The paradise garden murals of Malinalco: utopia and empire in sixteenth-century Mexico 9780292727502

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
PREFACE (page ix)
Chapter One INTRODUCTION (page 1)
Chapter Two MALINALCO AND THE AUGUSTINIANS (page 11)
Chapter Three THE PAINTERS (page 29)
Chapter Four THE SOURCES (page 57)
Chapter Five THE IMAGERY: FLORA AND FAUNA (page 83)
Chapter Six PARADISE CONVERGED (page 124)
Chapter Seven UTOPIA AND IMPERIAL POLICY (page 138)
Chapter Eight THE AUGUSTINIAN MURAL PROGRAM (page 152)
Chapter Nine UTOPIA LOST (page 171)
Appendix A SIXTEENTH-CENTURY MEXICAN MONASTERIES VISITED (page 179)
Appendix B FIFTEENTH- AND EARLY SIXTEENTH-CENTURY MURALS IN SPAIN (page 180)
Appendix C FLORA IN THE MALINALCO GARDEN FRESCOES (page 182)
Appendix D FAUNA IN THE MALINALCO GARDEN FRESCOES (page 185)
Appendix E SIXTEENTH-CENTURY MURAL THEMES IN MEXICO AND PRIMARY MONASTIC LOCATIONS (page 187)
NOTES (page 189)
REFERENCES CITED (page 205)
INDEX (page 217)

Citation preview

THE PARADISE GARDEN MURALS OF MALINALCO

5SS “4! yaaa! ee "ay aie ae? ; >ie—aay t\ — F..Sart ‘syake .i ee hy = ..wee “ah ~t«Foy

-% *% ‘. isi)ees r“on eo ok ) 4lat *\ * wa Si: he i ae a * . AS ee eS , ee «7 ss . 1. 2 _ >. wane i ‘ ™ r® 9 Ma “al . *.; ~~ “, . dug. "TREY! » :ma *iy %; :gh yeid ‘"ee ‘he i een ip a en alt.1m 3 3& . at-: Es ia> euBers ; * Me we4ON »ee. h. OA, Bata (apt egyu ‘eaoeZ: 5Pewae’ _ Ae kee Petnk 7. ~%§¥ae Attpeod7 ys

2b,oa5‘RS yg hLAs re at Pe aa 7) trm pid’ .on ota .A 3EPS gee totw ds ‘Re A ne Lsf>bn ‘ Jae a, a aif1 )ie , an fae J*~: + Vie ‘£: La t .‘> A, wt ee 6 a 2a As Ay ! nr : 44. et AG ! 5 ' aera f = oe Le ‘ ya bse } ae ™ 2 Pe z , F f, ty A 7 te E sf ae ie: «5 + : : , ee, tre : om ets wey 1 a 5 4 i é >! we “ : ae Fi ch . th ‘ 5 . 4 . - e*.| “a ert. ,ee YSosNs ON i ae sf Copal : -e. I : Yad ae as 3S weet m axe i ‘ ee - iy.. .Dthae. h ; aieosotal & Pe, } , See af le: a ee} Me . 4

ee Riy, 1 roaeee On Oe hy og staa, \/ Sa Seysan Say eh cee DE A ae Wow, Be! ‘ -@2 C4 BP - Fall 4Pe r 4 a.|rei. yee : Fi;a) % ‘* te 1m ; a) . wal a EP yee Ys, ™ye ty \3Ae aa a4 -*. tom @t ~-¥.Re seco

; ; r* +4 “re Send ‘Re 1 ox . ‘ . e Th gts. oe ' i) " . a ; » ae = . 4 ' ay \ i . Ry :

*Y-- v. sysWie ane Pia , yegate - . we e ¥.-tlie ot A FYbi;ihepee . rs \| RB a ' Li oy 1% a] o“4.. ba .y. 63 ie Hee AY 7 Ae (ay fale Pak q4e igh Poet: SE eat oe > \ eae ee gate.) ME a ae =

OT TENG Bree PDanSo” RKC ej pueein Taf bat .™ : ‘ f ER SF 5 PyPaes bie " => J “ pha 4Na . P atf % N F Wma | res = . EE in ies, =b,|OF HSra ote ¥ opiv idgek ete d, ‘tie er eepy eV Al' «on ¢ se figsbee FM 4 7, .ee+o 2 alles eek ER ha ud *»” ON a or oT iF -ee‘: R] hy . "y od ied \ ‘ r OL Sie nt hi ces be Te Mae :| oF rr _ qa ‘ar \ yyAN) ’ | ts att , ath ds a at ‘Ss val ' xy ap a." ’R‘4if 7 - “| St + . 7 wh . me hs os dk ~trt a wail B. a_e :Ly

~ : ¥ > 7 e ; 4 oe F, > i is ° ;a. si Py i a.witzi,

THE PARADISE GARDEN MURALS OF MALINALCO Utopia and Empire in Sixteenth-Century Mexico

JEANETTE FAVROT PETERSON

po (299 :

ones Los ;

t { il -_

ho of rf a“

f i n3u 4:

|

OL! joe

ee,

Publication of this work has been made possible in part by a grant from the Program for Cultural Cooperation between Spain’s Ministry of Culture and

United States Universities. :

Copyright © 1993 by the University of Texas Press LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

5 Peterson, JeanetteStates Favrot, 1939— . ; Printed the United of America , Theinparadise garden murals of Malinalco : All rights reserved

First— edition, 1993 , are ; Jeanette Favrot Peterson.—Ist ed. utopia and empire in sixteenth-century Mexico /

Requests for permission to reproduce material from p. cm

this work should be sent to Permissions, University ae . . Includes bibliographical references and index.

of Texas Press, Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819.

The paper

ISBN 0-292-72750-X

a 1. in Mural and decoration, used thispainting publication meets Colonial— ..a

. . Mexico—Malinalco. 2. Mural painting the = minimum requirements of American National . ,; . .and decoration, Mexican—Mexico—Malinalco. Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence .;, 3. Animals in art. 4. Plantsinart. I. Title.

| CIP

ANSI Z39.48-1984. 751.7 rot 3'097252—dc20 92-7992 of Paper for Printed Library Materials,

*

FRONTISPIECE. Serpent and sparrow in tree, detail of garden frescoes; lower cloister walkway, East 3, Malinalco.

ND2646.M34P47 1993

re

GAY fy O DAY LY Srey

To Laurence H. Favrot, whose memory continues to inspire

CONTENTS

PREFACE 1x I!lustrated Books and Graphics 65 Verdure and Armorial Tapestry 77 Chapter One

INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter Five

THE IMAGERY: FLORA AND Chapter Two FAUNA 83 MALINALCO AND THE Flora Identified 85

AUGUSTINIANS 11 Fauna Identified 102

Conquest and Control of Malinalco 11 Meaning of Flora and Fauna 117 The Augustinian Program 15

Construction of the Monastery of Chapter Six -

Malinalco 22 PARADISE CONVERGED 124 Gardens and Curing 125

Chapter Three Gardens as Cosmic Paradigms 126 THE PAINTERS 29 Gardens as Paradise 127 European and Native Painting Styles 34

The Artistic Team andthe Tlacuilo 40 Chapter Seven

Training of Native Artists 50 UTOPIA AND IMPERIAL POLICY 138

Chapter Four The New World as a Terrestrial Paradise 138 THE SOURCES 57 Patronage and Program 142 Pre-Hispanic and Spanish Mural Mendicant Dominion and Heraldry in the

Precedents 58 Garden Murals 149

viii The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco

Chapter Eight Appendix C

THE AUGUSTINIAN MURAL FLORA IN THE MALINALCO

PROGRAM 152 GARDEN FRESCOES 182 Public and Private Zones in the .

M Appendix D ,UTOPIA . Appendix E se SIXTEENTH-CENTURY MURAL LOST 171 THEMES IN MEXICO AND onastery 153

The Malinalco Mural Prosram 158 FAUNA IN THE MALINALCO , ne Malnalco Mural stogram "> GARDEN FRESCOES 185

Augustinian Eschatological Murals 164

Mendicant Decline 172 PRIMARY MONASTIC Whitewashing the Murals 176 LOCATIONS 187

Appendix A NOTES 189 SIXTEENTH-CENTURY MEXICAN

MONASTERIES VISITED 179 REFERENCES CITED 205

Appendix B | INDEX 217 | . FIFTEENTHAND EARLY SIXTEENTH-CENTURY MURALS Color plates following page xiv IN SPAIN 180

PREFACE

The garden murals in the Augustinian mon- the murals’ complex imagery and fresh beauty, astery of Malinalco, Mexico, made their second __I was convinced that understanding the entire appearance during a 1974-1975 program of con- mural sequence would contribute to a more inservation. Hidden and protected by twenty-two tegrated view of the early colonial period. The layers of whitewashing, the extensive cycle of valley of Malinalco is a microcosm of the hissixteenth-century frescoes reemerged after four __ torical changes that occurred under both Aztec centuries. In spite of the destructive impact of — and Spanish rule; this study sets mural productime, humidity, and human negligence, the wall tion within the political and utopian agenda of paintings are unusually well preserved. The mu- the allied Spanish crown and regular orders. In

rals that cover the four inner walls and barrel the second half of the sixteenth century, largevaulting of Malinalco’s lower cloister are here — scale murals enlivened the walls of hundreds of named the “paradise garden murals” for their _ fortresslike monasteries established by three amdepiction of lush plant life, replete with many _bitious mendicant orders in Mexico, the Augusnative species of birds and animals. Emblazoned __tinians, Dominicans, and Franciscans. Under on the zoological garden are large medallions their supervision and with the active participa-

with ecclesiastical monograms, symbols of the . tion of native artists, the mural painting that dominant Spanish Catholic presence over the flourished between 1535 and 1585 is now ac-

vast lands of New Spain. knowledged as one of the major art forms in A second phase of conservation in 1983-1984 viceregal Mexico.

revealed further sixteenth-century wall paint- Malinalco has long been recognized as an ings within the “open chapel,” in the refectory, important preconquest site, renowned for its and in some of the upper cells and hallways of | monolithic Aztec temples and their vestiges of the convent. Regular trips to Malinalco allowed original mural painting. Indigenous beliefs and me to share in the excitement of these successive practices persisted in spite of the severe cultural

discoveries. In addition to being intrigued by rupture of the conquest; moreover, the valley’s

x The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco first Spanish settlers and the Augustinian friars ment, these records contain reliable ethnoexploited many of these native institutions. Six- graphic data on native life under Spanish rule. teenth-century murals reveal the continuities | Among the six Augustinian writers consulted, and disjunction in art produced by the first gen- Juan de Grijalva’s 1624 chronicle (1924) is closest erations of native artists. Malinalco’s unique im- —_in space and time to the production of the muagery is challenging as it incorporates an older, als at Malinalco, although still lamentably late. surviving pictographic style within the domi- A creole descendant of a conquistador, Grijalva

nant, imported Euro-Christian tradition. My took the Augustinian vows at fourteen, was a first task was to examine the garden frescoes as__ preacher in the main Augustinian house in Mex-

| primary documents using stylistic and icono- ico City, was twice rector of the College of St. graphic methods. The wall paintings of Mali- Paul, and served as prior of Malinalco in 1629. nalco were then located within a certain con- —_In 1621 he was named official chronicler of the

tinuum of muralism; this included the dual central Mexican province, at which time Griheritage of pre-Hispanic wall painting in Mex- —_jalva wrote the four books of his history, or ico as well as Renaissance murals in Spain. I vis- Cronica, covering the period from 1533 to 1592, ited and photographed twenty-three different the time frame of this study. Also pertinent are Augustinian monasteries in central Mexico, six- _ the writings of Grijalva’s successor, fray Esteban teen of which had substantial or meaningful | Garcia (1916), as well as the early commentary fragments of frescoes. Because interchange be- _ of fray Diego de Basalenque (1963) on the westtween the different regular orders was fruitful, © ern province of Michoacan. The later chronicles if competitive, twelve Franciscan and Domini- __ of friars Gonzalez de la Puente (1907) and Macan monasteries that were geographically close — tias de Escobar (1970) covered subsequent peto Malinalco were also studied. My search for _ riods of the Augustinian mission; the Spanish prototypes for the Mexican murals led me toil- = Augustinian fray Jer6nimo Roman y Zamora lustrated books and engravings as well as to published in 1569 an overview of the order with =~ Spanish fresco painting, tilework, and tapestry; a section on the New World mission. In addition

the latter media have been largely ignored in to the Augustinian authors, the works of the

their relationship to colonial painting. Dominicans Diego Duran and Bartolomé Las Within the fortress-monasteries that repre- | Casas and such Franciscan writers as Bernarsented the missionary program of the colonial dino de Sahagtin, Toribio de Benavente Motochurch militant, the large-scale frescoes clearly linia, Gerénimo de Mendieta, and Juan de Torplayed an integral role. Of the several compel- |= quemada also provided invaluable insights. To ling questions, the propagandistic function of — counter the slant of church historians, the recthe paradise scene at Malinalco was foremost. ords of European soldiers, lawyers, physicians, Did the idyllic, utopian Malinalco frescoes re- — and academicians provided a secular perspective

veal or obscure the harsh realities of official | on colonial society and institutions. Of great policies toward the native American population? — value were the published documents found in

The chronicles of sixteenth-century friars in the collections of geographical surveys, letters, Mexico proved immensely useful in recon- and ordinances that traveled between the vicestructing the sociopolitical goals, physical chal- — roys, the governmental representatives of the lenges, and spiritual longings of the mendicants. | crown, and the Spanish monarchs.

Inveterate record keepers, each order designated My research into the native and European one official historian for the task of recording |= components of the mural paintings of Mexico the biographies and events of the evangelistic necessarily meant relying on scholars in both mission in the New World. Notwithstanding = Spain and Mexico. Neither would have been the biased glorification of mendicant achieve- possible without the aid of two Samuel H. Kress

Preface x1 Foundation travel grants, awarded in 1979- del Campo, Antonio Lot, and Helia Bravo of 1980 and 1981-1982, to accomplish the neces- the Instituto de Biologia at the Universidad Nasary library and field work abroad. Spanish art — cional Aut6noma de México, Mexico City, and historians were consistently generous with their | Amadeo Rea of the Natural History Museum of expertise and time, directing me to relevant San Diego, California. During the course of my documentation and to little-known mural cycles research I was fortunate to profit from contact in their country. In particular | would like to — with scholars in various departments at the Unithank Antonio Bonet-Correo of the Universi- — versity of California at Los Angeles. H. B. dad Complutense in Madrid, Santiago Sebastian = Nicholson often answered my queries, drawing of the University of Valencia, and Enrique Val- __ on his vast store of knowledge of Aztec art and divieso, Alfredo Morales, and Juan Miguel Se- culture. Iam greatly indebted to the Nahuatlato rrera of the University of Seville. In Mexico I James Lockhart, whose perspective on the comwas the beneficiary of many fruitful exchanges _ plexities of the early colonial period stimulated with Elena de Gerlero, a recognized authority = my thinking from the first and whose incisive on the subject of sixteenth-century Mexican criticisms greatly enriched various drafts of this murals whose work traverses much of the same = manuscript. Jean Weisz and Carlo Pedretti ofterrain as mine. To ensure the success of numer- __ fered useful suggestions for the chapter on the ous field trips in Mexico, the architect Luis Fer- — Renaissance sources for the frescoes. Finally, | nando Rodriguez contributed his expertise on | am most grateful for the scholarly insights and colonial architecture and Jestis Franco facilitated — stringent editorial demands of Cecelia F. Klein;

the physical arrangements. Two successive Au- she taught me to ask the right questions and go gustinian priests in charge of Malinalco, Father — beyond the work of art, into the cultural fabric, Luis and Father Francisco, graciously allowed __ to find the answers. me entrance to the library and private sectors My carly and sustained exposure to the Mahof the monastery. I acknowledge with appre- __nalco frescoes would not have been as feasible ciation the photography of Kirk L. Peterson — without the open hospitality of Johanna Favrot’s as well as the excellent professional work of | home in nearby Jalmolonga. My mother’s love J. Adridn Ferndndez, with the generous assis- — for her birthplace, its people and art, have left

tance of Philip de Kanter. : an imprint on my own life and academic purOutside the traditional purview of art his- suits. It goes without saying that an integral part tory, professionals from the field of biology, | of this endeavor was shared by my husband, both botanists and zoologists, were invaluable Kirk, and children, Sarah, Genevieve, and Josh. consultants during my research. For their con- For their loving support, technical assistance, tributions to the scientific identification of fauna —_ and _ willingness to follow me down yet another

and flora I would especially recognize Javier — side road to see “just one more monastery” | Valdés, Miguel Angel Martinez, Rafael Martin — will always be grateful.

THE PARADISE GARDEN MURALS OF MALINALCO

- AS. Le = | ase

‘ :ra — om ——_- . - “ts 4 — . tc | " aa — a oh

+ 4 of | wap ‘as»¥ + “a AP” ger wr aee. me 3 /“+ =2 iys“y , es ~a at~rr.+" ;of. ";i --pat ~— :a.,:.~»‘ .1h é> ls. =BS. 74S ba¢oe. ‘es 2 eeae L

4 iN‘ ' wef mN ay Ty’ - , é / j er We ‘ty Y iA ri te{ikeia Allg: mhRe | iv 5 rs . eyWM VOTH RNG Mh: one uf fy yu | ay DY Wee) ue ob, AN aA | va A, iMh.

le Me ak¢JfWig Vis) (|stA tl‘ ‘ae ex | | | \|| ; "POE niala 9awe? omett ve ;Nf 4,Santee sha) Mie iA, ‘s!™ al>Vs Tat & ‘4! t ;|iNV )WAN ie yey };io ys ; ’ia] FA eal af Oi wee 4 fay A) Vj ’ N 1 f “OM i} ont mitee “aye \ "| Ne Ap tia\ rata nef % pei ) NN ‘ao ee 1 | *. .ye

LS SAE TR AL ie Sa. a) Se Fee e amas wu . # di ; Sid. ee uit 1 YS ae 14| a Nab Y) NY TIE SOT a as SR | ORE cpm een DINED egUPR hae Ai Vet st" (. | ;: nePe Pt Se SENS ¢ Oe Se Rats ae eee A PAWL Log Ne Se a ¥ . Pesta Sy 2 Ut SS eS , ae ty) 433 eRea+ é! wif eae Pe :tia ..a PS 4 Bee : > ie _= sm iAS as Re! Atte YP . i . 4 ms i ” : ‘i "rh a $ 4 \

ta ee”

td ry » aR Ba ay 2a er ot ae a.

|Bet Bs! x F ye P ;, :» g) _*) * Pi ‘dts epee meee tape ft od ME 9 ie en

PLATE 4. East lower cloister walkway with garden frescoes on east wall and barrel vault, Malinalco. Photo courtesy of J. Adrian Fernandez.

NT EE lee’? | spats SoM mR CaS AS Seat Se ae Spa ee

fae ao ) aa rs @ Nie

Ee eee CBO far it We PLATE §. Painted medallion with es ies eye i IZ pad agit Malinalco’s pre-Hispanic toponym

‘ fi . ean Lf ea and central pelican-eagle motif. # eep.Qe2 eS ae the ee Detail of cloister stairwell ceiling,

May PeAgo’Vv : “ad f courtesy y, Pieof J..Adrian ed Sie He 5 We Malinalco. Photo me i AN Mew tb Fernandez.

a. ek Be oe Fy ax. iKSa Aor ; Fe : , z ey 7 ‘ an A . BS “ Bb ~ ~ " ' PY , - gs x! he

PLATE 6. Detail of murals on upper wall and vault, South 2, Malinalco. Note the bees and song scroll with three glyphlike symbols: ilhuitl, shell, and flower.

