The Plaza Mayor of Guatemala City

SIDNEY D. MARKMAN Duke University

ANTIGUA Guatemala, the former capital of the Reino de Guatemala, was destroyed by a series of earthquakes in I773. Over the opposition of both the ecclesiastical and

municipal authorities, the capital was forcibly moved to a new site about forty kilometers away, the modern city of Guatemala.1 Very soon after the site selected was approved by the authorities in Spain, in December 1775,2 the city was

surveyed and laid out by the military engineer and archi- tect, Luis Diez de Navarro.3 His plan for the new capital, now named La Nueva Guatemala de la Asuncion, is dated

I. There are many documents in the Archivo General del Go- bierno (hereafter AGG) in Guatemala City and the Archivo de In- dias in Seville (hereafter AI) dealing with the destruction of Antigua in 1773 and the moving of the capital to the new site. The following are of special interest: AI, Guatemala, 657, 658, 659, 66o, 661, and 662; AGG, A 1.3.25 (1773) I3252-I96I; AGG, A I.I0 (I773) 18773-2444; see also Boletin del Archivo General del Gobierno vm, Guatemala, 1943, pp. I52ff. For some contemporary accounts in published form see Domingo Juarros, Compendio de la historia de la ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala, I936-I937, II, pp. I6Iff., I65ff., and I79ff.; Juan Gonzalez Bustillo, Razon particular de los templos, etc., La Hermita (Guatemala City), I774, passim, as well as in documen- tary form in AGG, A 1.18.6 (I774) 38306-4502, and a modern copy of the same, A I.I8.I6 (I904) 1400I-2021; Isagoge historica apologetica de las Indias occidentales y especial de la provincia de San Vicente de Chiapa y Guatemala de la orden de Predicadores, Guatemala, 1935, pp. 409ff.; Pedro Perez Valenzuela, La Nueva Guatemala de la Asuncion, Guate- mala, 1934, gives an exhaustive account based on contemporary literary and historical sources as well as on documentary materials. Information on the destruction of Antigua and the moving of the capital to the new site is also given by many modern authors, espe- cially Victor Manuel Diaz, Las bellas artes en Guatemala, Guatemala, 1934; J. Antonio Villacorta C., Historia de la Capitania General de Guatemala, Guatemala, I942; Ernesto Chinchilla Aguilar, Historia del arte en Guatemala, 1963.

2. See Perez Valenzuela, op. cit., pp. 77ff., who cites the cedula dated 21 September 1775 at San Idelfonso, Spain, and which arrived in Guatemala on 28January 1776 approving the project for the mov- ing of the capital from Antigua. The proposal had been submitted by the then captain general and president of the audiencia, Martin de Ma- yorga, on 30 June I774.

3. AGG, A I.I0.3 (I775) 4536-74.

I March 1776 and on it there appears the notation that the

city was already in construction.4 The plan shows a simple quadrangle with streets running

north-south and east-west (Fig. I). In addition to the Plaza

Mayor, which Diez locates in the very center of the scheme, there are four other plazas of about the same size as the main plaza, one in the center of each quadrant or quarter formed by the horizontal and longitudinal axes of the

drawing, so that the five are arranged like dots on the num- ber five sides of gaming dice. The layout is divided into twelve streets running north-south and twelve east-west, that is, thirteen by thirteen square blocks including those to be occupied by the plazas, or a total of 169 for the city as a whole.

When Francisco Sabatini, the court architect to whom Diez had submitted his proposal for the new town layout, saw the project he insisted that some changes be made, for he did not think it conformed to the then modern principles of town planning. Diez de Navarro, an old man at the time and who had been in Guatemala since I74I, was dismissed and in his place Marcos Ibanez was put in charge of laying out the city; the latter submitted a new plan to the royal authorities in Spain in I778.5 Ibafiez changed the location of the four secondary plazas, putting them on the cross axes of the plan running through the Plaza Mayor (Fig. 2). A plan

4. (Fig. i). AI, Guatemala, 220; see also Pedro Torres Lanzas, Relacion descriptiva de los mapas, pianos, etc., de la audiencia y capitania general de Guatemala, existentes en el Archivo General de Indias, Madrid, 1903, no. 220. Another copy of this plan exists in the archives of the Servicios Geografico e Hist6rico del Ejercito, Estado Mayor Cen- tral, Madrid, and is reproduced in Cartografia de ultramar, carpeta IV, Ame'rica Central, Madrid, 1957, map no. 8. For biographical data on Luis Diez de Navarro and his work in Guatemala, see Sidney D. Markman, Colonial Architecture of Antigua Guatemala, Philadelphia, I966, pp. 58ff.

