Prophet Habakkuk with the secular figure depicted in the canvas painting from Santo Domingo (Figure 4) illustrates similar delicate, feathery brushwork and shading in the formation of hands, facial features, and hair, and the works display analogous palettes of orange, ochre, rust, and sienna. According to the Dominican art historian and chronicler, José María Vargas, Goríbar, or a member of his circle, may also have authored a series of paintings depicting kings of Judea for the Monastery of Santo Domingo (Vargas 1963: 108–09), an attribution that would associate him more closely with the decorative agenda of the order. 5 Goríbar’s purported authorship of the prophets in the Jesuit church has been the topic of heated debate, and is certainly open to question (Fernández Salvador 2007: 107–12). THE CHURCH OF SANTO DOMINGO IN QUITO 425 figure 8 Nicolás Javier Goríbar (attrib.), Profeta Zacharias, oil on canvas, early eighteenth century. Church of La Compañía, Quito. Photo: Hernán Navarrete 426 SUSAN V WEBSTER Nonetheless, until the Dominicans determine to open their archive to researchers, we can only speculate as to the authorship of the canvas painting that was placed over the original mural on the nave crossing arch of the church. The fact that the mural painting depicting the Virgin of the Rosary was later covered by an image of the Virgin of Mercy protecting Dominican saints indicates a significant transformation in devotional focus, and may suggest a particular time frame for the creation and superimposition of the work on canvas. In the 1730s, the Confraternity of the Rosary embarked on a radical expansion of its chapel (AMH/Q, Libro de Cabildo de la Ciudad de Quito, 1730–35 [typescript transcription], 72, ‘Petición de la Cofradía de Nuestra Señora del Rosario de los Españoles para el remedio y reparo de la capilla de dicha cofradía para la comodidad y decencia del altar’, 22-IV-1732). The ambitious plan involved demolishing a section of the transept wall of the Dominican church (the location of the early confraternity chapel), and building a massive extension composed of three distinct segments (Figure 9), the interior of which was then lavishly adorned with polychromed and gilded walls, arches, and altars (Figure 10 & Col. Pl. XI in print edn). In a feat of engineering, the imposing tripartite chapel with its two commanding domes is constructed atop a broad stone arch spanning one of Quito’s busy streets. Although the confraternity maintained its physical link with the Dominican order, the monumental architectural span and impressive engineering of the chapel clearly rivalled those of the Dominican church itself (Webster 2006: 210–12). figure 9 Chapel of the Rosary, exterior view, seventeenth–eighteenth century. Church of Santo Domingo, Quito. Photo: Susan Webster THE CHURCH OF SANTO DOMINGO IN QUITO 427 figure 10 Chapel of the Rosary, interior view, seventeenth–eighteenth century. Church of Santo Domingo, Quito. Photo: Hernán Navarrete Paralleling the construction of the chapel, the administrative structure of the confraternity underwent a radical reorganization during the 1730s that largely removed it from the purview of Dominican supervision and control. Administrative posts in the confraternity were reserved exclusively for members of Quito’s élite, and the friars no longer had full participatory or voting privileges in the cabildos. The confraternity had essentially seceded from Dominican control, creating a monumental, virtually independent space that was almost exclusively in the power of its elite lay members (Terán Najas 1994: 48–49). Given these circumstances, it is possible that the canvas painting was installed over the mural at around this time, in part, as a Dominican response to the building campaign, emancipation, and rival power of the Confraternity of the Rosary. The replacement of the central image of the Virgin of the Rosary in the mural with an advocation of the Virgin as protector of the Dominican order, in which the symbols and role of the rosary are substantially downplayed, transformed the previous devotional focus, and may well reflect the new circumstances and relationships between the Dominicans and the powerful confraternity that they no longer fully controlled. In comparison, the earlier mural painting highlights the fervent devotion to the rosary embraced by the friars, particularly by fray Pedro Bedón, and the confraternity that they fostered during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. As we shall see, in addition to the figure of fray Pedro Bedón, the mural painting depicts another crucial and celebrated participant in the Dominican building campaign of that early period. 