F Wy et Are ate 2 a &

p \ be ; 1 LS hata Sh a CK Vand a, rr ry ‘. ‘,

“s 4 ; ay mus Year SA: “1 Pf | } , “4 \, tin ae vp Weeee to eh BhNe AGE. _ pee ‘ ; oe 3 Oi VAX ak 4: On ute, ey Vite was 5

é 7 i : KA a meee! Jet ee ide 1, ay NDP a! ort +—

ote,cee r +nana : waeshapes om weDOREY 4 aged ws Lincs if4y aig) a: ;Me SEAN ee:, ieee Tebsseemenrenncse aera PAE ea Keno

OE aah Sh ma) a a Pindaat,. |( a Molee 27 Qty o_o Y “af en ee Sie nie ace A. sn a EESee se 0 ' ai >>” Pe. * os I a— i ; } of ' re = if IFA S ts, “te =: ¥ a f. = af i. ; ; ~ Fir

” m ~ ks 7, me 47 ; 3 wi i zp : . = 2 \ i : ¥)

a JI 1 Ce (NEE RD. Tear tp eS a

)i rapes 4 .r at| a.eT— Xe ove a > 4 . " fo St an *| é 1} Near ot bm x ee , tae aS reese!

se“4 a ” ii cemeee 3 he , -—‘ i ~~ ; . e nae

nm hey ——— .& * .sie ——~"th . oa. aie, > aS >Py yr ‘ae ’ 4aE ,, roMas —

OW FE a:OPUS Bee RD ', (i, ‘iieeyeGe) “SR ° Vs . af. nFO . : ve a3 “ Neer (em

PLATE 7. Upper cloister with distant view of fifteenth-

century wall murals, Nuestra we Senora de La Rabida, Huelva, , fh F Spain. is inChristophe this Franciscan | .. be { ZzTON AN sry Itthat Pe, 73ines ae monastery that Christopher \ : ae Tithe ae Columbus found asylum and Fe ug eeA Figg —- a;

Srey s paler f ia)aera aye or ee)

inspiration beforevoyage. his first Ps. ~| |1: a4. ‘ ‘ & « a i. ' Tere : , ra. F > ~ a ~' -‘%

aa al fs & 5 ¥ ea ,i ; .iue.. 4, ye 4 “ a B ~ Pirpremagaaiti re ee re A ie b ' tes St thes L ;

=. 4es | t | iat {= | : | | rs

HS ans ee gn ae oven psVl| ftMas A ]f 5 paPie-£ corey ane Reg ea ae Wynd mY fcae once (Ns aeeee7 .3VeAh) bii i }:¥ ‘ wt nc id ukchia Ss ead ap“Ay x5) ‘rae Fe oe ‘ iecj}‘. if \t ea Re ee, a ; “a * ; Oe : We tg fy ae : 4 ' i : im {

af [¥ ; 4 ; ag Hae J

ss 6 see feesnan), Sobape caeenagSE opSet temi it iy, PES | : , aXws ~ Sky Lae Ts gige das Se,8 ee “yy oe nol. > ae (fie age oe .ee50! 2 .cs.:i ::'

ee = 4 Soot ss : oe Ss: lUmUmUmlmlté“ié«i . =a | Cite Stk =e ere tea. Fee == :s; ad ate;fy Pie 4 i.4-ia: -4:; i.sa}, ee was ;“ -: °:a:,nef 5Sa ¥e: Ra: Me } =H 2 = f : [ ae y ts Se mi ag / } oS.) eRe Se ~ ae, io Meigs: ? & < Sete | a oe aD, Nee Fe st Si re %, es. tie: ed i SS 2 EE a,Sa Y ee :at. nN “ vie a . a . os =oSa + >Se2oe—_ a ae 5S ue % ‘ yy ® - e, R ; = Bt "; > on h -

ae 1 is irae ‘ ; ayy See ea . ae . jie “ ee MA %, oe: oe ; Sn \d ;i ‘wn ‘ :yy :i} Fa : . :¢i > a> Pa a a EN ne , el ay 5 ¥igee bes lS »oorfa3 . ii ’Slaee >4a. : : Sg al 45 $. ., Lae Rid gS:.:ee oq Lee eae ea sec .>, tg nS ate eS ; as tens -_ é

a aRee VBe 4 LS :¥ \ ¥”Zz. oF 3a 4v, ie Gea ‘Te ’ ~ 3 p gt + : @ fy " : ; . -— s Me Be ‘ rs , ‘ : — = 1 5 . “ , * 7 = 3 : ~ % ‘ a— ty|). ae aoe}a ee. ‘'s ‘at ay ase¥ a hte- tf a Ja a b=e. ha

:‘:‘-=;2

- -5‘ j| thMae ek . -;aga —_ = $le , £;ie = a” er ss ,@ ‘4 >tead| iof ed -; ;ppoegees aoe = & ¥ A a SP it ae” ’ we, |. oe ro; *: ;’>is - ‘-ES Higa .ie bE6“3. ;iie. RS te “a Bee o4 : ae i = ~- i

we ee E* nese ee * ee “ > oS ; . . Fy it dt eeas td had ail: : ~ ~ ~ , Fa > .

oy; ee nn Me, ot aN ral :. —_— ed«oes — te - ee? aonSA, ae ~~ > & La E =‘ =1 Sr th oi ee. :en: ;ee Bente FIG. 2. Temple I, Aztec site of Malinalco.

and monasteries, fostering the cataloguing of particular. Judged by Western and classical ideviceregal monuments, and waging a lifelong als of space, proportion, and design, both precrusade against the destructive encroachment of | conquest and immediate postconquest painting modernization projects. In spite of the explora- styles were felt too schematized and “exprestory stage of the discipline, Toussaint’s (1936, sionless.”’ Beyond the qualitative disservice ren1962, 1965, 1967) contributions are insightful dered the art, this attitude also led Toussaint and comprehensive. Perhaps Toussaint’s great- into drawing erroneous conclusions. The murest failing, attributable to his classical training — als at Tecamachalco, for example, dated at 1562 and Christian bias, was his overt distaste for and documented to the artist Juan Gerson, were the art of “pagan days” (Toussaint 1967:64). praised for their Italianate and Flemish features Technical imperfections and stylistic hybrids in — and, on the basis of style, were attributed to colonial art were also judged on the basis of Re- an artist of European extraction (Toussaint naissance canons. Using these criteria, the ar- 1967:129). Scholars have subsequently discovchaistic work of a “rude Indian hand” was often ered records proving that Juan Gerson was of labeled with the adjective “ingenuous,” carry- noble Indian stock (Moyssén 1964; Camelo ing with it the pejorative implication of “crude” = Arredondo et al. 1964). Like Toussaint, the (Toussaint 1967:118). This Eurocentricity most — early scholars of colonial art validated its Euro-

affected Toussaint’s treatment of the sixteenth — pean legacy and, for the most part, either igcentury in general, and of monastic murals in nored or disparaged native features. José Mo-

Introduction reno Villa was the first to call for an end to and 1950s advanced our understanding of the evaluating Mexican art by analogy with Euro- __ technical aspects of construction and the sculppean art. Moreno Villa (1942, 1948) emphasized tural decoration; mural paintings are given curthe unique aspects of el arte mexicano; he coined — sory treatment in these texts, although the the term tequitqui, or “tributary,” for that art | photographic records alone rendered a valuable created by native artisans under Spanish rule. _ service.> With growing awareness of the extent

Another twenty years would pass before both and quality of sixteenth-century murals, they the indigenous and Spanish heritages would be — were acknowledged as significant episodes in equally acknowledged and a more objective as- — two published surveys of Mexican murals, from

sessment possible. preconquest to the present day (Edwards 1966; George Kubler (1948) secured the place of | Rodriguez 1969). Subsequent monographs deMexican colonial art in international scholar- scribed in detail the mural cycles of Tetela del ship, and his study of sixteenth-century mo- Volcan, Morelos (Martinez Marin 1968), Epanastic architecture still remains the most valu- — zoyucan, Hidalgo (Moyssén 1965), and Meztiable chronological and functional assessment tlan, Hidalgo (Victoria 1985). While these are of mendicant foundations. Kubler’s (1948, 2: directed to the religious significance and sources 361-416) analysis of wall painting, however, is of the murals, other studies of the Augustinian hindered by the still-limited sample of murals = monasteries of Atotonilco el Grande and Actoavailable for observation before 1948, by a dis- pan, Hidalgo, and Acolman, Mexico, also noted avowal of native authorship in many cases, and, the use of classical, humanist themes (Maza finally, by a conviction that the muralists were 1968; Sebastian 1976). Increasingly, art historiinspired predominantly by European paintings —_ans can trace the artistic sources for colonial wall located in Mexico City. The collaborative work painting, drawing convincing correspondences of Kubler and Soria (1969) is devoted primarily between the subject matter and styles of Mexito the art of the ‘““Mother countries,” Spain and — can murals and their European models, gener-

Portugal, and precludes extensive treatment of ally single-sheet prints or illustrated religious any one facet of the decorative schemes in the books, particularly Bibles. In one example, an overseas territories. Soria’s comparisons accord investigative team isolated the type of Bible an inferior status to colonial sculpture and whose imagery inspired the Apocalyptic scenes murals; the entire production of art in the Span- painted on the choir loft vault at Tecamachalco, ish colonies is termed “‘folk art... far below Puebla (Camelo Arredondo et al. 1964); Pierce the best European standards” (Kubler and Soria (1987:131) has further suggested as a source for 1969:164). The Spanish counterpart to Tous- Tecamachalco an illustrated Bible from Lyons saint and Kubler, Diego Angulo Ifiguez (1954, — dating to after 1538. European prototypes for 1955), focused on the European environment New World sixteenth-century art in all media that produced the art exported to the New _ has been most comprehensively treated in SeWorld and was the first to signal the impact bastian (1989).

of late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Until recently, scholars concentrated almost Northern European prints on Spanish art and exclusively on descriptive analyses of colonial colonial painting. Angulo, however, passed murals and their theological or liturgical signififew qualitative judgments on the transforma- cance. Departing from this approach, I have fotions that occurred when forms and_ ideas cused more attention on three areas, the means transplanted overseas were executed by non- — of production, social history, and process of

Europeans. acculturation documented by sixteenth-century The earliest monographs on Mexican mon- — murals in Mexico.* The first avenue of inquiry asteries by architectural historians in the 1940s — examines the process of mural production, the

6 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco creators as native artisans, their tools, school- —_ lowed by the wholesale transplantation of Euro-

ing, and relationship with their friar-supervi- | Christian culture and the concomitant eclipse of sors. Second, this study is based on the precept all facets of Indian culture.” From documents that murals, as social documents, both recorded in the Aztec language of Nahuatl, scholars can and helped to implement the church’s mandate __ retrieve a more diachronic and complete picin the New World. As the Malinalco garden ture of colonial society as seen from below and , frescoes make clear, sixteenth-century mendi- within. Anthropologists, linguists, and historicant art cannot be relegated to church history —_ ans are discovering preconquest social and poalone. Public murals were billboard-sized proc- _ litical patterns as well as traditional Nahua relilamations of the newly introduced Christian gious beliefs and moral codes that endured into faith that visually advertised the intentions of — the sixteenth century and beyond.* In this rethe Spanish friars and their imperial benefactors, gard, colonial art history lags behind other Latin intentions that implicate New Spain’s economic — American disciplines.

priorities, social agenda, and governing values. As noted above, a persistent weakness in the Illustrative of this contextual approach is the field of Mexican colonial art has been the reluccurrent interpretation of the nave murals of tance to admit to native authorship and capabilIxmiquilpan, Hidalgo. The intriguing battle ity. Beyond timid acknowledgment of an Indian scenes, pitting indigenous warriors and hybrid ‘“‘presence” or “‘spirit,’’ there was no serious beasts, were construed as an allegorical struggle consideration of Moreno Villa’s (1942) tequitqui, between the forces of good and evil (Carrillo y _ or the art created by the native under European Gariel 1961). While at one level this explanation masters, until McAndrew (1965:174) empharemains valid, the Ixmiquilpan cycle is now also sized the artistic validity of the colonial synthe-

linked to a campaign in the Chichimec War _ ses as “striking new statements compounded of dating to 1569-1572 (Gerlero 1976). Two six- old words” and described the attendant style teenth-century Indian groups in the murals are —_ features. The characteristics of tequitqui in colospecifically identified as the hostile, pagan Chi- __ nial sculpture included flat zones of relief, cerchimecs and the more pacific Otomf converts to —- tain metronomic and repetitive patterns comdramatize for the local congregation the victory — bined with horror vacui, and an “Indian quality” of the Christian Otomi and, motivated by the _ of line which McAndrew (1965:198—201) saw Chichimec threat to local mining interests, to —_ as fundamental to preconquest carving. To these justify the battle as a “holy war” (Pierce 1981, | admittedly elusive style features was added an 1987). As large-scale, propagandistic monu- extensive iconography in Reyes-Valerio’s (1978) ments, murals not only conveyed the goals of | inventory of 120 pre-Hispanic motifs on some

the intrusive civilization but also carried for- sixty-six sixteenth-century buildings. Reyesward persistent indigenous traits. My third area _—- Valerio attached the name Indochristiano to any of concern is the process of culture change vis- | monument manifesting the collaborative efforts ible in the murals; as did other works of art cre- — of Indian and European, while heeding the dif-

ated by native craftsmen under European mas- _ficulty of factoring out one from the other. ters, they reveal the contributions of both However, art historians remain divided on the

colonizer and colonized. definition and utility of either of these terms. The tenacity of native American culture, in = Tequitqui is deemed racist for singling out the spite of the overwhelming imposition of Euro- | Amerindian contributions, when, in fact, by the pean institutions, is emerging from anew direc- second and third generations, mestizos comtion in Latin American studies. No longer valid — posed a greater number of the pool of artisans is the “conquest” view of New World colonial (Gonzalez Galvan 1982); tequitqui is also discivilization, in which military defeat was fol- missed altogether, with the argument that so- —

Introduction 7 called native survivals are in fact only inferior The working relationship between native reproductions of European models (Manrique — and European on collaborative projects has been

1982:57). Nevertheless, the term has gained most fruitfully characterized as a dialogue.' general acceptance when applied toahybridar- This bilateral interaction is underscored by chitectural sculpture of the sixteenth century Burkhart (1989) in her study of religious texts that displays a certain ornamental modality — written in sixteenth-century Mexico. In trans(Vargas Lugo 1982). Neither designation is en- _ lating Christian catechistic and doctrinal writtirely satisfactory. The concept of tequitquiistoo ings into Nahuatl, “each side was affected by the restricted to sculptural traits, thereby omitting — continual feedback from the other” (Burkhart

manuscript and mural painting; on the other 1989:23), and the texts ultimately conveyed a hand, by embracing all religious art created by different message from the original one innative American artists (the largest corpusinthe tended by the friars. The very use of the Nahua sixteenth century), the value of the term In- — language reshaped Christian ideas to conform dochristiano is diminished in its very inclusive- to, and thus communicate, older Nahua conness. It would be more constructive to forgo la- cepts of morality. Such joint native-friar projbeling a discrete body of works as native in style — ects, similar to the collaborative mural paintand to recognize instead the pervasive and cre- _— ings, demonstrate not only the sustaining power ative role of native American artists in shaping — of older indigenous views, but their viability, and, wherever possible, manipulating the pro- capable of effecting subtle transformations from

duction of art to which they had access. the Nahua to the Christian and back again. As Although there is general assent on the par- _— active participants, native scribes and _ artists ticipation of native artists and the identity of — helped to shape Christian texts and imagery to certain pre-Hispanic style modes and imagery, reflect their own world view and belief system. the most challenging and disputed issue remains The various combinations of Nahua-European

not what has survived nor where, but how and traits, found primarily in religious contexts, why. The nature of these retentions, their mean- presuppose the Nahuatlization of Christianity ing, and the mechanics of transformation need (Dibble 1974). As practiced from the sixteenth to be considered in light of the present theories | century down to the present day in some reof acculturation. The “conquest” line of think- gions of Mexico, Christianity was, and 1s, an ing, in which European supplants indigenous amalgam of orthodoxy with deep-rooted inculture in tofo, divides society into donor and — digenous beliefs and rituals. In the colonial recipient; it reduces native artists to passive re- — period, the outward devotion to Christianity ceptacles, denying them the ability to be inven- — masked responses that ranged from partial untive and claim an identity. One current view — derstanding to complete rejection of Christian suggests that cultures are being constantly re- _ tenets (Klor de Alva 1982).

formulated and “negotiated” (Clifford 1988: The dynamics of cultural interchange 273), an approach that also amplifies our notion prompted a variety of artistic responses. Preof acculturation as an equally dynamic, mutu- — contact images and concepts in the sixteenth-

ally affective process to which many sectors century murals of central Mexico can be contribute.’ In an arena of continual change,im- — grouped into two broad categories or types of provisation and transformation become coping __ responses within a preponderantly Euro-Chrismechanisms that permit the disenfranchised to tian context: that of juxtaposition and that of both adapt and survive. Clearly, the making of | convergence and syncretism (Peterson 1987a). pictures by the colonized is one such tactic, a | Juxtaposed indigenous motifs were allowed to “visual strategem”’ to avoid being eliminated by _ coexist relatively unadulterated within the con-

the dominant culture (Klein 1990: 107). ventions of European imagery. In their appear-

8 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco ance or shape, these motifs and glyphlike sym- | Chapters 6 and 7 explore the convergence of the bols are related to Aztec-style relief sculpture paradise-garden metaphor in colonial Mexico as and illustrated manuscripts. Within this cate- a positive reward and a means of social control gory, toponyms or place names are the largest exploited by Aztecs and Spaniards alike.

croup to retain their original significance, such Syncretism involves incorporating elements as Malinalco’s place glyph in the painted medal- _—_‘ from the Euro-Christian into the existing native

lion on the monastery stairwell vault (plate 5). cultures and vice versa. This process 1s a truer However, most of these formal survivals in synthesis and therefore more difficult to detect. murals, such as the frequently used chalchiuhuitl, | The fusion of idioms can involve covert encod- ,

or jade symbol, are reduced to decorative ele- ing that may defy discovery or interpretation alments; the authenticity of their meaning is together. Klein (1990: 108—109) refers to the use indeterminable from our perspective because — of Christian iconography for native purposes as

they are isolated from a relevant context. The “‘visual bilingualism,” but it should be noted inability to assess continuity or disjunction — that the reverse, the use of Nahua forms for

of meaning in these fragmentary survivals, Christian purposes, is almost as common. however ‘“‘pure” their preconquest form, had = Where each culture brought a different set of asled many art historians to discount the survi- _ sociations to the same object, it is probable the val phenomenon in colonial art as rare and sixteenth-century native painter and viewer re-

insignificant." tained the interpretation derived from his or her Within the larger and more complex category own heritage, in spite of a veneer of Christian of convergence and syncretism, pre-Columbian symbolism. This process Lockhart (1985:477) and European features come together in varying __ has called “double mistaken identity.”’ To give

degrees; the blend can be one of form and/ but one example of this phenomenon, which is or meaning. Moreover, the interpretations elaborated in chapter 5, the two monkeys in the brought to a single image can either merge or — garden frescoes are set within the cacao, or differ, dependent on the discrete readings given chocolate, tree (fig. 95). Both monkeys and cathe image. The ability to distinguish native cao were exotic and prized Aztec tribute items. from Euro-Christian iconography requires not However, this positive association within the only knowledge of both cultures but alsoalarge © enduring Nahua value system would have had enough wall painting sample, preferably a mu- _ little relevance to the prevailing Christian symral cycle, to reconstruct the overall composition bolism in which the monkey signified the devil and theme, thereby securing the meaning of the — and, more relevant to the paradise murals, origi-

individual components.'* In convergence, inter- nal sin. pretations by the native and European cultures In another variant of syncretism, native and may coincide in icons that share a similar form. Euro-Christian images are merged to create a That is, when an object’s bicultural significance |= new and ambivalent icon. In the Malinalco stair-

is alike, a pictorial rendering of that object — well painting ofa pelican-eagle, the muralist rewill often elicit the same (but never identical) formulates the Christological pelican symbol in association of ideas. For instance, the owl in the guise of the eagle, the most powerful Aztec the Malinalco murals (fig. 104) carried similar symbol for royalty, a warrior class, and celestial connotations for both native American and Eu- deities (plate 5). Described by Adorno (1981:95) ropean cultures, as the owl’s nocturnal habits —as “taking the signs away from the sign-makmade it a commonly feared omen of death. ers,” Christian icons are appropriated for native Convergence is not limited to specific artistic usage. Moreover, Adorno (1981, 1990) demonmotifs, but can occur on a broader scale when strates that the use of certain Christian icons, entire themes are motivated by the same ends. sometimes hybridized, succeeds in reversing co-

Introduction 9 lonial stereotypes, linking Europeans to corrup- — and educational institutions that were similarly

tion and native Andean culture to morality. A exploited by both the Aztecs and their succesfinal form of syncretism uses uniquely indige- — sors in order to establish political hegemony. nous forms to convey Christian themes, yet due The ambitious Augustinian program was imto their long-established native usage, the spe- _ posed at a high cost to the very constituency it cies undoubtedly retains the older meaning. intended to serve; among other burdens it susWhen a New World plant as important ritually tained, the native population shouldered the to the Aztecs as the zapote fruit tree is castas the _ building and financing of the Malinalco monas-

Tree of Knowledge in the Malinalco paradise tery. Chapter 3 examines mural painting as a frescoes (figs. 22 and 74), the substitution must _ sensitive index for determining the identity and have conveyed a non-Christian meaning to the _ training of the artists. A team of native artists at native viewer that, at the very least, compro- = Malinalco was exposed to varying degrees of mised the original Christian message. Cum- — European schooling yet remained familiar with

mins’s (1988) study of Kero vessels likewise the pictorial script of the ancient profession of finds that native Andean elements intended to tlacuilo, or scribe-painter. Like those at Ixmiimplement colonial authority, yet, by their very — quilpan, the works at Malinalco not only sup-

Andeanness, unwittingly subverted it. port the case for native authorship, but suggest The survival of pre-Columbian traits in the — as well a continuation of other pre-Hispanic Malinalco frescoes are assessed in the context of practices: the training in special schools of an

the confrontation and compromise that oc- elite group of artists, the familiarity with varcurred in every facet of viceregal Mexico. Inor- —_ ious techniques of mural painting, and a tradi-

der to make their faith and the Spanish way of tion of working in teams under itinerant mas-

life more palatable and relevant, the regular ters. Based on stylistic, iconographic, and clergy sought to reinforce ties with the native — chronological ties, a ““Sahagtin connection” becommunities. They actively looked for ways to — tween Malinalco and the Franciscan school of

relate their teachings to existing indigenous Tlatelolco is proposed. Chapter 4 will make factors in their congregations. Murals reflect — clear that the native artists exercised some conthese interdependencies and adaptations to the trol over their artistic sources, drawing from peculiar features—ethnic, historical, and eco- nature, ornamental prints, and, possibly, a taplogical—of the local community. Although _ estry design for the garden frescoes as they skillmuch that persisted did so covertly, without the fully transferred this monumental herbal to a knowledge of the Spanish authorities and friars, wall surface many times the size of a manuscript

known preconquest rituals and imagery were or graphic. tolerated when they were assumed to be con- The three subsequent chapters explore the sistent with Catholic ideology. Native features iconography of the fresco imagery on different were permitted in mural painting in the hope levels. In chapter 5, the individual flora and that they would advance the cause of colonial fauna components of the garden subject matter church and state, yet ultimately they worked to are identified as accurately as possible. If the art-

undermine the orthodoxy of the message. ists were allowed to use freely the rich natural The garden frescoes provoke many questions __ life that abounded in their own setting, this free-

of both intrinsic and extrinsic consideration, in dom of choice sheds light on the relationship spite of the subject’s seeming neutrality. The — between artist and friar-supervisor, on the culvalley of Malinalco was a key region in Aztec tural significance of the plants and animals seimperial designs and mythology; chapter 2 lected, and on Malinalco’s longstanding traditraces the transfer of power to Spanish rule and ~~ tion of medicinal plants and witchcraft. In highlights the continuities in social, economic, — separating native from imported species, the