5. Maria Victoria Gonzilez Mateos, "Marcos Ibaniez, arquitecto espafiol en Guatemala," Anales de la Sociedad de Geograffa e Historia

I8I

182

Fig. i. Luis Diez de Navarro, Plan for La Nueva Guatemala, dated I March I776. AI, Guatemala, 220 (photo: author).

showing the distribution of the water supply was submitted to the crown in 1787 (Fig. 3). It is very much like the origi- nal one for the city drawn by Ibiaiez in 1778, implying that within the space of nine years the city had already taken

shape as projected.6 Once Ibafiez had altered Diez de Navarro's original

scheme, his next job was to supervise the construction of

(hereafter ASGH) xxIv, 1949, pp. 49-75, especially pp. 53ff. and 65ff., reprinted from Anuario de Estudios Americanos III, 1946. For Ibaniez' plan (Fig. 2), AI, Guatemala, 234; see also Torres Lanzas, op. cit., no. 234.

6. (Fig. 3). Two copies of this plan exist, AI, Guatemala, 264 and 265. See also Torres Lanzas, op. cit., nos. 264, 265, the latter being the duplicate. It is interesting to compare the plan of modern day Guate- mala City, that is, the central portion, and see that the scheme of the streets and the plazas, except for one on the east leg of the horizontal axis, is still the same.

the new capital and design the public buildings whose loca- tions he had already decided on and which appear on his

city plan. One of the first he designed, in November 1777, was the one to house the Real Administraci6n de Tabacos which was to be adjacent to the post office, and the custom house (Figs. 2, 4). This public building was to be located on the south side of the plaza.7 In 1782 he also did a plan of the cathedral which he placed on the east side of the Plaza

Mayor. But he left Guatemala the next year, in I783, after

having directed the actual construction but a short time.8 It

7. (Fig. 4). AGG, A 3.13 (1777) 29687-1872, folio i8. 8. Gonzalez Mateos, loc. cit.; Torres Lanzas, op. cit., nos. 246, 247.

For reproductions of these plans see Diego Angulo iiiguez, Pianos de monumentos arquitect6nicos de America y Filipinas existentes en el Archivo de Indias, Sevilla, Seville, I933-I940, pls. I47, I48.

remained for other architects to continue the work on the cathedral which, though inaugurated and put into use on 6 January 1813, was not completed until much later in the

nineteenth century and long after the independence from

Spain.9

9. For accounts of the building history of the cathedral see the following: Juarros, op. cit., i, pp. 66, 213 and II, pp. 25Iff.; Perez Valenzuela, op. cit., pp. 84ff., 103; Brasseur de Bourbourg, ASGH xxIv, I949, p. 168, writing in 1855, says the cathedral was just about finished but was still lacking the towers. See also the following docu- ments: AI, Guatemala, 956, 951, and 952, leg. 18; AGG, A I.10.2

(1786) 1669-68, A I.10.2 (1778) 1670-68, A I.10.2 (I797) 1672-68, A I.10.2 (1798) 1673-68, A 1.Io.2 (i8oi) 1675-68, A 1.10.2 (1802) 1677-68, A 1.10.2 (1802) 1678-68. For some references to other doc- uments in the Archivo de Indias, see Torres Lanzas, op. cit., nos. 246, 247, 267, 268; for reproductions of the plans see Angulo, op. cit., pls. I47-I50, 15I, 152. See also Miguel Larreinaga, Prontuario de todas las reales cedulas etc., Guatemala, 1857, p. 123, for a cedula dated 21 Sep- tember 1775, already cited in note 2 above, where among other mat- ters, instructions for financing the construction of the cathedral are included.

183

The other three sides of the plaza were occupied in the course of time by the following buildings: directly opposite the cathedral on the west side of the plaza, the Capitania with offices for the Audiencia, Casa de Moneda, and other

royal governmental dependencies as well; on the north side, the Casas Consistoriales, including the city jail; on the south

side, the custom house and the private dwelling and shops of Fermin Aycinena; and in the very center of the plaza, a

large fountain designed by Antonio Bernasconi who had arrived in Guatemala in 1776 with Ibafiez, as the latter's draftsman.10

Two plans, one of the Plaza Mayor and another of the fountain in its center, were sent on 14 December 1785 to the

royal authorities in Spain along with a brief, expediente (Figs. 5, 6). These drawings are from the hand of Bernasconi

Io. AGG, A I.Io (I777) I575-59. See also Gonzalez Mateos, loc. cit.; Chinchilla Aguilar, op. cit., pp. 123ff.

_~4m .u .A,.

Z , c,a2, , 4(ht:~_

~,

I

A^A^~bmur f?1S4ff.

