Sixteenth-century Mexican Architecture: Transmission of Forms and Ideas between the Old and New World

Sixteenth-century Mexican Architecture: Transmission of Forms and Ideas between the Old and the New World* Monika Brenišínová This article deals with the subject of 16th century Mexican monastic architecture and its artistic embellishments. Its aim is to present the architecture and its decoration program within an appropriate historical context, putting a particular emphasis on the process of cultural transmission and subsequent changes between the Old and the New World. Some attention is also paid to the European art of the modern age with regard to the discovery of America and its impact on the western worldview (imago mundi). The article concludes that the Mexican culture represents an example of a very successful and vivid translation of Western culture (translatio studii) towards the America, albeit it stresses that the process of cultural transmission was reciprocal. KEYWORDS: New Spain; Monastic Architecture; Monastery; Evangelization; 16th Century; Transmission of Culture; translatio studii et imperii This article addresses 16th century Mexican monastic architecture and its decoration, which originated from the need to evangelize the native populations of Mesoamerica. In the first part of the text I will introduce the readers to the historical context connected with the nascency of the architecture of conversion. Thereafter, I will provide them with an idea of the process of evangelization emphasizing its obstacles and missionary methods. This will allow me to approach the subject of Mexican monastic architecture, paying attention to the question of its Occidental roots and models and their transmission towards the West. Similarly, I will shed light on the related Mesoamerican traditions and the mingling of these two cultures within the given architecture and art. Afterwards, I will stress the phenomenon of cultural transmission between the Old and the New World employing the concrete examples of monastic and western art of early modern age. In 1519 Hernán Cortés (1485–1547) — a capable politician and an excellent military strategist — reached the coast of modern-day Mexico. In only two years he conquered the vast area of the powerful Aztec Empire that was situated in Central and Southern Mexico (although, in fact, it did not have any exact borders).1 The origins * This paper was written with the support of a CEFRES grant project (USR 3138 CRNS — MAEDI) together with the Charles University Research Developments Schemes PRVOUK, No. 12. 1 For the Aztec Empire see Ignacio BERNAL (ed.), Historia general de México, México, D. F. 2009, pp. 183–192; Josef OPATRNÝ, Amerika v proměnách staletí [America through the Ages], Praha 1998, pp. 504–508. For Aztecs, their culture, religion and daily life see OPEN ACCESS 10 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 2/2016 of the Aztec Empire, which is also known as the Triple Alliance, (it was an association of three city-states: Tenochtitlan, Texcoco and Tlacopan), go back to the 13th century B.C. The center of Aztec Empire was one of the Aztec city-states, Tenochtitlan,2 which was founded in 1325. Tenochtitlan was situated in the Valley of Mexico, built over an island in salty waters of the Lake Texcoco and criss-crossed by a network of canals. In one hundred years it became the capital of the permanently expanding Aztec state. At the time of the Spaniards’ arrival, it was a densely populated city with over 250,000 inhabitants. This was, for that time, a considerably big population. (For example, Paris, Constantinople and Naples hardly reached the number of 100,000 residents.) And it was so beautiful that the Spaniards often compared it to Venice. In 1521 Tenochtitlan was captured by the Spaniards led by Hernán Cortés and razed to the ground. That meant the real end of the Aztec Empire. In 1521 Hernán Cortés founded Mexico City (from Spanish, Ciudad de México),3 a new capital city constructed on the ruins of Tenochtitlan [Fig. 1] and named in honor of the Aztecs, who referred to themselves as Mexica or Tenochca. Step by step, he gained control over the continental territory in North and Central America. Nevertheless, as time went by he lost his dominance over the overseas colony, which had been gradually substituted by a system of colonial administration subordinated directly to the Spanish Crown. Since 1524 there were present royal officials (appointed by Spanish Crown)4 and they were tasked with inspecting the process of conquest5 George Clapp VAILLANT, Aztékové. Původ, vzestup a pád národa Aztéků [Aztecs of Mexico. Origin, Rise, and Fall of the Aztec Nation], Praha 1974. 