10 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco discrete (or convergent) cultural value and sym- __ the fate of both sixteenth-century frescoes and bolic import of the flora and fauna can be more _ the mendicant mission were one and the same. readily determined. The garden frescoes were

encoded in subtle and sometimes occult ways Two of the most prolific periods of wall with both indigenous and intrusive traits. This painting in Mexico used murals as a potent me-

chapter most directly provides evidence for a dium to carry the message of the governing variety of acculturative responses. The several bodies to the general public. Both sixteenthallegorical uses of the garden theme are then and twentieth-century muralism drew on the sought in chapter 6, where gardens are linked to — indigenous tradition of fresco painting. Alcuring, to cosmological constructs, and, most though in the early colonial period the use of the important, to paradisiacal ideals. The rich clus- _ native fresco medium was a matter of pragmatic ter of associations evoked by the paradise gar- __ efficiency, in the 1920s and 1930s it was revived den was originally derived from medieval clois- self-consciously to evoke pride in the ancient ter and Hispano-Islamic gardens, and, once Mexican legacy. The architectural contexts for transferred overseas, was enhanced by the im- murals in each period were not as dissimilar portance accorded royal and temple gardens in as _ they may at first appear. Those sixteenth-

Aztec Mexico. century murals that were accessible to the comThese connotations, however relevant to the |= munity at large were painted in public areas that illusory ideals projected onto the New World, — served as classrooms, hospitals, and hostels— do not address the underlying social and politi- the same buildings set aside by the post-Revo-

cal factors that motivated the creation of the lution government for twentieth-century mugarden frescoes. Questions of patronage andau- _—_—rals. The mural movements in both centuries

dience are next examined. Chapter 7 explores succeeded violent overthrows of existing polihow the allied goals of church and state shaped __ ties, although the processes and motives of contheir programmatic strategy. In the paradiselike | quest and revolution are diametrically opposed. afterlife suggested by the Malinalco murals and =‘ These upheavals created the need for restructur-

reenacted in theatrical morality plays, the friars ing social order, for transferring control of the discovered a potent incentive toimplement their | economic bases of power, and for instilling con-

goals among the native population. Although fidence via new ideologies. Sixteenth-century In many respects the murals at Malinalco are = murals were framed in terms of a “spiritual conunique, variations on utopian themes did occur quest’; however, like the mural campaign of

elsewhere. In chapter 8 these correlations be- this century, they were also intended to discome stronger by surveying the corpus of wall | seminate dogmas that would bring about a new paintings in the public and private sectors of — social order.!* It is in the light of the Spanish Malinalco. Analogies with other Augustinian success, or lack thereof, to convert and Hispanmurals establish the eschatological message of ize the native populace that the production and the garden frescoes and their intended audience. _—_ultimate purpose of sixteenth-century Mexican The final chapter considers the degree to which — mural painting are to be understood.

Chapter Two

MALINALCO AND THE AUGUSTINIANS .. . that with the glory of the buildings, with the wealth in the churches, with the solemnity of the festivals, and with the divine cult . . . they [the Indians] should forget their past work and . . . their paganism.

—JUAN DE GRIJALVA (1924:221)'

Much of Malinalco’s importance over several = municipal, or principal town, of nine outlying millennia can be appreciated fromthe perspective villages in the municipio of Malinalco. The muof its geographical and ecological setting. Lo- __ nicipality extends over 266 square kilometers to cated in the southwestern section of the present- —_— include all of the valley and is bordered by the

day state of Mexico, the valley of Malinalco district of Tenancingo on the west, by the muaffords easy access to the basin of Mexico and __nicipio of Ocuilan on the northeast, and by the Lake Texcoco, the central hub of both the Az- state of Morelos on the southeast and south tec and Spanish colonial empires. Along with (fig. 1). Although contained within a series of the valley of Toluca, Malinalco’s fertile crescent | broken, precipitous volcanic cliffs and ridges, forms part of an east-west corridor between the the valley floor itself is lush and green, having central cultures and the western reaches of Me- been domesticated by generations of inhabisoamerica. The land here and its people have al-_ _— tants. A temperate climate and abundant water

ways been a coveted resource. There are some supply, provided by the Chalma River, several remarkable parallels in the historical harnessing streams, and countless springs, promote the of these resources by its successive early land- — optimal conditions that have attracted agrarian owners. It is important for our purpose to ap- _ settlements to the Malinalco valley since the preciate the continuities that have existed in the — middle Preclassic period in the first millennium

valley of Malinalco from the preconquest into —-B.c. Crops of corn, rice, sweet potato, and the colonial periods and, in some cases, to the sugar cane flourish, as well as a variety of fruits:

present day. guava, plum, zapote blanco, wild grape, papaya, apple, orange, and banana.? Within this valley

CONQUEST AND CONTROL there was an ample food supply to support the

OF MALINALCO ancient settlement of Ocuilan (de Arteaga) and its dependency, Chalma, and later two flourishAs it has under several cultures, the modern- _—_ ing Spanish colonial /aciendas or estates, Jalmo-

day town of Malinalco still serves as the cabecera longa and Tepopula, as well as twelve smaller

12 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco livestock ranches. It was to this semitropical worthy ofa privileged relationship with the Azparadise, a ‘‘very rich land because of the fer- tec ruling class. In addition to its economic and tility of the soil” (Zorita 1963:268), thatthe Au- military importance, Malinalco had genealogigustinian friars were attracted soon after their cal ties with the ruling lineage in Tenochtitlan.

arrival. Several early colonial manuscripts include the . Malinalcas as one of the original tribal units, or

Pre-Hispanic Malinatco calpulli, of the migratory Aztecs.> The Malinal-

The geographical position of Malinalco made cas were also said to have made up one of the it both a locus of exchange and a buffer zone __ eight parts of “Old Colhuacan,” the mythologibetween competing regions. In the preconquest cal Teocolhuacan (Chimalpahin 1965:65-—66). period Malinalco was vulnerable to the cultural | Malinalco had early contact with Culhuacan influences, demographic pressures, military in- | when a branch of Nahua speakers from that city cursions, and political ambitions of both those — went to populate Malinalco and Ocuilan in the people to the west, principally the Tarascans of late twelfth century.* Since the Aztecs consisMichoacan, and those to the east, who by turns tently stressed their ties with Culhuacan, the held control of the central plateau of Mexico. heir to Toltec civilization that bestowed legitiBased upon linguistic studies and archeological | macy on Aztec rule, the early infusion of Culceramic sequences, Malinalco’s pre-Aztec his- hua blood into Malinalco made it all the more tory formed part of a generalized cultural en- _— attractive to Aztec imperial ambitions. Malitity known as the Matlatzinca civilization. The _ nalco figured in the Aztec migration legend of shifting alliances and power struggles charac- the sister of the Aztec tribal god Huitzilopoteristic of the Postclassic period in central Mex- __ chtli. This sister, a sorceress named Malinalico necessitated defensive positions and fortress- — xochitl, or “flower of the malinalli,” was abanlike structures that were features of the major §doned by the Aztec (or Mexica) tribe en route Matlatzinca administrative and religious cen- to their final destination because she threatened ters, including one at Malinalco itself. The rise | Huitzilopochtl with magical powers and de-

in the mid-fifteenth century of the powerful structive spells (Duran 1967, 2:30-32). After Triple Alliance of the Lake Texcoco cities of her band was forced by Huitzilopochtli to leave Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan shattered the main body of wandering Aztecs, Malinalthe loose alliance of city states in the Matlatzinca = xochitl settled in Malinalco (“‘place of the mali-

confederation. The Aztecs of Tenochtitlan had nalli”), where she married the local ruler, long eyed the agrarian wealth of the plains to Chimalcuauhth (Tezozomoc 1949:30-31). The their west as the pressure grew to feed theirown Malinalxochitl myth additionally appears to urban population. Additionally, the threat pri- | have dramatized an actual struggle for power marily from the Tarascan nation, and second- _ between rival groups. The subjugation of Maliarily from the Matlatzincas themselves, became nalxochitl by Huitzilopochtli may, in fact, deintolerable to the security of the Triple Alliance. scribe a historical defeat of the southern regions In 1474 the Aztec army under the ruler Axaya- — by the Aztecs that occurred not during the early cat] conquered Toluca and two years later se- | Aztec migration but at a critical juncture in their cured the remainder of the Matlatzinca federa- | consolidation of power (Klein 1988). In addition.* To maintain peace and a dependable ow tion, Malinalxochitl’s heirs may have reinforced

of tribute stuffs into the capital city, the subse- blood ties between the ruling lineages of Tequent ruler Ahuizotl sent in Aztec colonists, | nochtitlan and Malinalco.’

tribute collectors, and military garrisons. One of the more important clues to MalinalIn the expanding Aztec empire, Malinalco — co’s unusual position within the Aztec imperial appears to have been singled out as a unique site | scheme is the cliffside archeological site for

Malinalco and the Augustinians 13 which is it justifiably famous. This complex was Under Spanish Rule erected on partially man-made terraces engineered by the earlier Matlatzincas halfway up a The Spaniards, as had their Aztec predecesgranite mountain, some 100 meters above the sors, discovered the populous Malinalcans to be valley floor. The Aztec ruler Ahuizotl began the — organized as a stratified society. Out of purely Aztec center in 1490; crews of stone masons — pragmatic considerations, the new conquerors were still working there as late as 1515." Town- deliberately used the existing sociopolitical insend (1982:136) identifies the well-preserved _ stitutions, already well developed, as the means

monolithic Temple I of Malinalco as a shrine for implementing their own authority. The and council room and emphasizes that the ar- —§= mechanisms for tribute collection were left in-

chitecture served to incorporate Malinalco into tact and the hierarchy that enabled this ecothe “larger social-sacred space of the [Aztec]im- | nomic system to work was often altered only perium”’ (fig. 2). The symbolic components of | by replacing key personages in the chain of the stone-carved eagle and jaguar thrones en- |= command. In many cases, Spaniards intensified dowed the site with not only cosmic but impe- _ trends that had already been initiated by the Azrial meaning. According to Townsend, it wasin _ tecs, further nucleating and imposing greater Temple I that autosacrificial rites of new rulers —_ tribute demands in goods and labor on the local

took place. These blood offerings made by the population. Both Aztecs and Spaniards used newly installed governors were intended to pro- similar means for establishing control. Under pitiate the earth and sanctify the transference of | Aztec rule, the process of acculturation was acpower. In addition to serving as a reminder of _ celerated by the common usage of the Nahuatl Aztec military might, Malinalco was made to — tongue; in viceregal Mexico, Spanish became

conform to an Aztec paradigm that sought to the lingua franca and an important vehicle secure the territorial acquisitions of the empire for implementing European traditions and conwithin an orderly and justifiable cosmic scheme. cepts. Long-term ideological control for the AzThat Malinalco also functioned as an Aztec __ tecs was ensured by an active program of indocmilitary center is supported by accounts of the __ trination at schools for the children of the local Spanish expeditions sent by Cortés to conquer —_ nobility (Durbin 1970:195). A comparable eduMalinalco in 1521. These describe the cliffside | cational role would be taken over by the Spanish site, or “high hill,” as a “place used for war” (um | monasteries, but with a dramatically different lugar que era de guerra; Ixtlilxéchitl 1975, 1:474). philosophical and theological message to impart.

Cortés (1962:201) himself wrote to Charles V It was, in fact, in the realms of cosmology that the Malinalcas were pursued “right up to — and religion that the stated policies of the two the walls of Malinalco which is perched on a colonizing powers, the Aztec and the Spanish,

very lofty peak too steep for the horses to differed most dramatically. Although at the climb.” Here, too, he notes that ‘‘within the city —_ time of conquest, the Aztecs burned the enemy’s

at the top of the peak . . . there were many — temples and carried the principal god to Tesprings of excellent water producing very fertile | nochtitlan, after this symbolic act of victory and vegetation.” From these reports, pre-Colum- —_ incorporation, local worship to regional deities bian Malinalco incorporated two zones, a flour- was tolerated. The Catholic church, in contrast, ishing town on the valley floor, with its own __ insisted on the complete eradication of all traces temples, and an upper settlement on the adja- _ of the “‘pagan’”’ religion. For the Spaniards, concent moutain that supported an elite population version to Christianity was the principal justifiand a fortified, well-developed religious and ad- _cation, if not always the primary motive, for the ministrative center (the present-day archeologi- | conquest of the New World. There was, there-

cal site of Malinalco). fore, great anxiety on the part of the Spanish

14 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco religious and secular authorities alike that the de Zorita (1963:267), ‘after the Spaniards had movement to proselytize should succeed. conquered the land, they divided the people and After the conquest, the more overt aspects of | land among themselves.” Of the thirty-five pre-Hispanic religion were exterminated as rap- towns in the valleys of Toluca and Malinalco, idly as possible; temples were destroyed, the na- almost all were held in encomienda by private tive priesthood dismantled, and the public cere- parties. Officially encomiendas were not land monies that most appalled the Spaniards (such grants but groups of Indians entrusted to Spanas ritual sacrifice) outlawed. To fill this vacuum, ish patrons who were held responsible for their certain practices of the Catholic church were physical and spiritual welfare. The encomendegradually substituted and, in appearance at least, ros were entitled to require that their subjects enthusiastically adopted by the natives. The vast provide tribute in labor and kind. As often in majority of Indians who were distant from cen- __ the early period, the encomiendas were divided ters of intense Hispanization selectively adopted — among multiple recipients; in the valley of MalChristianity to meet their own needs while pri- _inalco initially both Malinalco and Ocuilan were

vately retaining many of their traditional reli- split among two encomenderos each. Malinalco gious beliefs. The new faith was accepted by the — was shared by Cristobal (Sebastian) Rodriguez indigenous populace only if useful and broadly — de Avalos, one of the original conquistadores, compatible with their own established beliefs. and Cristébal Romero (Garcia Icazbalceta 1904: Klor de Alva (1982:351-352) has charted a ty- 152-153). Tribute in Malinalco was collected in pology of Aztec responses to Christianity, rang- the form of labor, money, and supplies of corn, ing from apostasy, through various degrees of _ evenly divided between Avalos and the crown, accommodation, to complete conversion. The — which soon appropriated Romero’s share.

most widespread response, prompted by only In order to coordinate tribute collection efpartial understanding of Christianity, was anin- __ fectively and to carry out religious instruction, complete conversion characterized by partici- _ native populations were sometimes consolidated

pation in both the old and new religious sys- into more manageable communities. The imtems. These responses inevitably fostered a perative for these programs of relocation, called process of clandestine syncretism that kept the — congregaciones, grew in response to the demoSpanish authorities at bay while satisfying the — graphic changes that were occurring in the New traditional needs of the worshipper. When con- — World (Gerhard 1972: Table D). It is well known

fronted with the monumental task of converting that the native population suffered catastrophic thousands of “pagans,”’ the early friars also declines in the century between 1520 and 1620. looked for ways in which to fuse compatible In addition to disease, the abuse suffered by pre-Hispanic beliefs and practices—including the indigenous peoples claimed many lives. religious processions and liturgical music and = Although the Spaniards correlated the high dance—into acceptable Christian solutions. | mortality rate among the Indians with divine These convergences often produced, and con- retribution for their paganism, their own extinue to inspire, unorthodox interpretations. ploitative labor policies can likewise be blamed. Preconquest polytheism was replaced by aspec- | We can cite as one example the practice of taktrum of Catholic saints altered in name and ac- _— ing groups of natives (still organized as comcoutrements, yet fulfilling the ancient functions =munal work crews, or tequios) to unfavorable

of the village patron deities. climatic zones. From Malinalco itself natives Soon after the Spaniards had secured central slated for construction work were transported Mexico, the spoils of war were split among to the higher altitudes and colder temperatures those who had participated in the campaign. As = of Mexico City, where the Malinalcans “‘sufsuccinctly stated by the colonial lawyer Alonso fered greatly” (Garcia Icazbalceta 1904:152).

Malinalco and the Augustinians 15 According to the Augustinian chronicler Gri- diocesan divisions headed by an archbishop and jalva (1924:204, 214), five out of six Indians in bishops. The regular clergy, living under a rule central Mexico had died by the middle of the — (regula), was composed of the various orders, sixteenth century. The dramatic loss of life not | each divided into “provinces’’; those in turn only imposed greater physical hardships on the — ~were subdivided into monasteries (conventos) remaining population but produced a psycho- —_ under a prior or (with the Franciscans) father logical effect that was demoralizing to the con- — guardian. The provinces varied in size from orquerors and devastating to the recently con- der to order and were administered by elected quered. Pressured by property owners and the “provincial generals.””» The Mexican monasterclergy, Spanish authorities responded by nucle- _ ies were not cloistered but acted as the headating the dispersed and weakened populations quarters for the friars’ multiple pastoral duties;

closer to the monastic centers. concomitantly the adjacent monastic churches generally acted as the parish churches. The

THE AUGUSTINIAN PROGRAM regular clergy in the early colonial period were given wide-ranging prerogatives, powers that in

Monasteries were located in cabeceras, or Europe had been relegated solely to the secular principal towns, that, like Malinalco, had been clergy. As the Spanish civil population grew residences of pre-Hispanic lords; these areas and the secular clergy consequently increased of jurisdiction also contained smaller villages | 1n number, the spheres of influence of regulars called sujetos or estancias. On the cabecera-sujeto | and seculars impinged on each other, bringing pattern, the Spanish based their apportionment — on forseeable conflicts. Ultimately, the struggle of tribute and labor, encomienda boundaries, and for power between these two facets of the ecboth civic and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Mali- — clesiastical presence would affect the fate of nalco, for instance, made up a parish (doctrina or — sixteenth-century monastic murals. parroqguia) that was composed of the cabecera and The Augustinian friars were the last of the its sujetos, the latter called visitas de doctrina by | mendicant orders to arrive in the New World, the church. The parish could be headed by a __ preceded by the Franciscans in 1523 and the Do-

secular priest or, more commonly in the mid- minicans in 1527. Seven Spanish Augustinian sixteenth century, ministered by members of a friars (fewer than the usual symbolic party of regular order, as was the case in Malinalco. twelve) arrived in Veracruz on May 22, 1533. As a cabecera, Malinalco in 1571 included Led by fray Francisco de la Cruz, they held their about 2,000 adult male tributaries, 760 of whom _sfirst chapter meeting in Ocuituco, Morelos, lived in the town itself, with the remainder — the following year. Subsequent arrivals of small spread among the ten villages, or estancias, that | groups of friars brought their number up slowly, were separated by a distance of from one to six —_ and in three decades there were over two hun“leagues.” Colonial Malinalco retained the pre- dred Augustinians in Mexico.'? As latecomers,

Hispanic divisions of wards, or calpulli, al- | the Augustinians were forced to select areas for though the number of wards (counted as barrios) proselytism not yet claimed by their fellow menvaries in different accounts from six to ten. To- dicants. Malinalco and Ocuilan, for example, day the town of Malinalco conserves eight origi- — had been visited by the Franciscans as early as nal barrios, all with their own chapel and most 1525 from their Cuernavaca monastery in Mo-

with their own neighborhood leadership and relos (Mendieta 1945, 2:94), but it was left to

council.? the Augustinians to occupy the region permaIn New Spain, as everywhere, there were two nently. By 1537 the Augustinians had identified branches of the church. The secular clergy or three general areas to penetrate and evangelize: parish priests were organized into bishoprics, | to the north into the present-day state of Hi-

¢ , |faoe \ ¢ \ ] \ / fry ¢ ‘\ | vd / -” 37 Q t 4 ® t / / \ / \ / / { ~ I \ , / / Actop ae “ . , a re ctopan 7 i “! ! @/‘\\/ Swe \/~“~ /% e Ucareo '\‘\ / \ e / ; \ e f cs \\} SL ; \\ sy. 16 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco

/ ¥ ‘--°} \ 4 ers’ / '

{ ! / a one? psa ue---! J) aa / e77 7 OAL !~~ HIDALGO ; so 7 ae / ofN GUANAJUATO é A , / QUERETARO \ woe! ian -/ Meztitla Se, ;\. . oN

‘\\ ae °° Sta. Maria Xoxoteco (visita) oecenIxmiquilpan e / v \or on?‘\

ra Yuririaptindaro aiars YooTN e * Atotonilco el Grande i

‘SQ _— poral oer ‘‘.Tezontepec yo ‘7 \

@/ @ se _/ / \ eae_ N Charo av MEXICO S27 Oe / ,-, Acolman @/-7~ “? N . & MEXICO CITYD.Eone >‘ _ Tiripetio *& nN ‘ oS,\Culhuacin, TLAXCALA Cuitzeo “e777 / ee, \ Epazoyucan J