428 SUSAN V WEBSTER Image and identity: the documentary evidence The recent recovery of a series of archival documents related to the construction of Santo Domingo further informs our understanding of the mural painting, illuminating the identity and activities of the figure labelled as ‘AVILA’ and the reasons for his inclusion in the work (Figure 3). These documents demonstrate for the first time that construction of the church and crossing was initiated under the direction of the Spanish master albañil (mason), Alonso Muñoz, in the late sixteenth century (ANH/ Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 10, 1601, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fols 129v–30, 597v–98v, 673v–74v), and that in 1601 a significant conflict and lawsuit with the Dominicans led them to replace him with the Spanish carpenter Sebastián Dávila, who saw the construction through to completion in 1602 (ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 10, 1601, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fols 617–18v).6 The elaborate mural that adorns the nave crossing arch must have been painted some time thereafter. The word ‘AVILA’ inscribed before the face of the secular figure in the mural undoubtedly refers to Sebastián Dávila, documented here for the first time as the architect of the church crossing, and as active in Quito between 1583 and 1609 (Figure 3).7 Because Dávila’s painted image on the nave crossing arch is one of the very few now-identifiable portraits of a colonial Quiteñan artist, and the only known depiction of a local architect, it presents a unique opportunity to link the arts of painting and architecture with documentary evidence regarding the authorship and the construction of the Dominican church. The documents reveal Dávila’s professional relationship with the Dominicans, suggest reasons for his depiction on the crossing arch, and offer insight into his life and works in Quito during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. The earliest document involving Dávila records a loan of 200½ pesos that he took out in 1583 with a local merchant, Pedro Fernández de Espinosa. This loan enabled Dávila to purchase ‘200 varas de rruan a fardo a peso cada una vara’ (ANH/Q, Notaría 1a, vol. 1, 1582–87, Diego de Amendaño, fol. 161). ‘Ruan a fardo’ refers to a tightly-woven fabric from which large sacks were made, and the quantity of 200 varas (approximately 600 ft) suggests that Dávila was preparing to package and transport a substantial amount of materials. This purchase may well be related to a construction project; however, the documentary evidence from this time does not identify the specific building with which he was involved. A second document, dating from 1598, registers a ‘donación a censo’ (the donation of interest income on a mortgage) made by Dávila and his wife, Juana Gutiérrez to ‘la santa cofradía y hermandad de nuestra señora de la concepción desta ciudad ques la hermandad de los montañeses’ (AHN/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 9, 1597–98, Diego 6 7 Although the original plan for the Dominican church was designed by the noted Spanish architect Francisco Becerra between 1581 and 1582, and part of the foundation may have been laid shortly thereafter, work did not begin in earnest on the construction until 1595 (Vargas 1986: 98). Sebastián Dávila’s arrival (or origins) in the Viceroyalty of Peru is not indicated in any of the documents. It is possible that he came to the Americas in 1569, since a document in the Archive of the Indies registers one Sebastián Dávila as a passenger to ‘Tierra Firme y Perú’, travelling as a aide to his brother, Cristóbal Dávila (AGI, Pasajeros, L.5, E.1689). No profession is listed for either of the brothers. THE CHURCH OF SANTO DOMINGO IN QUITO 429 Rodríguez Docampo, fols 911–13v).8 This confraternity maintained a chapel in the Church of San Francisco, suggesting a possible relationship between Dávila and the construction of the Franciscan church. No sixteenth-century documents that refer to Dávila’s work on local buildings have been recovered, yet he was undoubtedly involved in construction projects during this period. Without citing documentary evidence, historians have linked Dávila to several constructions in the city, notably the Church of San Francisco (López Guzmán 1995: 309) and the Cathedral (Gutiérrez 1983: 52), though not with the Church of Santo Domingo. Recently recovered documents demonstrate that Dávila’s presence in the mural painting is directly related to his role in the construction of the towering arches of the Dominican church crossing. On 7 August 1601, Sebastián Dávila, identified simply as ‘oficial carpintero’, signed a contract with fray Tomás Ramírez, Prior of the Quiteñan Monastery of Santo Domingo, to construct the four arches of the church crossing (ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 10, 1601, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fols 617–18v). According to the contract, Dávila was to build ‘en la yglecia nueba del