2 J. OPATRNÝ, Amerika, pp. 392–395; David CARRASCO, Náboženství Mezoameriky. Kosmovize a obřadní centra [Religions of Mesoamerica. Cosmovision and Ceremonial Centers], Praha 1998, pp. 62–63. 3 Alfonso TORO, Compendio de historia de México. La dominación española, México, D. F. 1967, pp. 197–199. 4 They were a treasurer (from Spanish, tesorero), an accountant (from Spanish, contador), a factor, who supervised the Indian tribute collection, and eventually an observer (from Spanish, veedor) who was in charge of quinto collection, i.e. the royal fifth of all gold and silver mined in the territory of the Spanish colony. See Josef OPATRNÝ, Mexiko, Praha 2003, p. 39; A. TORO, Compendio, p. 201. 5 According to most historians, the conquest of Mexico began in 1519 and it ended in the 1550s. However, certain historians think that the conquest of some Mexican territories only ended during the 20th century with the construction of modern roads in remote regions such as the Lacandon Jungle in Chiapas. Some of the classical works about the conquest of Mexico are represented by e.g. Pierre CHAUNU, Conquête et exploitation des nouveaux mondes (XVIe siècle), Paris 1969; William HICKLING PRESCOTT, The History of the Conquest of Mexico, Virginia 2001. For the course of the conquest see I. BERNAL (ed.), Historia, pp. 231–381; A. TORO, Compendio, pp. 63–188. For the conquest of Mexico from the point of view of its native population see Miguel LEÓN-PORTILLA (ed.), Conquista pohledem poražených: vyprávění indiánů o dobytí Mexika [The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico], Červený Kostelec 2013. Also Inga Clendinnen offers an interesting point of view on the Conquest of Mexico stressing the misinterpretation of natives’ behaviour and Post-Columbian written sources caused by Eurocentrism, see Inga OPEN ACCESS MOnIKa BREnIšínOvÁ 11 and colonisation of Spanish territories. However, the initial system of colonial administration was seen very soon as insufficient and the Crown of Spain decided to replace and reinforce it. Eventually, after the foundation of the Viceroyalty of New Spain in 1535, Cortés decided to return home and leave Mexico for good. The Viceroyalty of New Spain (1535–1821)6 formed till the 18th century one of two territorial administrative units — together with the Viceroyalty of Peru (1542–1824) — of the Spanish overseas territories in America. Its territory included North and Central America, Caribbean Islands (Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica) and the Philippines. It was governed by viceroys elected by the Crown of Spain and its territory was divided into provinces and General Captaincies (from Spanish, Capitanía general). The Aztecs formed together with the Maya the most advanced pre-Columbian cultures of the Mesoamerican cultural area.7 At the time of arrival of the Spaniards, MeCLENDINNEN, Cortés, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico, in: Ann Blair — Anthony Grafton, The Transmission of Culture in Early Modern Europe, Philadelphia 1990, pp. 87–130. 6 See J. OPATRNÝ, Amerika, pp. 392–395. 7 In cultural anthropology, the notion of a cultural area refers to a geographical area with a relatively homogenous human, i.e. cultural activity. The concept was developed mainly by Clark Wissler and Alfred L. Kroeber. Alfred L. KROEBER (ed.), Anthropology Today. An Encyclopedic Inventory, Chicago 1965, pp. 66–67, 262–263, 320–323, 477–479. Mesoamerica fig. 1: 1524 Nuremberg map of Tenochtitlan. This map is believed to have been drawn by Cortés himself or by someone from his entourage. Colorized woodcut, printed in 1524 in Nuremberg, Germany with a Latin edition of his second letter (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Tenochtitlan,_1524.jpg). OPEN ACCESS 12 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 2/2016 soamerica was characterized not only by an unusual ethnic groups (Mixtec, Nahua, Otomi, Zapotec, Maya, Tzeltal and Tzotzil) and linguistic diversity (Zapotec, Purepecha, Nahuatl, and Mayan languages Yucatec, Chontal and Huasteco), but also by a set of common cultural elements such as agriculture based on the cultivation of corn, pumpkins and beans, pictographic, hieroglyphic writings and cyclical time accompanied by an exhaustive study of celestial bodies and their motions related to a complex calendar system,8 construction of the temple-pyramids9 and human sacrifices.10 The process of conquering, colonization and evangelization of America required the movement