] . \ } \ \ ae \ 2

i] \ \ ‘ » “TN wneon? / Ocuilan 7 I ) boy VoLe MICHOACAN @ 3~7>----~« -=ybwed — ; : t | a‘f ’r4 x>

ea ee, et a) a

of |)> ie xSee ae Re =-¥| -:| did | ' Y :_) 5og ae Ae, ’2)cn.tee :. =om 4posirg; aa Re . go = Tie.> °F. * : 3 ah hp ‘a 7" rn 4 . om ~ e b hans _* a. Ft ‘ aoe aa —_ -. . : , -=— Ss F p . ere ae — — —_o . bi ”

i ; .” ‘ : ~ %

te,

FIG. 4. View of cloister patio and two-storied cloister interior, Malinalco.

bays. Neither the architectural detail nor the that the same two friars who founded neighbortechnical finish is given as much care in the up- — ing Ocuilan in 1537, Diego de Chavez and Juan per story. Moreover, the spacing of the fourup- = de Roman, first “claimed”? Malinalco for the per arches and the lower three-arched arcade are Augustinians. Although both Chavez and Ronot synchronized or visually aligned (plate 3). man immediately pushed on westward to estabFurther evidence for a second, slightly later — lish new missions in Michoacan and Guerrero,

building stage is seen in portions of the wall Diego de Chavez may have returned to help murals that are trimmed and obscured by the design Malinalco. Kubler (1948, 2:274) has doorway to and architectural supports for the | named Malinalco as one of several Augustinian

monumental staircase (fig. §). churches that display a discontinuous cornice To date, neither the certain identity of Mali- and roof level between the sanctuary and the nalco’s founders nor its builders has emerged nave, an architectural characteristic associated

from the documents. It is reasonable to assume with not only Chavez but with the friar-

24 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco

REGS S|. es NY OS.Tage BZ ¥ENS iS a nn ‘Ae Sat RON fe 5.a.yesh ee, af — Bee ‘e ie ew : SS aA >afsPS i. , a oe NY : : . tite ta 3. Se ¢ Siena 4 oo cen: Ab ae Vey Re a 1 RA jiy. i ® a Jy 8 ae * a a a i Nera: a is j ;ae Berne «& Sa |(de. ae ie ae oe : rai a |, 7ieee lan ,Y: ee es

‘ ; J ;“ :7 gt As a. | bejdt Bi ~ ip = . ‘ |M, . 5 Pats . JF . - re, AG - Le

fan |

Ack Siew ate el ~ “ ne meme 4 He Na ONIN E's 7 qe * ty ee a fe Ne hes e. athihls ss 2 “Be. AY!

pee ss UBS 0 \)\ eer , ps ihe TOs tt A |

ee Me MkaR:ey bs; 3 &!By , ! ' hi| A r1G. 5. Lower cloister entryway, Malinalco. Barrel vault construction for stairwell is superimposed over and partially obscures mural painting.

architect of Ixmiquilpan, Andrés de Mata. Juan struction, a not uncommon event.! Two later Cruzate, an Augustinian known to have served priors of Malinalco are named in the chronas prior of Malinalco, may have overseen at least icles. Juan de Penaranda served as prior of three

part of Malinalco’s construction. Cruzate was monasteries—Malinalco, Huachinango, and also associated with three other monasteries 1n Molango—sometime after his arrival in Mexico the state of Morelos, in Zacualpan Amilpas and in 1547, although the dates are not given for Jonacatepec at the time of their construction — each office. Most likely Penaranda was not prior (Kubler 1948, 1:119) and in Tlayacapan in 1563 until after the major building phases of Mali(Gryalva 1924: xlv). The permanent monastic — nalco, as he was responsible for outfitting the complex of Zacualpan Amilpas has been dated interior appointments of the sacristy and augto 1§§0 (Kubler 1948, 2:524). Not until twenty menting the rental properties (Garcia 1916:17). years later, in 1§71, was Jonacatepec completed; The most illustrious prior of Malinalco was Juan it was there that Cruzate died and was buried de Gryalva himself, who served there in 1629, four years later (Gryalva 1924:500). During the —_ after completing his early Cronica of the Augusestimated period in which Malinalco was being tinian order (Grijalva 1924: vii).

built, between 1550 and 1570, the Augustinian A brief analysis of the architectural style of Cruzate would have been geographically acces- Malinalco not only confirms the dating of the sible to supervise several monasteries under con- permanent monastic buildings but tells us some-

rr . aT ie ‘

26 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco

*=|."isay ; 45ie ale Pr? , ni i% : aif Fot }te 4 es + a. ‘ 4xr‘;pe oe .Fee Bp ;a) ) / ’ A a ‘ ;*on ‘ 7.7 . 4 § 5, | ' ri 1 TA Pit»

=F) i efmh of2% : Lm afae =A-il4 2 me | Ape, ere ,ba ¢ er = Pa \ ; Ags a f per Fed ’ } : ee ‘py, . a . 2 Hi>._2} =»* yet

osf Li 7 sae |. i*ay te, fe a “ éy |, —— 3 !Cara} ge /: . - P

| ia :Ja?ieathigeal ‘ efg,hi7 ‘At , : b ; Fy e wr a ae -

6-;

, A . if i “i 7 ast “ : : b 5 ee ye ¥fe \ Pty | iS1.i Pte &éAe j=P | 5| aN ets oP BRS eee Re my 3 y oe i + ae—¥ * é alas

“ { ee ie A Te a '\. 8

4 4 qfe' T'rt3Fae fi nygers N49 FT ‘ - - ao 4 - Sioa wee hfe a —,$ he 2, Pa a

; lf >fs : ra Am 3) 7! ae ; fri BtBs was #i| - wie seal 2 ennea TARae ?y , ile4 u |. rece Cid

¥ Z é me JMTN: ad < fh : -SZ i fi Bohs (i oees,ee7 iLAS 4 Pd ee 4, ViOUR a ee &aay

. raesead Hi t mt ryas inthe ayA A e.tid}‘ 2g 4ot-4y. yf, v|fa! x PA i\>) okae ba ie mebe i, et. ‘e~~) ae) f §éhe : f

a oeFT eee >ee ok 7 Ee:4 the 4 Biebe ok AP ru BAe Re © ae Ae CA i; || .ie,.“3jff ¢ f Bs a £ om , ‘|. ByaSoe iA f 7as ts ;aRae 5qe208 eeaeeee f Pe : ’ 7 7 pa Re Ke ge Ae F vas

ietilSe. ; ‘Abe AS a FU al he /¥ ; ; at,my. am? foot Se P_. 7A Sor falta oe ‘Re . xeR ap |okey ' ie a.ae 7 aieSO . x ys ideR i A . Aa , he ‘ aS%eeOfeh-as 5y7.i@eeete Ss ae ae ie Stee Ay ein BoM yp7 oem ey imme eo Baas WS, re a at ® 8). Tae Ned _ 2 By jan: Fale

Cs y ae) eee S Jveh ik lspen ee eee ABD AY aeo! .ee i®ae 1sOE om |i .; ae [one e fe .ane a ae ee Sea em NS 2 oR) % aeBYE “yt itRede: , o ‘ a. AEN :Bayia: ie a tI,t li eS wees 2 iaee Oe Ge ai 164) ite ee ie Vy RE a tat ae a i aria a. i% ; 4 x fe “; me 4 ait bot v7 very re é ay | . a 2 A aJer +a; 4 :ct ‘ etyhe! ae CFDi “.. t na ay B ; i ih } : ae Ba eyoFae §ek jie: Naa 4dCoil+ Aaetiee 1 Bhi aee “4 j Mc a) ; a Se, & Se \ CR 77 2a, ; ontt.rae aa =jap a3 Gane SNS +) s; Pereets OO e Pat eae Me to nr en y steed Ved hi iat (coe

to Sere ee |

> ee: ;,iiiBD: - mia moaif5peros .° Pl ie aT BA “3 % We v. ey al ; f }3ik 4 : Pop ae Po 4 Sy me a Jes iat jibes =ww ot Se |i 4Pees a yidie 4 ka* 75.ro“y b r secre. 18. < \ ied 9eeq ii ite7 ge ayal: 4a: es 5a sh es a ee3 a| ee . ar beonvar f

eee ‘i ee Ci PydtOE iar et ; N py) I Oe CF ea 0 eee rs . Pee, Ta Hl i a4

een ne ih, Rebeka Uk pee . “~~

isa= ii ora eaid 44 ~ + re ypSimeon rs }ee z aay i,“aaa." nae i at the Nt ain ae ; afi=, |:ii‘‘

OF ee at oe re - ERE EE ar iy mk 5p:, apee [‘ [es ileee P. ae7% Bey “ie A;eat ofhe|; ||;: te 3145 er rare i Vin i e%

om * Ate ie i ee. ft oa . | wn E Li ee ’ “18 77 Bitaal

LER a ; :iePa! sal A eh beona = ae < ee £aon ‘ hy: ~ »*¥us ae :faaeine - ae ~ : Tz — iad . bo rid kes pa 3 o oa i » * oa c 5a nas li so ey nen ae = —) Pete teef reiv 3saa mas 7 ees a ¥ ee eee Ce —e aoe > attph alySk sar abe Ses " .Figs. “TRE Se ae i € Lip . a a my 7 me, 4 “ed -ae :oR *Pn']ee . ¢| i >)SP iene ey is cgay ORE DON Se Sa en ae ra’gl tey args I eae whe ga a ve ant. ge iYORIN ty eS a Phe + ie ee a ; 7 ie ws aoe Cae wilt Se Beanee Serger ft . te , 4 Yah “NV IN) vif ¥ ay Ni) 4 Ng Si BN dees | HEM eX. SN i Mt} Ws } Ai y ‘ v5 ¥ NOS oe / y | Ned rigs : ‘ ‘y tah . +e . ss |

rg NTE Re Whe ta | PR CAB Sou Noe Sea |

Uae St oer /. Ca ie 4 WAN Dv eon Ui i, Aaah ¥ | bY AN (MEMS ARDS Atel q

FIG. 11.East Eastwall wallgarden gardenfrescoes. f L loister, Malinalco. courtesy . 11. Lower cloister,Photo Malinalco. g of J. Adrian Fernandez.

SSSESS aS eS ee 2eeOey Oi ee I Ae Tacs arnt ee Ce Poce Bios Se Dk ees Ra 7, AA A RSS Na lnm cll i REOR nie a MAR i passes aa te pp cereale ks a mre = cian aaiiiailine —_ Sales anenoetanneetionneansroensceannetamesdiat : nee

= a “A : P peat Ns OF ad Stine. mG ,» an han *S. - oo yp is . Wake »

ree Gis ab See Shy: ef ee Ral a SD ais AS pee a Dae Satis 7: Oh Bi tale han tay Nie A) NE eat PEEE Sede POSEY SMR AN VOSaeeaeigtat SY aeaE od op OE i 48,SSSA SE agEAY [ ce La Re petra SS A aae ey peg ts a sea ER : aoe Pah Pi FATE ee aN Beh my on ike a e! os comet SAA

2: iefd a Se Ta. Se a | mee NR ly (ee | 4 iy ie Ray ie r i 2 at ~ Ps ie ; gh?» \ WAG, ’ ~~ ay Hy ore > sh » 7 ° ‘ ‘ t

COM 4 AV AEAWE yy ‘ IRN ‘ ie off ar SS Va We4, 3anf ER on | itRON LATA tvs 4 ia 7 ig ~ *| ve oy. ; oe} ee " : I 17 \ of a ~ yatte , pa). a : : J he T A oe x TD: ans F 8 i es i Ne fe an , VF Bs.Ea

FEAL SSN ge all t ‘3 Spel Ltt nes ri 4 if LA.

aie> a4 _1. ae Mess ayxOi .:A 7...A \ ;~ My 1 A esre= YON peas aeef) FG yk - ‘ aWis $s r pf F: i SsSait ae iS P th ¥ 41 a " 4 hp be \ NG; j VErgal i ee Pa “i é ‘\ ; iy a ay eas ON * j

i. bss eet ‘ is S34 } oo ; ee 2 q b z ” st ne Y ‘i ~ y > ‘ ae ,

a a bes ; ys oy * . ey a \ Se . ek ey Shi afl rH a s Wy ‘i ae YE - “yy sy §

ig you ae o: : » SS . Sela aA Fi =" SENS SAR Fi

TASS wT Nw cee ee gene tp f 7)Au A ds aN re Re} og aN PS PA 7% na ‘ , re oe oN ay Ni Ki Hy ‘Af SA : 3as*

iv A wig rNny Nog AgWan.) SHR ‘mea |b , ‘Sem x . aTe) ‘SkWELTY“) ; re ae : EisSta = ae hisee FIG. 12. Garden frescoes, lower cloister wall, East 3, Malinalco. Note monkey in cacao tree to the left of the Marian medallion, and rabbit and egret on the lower right. Photo courtesy of J. Adrian Fernandez.

r ‘ ™~ 2 fed ‘

32 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco

9 ae _ Oe Se ee id * am 2 ieee sae Oe eee ieee eens — a :

Ay Best Vetamee nS Ya Caieten Ar ee eae CONF AY rte SeON \ aa Ss. Ow eae te iy mae Saree | |) yy) ee ress ee as SK X a). Nee Prachi) ee el A

“2ee 'Leaaee re Tae i :PoeS lee edPacey? Pare + REN Sreblitace } ¥ by em ee Wi, aee) f, . 'G a i pt eS ia

aie WO Ge| he aire Nheio ORM ARSe/a Ro CT beds ES ROAD Ne EOE Wie DnaeOER, So OE W)A ‘UN © beeen Pe a eae eee ee ye aa hae A i ofGe ee” SE anh,

TP =ef*Oe ieeeee5"f 3. a1 p re :wh | ahh ,Se : ude2¥BS : ‘“et~~ | re- rraefaa? iy aAES hy ¥Udi Nak Vyae\ toe b, aby' -\Tee)he. ™* -,

RyigEe eric 7)4 aeSW HER, ed5 atThe cast, an Ee: Sid' hog y ~~ =>" be i “\E aol TE.Vpal FF it a © ee < — aa ROY ae: ee &; wa yea La it Oe Me Py 'oe3°te AF faa AN AUR ay CO.) | ens bi 0 we), 4 hh ee 1 as ak cadge ge | ee We . é on oh ; »™* (fe ’ : fy om + 9Eph fe

i A) ee :nePie lg hetin’ th, me. f a7hey i aAL a Bs fa *y7 *PA tae is aA NRS(ss ae albiars poe leowe el Ti if Ca :re é OD evita iwsm ti SEO a Ue PNM ’ma A. eee ATmilit ‘ ‘ime

Whigs | Pe ee die a ets oe SN 2 AE ING. | ; > OBR ee aie iw. UE!” Lislals we er YRE gEEe NO / ERP ttKES ie een RG WA po ECD a aBe Cane ey |BG f LaeBre thy Wrasse eyONG Be) “2 eS ie bapa AAI ie NBGtame Fr ING Pee NE Sleee oN

r See ari “dpe ee Ae PSR SE, MR, 3) SUR ear

f niger AMIE: CANN hate Nir 5 tl “Shi, ‘ME i, * Tart wei TS Hy Se

a7 "e tt aTA 4 4 dy i iRF US EINK 7 as \¥ee = eta ; SN vAedeen a =ee ocala EE OLS ule ay a NU dae A a Cyl BO ad ikIRR. / oN heAY leek eaeSitSUN pPOR eaters). ': | meen eee JE NF PE Be ban ff SAR WS IN, atid rail 7 PRN Ee Die te CN

Pe Sn (ore eee eer re ee SO Ee See na FIG. 13. Garden frescoes, lower cloister wall, East 4, Malinalco. Note the zapote (“apple’’) tree to the left of the Augustinian medallion. Photo courtesy of J. Adrian Fernandez.

eg a ——. pares! Aa oe at me as * he Dh . eed ees ve Co Na —- —— . = oe Ea * 2; > + Sree 4 Be Pee OF ee ‘ akoe eeWess Sin seakaeaisaim asians ; ae s I 5 = a or — Tiel ethane mes 4 cence ot: a emcee ET kage

— Sy See eT AS semaeeaniealie PRT SE STRAY oer ee feUS eetN eehere) eee a| 0Ce Ea GPS | mG OR bee ean Ay Urge YM Ae) Dar a \o i ats WE aeG; Te \OON wie tie Sng Wa yt» >! Pp BONO Oiil : Age ead ee ys ra Greet a & Se -Riu ee p Bee aL We Leap ; 6 mate micey ss Se y roea,or, pi iert ’ in, GW ianty s “4 =] ; illtySut? ‘qtAenerWy; etatyeeEn | jhe ll Shy. A ey: +f

, git am teh Uf26eeLEE Deeg) lieOe Akai Sinea!where). A eee Se SR ee ws

'7 a- aY) ‘ ~] vy.Fay te ; eeat BeZe ; aex4 oak: ’ Le et ‘a Ladyh wybody ve ne de , ad ot .&

+) 1, Lee Ne Me Blt Sree By

: a ~< = 1, dd” ae , th, 4 ra - “| My; Be ae | aie

ie = ZA nae seit 28! A pet / »CC } Sei. =m*ee, iy) A | Pe Ps eXJ Vs —ege ee SRS FS i, se S| Af ES WABig ~ LyONS i wa BSyOP RSy BLS EL heee A DeC8) RN,

Oy FE ie AE VA Pg Se ee OE oi

Cth ‘ fieXa weMd ri 4oat aNPD \ unds, / BY! ; ne ; i | ~+i At. wenaAA }nsa 14 ee Simo A £90: ERa SRT ell atone « apace naaee ve cpt3 or r uf, 4were ~ | te wale atten, FIG. 14. Garden frescoes, lower cloister wall, East 5, Malinalco. The tree to the right of the Augustinian medallion is interlaced with grape vines, harboring several birds; a rabbit at the lower right 1s eating grapes. Photo courtesy of J. Adrian Fernandez.

The Painters 33 _—. ’ ” bo agh aae DT 7 ee ~ a re he A Fink rig “;, > tt me ry, vo i 7 i* “AN - og we we oa Oe PF ; i. 7 ' Lo.

BEE). NES ON a \ 7 ee 2 + Pa TS Ih) NS SE ae oe ae Se) ae \ e * ee. Se A’ GQ eas J} ee Og hy as we rw i an b>. $ js fh 86|\- tle Ss

ae ee f so 4 ‘N Sao eA te 2%, ety ba ig Oe ) a piu Ae oe nat Ae BFS yi 6 Fie

vs ~ i a ae7 Pi . oS be. in” ~y by sl Ae. . ‘eveoe *| :Zhe A) -, ne =. nek eo’te' RTD wb Gi & SV i. en", Voge 7 -—— rt ye, ’ tae Nee Be Be py tee RS LIEN" 1 a BA (Oy Moin NES Ps Ata i?

j é Fi Py wy syae I joe LeeG Sa*'«Feit d ot| sas reg Q' ‘ .Se beda err ‘h aye. we.»eis F “v) wear ew UN ~*~ i tee-.2"i2 % id .Ae. at /etAie; _A.Sy

See ee Ba ho DRS SER ENS" Bee Tao rey Ee OF ded + fi | Fae«. ee 3(-~ee adh SR aye. 4 ESAS SENSAB ER ENeee SOR NREL ae Fa | Sep RD MEA | TE SON NAR 3yay etSi) /tABe Be ae rare | \ye aaCe A “3 Vics te al C #- ome SY Aa oe a hee “ty jLIM "PRY va ist 3ae toes At, 7 iVf alat aAyee Ss mf = “ye Rel jy MI, he at LO * Lhe. SERN AGS VAR CP PE \carrer + 224 ae a4;=a 9‘ “Yt fy -,j .Ai et yae4 nD hhteSef 4 7"< o aa : ‘ Ee a:ha t Pi ‘Zl EN.) ay. oF Poe} Bi -~ ™. mit = as he =, ‘ie AMAL AS J ib yi | pe e's a é a” ¥ } Ps i F ¥, Ms,AN a . 29“ ¥ok ‘ieNr df ;ee geen Ae ASF 7. ‘i =~a *>“i.SAA “ ; & ese “es — F aelePWn s \ : ‘ee ‘ey© _ mk A 2ET iP{ ee Re) EO

Ge a Ese (y 4g) Yh ae WA Yd oa, ee Say, | oe yee

= ED: \eNg aE Fe ae Ty aeSN a re eyIO 4 a op + nas ‘ Nate wtFS 5 ; =OR). Sa ‘ r A ote” 3s ee w AE 8 vf Gt ry ms ef 4 ae Pa \o te bas . ad S.8. a

F=rgye aN i oF aS ii;aecs“ue GORD kee ON ayee ~ 2a eo. Pte Btoeee ie iaue ie ORT Ny eee, ihe ae? & Ka.PSE LO AS 250ae POS PO Fs ig! oeNS | ey) OM ee 3 s gs eRe iv Lh s.> a AG i Vf 4 Bex 2 Thea ax e t 3% Mt = 7 e\ — 4 co f AS

“gig *S, P 4A “ 1OY oy afili; ”GIN ef. / : ha : ‘e Js Vs is et ¥ ae *" be et 3ao CAger —_— aF :tase Pee BNE re Ni: —thle ape of wre een: eee ee Ay yee Bak? \ a I a ‘oa pS ga “a Lilian Mba ght fPY asp Meh RS A tie\ ease §eek: ep mee 4 whe M ;SOROS eyMa A “aii 1 ~ems ieae4haga >A SAR! Nis Sees hit LG." aN |4SON BDff4 a» °° ie eo. 6) 5 MIS nt e wy BP ay. ¥ f 4 V7 Pig sh i “aan NAN %, i. ‘’ * ’

NR OPEB ORs | SM ay I NOON EE CO FIG. 1§. Garden frescoes, lower cloister wall, North 2 and 3. Malinalco. Note the large acanthus plant, birds, and cross above the confessional arch on the right.