d[ic]ho convento quatro zinbrias de madera y demas aderentes nezesarios para quatro arcos de la d[ic]ha ygleçia a la qual d[ic]ha obra a de acudir personalmente’ (ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 10, 1601, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fol. 617). For their part, the Dominicans agreed to provide ‘los materiales de yndios peones y madera y clabason y oficiales de albaneria [sic] y carpinteria [. . .] q[ue] ssea necesario a su sustento’, so that the work might be ‘acabada en toda perfecion y a uista de officiales que lo Entiendan’ (ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 10, 1601, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fol. 617). The contract makes it clear that Dávila was to put his expertise to work on a daily basis, and that he was to supervise the entire construction; thus, the carpenter’s role was that of master builder and architect. For his labours, Dávila was to be paid four hundred silver pesos, quite a generous sum for the period. It is worth emphasizing that, as outlined in the contract, the work expected of Dávila included the design and erection of the scaffolds, as well as the supervision of the construction of the entire crossing, including the four monumental arches. This is clarified in one clause of the contract, in which the Dominicans demanded that Dávila ‘asistir personalmente a la obra de la albañileria hasta q[ue] sse acaben los d[ic]hos quatro arcos y ansimismo si se quebrazen los arcos o qual quiera dellos los a de hazer como d[ic]ho es a su costa’ (ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 10, 1601, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fol. 617v). The caution with which the Dominicans laid out their requirements in the contract suggests that they had experienced difficulties with other builders in the past. Additionally, in apparent recognition of Dávila’s varied expertise and professional activities, the Dominicans allowed him particular liberties during his labours at the church. According to the contract, the Dominicans conceded that ‘si [Dávila] quiziere hazer alguna obra de ymagineria el susod[ic]ho pueda hazer como sea dentro del 8 Juana Gutiérrez was born in Seville and immigrated to Quito with her family in 1582 (AGI, Pasajeros, L.6, E.4421). Juana’s brother, Pedro, was a noted Quiteñan silversmith during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries (AGI, Contratación 937, N.10; AHOM/Q, No. 6, ‘Libro en que constan los privilegios [. . .]’, fols 201–01v). 430 SUSAN V WEBSTER convento que no ympida a la vista y obras de las cinbrias’ (ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 10, 1601, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fol. 617v). This clause left the carpenter free to use the monastery as a workshop for other artistic endeavours. Dávila also agreed to complete the scaffolding within four months, promising that he would personally oversee the work, and ‘no dejar la d[ic]ha obra por ninguna causa’, a statement that once again implies prior difficulties and setbacks with the construction of the church. In fact, the foundations for the crossing had already been laid by the time the Dominicans signed the contract with Dávila. As noted above, the previous master of the work, Alonso Muñoz, had abandoned the construction over a dispute with the Dominicans. Muñoz served as master builder of the Dominican church, and had completed a portion of the construction in the years prior to 1601.9 In that year, Muñoz filed a lawsuit against the Dominicans with the real audiencia, in which he accused them of fraud for not having paid him in accord with the contractual agreement. As a result, the audiencia ordered that the Dominicans no se prosiguiese en la obra de la yglesia nueua del conuento de s[an]to domingo, hasta que se diese fiança de estar a d[erech]o con el d[ic]ho alonso muñoz en el pleyto que sigue Con el d[ic]ho convento sobre El engaño que alega, de la obra que a fecho en la d[ic]ha yglesia. (ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 10, 1601, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fol. 129v) Although the original contract with Muñoz has not been recovered, another document, dated July 1601, clarifies the legal situation. In this document, drawn up by the Dominicans ‘in favour of Alonso Muñoz, albañil’, fray Tomás Ramírez declared that se concertaron con el d[ic]ho al[ons]o muñoz en q[ue] hiziese la obra de la d[ic]ha yglecia en lo que tocaua a el d[ic]ho su oficio en la yglecia nueba del d[ic]ho combento en cierta cantidad de pesos de oro y auiendo f[ec]ho el d[ic]ho concierto y acabado El susod[ic]ho la d[ic]ha obra parece que intento demanda ante los senores presidente E oydores de la rreal audiencia [. . .] diziendo que auer sido enganado en la d[ic]ha obra rrespecto de que merecera mas de lo que se auia consertado y le abra reciuido. (ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 10, 1601, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fol. 597v) According to this document, the original sum promised in the contract was three hundred silver pesos, while Muñoz claimed that he had been paid only twenty pesos. In order to continue with the construction of the church, the Dominicans obtained a loan, and determined to pay Muñoz the remainder of his salary within two months. 