of men (missionaries, conquerors, colonizers and other explorers and adventurers), ideas (for example: Catholic religion, western morals or western law) and forms (architecture and arts), crafts (smithery, carpentry or masonry), plants (wheat, vine and olive), domestic and farm animals (cows, sheep and pigs) and agriculture (fertilization, sowing, ploughing and harvesting). Nevertheless, the Spaniards obstinately refused to adapt to the local customs and way of life. They kept wearing hot continental clothes made from heavy and often sumptuous fabrics, which they preferred to local costumes made of light airy cotton. The same goes for food, as they continued to eat solely meat, wheat flour, wine and olive oil while the indigenous people lived on corn, beans, pumpkins and chili peppers. Despite the fact is an anthropological concept designating the region of North and part of Central America (Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Costa Rica) where an array of advanced civilizations (Aztec and Maya civilizations) with common cultural elements was formed. For the notion and description of the Mesoamerican cultural area see D. CARRASCO, Náboženství, pp. 11–14; J. OPATRNÝ, Amerika, pp. 340–341. The notion of Mesoamerica comes from a Mexican anthropologist with German origins Paul Kirchhoff, who introduced it in 1940s. Paul KIRCHHOFF, Mesoamérica: sus límites geográficos, composición étnica, y caracteres culturales, Acta Americana 1, 1943, pp. 92–107. 8 The Mesoamerican cultures knew and used two calendars. The Nahuas used a ritual calendar called tonalpohualli and a solar calendar known as xiuhpohualli. While the xiuhpohualli calendar was based on the solar cycle (and as such it had three hundred and sixty-five days), the ritual calendar tonalpohualli was based on the lunar cycle (and it had only two hundred and sixty days) and regulated the agricultural, social as well as religious life of the Nahuatl speaking cultures. Furthermore, every 52nd year the Aztecs celebrated the end of a cycle with a New Fire ceremony called xiuhmolpilli, which was conceived as a symbolic restoration of time and thus also as a beginning of the next calendar cycle. See Paul GENDROP, Diccionario de arquitectura mesoamericana, México, D. F. 1997, p. 40; G. C. VAILLANT, Aztékové, pp. 121–122. 9 A temple-pyramid has the form of a stepped pyramid on top of which stood a small temple, hence the term. Thus, in contrast to the Egyptian or Mesopotamian pyramids, the main function of the Mesoamerican ones was not sepulchral but religious. Although, one of the most famous Mesoamerican stepped pyramids, the Temple of the Inscriptions at the Maya site of Palenque, was conceived as sepulchral. See P. GENDROP, Diccionario, pp. 160, 197; G. C. VAILLANT, Aztékové, pp. 134–143. 10 For human sacrifices see Zuzana Marie KOSTIĆOVÁ — Markéta KŘÍŽOVÁ — Sylvie KVĚTINOVÁ, Krvavé rituály střední a jižní Ameriky [Bloody Rituals of Central and South America], Praha 2011. OPEN ACCESS MOnIKa BREnIšínOvÁ 13 that the Spaniards pretended during the whole colonial period living on the Old Continent, the process of cultural exchanges was reciprocal. Each idea or category was transformed after crossing the boundaries of the American continent and acquired a new form after being enriched with new cultural and symbolical features of the strong and vivid Mesoamerican traditions, as shown in the Mexican monastic architecture. This transfer of animals, plants, cultures, peoples, technologies and ideas between the American and Eurasian continents in the 15th and 16th centuries is known as the Columbian or Grand Exchange. This term, introduced to the western historiography in 1972 by the American historiographer Alfred W. Crosby, was quickly adopted by other historians and became widely known and used.11 Evangelization12 accompanied the process of conquering the overseas territories from its very beginning. Its aim was the salvation of Indian souls, the integration of natives into the colonial society and the legitimization of armed occupation of a foreign territory. After all, the fact that it was termed “spiritual conquest”, speaks volumes about the close and mutual relation between the military conquest of America and the efforts to Christianize its native population. Ultimately, the reality that contemporary Mexican society rests on the Catholic religion and the official and main language is Spanish, is a cogent reason for claiming that the process of military and spiritual conquest was successful. It implies that the process of Christianization of Amerindians can be rightfully