: fe ee gtd RO eZ and set within the dense vegetation are three eceh fi EE Neel R NOS clesiastical medallions that enclose the sacred eO)~ SkaeI Gene? Christ, Mary Queen we ge oedie : ie) ‘P Py monograms am py"? , ty cat. NI ay 20(a" Fie es ofWA: Heaven, theofJAugustinian emblem (figs. 5 wet. , etPS add Ay *, and Jf ed aJesus .A * ay -}as re 4

oe NS) Ee i et Fees Yee ies me NS Ee ony LS eA A ars ag

i. aeS“\Sy: abaicy a fe The garden frescoes run the width as well ade NG i eae e, Ae ae Le BN Th Ps ; = ;

ft qliteeie r, |) BM i bity Lt. , tectural members; few modifications are made Puy! ve : NENG Lfpp bib . for the arched doorways, corner breaks, and

. ieee a eee BSS 4 aes a wall apertures. Instead, the murals are overlaid . ae me AN \\ oe Thee # on all available stuccoed surfaces like a deco-

i Fy, wv .t rel ee rt

rs fay PT oP me rative veneer. Above taiaeAvi Y do ‘°ant ' 7ieeeake : - barrel \ ‘ ; :vaulting 7 1¢the .is~corridors ; : of the cloisSe (nh ey AABE ter, the compartmentalized FIG. 16, Garden frescoes, lower cloister wall, South 5. Malinalco.

by transverse ribs that divide the vault into three rectangular bays (fig. 17). Vault frescoes

34. The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco

AE SS Wan poe SS Se) a ee ead 4= \A, ": ‘en haann . ‘ Lai' ud eR;% Rid Ya i _ c -=ee e oe ia gobs, |~+ 2 i.ip; 9gone . PrasS, BB

a ——— Ss a YY 2 yee os

6 oe ee i ne ==.) == OV eeoP SSSS eSee(6f ee Oegta nt fee ee ae - = SS SS eee, ee ee % TESTS... a ca te

LE, Whe SOP ee ee Sw FS| pL a” am a Pe ,Figs OS = ao ————— Se teai-5

F1G. 17. Vault murals, lower cloister, East 3. Malinalco.

are located in these bays and in the corner groin cloister walls will follow a similar system, divaults. Although repeating the vegetative theme — vided into sections that conform to the vault of the wall murals, the floral designs found in divisions overhead and that are numbered clockthe vaults are quite distinct in their style and — wise from 1 to § (fig. 18). Following this syscoloration. The quantity and liveliness of de- — tem, the location of a fresco section or detail sign in the murals succeed in animating what is — found on the west cloister wall and in section $5 otherwise a very ponderous and severe claustral —— will be abbreviated as wall W-s.

a en EUROPEAN ANDSTYLES NATIVE Rete PAINTING

space.

ecause of their inherently nontectonic nature, the murals have been subdivided into sec-

tions in this study (fig. 18). References to a spe- In order to factor out native and European cific motif, plant, or animal will be designated characteristics in the frescoes, a stylistic analysis according to its location, with both the cardinal is an important first step and will follow Donald direction and the number of the section used as_ — Robertson’s (1959) basic criteria for examining

coordinates. In the diagram, the lateral sections early colonial pictorial manuscripts from cenor bays in the barrel vaults are numbered clock- tral Mexico. In Robertson’s definition of ‘‘nawise from 1 to 3 and the directional placement __ tive style” (1959:15—23, 59-67), the forms are is given as north (N), south (S), east (E), or — distributed evenly over a two-dimensional field west (W). For example, a fresco, or any detail in a manner labeled “‘scattered-attribute” space. therein, located in the second bay of the north- — The handling of line and color in the native style ern vaults will be referred to as located in vault _is similarly without a three-dimensional quality.

N-2. Frescoes in corner vaults will be desig- The unvarying native “frame line’’ encloses and nated directionally: vault NE, vault NW, vault — defines flat areas of color, applied within shapes SE, or vault SW. References to frescoes on the as solid washes. The treatment of human, archi-

The Painters 35

E Wall Frescoes wa B= = = yw The lower cloister murals will be analyzed

N- vault separately from those on the vaults, as they re-

™ ™~ ws fsa flect a different artistic background and level of professional training. Consideration will be

N43 ce S-2 given to the composition, line, color and shading, and the degree of naturalism and/or styl-

evident in wall the murals forms.were Thesuccessful artists reNNS NeSoeization ss sponsible for the in creating an impression of limited space with vol-

wall ne Sa umetric forms yet careful to preserve the unity of the walls’ pictorial field (figs. 12-14). Com-

NA positional units are carefully positioned to crewp “ ate fluid, curvilinear patterns. Few background spaces in the composition are left unfilled, in

we we ws Wee wwe true horror vacui. The artists’ interest in avoiding

Ww blank areas encouraged the use of flowers and,

FIG. 18. Reference system for sections of wall and occasionally, birds as decorative filler elements

vault frescoes, lower cloister, Malinalco. that float rather than being logically situated.

Fillers include flowers that are unattached to a |

vine or branch and animals that are not given a tectural, and geographical forms are based ona _ perch or groundline (fig. 22). In spite of the conconceptual rather than a visual portrayal of the cern for decorative surface patterning, however, world. Figural and animal representations, for _a plausible if shallow depth is achieved. This ilexample, are rendered as composites of stylized —_ lusion of three-dimensionality is suggested by parts depicted in profile or in juxtaposed frontal the representation of the forms themselves as and profile views (fig. 19). Size, location, and volumetric by using the techniques of overlapposture of preconquest forms indicate theirim- _ ping, shading, and foreshortening.

portance to the narrative, rather than respond- The artists at Malinalco did not hesitate to ing to the requirements of illusionistic space. overlap forms, thus bisecting some objects and The stylistic guidelines that distinguish between blocking others from being seen in their enthe native and European-derived components _ tirety. In the murals, a dense network of vines can be applied to mural painting from the same —_ and _ branches twist and crisscross, one behind

period. Sections of two central Mexican manu- the other. Leaves and tendrils curl behind the scripts, the Codex Borbonicus and the Codex Ma- __ trunk of a tree and emerge from the other side gliabechiano, willbe compared withthe Malinalco _— (fig. 16). Animals are similarly superimposed

murals as these codices share many of the na- or partially hidden behind vegetation, as is the tive style traits outlined by Robertson, although = duck in the upper right portion of figure 36. with a greater degree of naturalism and some A serpent is coiled twice around a tree trunk, deviance in pictorial conventions.! The Aztec a stag is only partially visible behind a tree artist’s propensity for realism (Boone 1982:158— _ (fig. 97), a monkey has one leg over and one leg

166) is evident when comparing, for example, | under a branch (fig. 95), and the talons of birds the stylized treatment of a rabbit in the Codex grip their branch pedestals (figs. 85, 101, 107). Nuttall (fig. 20) with rabbits depicted in the Co- —- The overlapping of forms gives the appearance

dex Borbonicus (fig. 21). of spatial freedom, convincing enough that the

36 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco

Oe « va Yr KAN

HULA

WwW A SS B ZW r1G. 19. A, owl. From Codex Borbonicus 1974: FIG. 20. Rabbit in Mixtec pictorial manuscript. fol. 9; B, parrot. From Codex Borbonicus 1974: From Codex Nuttall 1975: fol. 22. fol. 9.

animals appear to interact naturally with their side (figs. 86 and 89). Light, therefore, takes

environment. on both decorative and spatial functions. These The technique of shading forms to give them kinds of inconsistencies suggest that the Maliplasticity and thereby suggest space was also fa- _nalco artists either were not aware of the theomiliar to the Malinalco artists. In the wall fres- _ retical basis for using the pictorial technique of coes, animals and plants are either silhouctted = modeling with light and shade or that these conagainst the uniformly black background or they _ siderations were not of primary concern to them.

are clearly outlined in black. Within these out- Space within the murals is additionally imlines, animal forms are contoured and high- plied by the poses of the animals. Birds, rablighted (figs. 92 and 9s). The artist has indicated bits, and monkeys are depicted as not only the shaded zones with grisaille shades of black, occupying a spatial niche but, because of the ranging from charcoal to pale grey. The brush- _ postures they assume, as being capable of move-

work in these sensitive gradations is fused ment within the limited area created pictorially. rather than being applied as separate strokes or | Animals are shown as moving from a back to a hatching. The versatility of the artist’s brush is _ profile view (fig. 78), turning from a profile to displayed in the scumbling technique used to a frontal view (fig. 104), twisting from one side convey the texture and mottling on the thick — to another (figs. 97 and 100) and even descendcoats of the two foxlike creatures (fig. 96). Tree ing head first (fig. 27). Foreshortening is very trunks are rendered as cylindrical (figs. 14 and occasionally attempted. The knee and shoulder y7), and the surfaces of leaves are both convex of one of the monkeys is painted as if projecting

and concave (fig. 74). toward the onlooker (fig. 95). Nevertheless, this There is little interest, however, in maintain- tentative effort as well as the awkward posture ing a single light source in the murals and, thus, | assumed by the large tree opossum (fig. 92) into uniformly illuminate the garden scene. Nor dicate that the artist was not fully conversant are the effects of light always consistent even — with techniques of perspective. within one object. For example, shaded areas None of the techniques used in the Malinalco

are found on the inner vein of one leaf and on murals to create the illusion of space would the outer edge of the adjacent leaf or on one side — have been familiar to an Indian artist prior to

of the lower portion of trunk and on the oppo- contact. In the preconquest painting style of site side immediately above (fig. 69). Shaded central Mexico all objects are reduced to recogand linear, nonmodeled forms coexist side by —nizable but highly stylized shapes, as evident

\ ee ;

The Painters 37

“=aae = . cc 29 .

(6 100). Thick hatchmarks reproduce the impresLOS = Fs= sion of an animal’s = —_ —_— = SS soft —_fur- (figs. 7 ‘ 93 and 96)

ae 2 = S= in contrast with the consistently even, parallel Laneege SS {A marks that convey the message of “fur” in © 1h Aztec-style painting (figs. 21 and 23). Like the co : handling of paint toofcreate the modeled effects light and shade, the line quality attests to the

A ee work of muralists who are confident with the B fresco medium and conversant with European

: pasintechniques. FIG. 21.esRabbits central Mexican pictorial saeof line : and It is apparent from their handling manuscripts. A, from Codex Borbonicus 1974:wished fol. to cre| shading that the Malinalco artists 17; B, from Codex Magliabechiano 1983: fol. t2r. ate a scene partially based on perceptual reality,

one that approximated the visual effects observable in nature. This aim is further substantiated

in the plant and animal forms in the codices — in the degree of naturalistic anatomical detail Borbonicus and Magliabechiano (figs. 21, 23, given the many species inhabiting the garden 24). Objects are depicted as flat patterns with- frescoes. For the most part, each animal in out shading and are kept distinctly isolated one the frescoes is a distinct species, recognizable from the other. The insistence on clarity and

legibility Aztec; work that|» forms : ‘ SeinSie : eenecessitated > S 4 toy oeeae ee. |

“a . ° oa - . S y S. _ . ; . ;

maintain their integrity, with all parts clearly gor Pagal aE? VE ‘a

visible. Another variance with the precontact were. iY y £4 eS * ant painting tradition is the quality of the painted i» ae | Ao SR ee line found in the Malinalco: wall murals. Gee, |A% \ Se(aFav. he Wt e279 ikeWith 7Gm. Ses —BiAloe deft handling of brush, the muralists varied Mt Age 4 a fio” he pressure he brusl ke and, tl he CO Is Wx aE fj SAL.\\

:6) | .lled5this:variation V2 in; linear . i]elements \eS ; 7. f . a) l roe, BREN sa RDS Be OA J DE

the pressure on the brushstroke and, thus, the SA Ta i | we 4 width and intensity of the line. Robertson (1959: xy iy Be PN A Ath. NN) + WG

16) has variation linear elements a\ [34% \ OS “ a@ contour opposed to the#more 7a cap me&SS

. “ ‘ ec zs 9 ING Mf om 3 ut (2 Ly Tet = EN > »

teristic preconquest Mexican “frame line” of SEA BN ees f rags “FLY ene,

uniform width. A contour en- ing ty “ily. 2 ; : cei - Ben -line . oSnot aeonly ~~ Bad fh 2k / aee/> wee ~ + ae

aSCad Se fo webigPA : : ; Pa _- Ve ge ~ 2 s ad *

closes shapes but is also capable of expressing ‘(A 2eRR Seige) = 7. 24,

various parameters, volume being one of the ae ee ( Se |S \ Ak : most In the Malinalco murals, Aegaybele: ke li fimportant. line is dulated fi he d OR CLA the WkefSS fh DearS Re ak quality of line is modulated from heavy an lee ESS os a ee a fhe

: . . . . ; — ti ' . oo ' A a vin’ “*, “lu

thick to delicate and wispy, giving curvature to = "“s Ret Se =i PI PPO Lk. ‘e)

objects, as in the rendering leaves Sis A) eT. ie 2 ; ‘of>. Te and Jt 4fruit a ip } i?4 Wi ; ”aoe ale: steal oe : (figs. 74 and 88). The fluctuating line used to wh ¥. 5) be aN ee represent the veining on the grape leaves and the Wyre a oe eG *} wd curved reflections of light on each of the grapes «yy Bs ES oe tee re Prive emphasize their bent and surfaces. KY Ny ay ae tae LS ma te , length and intensity. European material was asae ce Se i im similated by the artists with varying degrees of | she yr > a) ee comprehension and competency. The most dra~ 5 Z. é4 jan =o y “- 3 ee iS re. matic evidence of the discrete native and Span-

a rt . ae eo. ea). A ish traditions can be found in the stylistic break = a te oe. aaa nN mt = \! % x between the wall and vault frescoes. The com-

sh 4 ed: «wie aa: eo parison between the two areas reveals the wall “ae, ~ a , We. an | Sea alan Cis frescoes to be more Europeanized, as contrasted

ae > ¥ eis: ae b 5 with the treatment and disposition of the motifs Ad RRS the ; age Hehe in the vault paintings. The vault painters appear

fi9i.. iN a to have only cursory exposure towell Euee .~i ropean art,received although they were technically

FIG. 25. Rabbit eating a pomegranate, garden Versed in nauive PAMIGimg) Sbyscs: frescoes, lower cloister wall, North 5, Malinalco.

THE ARTISTIC TE Ahan DEE EL AC ECE. ©C

juxtaposed on the same wall in the cloister fres-

coes. There are multiple representations of the The gradients of skill and mastery of the rabbit in the murals, each with slightly different | new iconography suggest a hierarchy within the

features (paws, heads, tails), that allow us to group of artists active at Malinalco, with one or detect several hands. All but one of the five rab- several artists qualified to paint according to bits are rendered according to European can- — the European conventions placed in charge of ons (figs. 36 and 98). The exception is painted assistants or apprentices. At Malinalco the more within a floral setting on wall N-s, hovering in thoroughly trained painters were given the remidair and eating an equally buoyant pome- sponsibility of the wall murals, with apprentices granate (fig. 25). In its proportions, crouching relegated to secondary areas, details in the wall profile, and taut outline, the north-wall rabbit 1s frescoes and the vault paintings. The exact numcomparable to the rabbit “in the moon” in Ber- _ ber of artists who made up the Malinalco team nardino de Sahagun’s Florentine Codex (1979, of muralists can be reconstructed from a careful 7: fol.2r). However, the native-style Malinalco comparison of the wall and vault sections. rabbit is even closer to preconquest render- The eastern and southern walls appear to have ings in its circular staring eye and blunt nose been executed by one hand, hereafter called Art(fig. 21). A similar juxtaposition of two artistic ist A. Artist A was intensely exposed to Renaistraditions occurs behind the pool of water and sance tenets; he was equally the most inventive the egret in the foliage of the water lily plant and observant member of the team. Artist A 3 (fig. 36). Below and to the left of the pool, a drew on the local fauna and flora for inspiration, second water lily flower is represented as afron- using the greatest number and variety of such tal image, petals open and clearly defined. The — animals as monkeys, deer, lizards, hummingflower’s frontality, flattened shape with outlined birds, falcons, and the flacuache (figs. 12, 13, silhouette, and oversized proportions relative to 14, 16). He incorporated his garden motifs the birds and pond are elements more closely into a readable scheme with the expert shading associated with native than with European traits and complex interweaving of compositional ele-

in this context. ments that endow the eastern and southern walls

| ) The Painters 41 with a persuasive sense of life. Because of his ““spaceless’’ than either the eastern or southern facility with European methods of illusionism — walls. The northern and western walls may have and his bold incorporation of both native and been apportioned to a single individual just as

imported imagery, Artist A may have been the eastern and southern walls formed a unit. given command of the entire team of muralists. Unfortunately, this is impossible to appraise, as By comparison, the painter of the north wall, the west wall has suffered such damage that it is Artist B, was more conservative in his choice of | almost illegible. While technically highly qualisubject matter and in his composition. Artist B fied, Artist B may not have held the same status derived his floral motifs from secondary, Euro- —_as Artist A. Although this professional distincpean sources, depicting them with less consid- tion is not possible to prove, Artist B’s consereration for their botanical accuracy (figs. 1§ and —__-vative choice of subject matter and greater ti22). From the animal world, birds are used al- —_ midity in his use of Renaissance spatial elements most exclusively on the northern wall. The re- —_ indicate that he was neither as confident in his

petitive rendering of certain floral and faunal = own skills nor given as much leeway in his images produces a less imaginative final result. choice of imagery as Artist A. Regardless of In keeping with the artist’s preference for copy- _ their ranking, however, both artists had contact ing decorative elements from models of orna- with, if they did not attend, an art center or mental design rather than working from nature, school with a European curriculum. the northern wall is also more compressed and Stylistic differences within the vault murals

ee Se ee!Te} eee} PS ae eS aa , eteSee ee +Sr: ot SP att eat. 4 Sei YxSAN =P yee Sez A Ree eee 7 ie JR f i eA an f\" AS se t peed Pen Fs ASSN 4 ‘ ~ ‘> ae a 'e + . 7 ap: ey) s ‘eS ty 5 i - sa Gai — y Jt)ate iS ,NATE = ary ‘Sutt dalaaey se an es | iyep ( Ay >' he) NESS {sre> ee,SA SA.yt -* ary Wier et ‘ieee te OS ae - =4 5Soe ~*~, ,ng) PmS .FSS isLecce eS Aiw ‘a ,He afi. ;Bie Jiit. =LS oe \(ee cAA f Mh, >*ahy . rt aN—# *A Sy. -AG § -f Dig I-19" .i. : .>— ll4 x‘ee ‘“i~—>. :ee bh. aYY 2B® - MH, _— P> a Oy © ay ThA ca oa ; yy \ee, *> Sa . a5: » iy ! re “.Se te eS 5 N a cei NR ‘tes eee] > = af Seste ace Fee DSR SP i et WIZ Gg Ha Phe BS ye =!; aee * NI eepeRe) * oy RSE AO aI. I“Te eeNy ‘ of, ~Ss: had .bck a¥4 om eed| ane ‘ XS UrFRR PR eA, &’ Baie Tis eS tents as i ae: Sd SS ae : ngWA & ae ON ¢ , ™ aLAIR ph ne 2 By “ *' ‘ Sco {Be eeave Fr EI y alae 7 4 : ate x POS Ly eae

Me) NN ee ae) SAO).

SEAS gies ot Se RO

OD iNee he ant MGBe) Sart. Lae ote¢Roe | es a ~.sant “Saiersee i= et a ate ht ieR eryaay 1 oe \ ws \ . —_ . ¢ = ; = _ ard , a) a ; f Ne & x 7 t _ io”eeoe

- “pal Pa Hn WY A ry) =Ba _ : Pe 4 iy PRO (4 he ae) » 4ar . afStel La aeA ~ ae 5 Tsi b| \4 sce AA aepe}; 3)

wal ak PONene wl eae EA Aecaoye “ae DLT Ss Ee eb ele bpRR Fs! PO nf ar ey aM re Ses Ee ge ee ONE ae *. a . 7 22 re . nis . Hee ~~" } *

ia . ‘wae 4>: , heRe) - * ~ de. : *.ee m,\ce Vy. yy 3 . : ‘TN Pa ‘ =Nese 4 r@) AxI] 2aPag, Pe j cs Sa Ht) il. & Oea 5>t > _: -i 4“ ,7. Sas, ~ ee=aawo "iVIS OS 4a-faala =eea, ;ie. ae e M. * , ~ o5 4* CN =. >+ Pg mek: TT ras} i, * ss a ; i +. . J } oo a x N “= wr e 7J Jr y 4 ™a> ey SE reeaie PN i 2 : saarhAR ) ee : xe y4 ‘ e4 oe ita ft- Pa Fo V2, >eeeLee ee’¥: = ‘ie . -rsoN ~. Pay 1$Ae. ee ep: ‘¢ f* fofee ANN SA ea YS pa Cn= Git. SEA! *s : % $ . ™ FIG. 30. Detail of song scroll in illustration of tonalpohualli celebration. From Codex Borbonicus 1974: fol. 4.