9 According to two versions of his last will and testament, filed in 1582 and 1603, Alonso Muñoz was a native of Córdoba, Spain, the legitimate son of Alonso Muñoz and Juana Ortiz. In the 1582 version of his will, he asks to be buried in the Quiteñan Church of San Agustín, suggesting that he may have been involved in the construction of that monastery (ANH/Q, Notaría 1a, vol. 1, 1582–87, Diego de Avendaño, fols 1–3). The 1603 version, although incomplete, shifts the location of his sepulchre to the Church of San Francisco, implying a similar working relationship with the friars of that order (ANH/Q, Notaría 1a, vol. 25, 1603, Alonso Dorado de Vergara, fols 184v–85). Not surprisingly, in neither case does he mention the Church of Santo Domingo. His early testament reveals his involvement in a variety of constructions, including the casas reales, the cárcel real, the fountain of San Sebastián, and perhaps the Monastery of San Agustín in Riobamba. Additionally, Muñoz worked for the city council in various capacities, including the construction of the buildings of the carnicería and the city waterworks in the main plaza (Descalzi 1978: 331–32). THE CHURCH OF SANTO DOMINGO IN QUITO 431 Later that year, in the month of September, Muñoz and the Dominicans signed a settlement letter in which the master received three hundred silver pesos for his work on the construction of the church (ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 10, 1601, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fols 673v–74v). In the midst of this imbroglio, in August 1601, the Dominicans contracted with Sebastián Dávila to finish the construction of the church. The last folio of this document contains a posterior marginal notation, dated 31 January 1602, confirming Dávila’s completion of the work and his payment in full. Additionally, the notation contains the caveat that ‘entiendese que el acauar la obra a de ser hasta que se quiten las simbria[s] de los arcos’ (ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 10, 1601, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fol. 618v). Given that these very arches still stand today, having survived the numerous destructive earthquakes that have rocked the city over the centuries, Dávila clearly produced a solid, successful structure (Figure 11). Indeed, the Dominicans must have been quite satisfied with the results when the scaffolds were removed, perhaps so much so that they decided to include a portrait of the master in the mural painting that adorns the nave crossing arch of the church. Although the successful construction of the church crossing was certainly a notable achievement, was it really enough reason to include Dávila’s portrait in the mural painting? The contract for the intricate wooden par y nudillo artesonado ceilings of the crossing and the nave has not been recovered (Figures 12 and 13); however, there is evidence to suggest that Dávila may well have been involved in their design and construction. In the 1970s, the architectural historians Ramón Gutiérrez and Alberto Corradine discovered an edition of Serlio’s third and fourth book of architecture in the Biblioteca Nacional in Bogotá that once belonged to Sebastián Dávila (Los Siglos de Oro 1999: 290). The volume contains marginal notes and drawings of designs for various types of wooden structures and ceilings, including artesonados in the par y nudillo form, made and signed by Dávila during his time in Quito. Among the drawings is one depicting a design for the structure of a par y nudillo ceiling and roof (Figure 14), which bears the inscription ‘La jumetría que se sabe para sacar los cartabones y el largo de las alfardas y la media que han de llevar sácase a esta quenta para qual quier pieza, trabajose a viente y siete de septiembre de 1585 años. Sebastián Dávila’ (Libro tercero y quarto de architectura de Sebastián Serlio boloñes 1573: 71). If the artesonado ceilings at Santo Domingo were in fact the work of Dávila, they would be among the earliest examples of their kind in Quito, suggesting that Dávila may have been instrumental in introducing and/or popularizing this form in the region. The authorship of the artesonados notwithstanding, the examples at Santo Domingo have recently been restored to their early splendour, and those of the crossing are a marvel of artistry and design (Figure 12). The likelihood that Dávila was the