conceived as the process of cultural translation (translatio studii), which was accompanied and supported by the translation of the imperial power (translatio imperii) represented by the Monarchy of Spain.13 However, as stated below, the strong syncretism of Mexican culture, which is deeply rooted in pre-Columbian times, shows that the process of cultural transmissions was not unidirectional, but reciprocal. The mission of Christianization of the aboriginal population of New Spain was entrusted to three missionary orders: Franciscans, Dominicans and Augustinians.14 It should be noted that the process of evangelization wasn’t initially successful because the mendicant orders had to face various problems such as a significant dispersion 11 Alfred W. CROSBY, The Columbian Exchange. Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492 (Contributions in American Studies 2), Westport 1973. 12 For the evangelization of Mexico see a seminal monograph by Robert RICARD, La conquista espiritual de México. Ensayo sobre el apostolado y los métodos misioneros de las órdenes mendicantes en la Nueva España de 1523–24 a 1572, México 1947. Or later works Lino GÓMEZ CANEDO, Evangelización, cultura y promoción social, México 1993; IDEM, Evangelización y conquista. Experiencia franciscana en Hispanoamérica, México 1977; José María KOBAYASHI, La educación como conquista. Empresa franciscana en México, México 1996. 13 Jacques LE GOFF, Kultura středověké Evropy [Time, Work, & Culture in the Middle Ages], Praha 1991, p. 55. 14 Until the arrival of the Jesuits in 1566 which the Spanish Crown also considered a missionary order from 1568. Pedro BORGES, Religiosos en Hispanoamérica, Madrid 1992. For the missionary labour of the Jesuits see John Augustine DONOHUE, After Kino. Jesuit Missions in Northwestern New Spain 1711–1767, Rome 1969; Charles W. POLZER, Rules and Precepts of the Jesuit Missions of Northwestern New Spain, Tucson 1976. OPEN ACCESS 14 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 2/2016 of the indigenous population (living mainly in the mountains), language barriers, or simply a lack of missionaries15 and European architects and craftsmen who could have helped with the construction of the architecture of conversion. These problems led the representatives of the missionary orders to join forces within the so-called “Holy Union” (from Spanish, Unión Santa)16 which, in collaboration with the first viceroy Antonio de Mendoza (1490–1552), created a complete system of missionary methods based on the study of the indigenous languages, resettlement of the Indians from the mountains to the fertile agricultural areas, and on the integration of selected elements and practices from the indigenous cultures.17 In addition, they designed a so-called “moderate plan” (from Spanish, Traza moderada).18 That was a simple monastic ground plan which made the process of construction of monasteries become considerably easier and faster. Thus, in a few decades, the missionaries succeeded in covering the whole territory of New Spain by a web of monasteries, visita19 churches and chapels (structures founded in villages attended by monks according to a regular schedule but not inhabited) and roads, which enabled a small number of missionaries to evangelize an incomparably larger number of natives [Fig.2]. The agreement was made in 1541 and became crucial for the process of evangelization of Mexico, since it facilitated the unification and standardization of missionary methods and hence it contributed to the acceleration of the process of conversion of the Indians to the Catholic faith. 15 According to R. Ricard, in 1559 there were 380 Franciscans, 210 Dominicans and 212 Augustinians in New Spain. According to an exhaustive study by Sherburne Cook and Woodrow Borah, by 1518 the Indian population of Central Mexico stood at 25.2 million people. However, during the 16th century the number of the native population declined sharply. Woodrow Wilson BORAH — Sherburne F. COOK, The Aboriginal Population of Central Mexico on the Eve of the Spanish Conquest, Berkeley 1963, pp. 88, 157; R. RICARD, La conquista, pp. 180–184. 16 Ibid., p. 232; Gloria ESPINOSA SPÍNOLA, Arquitectura de la conversión y evangelización en la Nueva España durante el siglo XVI, Almería 1999, pp. 16, 44, 80. 