The Painters 49 symbols found within one of the song scrolls tion known in Nahuatl as an ilhuitl (fig. 28). The

(fig. 28). All of the motifs are rendered with ilhuitl is formed by two parallel but inverted the geometric abstraction characteristic of pre- hooks placed on a diagonal; it signifies, in NaHispanic Mexican pictorials. Although the tri- —_huatl, “‘day,”’ “ceremonial day,” or “‘sun’s orb”

lobed symbols appear singly in the murals, they (Molina 1977:37v). These three symbols toalso take on the appearance of winged insects —_ gether’may have astronomical significance; howand bees (fig. 118), as elaborated in chapter 6. ever, the ilhuitl glyph was additionally linked to Speech scrolls appear in many colonial mur- _ pre-Hispanic scribes."

als, often as S-shaped scrolls emerging from the The ilhuitl symbol is also found on the same mouths of figures or animals. As such, they folio of the Codex Borbonicus illustrating the resemble the comma-shaped scrolls used by — fourth week of the ceremonial calendar menpreconquest painters and sculptors to indicate tioned above. The symbol is repeated in each of speech, as in several folios of Codex Borbonicus. the compartments of the drummer’s song scroll They are also related to phylacteries or ribbons _ (fig. 30). Whoever was born under the sign of inscribed with words or quotations in medieval the fourth-week period was augured to become European art and, therefore, would have beena _a “singer, a bearer of joy . . . an artisan’ (Sahadevice familiar to the friars. The flanges or ap- guin 1950-1982, 4:23). The ilhuitl glyph, then, pendages on the Malinalco scrolls, however, in- _is associated with the pre-Hispanic profession of dicate song rather than speech. This distinction — singer as well as with the class of artisans and is readily apparent in the illustration for the painters. In fact, the ilhuitl symbol is used spefourth week of the Codex Borbonicus calendrical cifically to indicate the profession of tlacuilo in , section, in which a drummer is singing and faces several instances. In Codex Mendoza (fig. 31) the Aztec coyote deity, Huehuecoyotl (fig. 29). and in Codex Telleriano-Remensis (1964: fol. 30),

The drummer’s incantation is represented by a the ilhuitl is inscribed in the block on which scroll surmounted by a stylized flower. Like the a _tlacuilo is writing. Further, in Codex ToltecaMalinalco fresco scrolls, the Borbonicus song = Chichimeca (Kirchhoff 1976: fol. $4) a scroll very scroll is divided into eight sections, each parti- — similar to the one depicted in the Malinalco tioned by one or two transverse strips (fig. 30). frescoes contains ilhuitl symbols as a toponym

These evenly spaced divisions are interesting in for the place Tlacuilotecatl or “‘place of the view of the preoccupation with metric regu- painter.” In the Malinalco frescoes we may have larity and with the eight paired-verse sequence _ the first known instance of a ftlacuilo-artisan leav-

in Nahuatl poetry.’ As if to confirm their ties to |

poetry as song text, the majority of the song rn tor scrolls in the Malinalco vault paintings have fF | eight divisions (figs. 67 and 83). A few scrolls

in the murals are represented with only seven sy compartments (fig. 80), an aberrant form that YY ”

Th lest; a: @X

also appears in Nahuatl poetry. Age ree celestial symbols found within one of Gi with identity the the Malinalco painters. i aN thesethe song scrollsof form most telling link JAGN

These symbols appear in three of the eight NA? compartments of a scroll behind one of the -_

winged insects depicted in vault S-2 (plate 6). FIG. 31. Tlacuilo or painter-scribe (“Pintor’) with The symbols are clearly drawn and depict a writing block and ilhuit! symbol. From Codex shell, an eight-petaled flower, and a configura- Mendoza 1964: fol. 70.

50 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco ing a sign of his profession—some fifty years dieta (1945, 4:54) does not specify whether the

after the conquest. art students were aristocratic but simply states that those in attendance were “Indians.”’ Tor-

TRAINING OF NATIVE ARTISTS quemada (1975, 5:316) more specifically calls the art pupils mozos grandecillos or half-grown

Prior to the conquest, children of the govern- youths. Among the students were young men ing and religious elite entered the calmecac, the | who brought with them the crafts taught by pre-Hispanic school located in or near each dis- their ‘‘fathers’”” (Mendieta 1945, 3:59). The use trict’s main temple. In the calmecac they fol- | of the word “‘father’’ in colonial documents 1s lowed a rigorous curriculum that included his- | ambiguous and may have had a double implicatory, astrology, and religion as well as the tools tion. In the most literal sense of biological faof painting needed to preserve this knowledge. ther, some students in the monastery schools In the featherworking district of Tenochtitlan, may have been sons of tlacuilogue, singled out to children of the upper strata were placed under __ receive special training because of the skills and the priests for instruction and the acquisition status of their paternal inheritance. Or the refof artisanship (foltecayotl; Sahagin 1950-1982, | erence may have been to the calmecac’s priest9:88). Following this pattern of the temple _ teachers, or “spiritual fathers,” who supervised school, children of the noble class were first | every aspect of the elite education from as early singled out by the friars to receive a Spanish an age as five years (Reyes-Valerio 1989: 51-53). education. Although one of the earliest goals | We can be certain that the first-generation friars of the evangelistic program was to reeducate had for pupils former students from the calmecac these future leaders, entrance into the conven- _—s program.

tual schools was soon made available to able A second Franciscan school, the College of

young male adults of all classes.!! the Holy Cross (Colegio de Santa Cruz), opened The Monastic Art Schools and Urban Guilds at Santiago Tat elolco in 1530. Its curriculum

as a school of higher learning offered the seven

The best documented centers for training liberal arts and within a few years also added the large cadre of native artisans were located courses in theology, medicine, painting, and in monastic schools established primarily by | music. These two Franciscan schools, San José the Franciscans and Augustinians. The famous de los Naturales and Santa Cruz in Tlatelolco, Franciscan trade school in Mexico City was viedas centers for teaching the oficios, or manual held in the atrium of the chapel of San José de —_ arts, recognized as critical for rapid integration

los Naturales, adjacent to the monastery of of the native into the colonial economy. There San Francisco. Functioning as early as 1526, it | must have been productive interchange between was here that the Flemish lay brother Pedro de _ the two as well. We know that the well-known Gante “taught all the arts,” from embroidery — teacher and designer fray Diego Valadés was an and jewelry-making to painting and sculpture _—_ assistant to fray Pedro de Gante at San José and (Valadés, in Palomera 1963:58). The exclusivity also served as a faculty member at Tlatelolco. of student selection from the upper classes may — Both institutions were recognized as painting have been confined to the early stages of the — schools in an official cedula of 1552, but Viceroy mendicant program and to their liberal arts pro- = Velasco designated San José de los Naturales as

grams rather than their schools of arts and the primary institution, where native painters crafts. At San José de los Naturales, the conven-_ _—_—- were to be examined to ensure that their images tual school that taught “‘reading and writing” to —- were not “injurious to God”’ (in Maza 1972: 36).

the young elite was quite separate from the cen- _It was from these schools that a new generation ter for the teaching of “‘arts and crafts.” Men- _— of native and mestizo artists emerged. Gradu-

The Painters $1 ates of Tlatelolco returned to their provincial | Spanish workshops employed natives as aphometowns in order to help teach in outlying prentices on a three-week rotational basis as monastery schools (Kobayashi 1974: 363). part of their tribute obligations and also more The Augustinians likewise established a col- = permanently.'2 Although Escobar (1970: 109lege of higher learning and a seminary, the Co- —110) mentions both options for the proper legio del Nombre de Jésus, at their mother house schooling of craftsmen, he stresses that paintin Mexico City. There is no record of the Au- ers, unlike stone masons, were trained in Mexgustinian college having included an art school, ico City, where he claims they were equal to the or at least one that attained the respect accorded Europeans in skill. Motolinia (1950:241) conthe Franciscan schools. The Franciscans claimed firms the concentration of talent and the high

that San José de los Naturales was the center caliber of painting instruction in the capital, where “images and paintings for churches in stating that “especially fine are the painters in all the land were made” (Mendieta 1945, 4:54). Mexico City.” The bishop of Michoacan, Don However, in the competitive spirit that marked — Vasco de Quiroga, wrote to thank the Augus-

much of mendicant history in Mexico, this tinian fray Alonso de la Veracruz for having boast was challenged by the Augustinians. They — sent him “Indian painters from Mexico City [emsought the same genetrix role for their Michoa- __ phasis mine] who could paint ‘de romano’”’ (in

can monastery of Tiripetio as the “workshop MacGregor 1955:35). for the entire province” (Escobar 1970:75). For the Augustinians in Malinalco, therefore, Founded in 1540, Tiripetio was touted as the two alternatives existed. Since a monastery with Athens of the Augustinian order, promoting the —_a reputation such as Tiripetio in Michoacan was

growth of other branches of learning as faraway not accessible, the friars could either import as Puebla, Acolman, and Actopan (Basalenque teachers (native and nonnative) from Mexico 1963 :68). On a localized level, the Augustinians City or send their more adept students into also fostered the teaching of different trades. the capital to learn their crafts, particularly As part of their program of living en policia, or painting. Cultural interchange between Maliin a “civilized manner,” many crafts, includ- nalco and Mexico City was already in place. ing painting, were introduced in almost every |The convents of both Malinalco and Ocuilan

monastery. had been chosen as locations for altarpieces exeDepending on their needs, the Augustinians — cuted by Sim6n Pereyns, a major European art-

used two primary methods to train their stu- ist working in Mexico City. dents. The first was to invite skilled artisans The friars’ reliance on the schools in Mexico from the city schools or larger monastic pro- _—- City indicates that they recognized their own grams out to the more isolated monasteries. amateur status. Documentation does not clarify

Even at the Augustinians’ famed Michoacan for us just how much, if any, artistic educaart school of Tiripetio, Spanish tradesmen were tion the mendicants brought with them from brought in from “outside,” probably Mexico Europe. Most friar-architects assimilated what City, to instruct the native pupils (Basalenque — they could from European craftsmen already in 1963:60). Grijalva (1924:223), on the other Mexico and received “on the job” training. One hand, states that for those indispensable crafts Franciscan architect, fray Martin de Valencia, is that could not be taught in the villages, the friars recorded as having designed several buildings in sent certain natives into Mexico City and “‘put = Spain before he emigrated (Kubler 1948, 1: 116). them under masters.” Although a monastic set- — Likewise, only one friar, Andrés de Mata, was

ting was preferred for the new converts to reportedly a painter in Italy (Gerlero 1976:17). avoid contaminating contact with secular Euro- As founder and prior, Mata is credited with peans, urban artisans were likewise utilized. the construction of the Augustinian houses of

$2 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco Actopan and Ixmiquilpan, Hidalgo, and it is this connection, we should keep in mind that probable that Mata also directed (and helped the college at Tlatelolco had already established execute?) the murals in those two monaster- itself as a center for medical research with the ies (Pierce 1987:158). At the very least, if not — production in 1552 of the Libellus, or Herbal, of

trained professionally, many of the European Martin de la Cruz. The floral illustrations in friars were sensitive to the arts of their home- the Cruz herbal are by a native hand (Cruz land. Basalenque (1963:149) describes the land- 1964:6-7, 316-317). Subsequently, Bernardino scape around Charo, Michoacan, as recreating de Sahagun’s volume on natural history was first those ‘Flemish countrysides painted ina framed conceived at the monastery of Tlatelolco as part canvas.” We can conclude that the majority of — of his multivolume Historia general de las cosas de

friars who directed the sculpture and paint- | Nueva Esparia, an encyclopedic record of life in ing programs in the monasteries were autodi- | Aztec Mexico. The seven native doctors used as dacts who benefited from the vast native talent informants and the necessary scribes and artists

available. needed to transcribe the data were already at Painting sources, primarily devotional graph- —- Tlatelolco in the 1560s (Lopez Austin 1974:210—

ics, illustrated Bibles, and pattern books, dis- 211). After the prohibition imposed on Sahacussed in the next chapter, were carried from — gtin’s work from 1571 to 1575, his treatise on place to place by intinerant master craftsmen. natural history became Book XI of the second The striking parallels between the facade de- bilingual edition of the General History, now signs of Acolman, Mexico, and Yuriria, Mi- known as the Florentine Codex.' choacdn, point to shared designs carried by trav- We can safely presume the garden frescoes eling masons. Yet the degree to which entire — were begun shortly after 1571, when the cloister crews of workmen traveled from one site to —_- vaulting at Malinalco was almost completed, as another is debatable. We have documentation stated in fray de Tapia’s letter (Garcia Icazbalceta that small groups of artists working on altar- —-1904:151). The inspiration for the murals’ garpieces were sent from Tlatelolco to Xochimilco, den subject may have also come at this time, Michoac4n, and as far distant as Oaxaca (Reyes- _— after a research visit by the Spanish naturalist Valerio 1978:305). Whereas specialized training, Dr. Francisco Hernandez. Hernandez, Philip II's tools, and materials were required for altar- = ranking physician (protomédico) and primary in-

pieces, the techniques of stone masonry and vestigator, arrived in Mexico in February of fresco painting were indigenous. Consequently, 1$71 to begin his six-year scientific mission." local teams of craftsmen could have been util- —-— His royal assignment was to survey the plants,

ized for these art forms if provided with the animals, birds, and minerals of New Spain with necessary guidance in thematic programs and —_ an emphasis on their medicinal or curative uses.

designs. From Mexico City Hernandez traveled to the The “Sahagin Connection” provinces accompanied by a large entourage

that consisted of native doctors, translators, and

Given Malinalco’s proximity to the capital at least three native painters. His initial trips and the ready pool of local talent, one or two were to the state of Morelos, where he head“master” painters from Mexico City could quartered at Cuernavaca and made exploratory have trained the Malinalco muralists either in —_ excursions to Ocuilan and Malinalco. Hernanthe capital or in situ. It will be argued that there — dez, wherever possible, took residence in monexisted ties between the artists in Malinalco and _asteries while carrying out his field work. By those scribe-painters working in the Royal Col- —-1576 Hernandez had sent to Philip II sixteen illege of the Holy Cross at Santiago Tlatelolco. lustrated volumes that comprised the results of

In order to erect a chronological framework for his comprehensive research.

The Painters $3 U sacalscockiff or epitcion Toa nex tly, , Tlatelolco artists ostensibly would have been

| Ta nene “s free to offer assistance, either direct or indirect, | =W | \y~ "FP, to the muralists at Malinalco. | le | y Having established a compatible chronologi-

| ‘e) 1Q °°, om [iN cal framework, we can also draw parallels be| such stature, accompanied by his books and . OS staff, may well have stimulated the painting of ‘oly \ Ns Ay

the garden frescoes as a monumental herbal on . gee Cy IPS n the new but still blank walls of the cloister. \ \I\ | a A , Sy Ay

Once the subject matter for the mural cycle was \\ ye

decided, the Augustinian administrators may S24); N have then communicated with Santiago Tlate- NS Re ey le a lolco in Mexico City, the monastic center most Ss NS f ANY

renowned for previous botanical research and \ Ns VA

considered one of the two best art schools in the ) | AW Lex capital. The execution of the Malinalco murals SS ANY. -/ > > | K

after 1§71 would have additionally coincided YG ~ with a hiatus in Bernardino de Sahagun’s work oe LA ef WSS at Tlatelolco who aided Sahagun in the copying Dr N i ‘« ’ uf \\ and illuminating of the General History would Up. Whe | 1 *\ AX between 1§71 and 1575, when the team of artists ws =< bs ee

not have been occupied in that project. The final —

edition of the General History, or the Florentine FIG. 33. “Garden.” From Florentine Codex, SahaCodex, is dated between 1578 and February of — gtin 1979, 11: fol. 189. Reproduced with permis1580 (Nicolau D’Olwer and Cline 1973: 195- sion of the Archivo General de la Naci6n, Mex-

(98). Prior to that, during the early 1570s, the ico City.

54. The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco ter artists to the job of training the Malinalco — It is equally apparent from the murals that the

painters. Malinalco artists, like the Florentine Codex paint-

The most persuasive argument for a Sahagtin — ers, were intent on providing the detail and connection is in the affinity between certain il- | modeled form characteristic of living specimens. lustrations in the natural history volume (Book — A comparison of the same kinds of fauna and XI) of the Florentine Codex and the Malinalco flora from Malinalco and the Florentine Codex frescoes. As painting styles evolved in early co- will demonstrate this point. In both works the lonial manuscripts, the native pictographic tra- contour of the plant called the “heart-flower, ” dition was gradually abandoned in favor of the — or yolloxochitl, is simplified, but the interiors of newer European mode. The increased use of the flowers and leaves are shaded and accurately Renaissance spatial tenets in the representation detailed, as seen in the resemblances between of plants becomes evident if one compares the figures 69 and 70. Rooted trees emerge from an early postconquest Codex Borbonicus (fig. 23) to implied ground line, their trunks extending the the 1552 Libellus of Martin de la Cruz (fig. 32) full height of the frame line or mural panel, as and the Sahaguntine material of the mid-1570s. depicted in Malinalco (figs. 14 and 16) and in Not only are the individual plants increasingly | Sahagtin’s work. The rendering of parrots from given more substance and specificity in the la- the murals (figs. 100 and 101), when contrasted ter works but, in some instances in the Floren- with those of the Sahagun manuscript (fig. 102), tine Codex, they are set into a landscape (fig. 33). indicates a similar interest in combining sche-

am 7 | Te fo be LO pee + (Qe / t le #, / - be Ces t 7 % aiok vim t ‘ 1% Pig ae re: . ie iP ..

4 ‘i * a “ y, a aH’ ae x ha Mh “te: wt ‘ 2! ¥ - Pe : &. g Sa i ee ht ro ea ys 2 WT =e 0 SD | iS EF Maasfs Bicii2, 784 me. * ey eS ine Soo he Pete, Vp “ oS e° JF: a. aaPN ee Set ge eeeFg. EEOzy yf ae fia “xR, ange? (fe,ANoT Oy ew es . a > a ’ 4) > 4 Al, { 7 ah hom 4 ’ aii La ae Pe ; % : nn i ae, 1. a Aa -?a¥. : Pan ad Ng |: a| fiBete Bi. ae A1£a LA. ih ‘O ,Oae “1 ' al fae | a Sd ar a4 VeSS i aeaa | a)! arOeshiT,eh* .ee os P. _ aiyay fe' “ae aN my ii,vay 3 Ea

‘hh ee:yew: oDa:olf 7 -. £4 ie me b aeeinen . % ,'3° f aan sa‘et . te! , bi irOP + ee ‘yy b an 4 4So. es ,| Mee. mh s'

lo iyOe . eee 5sb or de |Se oan “% a.ee a .Was. |: Vie iat yORD . Ly| ne &; Pot SS|_" eS oe“|4OL a. 4) a Ae .— So, eee

u) a ;ii=x x} Ys + a) f ; “or “ i aa Gre4 :4Sih. : Hy) " .mB Xf lates - o- ow 7 ee " A; }Gy j q,a! ua hs *) ‘ma wet ~Via ‘otss ‘AL | ui aa . ai ? oe

ys eles Erb i ~: ~| | nie > Cas " Tweet ‘4 ;ie7i 4ky pos nF +)i. "7 ve: = Jy ~ aleie5S&F 7 ¥ igOak...” Petes ae -“ le f siTae Pe. >.Oe = Fy E:AES x, m3 , a: Bes teaytete ee LR©.BOLE TateoeLee | Te a ie aaa | 0 Medi 5: Soe TR (MN SS ad Bin Rp. et

a ME kk BR eR eS ae oe NN FIG. 36. Rabbit eating fruit, egret with fish in pond, and duck behind reeds. Detail of garden frescoes, lower cloister wall, East 4, Malinalco.

56 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco

mi eral references to the sharing of facilities and expertise between the regular clergy. In other

eae, words, intellectual, if not collegial, exchange ~~, a between scholars took place. Indeed, all three pe mendicant orders used the native graduates in

L | grammar and Latin matriculating from the

r vee + vj Franciscan college of Tlatelolco.'’ The jealousies ot Pm Oe | ou between the Mexican regular clergy notwith-

f, , b oe “4 x standing, given the reputation of a Franciscan ) Py Pam ee SP, art school and library and the needs of an Au-

4 ; .: . 4, gustinian monastery at Malinalco, the possibil-

_ a ff ‘> oe I | ity of artistic assistance and even collaboration : ‘ » Ae onl | > y must be given serious consideration.