author of the artesonado in the crossing is particularly strong, because this was the area of the church that he constructed, and in light of his related drawings and notes in the Serlio volume. According to the Ecuadorian art historian José Gabriel Navarro, the Dominican church ‘pudo darse por terminada en 1623’ (1950: 7), thereby suggesting that the artesonado was constructed in the first or second decade of the seventeenth century. However, Diego Rodríguez Docampo’s 1650 description of the Church of Santo 432 SUSAN V WEBSTER figure 11 View of the nave and crossing of the Church of Santo Domingo, Quito. Photo: Hernán Navarrete THE CHURCH OF SANTO DOMINGO IN QUITO 433 figure 12 Artesonado of the crossing, early seventeenth century. Church of Santo Domingo, Quito. Photo: Hernán Navarrete Domingo, which lauds the construction of both the artesonado and the crossing, provides what may well be a more precise date for the material completion of the church: esta Yglesia se fabricó, más ha de 40 años, en madera de cedro y artesones, bien labrado; toda la cubierta dorada y pintada de imágenes al óleo de curiosas hechuras [. . .] con crucero en la Capilla mayor de gran arte y bien dispuesto. (1994 [1650]: ii, 258) Rodríguez Docampo’s indication of a completion date for the church of c. 1610 is more credible than other accounts, because he served as the notary for all of the known contracts signed by the Dominicans in the course of the construction. Moreover, he was the patron of an important chapel dedicated to St Vincent Ferrer in the Dominican church (ANH/Q Notaría 1a, vol. 168, 1640–41, Matheo Delgado, fols 101–03). It is therefore plausible that the artesonado was at least partially, if not fully, in place by 1610, and that Sebastián Dávila may well have designed and supervised its construction. As subsequent contracts indicate, Sebastián Dávila was an extremely versatile master woodworker, therefore it would not be surprising to learn that he was the author of the artesonado ceilings in Santo Domingo. As noted above, the mural painting on the prominent nave crossing arch must postdate the artesonado, and probably predates the 1631 murals on the interior of the crossing, thereby reinforcing a date of execution in the 1620s. Like fray Pedro Bedón, 434 SUSAN V WEBSTER figure 13 Artesonado of the nave, early seventeenth century. Church of Santo Domingo, Quito. Photo: Hernán Navarrete Sebastián Dávila had almost certainly died by the time that the mural was begun; he disappears from the archival record in Quito after November of 1609. Nonetheless, their portraits were undoubtedly undertaken at a time when many would still have recalled the physical appearance of both men. As such, the images of Bedón and Dávila in the mural painting stand as visual commemorations of the two outstanding protagonists whose efforts culminated in the triumphal and long-awaited completion of the Dominican church. A review of the documents associated with Dávila reveals evidence of his versatility as a woodworker and sheds light on his life and activities in the city of Quito. In 1602, Francisco Galavis, mayordomo of the Cathedral of Quito, commissioned Dávila to construct ‘cincuenta sillas de madera de cedro altas y bajas labradas conforme a la traça que estaua en un pergamino’ (ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 14, 1605, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fols 563v–64). These elaborately carved chairs were to serve the Archbishop and church dignitaries, and to adorn the choir loft of the Cathedral. Dávila apparently worked on the project for several years; however, he did not complete the commission. In June of 1605, Galavis drew up a new contract, noting that ‘auiendo començado a obrar la d[ic]ha silleria Se ausento [Dávila] desta d[ic]ha ciudad y aunque se enbio por el Conmandamiento no ouo Efecto El traerle’ (ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 14, 1605, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fol. 563v). As a result, Galavis commissioned the native THE CHURCH OF SANTO DOMINGO IN QUITO 435 figure 14 Sebastián Dávila, drawing for a par y nudillo ceiling, pen and ink, 1585, from Libro tercero y quarto de architectura de Sebastián Serlio boloñes (Casa de Iuan de Ayala, 1573). Biblioteca Nacional de Colombia [RG 3996]. Photo: courtesy of the Biblioteca Nacional de Colombia 436 SUSAN V WEBSTER master carpenter Francisco Morocho to finish the work, for which he was to receive 220 pesos (ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 14, 1605, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fol. 563v). This new contract, drawn up by the same notary as that of the earlier commission with Dávila, makes it clear that the Spanish carpenter had already completed a substantial portion of the work required by the Cathedral. The document specifies that the original