17 The missionary methods used by regular clergy to evangelize the native population of New Spain can be divided in the following manner: Catechism, preaching and religious literature in native languages, Catalan and Latin; fine arts with didactic purposes used as Biblia pauperum; religious theatre in native languages, Catalan and Latin; and eventually, European music (e.g. choral music) often mixed with pre-Columbian dances (especially in the case of the Franciscans). See Pedro BORGES, Métodos misionales en la cristianización de América. Siglo XVI, Madrid 1960; Monika BRENIŠÍNOVÁ, Význam představ o konci světa v procesu dobývání a kolonizace Ameriky [The Significance of Ideas about the End of the World in the Process of Conquest and Colonization of America], Praha 2009, pp. 28–36. 18 For the “moderate plan”, see ibid., pp. 58, 62; Rafael CÓMEZ RAMOS, Arquitectura y feudalismo en México. Los comienzos del arte novohispano en el siglo XVI, México 1989, p. 79; Christian DUVERGER, Agua y fuego. Arte sacro indígena de México en el siglo XVI, México2003, p. 54; G.ESPINOSA SPÍNOLA, Arquitectura, pp. 17, 74. 19 It is a term of Mexican history and history of art, used in American historiography, similar to vicarage. OPEN ACCESS MOnIKa BREnIšínOvÁ 15 Despite the fact that the “moderate plan” has not survived up to the present, we can reconstruct it on the basis of the monastic architecture, which still remains there [Fig. 3]. A Mexican monastery can be divided into two parts: external enclosure and internal enclosure. While the outside enclosure was dedicated to the evangelization of indigenous people, the inner space served for the needs of the proper order and thus it didn’t vary from the Western monastic architecture. In general, the internal enclosure housed a single-nave monastery church and a simple two-storey convent. Th us the external enclosure is more interesting from the western point of view, since its layout is innovative and not commonly known in Europe.20 20 For the 16th century New Spain monastic architecture and its features, see Gauvin Alexander BAILEY, Art of Colonial Latin America, London 2005, pp. 217–224; M. BRENIŠÍNOVÁ, Význam, pp. 61–71; Carlos CHANFÓN OLMOS (ed.), Historia de la arquitectura y el urbanismo mexicanos, México 1997, pp. 283–359; R. CÓMEZ RAMOS, Arquitectura, pp. 79–82; Ch. DUVERGER, Agua, pp. 102–219; Pablo DE CEULENEER DE GANTE, La arquitectura de México en el siglo XVI, México 1954, pp. 71–152; John McANDREW, Th e Open-Air Churches of Sixteenthfig. 2: Map of Culhuacan. On this map we see a web of monasteries and visita churches and chapels. It forms part of Relaciones geográfi cas (1578–1586, written by René Acuña), 1580 (https://www. wdl.org/es/item/457/). OPEN ACCESS 16 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 2/2016 This space consisted of a walled courtyard called atrium (from Spanish, atrio; originally it was called “patio”, the term “atrio” became common in the early 17th century) and adjacent farm buildings. The atrium was usually accessible through three arched gates. It featured four corner chapels called posa (from Spanish, capilla posa). These architectonic structures were mainly used during religious processions for resting. In the heart of the atrium stood a monumental stone atrial cross (from Spanish, cruz atrial) that was frequently carved with the Instruments of Passion (Arma Christi).21 Century Mexico. Atrios, Posas, Open Chapels, and Other Studies, Cambridge 1965, pp. 121–597; George A. KUBLER, Arquitectura mexicana del siglo XVI, México 1983, pp. 349–437; G. ESPINOSA SPÍNOLA, Arquitectura, pp. 59–111. 21 For iconography of the Instruments of Passion see Jan BALEKA, Výtvarné umění. Výkladový slovník. Malířství, sochařství, grafika [Monolingual Dictionary of Art. Painting, Sculpture, Graphics], Praha 1997, p. 223; Udo BECKER, Slovník symbolů [Dictionary of Symbols], Praha 2007, p. 187; James HALL, Slovník námětů a symbolů ve výtvarném umění [Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in Art], Praha — Litomyšl 2008, p. 295; Luis MONREAL Y TEJADA, Iconografía del cristianismo, Barcelona 2000, pp. 505–506. fig. 3: Monastery of San Francisco. In the photograph we see a small monasterial church, cloister and open chapel within the monastery building. Tlahuelilpan, Hidalgo, 16th century (© Daniel Pajas). OPEN ACCESS MOnIKa BREnIšínOvÁ 17 Then there was an open chapel22 (from Spanish, capilla abierta) — a religious structure which was opened to the atrium and which represented the dominant feature of the whole area. In 16th century New Spain monastic architecture represents a remarkable example of translation of Occidental culture from the Old to the New World, as it sparks a spirited and long-running debate among historians and art historians concerning the possible roots and models of the Mexican architecture of conversion. One of the most open-ended questions