\ aah }, a a EP With their ambition to supervise every other eS whe ge x sphere of native life, there is no question that the cm, gl ia friars carefully oversaw the program and exe& = cution of the murals. Painting in general, as the

z most approximate representation of the visible

FIG. 37. Aztatl (snowy egret). From Florentine world and, therefore, the most vulnerable to erCodex, Sahaguin 1979, 11: fol. 28. Reproduced ror, was the colonial art form most diligently with permission of the Archivo General de la scrutinized by the friars. The stylistic influence

Nacion, Mexico City. of European art has also been pointed out in the garden frescoes, although these learned traits egret are remarkably similar, as is the carefully |= were not always fully understood or assimidemarcated border around the pool of water — lated. And yet technical, stylistic, and iconoand the convention for water conveyed by paral- graphic aspects of the garden frescoes endorse lel linear swirls. Thus, there is convincing, if — their native authorship. In order to determine not conclusive, evidence binding the Malinalco exactly how much freedom the Malinalco artists project with the school of Tlatelolco in their | were permitted in the selection and rendering synchronous time frame and parallel working — of their painted images, we must identify the methods. A relationship that included direct ar- sources available to them in various media. The tistic assistance is strengthened by ties of shared __ fidelity with which the prototypes for the garsubject matter and stylistic traits between works den frescoes were followed will also confirm the

of art at the two sites. identity of the artists, their innate artistic apti-

Any hypothesis of collaboration between tude, and the thoroughness of their training in mendicants must take into account the friction | European styles and iconography. In the end, that existed between the three orders and the — the very models that inspired the form and conpotential problem in having an Augustinian — tent of the Malinalco frescoes also provide us monastery solicit a Franciscan school for assis- — with clues to the murals’ ultimate meaning and tance. Yet less publicized efforts at cooperation — function within their monastic context. did exist. Grijalva (1924:670-671) makes sev-

Chapter Four

THE SOURCES Since the Christians came, they |the Indians| have become great painters; since the samples and images have come from Flanders and Italy, that the Spaniards

brought, . . . there is no retable or image, no matter how fine, that they cannot imitate and copy, especially the painters of Mexico City.

—TORIBIO DE BENAVENTE MOTOLINIA (1970:97)

Sources for the Malinalco garden frescoes fall | and internal composition of the mural cycle in into two categories. There was, first, the gen- = Malinalco’s lower cloister must be described. eralized influence of mural painting from six- The frescoes begin at ground level with a waistteenth-century Spain and pre-Hispanic Amer- high wainscoting or dado of 1.3 meters painted ica. The Mexican friars fell heir to a bicultural — solid red. Above the wainscoting, the murals

tradition of polychroming both civic and reli- are organized into five horizontal registers of gious buildings. A second and more direct in- varying widths (fig. 10). Three of these bands fluence on monastic murals, however, was contain an ornamental design made up of Reexerted by portable works of art available to naissance motifs such as angel heads, dolphins, the colonial artists. These primarily European —acanthus leaves, and vases, which together are sources acted as the specific models for much of __ referred to as “grotesque” (grutesco or de romano)

the style and subject matter of wall paintings in in style.* Grotesque friezes frame the top and Mexico. From an early age native artisans in bottom of the central register and bracket the conventual schools were grounded in orthodox uppermost band of Latin inscriptions. Between theological imagery and imported Renaissance the upper two decorative friezes are quotations modes of expression. An eclectic array of Span- = in _Latin taken from biblical and theological ish, northern European, and Italian graphics, — texts. The capital letters that spell out these inillustrated manuscripts, and oil paintings pro- scriptions are separated by elaborate fine-line vided a wealth of material from which artisans scrollwork and foliage. copied the artistic language of their conquer- It is in the widest central register of the wall ors. In the case of Malinalco, there was the ad- fresco (2.6 meters in height) that the profuse foditional inspiration of tapestry, whose influ- liage of the garden scene is painted. Although a ence on monastic frescoes has just begun to be —— few of the same species are repeated, no two

investigated. ! leaves or flowers are exactly alike. Birds alight Before its sources can be traced, the layout or fly among the intertwining trees, shrubs, and

|

§8 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco

|

wa . Ly a . eS b8@ AIGA

Hh ae meats HUAR NV 8 SS WG d FIG. 38. East wall, with composition of the three medallions in the garden frescoes. Lower cloister, Malinalco.

climbing vines. Small animals eat fruit from mural imagery that conveyed the dominant meshanging branches or chase each other, contrib- _—_ sage of their governing elite. The zealous and uting to the scene's vitality. Set within the vege- systematic destruction of indigenous masonry tation on each wall are three medallions that en- —_ architecture by the Spaniards all but destroyed

close the Christian monograms of Jesus Christ | any vestige of native wall painting. Once the and that of the Virgin Mary as well as the Au- — Aztec capital had been razed, the vivid impresgustinian emblem. The two sacred monograms sions of Tenochtitlan’s polychromed buildings are of Mary, Mother of Christ and Queen of were preserved only in the chronicles. Murals of Heavens (M interlaced with M; fig. 12), andthe solid colors, striped panels, and figurative de-

first three letters for the Greek name for Jesus, signs are described; temples are said to have IHS, or Ihsus, which in the sixteenth century — been “decorated with evil paintings,” including was also used as an acronym for Iesus Hominum — animals, monsters, and human figures.* After Salvator, or Jesus, Savior of Men (fig. 11). The — the conquest, every effort was made by the friAugustinian emblem is traditionally represented ars to avoid dangerous “pagan” images in their

as a heart penetrated by three arrows that pro- own places of worship. With the exception of duce three bleeding wounds (fig. 14). The three a few monasteries such as Malinalco, neither ecclesiastical medallions are equidistant, spaced the style nor subject matter of indigenous regularly across the width of each of the cloister —_ wall painting overtly influenced colonial murals.

walls (fig. 38). Only the western wall, with its | What did persist was the native familiarity with multiple monumental entryways, breaks with ancient mural techniques, certain conventions this format. The medallions dominate the com- __ that governed the arrangement of murals, and a positional field and act as primary focal ele- | symbolic ideographic language, unfamiliar to ments. Located between and below each of the the friars, that endured among the scribe-paintmedallions are acanthus plants that are larger in __ ers late into the sixteenth century. scale than the other plants and act as secondary From the literature it would appear that Spanaccents. It is the rhythmic spacing of the me- __ ish wall painting played only a minor role in the dallions and acanthus plants that loosely orga- | development of colonial muralism. Art historinizes what at first glance appears to be a bewil- _ans have persistently asserted that the tradition

dering array of vegetative and animal motifs. of wall painting lay almost dormant in Spain from the late fourteenth century until shortly af-

PRE-HISPANIC AND SPANISH ter the mid-sixteenth century, when Philip II

MURAL PRECEDENTS imported Italian artists to execute the ambitious murals in his palace outside Madrid, the Esco-

From the earliest periods, pre-Hispanic cul- rial. Consequently, historians of Latin Ameritures painted civic buildings and temples with — can art questioned the existence of any Spanish

The Sources 59 prototypes for Mexican frescoes (Kubler 1948, hometowns of Toledo, Leén, Valladolid, Gra2:377). As more Spanish murals from this pe- nada, and Seville (plates 7 and 8; see also Apriod are being discovered, earlier appraisals are pendix B). Andalusia appears to have been the

being reversed. From historical texts and from region with the strongest impulse to polylittle-known examples of fresco painting, it is chrome both interiors and exteriors. In historipossible to describe at least some of the late — cal accounts of Seville the Augustinian, Dofifteenth-century and early sixteenth-century minican, and Franciscan monasteries from the murals that existed in several regions of Spain, period of colonization are all described as having including the southern province of Andalu- wall frescoes.* Unfortunately, the majority were sia, the point of departure for the New World — destroyed when the buildings themselves were

expeditions. razed or secularized; only a fraction of the origThe void in our knowledge about Spanish _inals testify to this strong mural tradition.

murals during this period stems from several Although the custom of wall murals was factors. All religious art, but particularly the fresh in the eyes and minds of the European frifragile frescoes, suffered significant destruction ars as they sought to recreate their monastic enduring the French occupation of Spain in 1808 vironments overseas, one must ask how accuand, subsequently, during the suppression of _ rately they transferred this tradition. Rarely do the religious orders when they were expelled — the Augustinian friars even cite specific Iberian and their property confiscated in 1835. Those churches as design sources for their Mexican esfrescoes that have survived were hidden under __ tablishments. One exception is Grijalva’s (1924:

coats of whitewash, as in the Mexican monas- 211) comment on the Augustinians’ use of St. teries, or were located in cloistered convents Jerome in Salamanca as the prototype for their to which outside access traditionally has been main mother house in Mexico City, San Agusdenied.’ Additionally, fifteenth-century Spanish tin.? References to mural antecedents in Spain frescoes have been neglected due to a lack of — are rare and more oblique. After the wall fresscholarly interest in the local artists who gen- coes were completed in the open chapel at erally painted outside official circles. Official | Tlaxcala for the Easter festivities of 1539, Eurocommissions by church and state during this pean observers commented that it was ‘among period were principally for panel paintings and __ the loveliest of rooms of a kind that existed in retables rather than for mural cycles. This was — Spain”’ (de las mas graciosas piezas que de su manera

in part a structural decision, dictated by the = hay en Espana; Motolinia 1970:238). Although lack of wall space in High Gothic interiors that this reference may allude to Spanish interiors were laced with windows and soaring arches. similarly decorated with murals, this is far With several well-known exceptions, murals in from clear. Nonetheless, wall paintings, like Spain were thus relegated to monasteries and the architecture of their homeland, remained chapels and were executed by provincial, often strongly imprinted on the friars’ minds; we can anonymous artists. It appears that while mural find many basic features recreated in Mexico painting did become a secondary art form by as “remembered patterns” rather than direct the fifteenth century, it never disappeared al- |= quotes, as McAndrew (1965:168) observes in together. Certainly, sixteenth-century Spanish colonial architecture. Parallels between Spanish Augustinian friars were not strangers to fres- | and Mexican wall paintings can be detected in coed walls. In the period before their departure the murals’ technical aspects, styles, architecfor the New World, murals decorated the uni- tural settings, and compositions. The closest versities where they were being educated (Sala- point of juncture between the Hispanic and co- . manca and Alcala de Henares) as well as the lonial traditions lies in their biblical themes, in churches, palaces, and monasteries in their part traceable to similar source material avail-

60 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco

P _ OPS see OS (ff > ra a ; .

Le a “ ‘ os S| opie at fe” hh ‘i. rt. om

.; =: Nos 4 Me ay a="aa ?ae iy eee, Ae emt“3Sol =; vt e qie thoes SLT eeBe 3 ”4TS PAH ie OeEe p iby lye aeof eeei Cr ae ‘ dhe reae, ile — 23 Se ap? . aJS heait. : ” ao ere, | BOTA, P eePe ae(iia MP ide) a Viet. wal i pe) :

.. I ee RR ad RI ee I Te ele, ea)

SS ; wt . bh sb : al “a at , : ‘0% * jE4? (ls hy a “2 4 WIE), de OM riak pe ee”

tapes So, Wee OR Pall RE of ere See BS 7 ytd ~ Ue ae ea! | ‘ a a T : . is > five CR ih ‘yb Lae ean tt Ta 4 ie? c] bile — oss Ye, ee, i

a>a hs anh =. Se —veee |e ee, = Pe tk Fa ae emi tn ;nm, aoe+7cco: IyerSON i _ ; ia1)on a as 4 o SASS , wtthes: A | Vater | Sy : -ah Ths) teene UFeo5 Lf7 Pei “s

A¥ as;oe.Po | i Ab eats ye Die Tress ea Reo seve Be ie a ne a bee x rs : ‘ + b “Oe “ie i aed Ue ’ mr | ee ! ; Li ae fs¥ae ia |,: x oe, 5 em (% D . .. “an ries A AS ui aN ; | aT civ ae Ve Se ye a Rm £5) a We , ko SYa MR hae ES TTRh Athoe ECpee Nid AALS | Ce Fa. ee|.4 rie | oe, y 1peed eh) iiiae ae) etaae Ye :aWie oar. ii AL Pare } cae. PREM eae Sy eee | uly Ce RS o.. | 7m | my 1" pine Pita, ;" PN aA8 : Bel 4ots Hee-85 4) Tey ; : boa

| [3 Sag me i nee sty ey. ' OTM, gat eei ae a eS: ‘ Bt, ‘s a aos: ae Ae:- oe 4 ab: ee aeeeeee SY~ =areoem ELYOROL.

% cee A as . ie : oe oe a he , 6 a i eps ie 4 (| ¢ '. ;

ARS E. Raa ; \ 3fi Reis . & i : bd i aa a4 ey ;Z)sed a ey, . a' big Wf -‘'y ¥i 2eh Sef b ey ‘ty , aant ',

oe * ae : i” ag poe : ie pe Mi «.a-f os | f raa. |Shree co.Eth, ( x iatin’ -Se oo ateoe ‘4 ee Ae «a va ea 08 wara ee. xww. ae.mae ~ 4 ee : “a 2eae imBRE ad |ri)STA pay*.es;A ds Ve ae y.Ses ~~ |=ae tee , ed Cus Oa ‘ : ove Pe wy Cae Sarre y\.¥ anid ateae > ea a. “: | iby SOS oboe .

; a: Pieey i 4‘fo-intermy 3.beSe ee’ | :——— é hicks ee

? “23 ea a : We ye it oe bate. F ic pee ee rv “ A; “e “i F eat ‘ stk

FIG. 39. Crucifixion mural in festera niche, upper cloister, Huatlatlauhca, Puebla. Reproduced with permission of the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.

able to the muralists on both sides of the Atlan- _ large, in style and subject matter, Hispanic tratic. The most dramatic points of departure be- ditions superseded native ones.

tween the two are found in the function and The pre-Columbian knowledge of both buon ultimate meaning of murals painted in the pub- _fresco and fresco secco techniques as well as temlic sectors of the monasteries, a divergence that _ pera painting survived virtually intact and were can be attributed to differences between patron, — combined with wall painting techniques familartist, and audience in Spain and Mexico. On _ iar to the mendicants, as discussed in chapter 3. the other hand, the persistence of actual precon-_ =The color schemes in colonial murals, how-

quest imagery was far more subtle and covert. ever, repudiate the mural heritage of both culThe impact of pre-Hispanic murals on Mexican tures. As a rule, sixteenth-century murals were colonial frescoes indicates that what was re- painted in black and white, with color applied tained from the native pictorial language often — only as a secondary accent. Spanish frescoes, coincided with the friars’ own Spanish artistic | on the other hand, were generally executed

conventions and thus proved useful to them; in many colors (plate 8) and only rarely in or was deemed harmless; or went undetected. black and white (Serrera 1982:327). Nor were Those features from the two cultures that did __ pre-Hispanic frescoes monochromatic, although converge in viceregal monastic murals were _ they adhered to a restricted palette. This protechnical and compositional in nature; by and __ pensity by the colonial muralists to follow a

:\‘ :CU . J we, : ; i WA a yg Va to : Sh fig Shh ’ The Sources 61 iy |

:: ;7t Yen, “ia -valk 3 mt a a et 1D, 7fj hi WN ‘ ae, 5*| (4, itj . ‘ " Y /, ofNIA¢i,A“i:Aftff)“,;#,4 Bae | Ife fe. ie ite aig | Vi.ty YY PS gteae $ ios Wise” Vf, tif - ; ff , tt? sae

eei GY, x 1! if, i 3aa. he i ! pee, Yee eS ea ee L/

te ,..|eyAt (a) . AM HN

, hy yWAP Ly ffih)n al ay ; f..a\t ia ,

1re: ”fsayi54? Lin o ;2 als + Wie ot 3) VS i if Pies RRR ae PMA) xs ‘‘ ¥4,: :‘xah oe ae "\ aRs‘ :yyZ ht4 P1 }: pa ia) ’ a ANG tei ; ) aan i: 1% ay o ee Ue SGte# i |¢}y4b~~ge! ,Pee a * a . en fF ‘ iC fo ee . a — 'ee - rey ARE 5sx;| + “uae i 4 5 » er, ‘ 5. % gn ca ¥ s ' : as: os: ® ‘ tramme my . , rn © Ls L . Sfp py ¢\

TR |.) e.

$.|i " - ah; ssid. os Vs tw \ A mI g

,.

ry. § uf (' \ ; " "4

s ae Le 4 ‘Od i i \ : ”

248 wid

Beal, Se ,

a" qfh » ” oh. ’ ots

3‘a

ailee+ atpine, a "_FeiY seg2)gsSee oy ’ i es ie! ha Prroae ee “ be ie one ~ ae i Tey i . M a {

sl . ig ~ Py iene 4

RP a Es xe Shae as ty. % ’

FIG. 40. Southwest corner of lower cloister with festera niche, Malinalco.

62 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco

: 5‘ia, ?%4 2 a baal yee

%"kee ‘eae $ ik;S$3a.| oS: ae Pull * er oe oe a - Hinge rand ri & ee bs ~ ; : , r

6! ae ot“ Be ek. ped f ‘EGy »E ,fee te Pat 4aé ba) Poe : i ol as Ape a4 on 2 7 ‘ait 3FO oh i .- bt aie Pe ‘—am Se

ties sar ie ee = 2 int ‘ ,vale. f ei ake a ereR , (eo } ~~ ae f3. 2 p> r4 i alee Ls Wear, de. ng we eae s , fe co a COT a | au : : , be ae a i oa trol “ a r é " ’ . ’ eee ae , . a a glia Pad ma 3 1 ey ~~~ Fm yeti oe —_ - ee go ia

Ae a

FIG. 41. Painted dado on cloister wall, Patio de los Muertos, c. 1450, San Isidoro del Campo, Santiponce, Seville.

ee de |} Game ee eeTeg : ee an tae ,

os Pai ges 3 7 ret —— a : lf : ' P ° | ¢ : oh ay=e ems -_ x“4 ?oeee. i is ¥ ae PeeeaSa «itl

ees ae i eo . pa > “it ‘ 7 a - i Pater La =

‘Ye 4 ; ” ' t ; , .egre ys if .aa as a *Fr‘idiyoa , rd ’“4er"aes . he, le*o' se -%' (api, > ;*‘an

‘je + ~ - . \ i ) alle Lye ° b f f f ' ‘ 4 sg> we 5 &: + D9, ? Cet) }a 4- ,AoeI, £1 eS 3risry- :| i: vi , (A ~ >+ wy % fa 4» '% Pi aliens _ bP) .be a ys al 7}| ioo: ’: .

i osr| 4\ee+A ee i. ae. oR pce ST, ’ oh ae \ oe i me ay fJ As , oe ee. eee Raa 3aoo | oo ays vat pa \ ee a ‘hf , , Sh a.*)i }ffi“Fy —* .i.2# 4 ; ; ¢ ; Ti Bs ’ oe . fa ' Vs : Amn; fp: - ~~. a) if i.1.ee- -_ ;, :*; . A a { Le .‘iefA, Te 3 y —_

a ae

; “" oe‘ nff, "2.a"é: {ifwiterti; :": \; ;}’ em, aa . “- : ". — ;i | 'f '} ;a »? aa 5 >7< :me 4.¥ . " +4 ~ ;oi” ‘ eifaa ip ht+: iv ote -: Mei : 72v"rsiei«| :.

yt “F : ¢ . 4, ones € \oaee)6=—l a: 1p, | We ce ik .- @ “! 4 ‘ jn . ,

6 = he m — » ; on < $4 _ eh " ” : , eee, | na +2 A " —et » - \: a Avs —_—. 2 . , 4 Aa . : Ay FiG. 46. The three Marys. Detail of Crucifixion (plate 8), festera mural, southeast corner, upper cloister walkway, Malinalco.

were set up in temples and over domestic altars soon learned to duplicate European engravings: to supplant pagan deities as apotropaic devices Pacey [the native artists | have made woodcuts

to ensnare the devil and as a signal that the with very perfect images, so much so that evEuro-Christian culture was superior.'° The use eryone who sees them is astonished, because of woodcuts as devotional images was a persis- from the first, they make them perfect” (Mototent medieval Spanish tradition. Graphics, often linia 1970: 312).

produced by monasteries, were sold at shrines Circulating in viceregal Mexico, then, were in Spain; small-sized woodcuts were marketed illustrated books of an international provenience as souvenirs, and the larger ones decorated the as _ well as popular fifteenth-century German

walls and altars of both homes and chapels. prints and the more current sixteenth-century Similar religious images were in the possession imports from Italy, Flanders, and Spain. The of all mendicants in Mexico. Typical was the friars and master muralists selected and recomAugustinian friar Gregorio who, lauded for his bined elements from various sources freely. The simple, frugal life, was said to possess no worldly graphic designs of Martin Schongauer and Algoods other than his engravings. It was reported brecht Durer acted as the prototypes for some

that “in his cell he had nothing of value; he biblical mendicant murals, while illustrations or only had some prints on paper and in the infir- prints originally copied from either Schongauer mary they gave him a statue of the infant Jesus” or Durer were the sources for others, as has (Garcia 1916:48). The native artisans in Mexico been pointed out for Tecamachalco, Puebla

68 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco

sg, Am A m/e pa -— pt ar hy tagna (fig. 45). Montagna’s work was affected by Direr’s graphics, but the Italian artist ampli-

\ Uy WPzonobis factuseft obe- fh fied the draped figures and situated them plauNe diensvfq3ad mortem. wy He sibly in a deeper space. Comparable with the

ee A es ee ¢ hae Italian Montagna print, the Malinalco muralist pre se eS ean Nia also established greater depth and gave the forms

‘Ai\\aj Tot a)had a elpil| aSen rounded In addition to the influence Pe ene ie of morefullness. conservative graphic images, primarily x if Nanay hes a from Northern Europe, after the mid—sixteenth-

Na Ae Foe ; Pale Si AYE tal century Mannerist graphics from France and

ane mah. tie ay pe on Flanders also made their way first to Spain and ei : PCNA Er ae, then to Mexico.'* That source material was used