.&not._S.& idmsf

<d *, dUXIr;**../??~d C

IW? -a l bH@

lr r r Cag z- 'l r - m- U J t Y

~ _ i -

l -_ _ ;.-.--! ?-., _ 1__ ] -

l Egsi C addds E 1gseSI

-r -

iA]jj 'jI-i ^ - Ww

3JIAF1 1R j' B "

1 Lu - - - -i J

7 JL:j L _ ' * ̂ * ' i '*'- ?' 1,- ar-' J r1 d J d: 3 - *-i - c a j

*iuf-frjr C

Cww. A

^f~.c^44a..^

tJo oTf.dw.

w/Lwus a&,tW* ^ m.

OIanr

I ___ I

: nsrm r tl2EY~

IiIm

'#?*be ;c} a Plrrb rU

Fig. 2. Marcos Ibaniez, Plan for La Nueva Guatemala, dated 24 November 1778. AI, Guatemala, 234 (photo: author).

184

Fig. 3. Plan of La Nueva Guatemala, dated 1787. AI, Guatemala, 264 (photo: author).

though his signature does not appear on them.'1 The em-

placement of the buildings is shown exactly as Ibaniez had shown it on the city plan (Fig. 2) and as Juarros describes it at the end of the eighteenth century.12 The plan of the plaza also gives the elevation of the north side showing the mar- ket stalls (cajones) just in front of the city hall and also a fountain of circular plan. The latter is quite different from the one depicted on the second plan, where the fountain

appears in detail, and also from the one actually built (Figs. 7, 9). It is most probable that the over-all plan of the plaza was done before that of the fountain rendered by Bernas- coni in detail, and the one which was subsequently built.13 The difference in design between the two fountains, that is,

II. (Figs. 5, 6). AI, Guatemala, 529. See Torres Lanzas, op. cit., nos. 261, 262; Angulo, op. cit., II, pp. 96ff. and Iv, pp. 43Iff., pls. 171, 172.

12. Juarros, op. cit., I, p. 65 and ii, p. 6; also Chinchilla Aguilar, op. cit., pp. i22ff.

13. See note I above; also Markman, op. cit., p. 57, and Gonzalez Mateos, op. cit., p. 54.

between the one shown on the plan of the plaza and the one which appears on the plan of the fountain itself, leads to the conclusion that Bernasconi redesigned the latter after Iba- fiez had left in I783. Bernasconi, as Ibaniez' draftsman,

probably drew both plans, the first as a detail in the general scheme of the city designed by his superior, and the second on his own authority after he had been put in charge of the

building works in the new capital. In fact he labelled the

drawings numbers I and 2 respectively. He uses the same device, wreaths of flowers with festoons, at the bottom of each plan to indicate the scale, "varas castellanas." It appears that the actual layout of the plaza had been decided on by Ibafiez, and it remained for Bernasconi to work out the de- tails which he had free rein to change after he was named the architect in charge of the construction of the new capital.

Ibanfez had provided for the main plaza of La Nueva Guatemala to be almost twice the size of that in Antigua, conforming to the new ideas current in Spain concerning town planning. It was to be an open area delimited by por- ticoes and buildings to give it coherence and unity, with the central or focal point in the fountain set exactly on the diag-

* (Jotln :oloqd) 8I oiloj 'zL-8i-896 (LLLI) ?I-f v 'DV 'LLLI -i,quirAOiN oz patp 'so'quJ_l Op tuop.isitwupUpv tl ioj trt1lIdz 'zaujqi so:0.iW *bt *2

f4 P1 .!r?;-5::E

I

.; ...- ?"t 'u;"

't: i?? '? L: r

'b25(?

b'Z

PfO w9dzV f J'i4W s 9t ? :4M,JP om I

6~ ~ ~ ;P~)d

S8I

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~I - II 1- I ~~~~

,I'll, !t,,~~~~~ - -

w m ~ ~~ - - ~~~,

I

PI

a

II

II r

I *1

4, ,''! , w

- . -. . .

. " '

" , , .

;i '~ , 1e

Wi^w- I

- P uiomv *w Pk yfacdia dr kwm. Capm Rkjrywm* .Jt*rn f , -c LA ('i id d r Cwrinalt CJ 'Re i Mo.w.

IL _____ m= ______ 1l1 I P2 6

''''i @ @pl~ -@~ 0 @ E 4 L a' a a- o a a a a a

1 a ii I I a I a a O I' I I I I

rCqCE,1,3 3QE3LULLE3 MM= 2== LwwEij a 2 .