is the phenomenon of fortification. Actually, this architecture is also known as “fortified monasteries” (from Spanish, conventosfortaleza).23 In general, we divide the existent opinions into three groups. First, some scholars assert that this architecture served for defense (M. Toussaint, R. Ricard, L.Mac Gregor). Second, it had a simple decorative function (G. Kubler, G. Tovar yTeresa). Third, the function of the fortification is symbolic as it represents the power of the Spanish Empire (J. McAndrew, R. Cómez) or New Jerusalem (S. Sebastián). Personally, I think that the third statement applies primarily to the Franciscan order, whose mentality was showing significant marks of millenarianism.24 In this manner we could proceed with each individual element of this architecture. For example, the researchers who are concerned with the Mexican monastery atriums mention not only the early Christian architecture, but also the Muslim one. They speak about the early Christian basilicas with atriums designated for pagan neophytes and cate chumens and the Muslim hypostyle mosques, which had open façades and colonnades added to accommodate the growing congregations that were formed in medieval Spain. Furthermore, some of them, in the context of the three arched gates, which served as the main entrances to the monasteries, convey the ancient idea of the triumphal arch. Now, let’s turn our attention to this unique architecture from the perspective of the native Mesoamerican culture. Before the Spaniards’ arrival, the religious life of the Mesoamerican civilizations was lived in the open air. A typical Mesoamerican cult complex25 consisted of a temple-pyramid built on a large platform, several other 22 The typology of Mexican open chapels differs. Probably, the most complete distinction is offered by the Spanish art historian Gloria Espinosa Spínola. She proposes a typology based on the ground plans: 1) a one-room chapel built on a square or rectangular ground plan (e.g. Actopan); 2) a chapel of polygonal ground plan (e.g. Huejotzingo and Tlaxcala); 3) a chapel as part of a cloister (e.g. Huaquechula and Tecamachalco); 4) an open chapel which is supplemented by another space such as sacristy, baptistery or a whole presbytery (this arrangement is characteristic of the vicarage); 5) a chapel consisting of two rooms, one of them serving as a presbytery and the other as a transept; 6) a chapel on a centralized plan with several naves (e.g. Cholula). G. ESPINOSA SPÍNOLA, Arquitectura, pp. 31–36, 99–102. 23 Comp. Richard PERRY, Mexico’s Fortress Monasteries, Santa Barbara 1993. 24 Regarding the millenarian mentality of the Franciscan Order see John Leddy PHELAN, The Millenial Kingdom of the Franciscans in the New World. A Study of the Writings of Gerónimo de Mendieta (1525–1604), Berkeley 1956. 25 For the definition of the Mesoamerican cult complex see D. CARRASCO, Náboženství, p. 223. Some of the most important cult complexes of Mesoamerica are described in Enrique FLORESCANO, Memoria indígena, México 1999, pp. 79–216. OPEN ACCESS 24 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 2/2016 Special attention is paid to the question of the European models and roots of this architecture and Mesoamerican traditions, ideas and forms related to it. Furthermore, the text deals with the phenomenon of transmission of culture, forms and ideas between the Old and the New World, which is illustrated with two examples: Indochristian art; the European artistic production of modern times. Finally, the author states that Mexican society and culture represent one of the most striking and successful examples of cultural transmission as it is demonstrated by the contemporary Mexican culture based on the syncretic form of Catholicism. At the same time, the author admits that the Mexican culture is so complex and the process of cultural transmissions between Western world and the Mesoamerican world has been so complicated that it resists any endeavors to conceive and interpret it in depth. The paper contains a pictorial supplement consisting of three maps and two photographs. It was written on the basis of field research conducted by the author of the text, Monika Brenišínová, in Central Mexico in 2013. Mgr. Monika Brenišínová is a Ph.D. candidate at the Centre for Ibero-American Studies of Charles University, Prague and a Ph.D. fellow at the French Centre for Research in Humanities and Social Sciences (CEFRES). She specializes in the history of art of Latin America and in the evangelization of the native populations of Latin America ([email protected]). OPEN ACCESS