contract with Dávila had been signed three years earlier, ‘En seys de febrero de seysçientos y dos años’ (ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 14, 1605, Diego Rodríguez Docampo, fol. 563v). In view of the 220 pesos that were subsequently offered to Morocho, the original contract with Dávila must have been for an even greater sum. If Dávila departed the city, leaving behind such a lucrative contract, it must have been for a very compelling and substantially more attractive reason. Where was he, and with what projects might he have been involved between February 1602 and June 1605? Two documents dating from 1603 reveal some of his activities during this period. In January of 1603, Dávila signed a contract in Quito to create a sculpture of the crucified Christ that was to be used in the ceremony of the descent from the cross in the Franciscan monastery of Almagüer (Popayán). According to the contract, Dávila agreed ‘de hazer un christo de bara y tres quartas de largo encarnado acauado y perfeccionado con gosnes y clavos de pies y manos y cruz donde se a de Poner’ (ANH/ Q, Notaría 1a, vol. 24, 1603, Alonso López Merino, fol. 506v). The work was to be completed within two months, at which time Dávila would receive the sum of seventy patacones. Nonetheless, the relatively small payment he received for this work hardly justifies his abandonment of the more lucrative cathedral commission. Later the same year, in the month of May, Dávila signed a contract with a local Quiteñan merchant for a loan of 180 pesos in order to purchase ‘ciento y setenta hierros de carpinteria cierradora cinchos’ (ANH/Q, Notaría 1a, vol. 24, 1603, Alonso López Merino, fol. 270). The quantity of tools indicates that he was preparing to undertake a major construction project, the financial reward for which would undoubtedly be substantial. Unfortunately, the document does not identify the building or its location. Subsequent contracts involving Dávila do not appear again until 1608–09, but these offer suggest the nature of the major construction project that he may have undertaken outside Quito in earlier years. In May 1608, Dávila took out a loan with Francisco de Ucles, resident of Latacunga, from whom he borrowed 130 pesos (ANH/ Q, Notaría 1a, vol. 53, 1608, Alonso López Merino, fol. 165). The following year, in the month of September, Dávila sought an additional loan of 132 pesos, this time from the Quiteñan banker and merchant, Cristóbal Martín, in order to purchase twelve large jugs of local wine, refreshments that were typically served to construction workers on the job (ANH/Q, Notaría 1a, vol. 60, 1609, Alonso López Merino, fol. 520v). In November of that year, Dávila signed a contract with another resident of Latacunga, Miguel de Arellano, in which he agreed to travel to the town of Latacunga in order to reconstruct and refurbish the community weaving workshops, for which he was to be paid 120 pesos (ANH/Q, Notaría 1a, vol. 60, 1609, Alonso López Merino, fol. 657). Seen as a group, these documents suggest that the earlier monumental work in which Dávila was involved may have been located in Latacunga, some ninety km THE CHURCH OF SANTO DOMINGO IN QUITO 437 from the city of Quito. Without additional documentation, we can only speculate as to what that work might have been. Given the close ties between Dávila and the Dominican order, it is possible that he was contracted to build the recently established Dominican monastery in Latacunga, upon which construction reportedly began in the first decade of the seventeenth century (Villacís Gallo 1986: 49). If Dávila did direct the construction of the Dominican establishment at Latacunga, it would have provided all the more reason for the inclusion of his portrait in the mural on the prominent nave crossing arch in the Quiteñan church. Devotion to the rosary, the successful building campaign of the church, and the identities of the two men that were most instrumental in these causes are prominently and eloquently represented in the monumental mural painting that adorns the nave crossing arch of the Church of Santo Domingo (Figures 1 and 3). Although Pedro Bedón has long been recognized and celebrated for his many contributions to the order and to its artistic patrimony, Sebastián Dávila’s legacy has not fared as well. Yet both visual images and textual documents demonstrate Dávila’s importance as a master woodworker whose abilities were both admired and in great demand in Quito during the early seventeenth century; and they also testify to his remarkable versatility as an artist. Equally adept at creating fine devotional sculpture, elaborate ecclesiastical furniture, industrial buildings, and monumental architectural constructions, Sebastián Dávila expanded the traditional role of ‘oficial carpintero’, the unadorned title with which he consistently appears in the documents. In