1) ER ee Ae with little concern for stylistic homogeneity 1s

ONS rid Peer So en evident in the frequency with which discrete

BA We | tee ; Wee SN A styles coexist in Mexican murals; the muralists ay BVA oY i BERS) ee Non drew on whatever sources were available with

oat UCI In ee pent little concern for unorthodox mixtures or jux-

ae POS AES i KE\\i\ DSB.3ayaN ‘apositions ee . 1 | | ike single-sheet graphics, illustrations 1n E Aortem autem crucis Bet printed religious books likewise sustained

a i changes in the process of being reused and copCSE OeMexican sade ied in Europeand before being reinterpreted by ef A SEIELe. SEI Tie aa printers muralists. Another corner

FIG. 47. Crucifixion. Engraving in Epistolas 1 mural in the upper cloister of Malinalco, the Evangelios by Ambrosio Montesino (Toledo: Juan Crucifixion (plate 9), demonstrates this comde Villaquiran y Juan de Ayala, 1535). From Lyell mon phenomenon. In the Crucifixion scene the 1926: fig. 172. Reproduced with permission of figure of a praying St. Augustine is painted at

Hacker Art Books. the base and to the left of the cross. At the feet of Christ, Mary Magdalene, identified by her free-flowing tresses, clings to the base of the (Camelo Arredondo et al. 1964:58—59), Epa- cross; to the right of the cross, Mary, the mother zoyucan, Hidalgo (Moyssén 1965:25), and Ix- _ of Jesus, is being comforted by Mary, mother of miquilpan, Hidalgo (Pierce 1987: 131-148). This St. James the less, and St. John, standing behind was probably the case for the Passion scenes —_and almost erased (fig. 46). Several elements in painted in the testerae of the upper cloister of | the mural, including the grouping around the Malinalco, dated to the second building phase, = Virgin Mary, rely on a composition similar to or the decade of the 1580s. In the mural of | the woodcut for the Crucifixion in Epistolas 1 Christ praying in the Garden of Gethsemane Evangelios, published in Toledo in 1535 (fig. 47). (plate 10), the position of the kneeling Christ |The design for the Crucifixion woodcut in this figure and the pyramidal composition and poses — Spanish edition depends, in turn, on Direr’s

of the three sleeping apostles reflect a standard = composition in his Large Passion edition of 1511 iconography ultimately based on an interpreta- §_(Knappe 1965: plate 190). The Malinalco Crution of Martin Schongauer’s engraving Agony in —_cifixion mural was derived secondhand from the Garden (c. 1480). It appears that the Mali- —_ an engraved illustration found either in a liturnalco mural of the Agony in the Garden re- _ gical text, such as the Toledan Epistolas i Evanlied on an intermediary print, one such as that _— gelios, or in a sixteenth-century Bible. Variants

of 1506-1507 by the Italian Benedetto Mon- on this Crucifixion scene, including the arrest-

: palates %, b NY gt : ' ‘ ae, : r a ae JtijMané ee os eG) Wigs

The Sources 69

. ») A + Z

i i eS 5 : oi “, eee AOE OO ed as Os . fs)ifJ a 1) |= ‘, ;:ty: ‘ NER: r1Aia ye .< Ss *. “e RO /SUAS a) i . = ; Me ae

ae 2 ies fk) — ae 1g ae ¥ h ,

; "i “a go i. ie y; Pe } . a a 19 ~ we APs . ; ro } < r Ab As ph iy > 4 sd

Sy Toe) . oA fH etres Rae ge oe >:‘=.‘ “at ;PPS OME ae as oy ihe MG ttLats 94S: See Ss ~_Fi a Se oa | NAN Byits ee i a! mS 2 ma ee sy — we ‘ Ee , “ A ee, & ai Vs re. * re we a ee iz “rs ie we F. 4 Re > is Hih . US oh on ay (G © } el eo 3 »j >?” ./- i

’aA {\ Stae ae , a i 2ax ~" a

4 f am o | *) 4 "‘ :=».: i\ |4SBE (ii \ Rei - L af As " =IS" ". ‘.. : Yad ra Pe FS .all a Pe

ee) “4 Sa art, 7} peel gee a oS re YY Se ee. ee \ )en Fae ef ath 5An on, a 4) tTne’i ih > “iam _oe: ‘ia Pe

Wr, : ee . . . i:i e .xgRs ai fee”, Roee Ap be Rf Y - , es x a5 | L} ij , r ‘ it ye a.

ae Se ON. a: oe ee |a stile ope D se het. i & , E Re. | Ea se be ah", of FS NP SK EY a ACN = . ery mee VW) de OA | > ex 1 eh te? GPNEA NS ae) ey GC ee Ree 9 ss ul nae sw f ‘ , : Ry i > es . ; a ee ~,tein at 5b-4 eS ok gy - hy, 4: I f ~ te _“-— a, ~ se Pay R Pn oe 1S pe \, oe yr Ger eS g,\ aes oe RN), \ i bo : e ij. y EN a an SE +S wt e A, aess [TTR W inieaui “I o 2ioe Coal ‘ eereyal 747. ‘S :.o¥ 74 1a7, .} ; . ah Se / : s.og " ot : * | ' Hin wf fh te a. x YT oe J j , a1 : “—

> | % ays 2

FIG. 48. St. Augustine with members of the order. Badly restored mural in priors room or library, upper cloister, Malinalco.

ing pose of Mary Magdalene, were repeated in sembling a shepherd’s crook and symbolizing many Augustinian monasteries such as Yeca- his pastoral duties (Kubler 1948, 2: plate 347). pixtla, Morelos, Huatlatlauhca, Puebla (fig. 39), The friars, churchmen, and saints of the Au-

and Acolman, Mexico. gustinian order kneel beneath his outstretched The sharing of printed material among mur- — arms. The theme was adopted by the mendicant alists can be followed through the repeated mo- orders for their founders from medieval images tif of St. Augustine as protector of the order. of the Virgin of Mercy, sheltering the faithful As depicted in the Malinalco rendering of this — under her outstretched arms and cape.'’ St. Autheme on the wall of the prior’s cell or library, gustine as protector appears on the frontispiece

St. Augustine wears the miter as Bishop of — of a book by the preeminent theologian and Hippo (A.D. 396—430). A heavy-handed and in- leader of the Augustinian order in Mexico, ept restorer has mistakenly overpainted a torch Alonso de la Veracruz (fig. 49). The frontisin St. Augustine’s right hand and a book of the piece, including the lateral columns, is replirule in his left (fig. 48). A photograph of — cated in other Augustinian monasteries (fig. 50). the mural taken in the early 1940s preserves the Another portrait type of St. Augustine, also prerestoration image, with St. Augustine hold- — derived from woodcuts, depicts him standing ing his more typical attributes, a church and alone with a crosier in one hand and supporting crosier, the staff held by a bishop or abbot re- a church in the other (fig. $1). Images of St. Au-

70 The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco § ESHA ERENERHD ORY ® HOOD es EHO x antique motifs including candelabra, festoons,

’ PHISICA,S PECV- 3 small naked figures, and hybrid creatures that

: latio,Aditaperk, a were often composite creations with plant, ani: mie Prot ie Thde Ua : mal, and human attributes (fig. 53). Through

————— a pau ar aeer ee Re scetl 5 :& [SRE Sere : the Sere ¢ by EUG c Te : ornament spread from Italy to Northern Eu;: F TR AS rope,were to France, and, afterin1500, to Spain. The | leha > ; eel designs reinterpreted engravings, illusOmdk trated tapestries, only to were reappear : (ARS Ny‘a YA in thebooks, fresco and media from which they ini-

5 Sa | Weel : See at

“4 ee eae i (Wee : tially derived (Dacos 1969:61—99). In sixteenth-

i ; : ish $ century Spanish books, grotesque ornament

° a Ail | hd y Miah : appears as full-page or marginal designs that : iz) \ SH | hi ele 3 enframe the central text or illustration. The rep: = SNe oS iim > ertory of ornamental patterns includes fanciful ’ (ro NPAC ANT ‘ cupids on rams or griffins, sphinxes, cornuco| Sie rtan ers ipa ideas liner derek % pias, wreaths around escutcheons, and ugly men-

Ene UNTER MNCS ICE acing heads. The grotesque designs of several

FIG. 49. St. Augustine. Title page of first edition Italian painters and engravers are apparent in the of Phisica Speculatio by fray Alonso de la Vera- ornamental panels of the frescoes of the Santa cruz, Augustinian (15$7). Reproduced with per- Inés convent in Seville, as seen by comparing mussion of the Nettie Lee Benson Latin American figures §3 and $4. The Santa Inés muralists borCollection, The General Libraries, The Univer- rowed freely from a group of Italian prints, re-

sity of Texas at Austin. combining and selecting imaginatively.'* This eclecticism was extended by the Mexican muralists, who, without exception, incorporated a gustine holding his attributes appear as early as variety of grotesque designs into almost all of 1554 1n Mexico and were repeated in a series of — their monasteries’ decoration.

publications (1575-1577) commissioned by the The fresco artists working at Malinalco were prior of the Augustinian mother house in Mex- relatively conservative in their use of grotesque ico City, Fray Juan de la Anunciaci6n (Garcia ornamental prints. Two basic design units are Icazbalceta 1954: plates 30, 92, 101). The single- repeated in identical fashion throughout. The

figure St. Augustine is a frequent subject in first design makes up the lowest frieze in the Spanish murals of the first half of the sixteenth — wall paintings, immediately beneath the garden

century (plate 8) and was duplicated in many scene, and is found again in the church choir. Augustinian monasteries in Mexico (fig. $2). This frieze design consists of two dolphins that Faithful mural renderings of the graphic in- flank sprays of acanthus leaves and are separated clude the cloud formation in the upper right by vases (fig. 55). The dolphins’ heads and tails corner, with the hand of God holding an arrow __ are transformed into florid acanthus leaves. The whose rays pierce the heart of St. Augustine — second frieze design at Malinalco is narrower in

(cf. figs. $1 and §2). format and not only is found in the upper two

Colonial muralists closely followed European bands that enframe the Latin inscription of the illustrated books and graphics for the painted cloister walls but also runs the length of the inornamental borders and friezes known as ““gro- _ ner corridor walls (figs. 56 and 57). This leittesque” (grutesco). Grotesque designs utilized a —_ motif also incorporates dolphinlike creatures that

playful and sometimes bizarre combination of are metamorphosed into leaf and vine elements

—|

The Sources 71

én "PRPS MEF, \Wy ek Sid aes? o7 \ an Ns ehky ivoeibf De eS Pato ime ‘ 1 Ae aStroeyy i| ay HYge at ie ie * a mM ce “a : rs 4 a J A. ne) ; z Fakes 2 ve a= a . “ a a uo i : 1 : .

, . e rr _ ‘ .

TPerico, a5 *7 25. =. PorCum Zlutoniode Spinofa,15 ~ oi,Gi nee3 }“s

FIG. §1. St. Augustine. Frontispiece of FIG. §2. St. Augustine. Mural on pier of lower cloister, Sermons of fray Juan dela Anunciacion Totolapan, Morelos. (Mexico City: Antonio de Espinosa, 1575). Reproduced with permission of the Nettie Lee Benson Latin American Collection, The General Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin.

ry ‘ ~ rr .

72. The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco

as ron j P, on c4fa ))vase Re an . Pele c- ‘f VST are set and pedestal. i\\.ea reais ae y) oe | Both frieze designs are visual quotations from i 1 Wee) Ion : c ' . . M4 > A atl 1) = the borders of printed books known to have had 7 ~~ Viz Lo = ae €

with dragon snouts and tails that terminate in - ——————————————seee

scrolled leaves and flowers. The dolphins’ heads js R i a, | heraldically fank winged heads of angels that , ‘ Se Cae Se

a wide distribution in multiple editions. The Wan AY! | [ Fuss a ' \2 double dolphin and angel-head motif, for ex- | eT y As Di ND ey PY

is9Je. =: % 1 Negle | a, Tp ‘= “ 4+L ae / wee y a sg? late fifteenth century. ! The more florid treat- | pe aes§ /|

ample, can be found in the upper margin of Tri- 97 , : te ey 2 Je |

umphs of Petrarch, a Venetian publication of the WPA re NOY Pa Mee |

ment of the dolphin visible in the lower mural eg Og ee - 1% a oS ( 4

, Oe LY Aa ek a Oe ~ ee ae : SRB, ¢ hh aa) sF aS ee | found at Actopan and Ixmiquilpan, Hidalgo.” Pb LO Drs a: BAe A for an unusual motif of a pair of pufti riding sea- | a YY an i iN Ve 4 ~ i horses backwards with flanking vases (fig. 60), (fae NT Fe) ee = bra Fuld |

~ for¢ two > ¢ different | 4 4] Paornamental ~ ~~ —— —— ieoop a £¥ kr : single publication toe

: : * | “4 —! } \ i ian i ee wore motifs, once again highhghting the sharing of | eo IH) ig ( => = books and prints between monasteries. lg OR a a tye c., ie The plateresque column was also derived from | eo Se) SS oe Pal

| Bee ee BASS. A

the frontispieces or ornamental borders of books eS are in, (fig. $8) and was a common decorative element.

Plateresque columns were candelabralike for- FIG. $3. Ornamental panel inscribed “Victoria mations, draped with swathes of cloth, tassels, Augusta,’ by Giovanni Antonio de Brescia ribbons, and leaflike scrolls, as painted on the (1516). Courtesy Rosenwald Collection, National walls of the upper cloister walkway at Malinalco Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. (fig. 61). In monastic murals these painted columns had a tectonic function, serving as the lateral members of simulated architectural frames illustrated architectural treatise. Although volaround painted figurative scenes and demarcat- —_ umes onarchitectural design by Vitruvius, Vigning areas set aside for other forms of decoration. ola, and Palladio found their way to the New The Malinalco plateresque columns are painted World, Libros tercero y cuarto de arquitectura (Third

below the brackets of the barrel vault ribs, and Fourth Books on Architecture, 1537) by creating the illusion of supporting elements. A Sebastian Serlio appear to have exerted the most second source for the plateresque column is the profound influence on muralists (Sebastian 1989:

The Sources 73

DA Eh pe uC Lah lan in) Gh er ne Re Oe ae

“4 iy Yi, i : aa . , 4 e C —= al ‘ Py a? 2 ~ At i@ a = ee ae

;' = :ij ALal . . .hi ‘Oed > ,+i. ‘eS¢ ~—be he= ,a

' ” . —— —— 4 ry all pete = te are : , - ad $ 7 _ # “> = . ] ji " C ~~ f . j . a Re « PA | F q

= fp ‘> Fl Y (=, _— i j-+: Wn a4 hs «ee = * 2 Uf ‘" fir’ie7- 3. : ‘i : AK. i. “tg, 2

:th=|, f Oiled f‘ A.Ps *4 i Pek j. ‘*} 7i‘ \~KAP va mie *. -sNaOe .e ‘=: 44 | J. fi 2 > . \ = /OD - va > } %. e “pf vef ("a_‘ee |i,6. ae = r *A 4 :a> Og | — rlOr5 fa a 4, ne 7 *4

ee Od oe OT Oe an

. S4g! < st aaa 5 ré ae ‘ ay ,J “/ >ee “a7F”ae - . oo} nd | a 4: 2’a7F W a \ ~y baht Ow )uSw 4 CU eh aw

2= ieoaa oeCoPee.) See | SOL ok sf =n Cy Fi re e = 4 7 {? Jy 7 r fe j ‘s 7 3 (- ® ¢. Re Paty ‘ 7, 3, a An, =)

ph | ; te j x Oe — | teen | OR a

P th onan ee Se = = tg eee eta I ee oct A ea | tol ne we a ; | ‘si Saaee me ull ne ae ge pCa PORE We A cpr rape = ——

PS sai a eea ae NS Sins tae eewpa} ae ) 7; aon age —_— —— eens FIG. §4. Grotesque panel. Detail of wall murals, upper walkway, principal cloister, convento de Santa Inés, Seville.

wa ae “Ag rs ara we} ., SB; Saar ee fs aay * eH -.

-* Rye. ut gto? ee ee eee ee ee awe AN we Be OS Oe Ve eee ee, ee ee! |) yA oe ao” ' ¥ i. Ce ae ee Ta Te a's : } es jot S _« id ae ac rr | ; ge ; : & “3 ‘ta ae or i | geait f eo “4 a Nac F ae 2 ‘ A ban : G 4 6 4 tee i a Be : . a ) td he y p

4)~« eyoo he7foPy\ >. aWs “kiIw Vo A . (i™“

re ye a4 Same. 4 yt tte Se a er TA AN. om ; 3 2 Sag BO ~ et oS SS “Sh

AGO ec DA RP ya : ba SF j oe \% Gah ee . .} ‘Pe, A A Pm ; Tae Tete wa, do de fu dP ages a tin Schongauer or Agustino Veneziano (fig. 63). “OX Pc ye eee Both display the scrolled spikey leaves of acanVEN orayl CF OS ) Ss thus, withee large stylized bY Oo:EZ } >aa $ vines , ‘ rendering geee> Sian WPS § 7a ha .te\ oa 4> “ se| 6g \ Mien ¢q iF . wart, .

CO hee 5asPT fe ne iecte: pik: “ttn, . a, Urs oy ‘ i { Fe — _ fy) r ekSeay, iy ‘Yee > € om gy .a Fy Piel beeee FM

Z fe i. 4 te V i “) pa }oe via .4 * . 2 we Y 4 x : DX. . 2 A | oe¢.on em sy 4 S: —— weyryq : aed Se :, :=Kifes

SZ a ad hh . : : : te. , Aa ; =. Oe! rd & a) P fete > am | ; * yy

2 pee a ce ty

% { \ Ko ,SSS o A_—— ’ if P éall “ne— ,. — . eit ee Ave ~~ 4 ra tive > ge 5 GF : eee ey . : \ , ore “4

FIG. 60. Grotesque frieze with angels and sea- i ca , ; horses. Cloister stairwell mural, Actopan, fi Seg Pm >

Hidalgo. , | : nF hth 4t al YT f 4&4

only concerned with botanical truth, presenting Jute ) J

whole plants in various stages of florescence, + ae

but they tried to capture their three-dimensional ¢ PA le

volume. All these traits can be found in the Ma- ? 4 > (ie vi , linalco murals, particularly in those plants spe- OY 4 Vi cific enough to be identifiable. Most parts of ae eS . a Fa) OAs Sige teotGli eeAfam bo gel ae‘Panto. aN some PUG SNE 48WAeteealysee Ae at Bb rate Oa SEN dey, Tigre, et AOE ae wen ime gi B tees Be oNPrev ey eer pha i ws © ne A ek ane ae NER ee Se oH hyd ’ rate al \ Aa Re er y +E) vest a 7 i .° . Via * : ' eg P™ : pig S oN 4 wf Realy v Vie sf . fis fe at ae, “a {% wy —ai a 4-4 Ke et. pt 44 t . ats" VF - : 6. ¢ af%Pa a ae es ais ae a & ‘yy € [- aH , rN ry , ae ; * ig rhs ols fs a

Ba BS pate

ail sys “shim i* |. Le Sot Pod ihe : .ave” “eo~FFF va Mh, € "3 4Pas ; Wy >" >“ee! 4 | ym. “ie i a ie 15s - > I. 7 . ¥: my» ; i:a- OF 7 +¥ ’®+ee; ad- *er ar aits ere ; ep ‘f’, . Hee ‘he Pele 2 a gl IP a ‘3 wh way 23) “Se fe ’18 ,Y bon SP, Nore rie ge : “ A BAMA o Fan

we. “ ’ 5 | = Vv ha B . j ~ ae IN a - , ** .} 4 ions wee, a Rya| er 09" > i ek"he Ak je, : De Vy eg mel y a, New, tem BESSe a. aN »CME y= aCiobs fy Rei”oe ee weer 8 ry I a.ON fa OM

-tsted a Veg reeAaye ebity My‘he = eS - Cwm ', L« tiie *Sg. |byte a OMe. ee Ce a ma eA 4 Jae > tea ta wyp? TK Wed tiie eee Ley Be UA ee ie a be a ad “i, By + ae ee : 4 ror o IS Cae “a ies a a Ph eas (o6) ge bay BO ye ae ovens ° Weycoe we| Ne... F oNwe a ee mit’ren werie. OeDi et RS ee We oe\FNe "hs 5 ae? a ee .- rY .- 75% we at a Ai Ws - ees at tt Toe re ae ut ul

Y ys fe Mi fT fis a a ; - eos = i ei: Pai 7! 1 + .¥ : * ? eA * @ F Jf rit ~ I ; ¢ "4 te | 4 Aa as, ys. Y nw he %" at jal wig | ines 62? cael = y 4 \ s, .& so 2.)

SON, aNenctinnn F fie, gas Cama Py[| iPoa PCRS e. *.are! 4 Tee LAN i | aePer AYE ae, 3! ! tye vie Sib vey v4 oe Bie av eul i FT, a : - Py + . . 441.” f. + ' oe ape *_%%, “ea e 2% }e =a 68 ee & 7 a, = ‘. : ja 4 S ” ‘ 4 ( ' é r= ~ PW OL GA = Pe ES SEF, a at = re ‘ a tie ™, _* oN “a : a ‘i ty , e pt vf; TY a a) ¥ «, :SEER . P, -_—s ~ ~~. | de : -* A ie — ee ye | Ae Maton glean B EL BS A) es NO) NY a RR ME i po AY | .OAS fog: aN, Hi \ ee. ” 2 “ ; a ug deg 4 ss net ak 4 7 “- — AA ats ‘ 4Fa > »ee yy Ne A tnali e - it- .PD ’ SDSyilte a ~~ r yOe 4