this case, the visual evidence clearly establishes his professional status. The compass that he holds prominently in his hands in the mural painting in Santo Domingo places him in another professional category, that of ‘arquitecto’ (Figure 3). Although Dávila’s name has been all but omitted from the literature, his identity and achievements merit reintroduction into the art and architectural history of Quito. The documents related to his life and work permit the viewer a greater appreciation of the elegant physical and professional appearance of the master, painted on one of his greatest and most enduring architectural achievements, the monumental crossing of the church of Santo Domingo in Quito.10 Documentary sources AGI AHOM/Q ANH/Q AMH/Q 10 Archivo Archivo Archivo Archivo General de Indias, Seville Histórico de la Orden de la Merced, Quito Nacional de Historia, Quito Municipal de Historia, Quito Funding in support of this research was generously provided by the following organizations and institutions: Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, American Council of Learned Societies, Fulbright Foundation/CIES, the University of St Thomas, and the College of William and Mary. In Quito, Ximena Carcelén and Ximena Carrión made invaluable contributions in the process of the research. Thanks are also due to Marjorie Trusted, for her careful editing of the manuscript, and to the anonymous HRJ reviewer for pointing me to an important recent source of which I was unaware. I am especially grateful to my husband and companion in these adventures, Hernán Navarrete, who graciously provided many of the excellent photographs for this study. 438 SUSAN V WEBSTER Works Cited Descalzi, Ricardo, 1978. La Real Audiencia de Quito, claustro de los Andes (Quito: [n.p.]). Fernández Salvador, Carmen, 2007. Arte colonial quiteño: renovado enfoque y nuevos actores (Quito: Fonsal). Gutiérrez, Ramón, 1983. Arquitectura y urbanismo en Iberoamérica (Madrid: Cátedra). Libro tercero y quarto de architectura de Sebastián Serlio boloñes, 1573 (Toledo: Casa de Iuan de Ayala). López Guzmán, Rafael, 1995. ‘Techedumbres mudéjares en América’, in Pintura, escultura y artes útiles en Iberoamérica, 1500–1825, ed. Ramón Gutiérrez (Madrid: Cátedra), pp. 305–14. Los siglos de oro en los Virreinatos de América, 1550–1700, 1999. Exhibition catalogue (Madrid: Museo de América). Navarro, José Gabriel, 1991. La pintura en el Ecuador del XVI al XIX (Quito: Dinediciones). ——, 1950. Contribuciones a la historia del arte en el Ecuador (Quito: Litografía e imprenta Romero). Rodríguez Docampo, Diego, 1994 [1650]. ‘Descripción y relación del estado eclesiástico del Obispado de San Francisco de Quito’, in Relaciones histórico-geográficas de la Audiencia de Quito, tr. Pilar Ponce Leiva, 2 vols (Quito: Abya Yala), ii, pp. 207–322. Terán Najas, Rosemarie, 1994. Arte, espacio y religiosidad, en el Convento de Santo Domingo (Quito: Libri Mundi). Vargas, José María, O.P., 1963. El arte ecuatoriano (Quito: Editorial Santo Domingo). ——, 1983. Nuestra Señora del Rosario en el Ecuador (Quito: Artes Gráficas Señal). ——, 1986. Historia de la provincia dominicana del Ecuador, siglos XVI y XVII (Quito: Royal). Villacís Gallo, Gino, 1986. Patrimonio artístico religioso de la ciudad de Latacunga y la provincia de Cotopaxi (Quito: La Económica). Webster, Susan Verdi, 2006. ‘Confraternities as Patrons of Architecture in Colonial Quito, Ecuador’, in Early Modern Confraternities in Europe and the Americas. International and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Christopher Black & Pamela Gravestock (London: Ashgate), pp. 204–25. ——, 2009. ‘Masters of the Trade: Native Artisans and the Construction of Colonial Quito’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 68.1: 10–29. El reciente redescubrimiento de una pintura mural que data de principios del siglo xvii sobre el arco oeste del crucero de la iglesia de Santo Domingo, la cual había sido ocultada por un lienzo pintado a principios del siglo xviii, ofrece importante evidencia visual en cuanto a identidades individuales y corporativas, y subraya una transformación de devociones en el convento dominicano. Complementando y clarificando la evidencia visual, la nuevamente recuperada documentación en los archivos permite confirmar las identidades, los roles, y las actividades de los protagonistas principales en las campañas artísticas e arquitectónicas de los dominicos a principios del siglo xvii. palabras clave Quito, Santo Domingo, colonial, arquitectura, pintura, Dávila Notes on Contributor Susan V Webster is the Jane Williams Mahoney Professor of Art and Art History at the College of William and Mary. Correspondence to: Professor Susan V Webster, College of William and Mary, Department of Art and Art History, PO Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA 23/85, USA; svwebster@wm.edu