El B

E3 Bi H

.i

A

-

B

B- i '^- - IL 1I-

S oo n o o :o o o o n o 01 a 0 0 0 a 0 a a 10 a 0 a 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 t

Fig. 5. Anltonio Bcrnasconii, Plani for the Plaza Mayor, dated 14 December I785. Al, Guatemala, 529 (photo: after Aiigulo, Plaiwos, pl. 171).

onals of the rectangular plan. Despite all this, however, the effect of a mathematically balanced organization of the

space was to be vitiated by the public market customarily held there. Bernasconi had made provision for market stalls

(cajoncs) which he arranged following the outline of the

plaza, placing them so that they also formed the boundaries of the streets which ran across the perimeter of the plaza (Fig. 5). He placed twenty stalls on the longer north and south sides, and fourteen on the shorter east and west sides. Furthermore, he also arranged them so that openings were left in the center of each row as well as at the corners, in order to facilitate the flow of pedestrian traffic in and out of

the center of the square. This market was not an innovation, for holding the public market in the main square of towns was an old and persevering custom in Guatemala, and was in fact, one which had originated in Spain.14

But the market stalls were never to be arranged so neatly and logically as they appear on Bernasconi's plan of the

14. See Markman, op. cit., p. 17, for the existence of this customl since the seventeenth century in Antigua. It was an Hispanic tradi- tion for the city government to provide facilities (cajoncs) for the

public market in the main square of towns, even in Madrid. Sec also

Angulo, op. cit., Iv, p. 431.

i86

h. M. .?

I .. ,4 " 1 !

%. 5? : ?? e 1.

1 3?1? frl 1

. L

I I

L

i

-. , t L

i

I* I

I

i

U

., o

o

o

0

l

B rI

0

O

S s

r

C

.. 3

MM;TMPJLI-0 M- r- r m , / J

1

I

A

j ...

187

_, ) . ,I !: ' l

Ir iaa:)

..'.,t,i,l' Ix

.;,~t ,

L;' " ";1 ;;,r',:: ; ;' 7Z.":.

*' : ;::l ,

_',,'WN . (l..r I). (A,I rl,i l I ,,/

t {sXL/S -^ ' s

Fig. 6. Antonio Bernasconi, Plan for the fountain of the Plaza Mayor, dated 14 December I785. AI, Guatemala, 529 (photo: after Angulo, Pianos, pl. I72).

Fig. 7. The fountain of the Plaza Mayor ca. 1876 with the cathedral in the left back-

,! !?:!* ^ ground, partial views of the Palacio Arzobispal and the

Colegio de Infantes to left and right respectively, and the colonnade on the south side of the plaza to the right (photo: after Muybridge, Pa- cific States, negative no. 434I).

I - I ' I I 1 a , -

'. - <A

; " , :, ~

. --e*

. i"4 0 .4I i 14

0-f"

i88

Fig. 8. Palacio de los Capitanes Generales ca. 1876 (photo: after Muybridge, Pacific States, negative no. 4336).

Plaza Mayor. In time the area wasjammed with ajumble of

nondescript huts in complete disarray, as noted by a num- ber of foreign nineteenth-century observers. Some visual evidence also exists to confirm the verbal opinions of these visitors concerning the unaesthetic appearance of the prin- cipal plaza of the most important city in all of Central America.1 5

Until the cathedral was finally completed in I865 or so, the most impressive structure in the Plaza Mayor was the fountain designed by Antonio Bernasconi (Figs. 6, 7, 9). The architect did not live to see it completed, for he died

suddenly on 28 October 1785, just about two months be- fore the plans were submitted to the court in Spain.16 He

I5. Henry Dunn, Guatimala, or the United Provinces of Central America in 1827-1828, New York, 1828, pp. 67ff.; G. W. Montgom- ery, Narrative of a Journey to Guatemala in Central America in 1838, New York, 1839, pp. I5iff.;J. W. Boddam-Whetham, Across Cen- tral America, London, 1877, p. 24; Arthur Morellet, Travels in Central America, New York, I87I, ch. XII for a description of the architec- ture of Guatemala; Diaz, op. cit., p. 134 for a quotation from Morel- let translated into Spanish describing the Plaza Mayor. Some con-

temporary drawings and photographs were published in which the

plaza at different times during the nineteenth century is shown as follows: ASGH vi, I929-I930, p. 29; ASGH xIII, I936-I937, p.

266; ASGH xxIv, I949, p. 168; Bureau of the American Republics, Guatemala, Bulletin, No. 32, Washington, D. C., January, 1892, fac-

ing p. 67. I6. See note II above; also Chinchilla Aguilar, op. cit., p. 126.

Figs. 7 and 8 are copies of photographs taken by Eadweard Muy- bridge, The Pacific Coast of Central America and Mexico; and the Culti- vation and Shipment of Coffee, 1876, being an unpublished album of

144 photographs of which three copies are known to exist: one in

had begun actual construction before his death, judging by the fact that some accounts of the money spent on the job that year were rendered to the authorities.17 More than just minor material differences exist between what he had de-

signed and what was built after his death. The disparity in

quality between his conception on paper and the completed fountain in stone becomes obvious when the two are com-

pared. The lack of skilled workmen in Guatemala at the end of

the eighteenth century is notorious18 and is aptly illustrated

by this fountain. Bernasconi's plan was turned over to an

ordinary stonecutter, one Manuel Jesus Barruncho, who finished the job without any supervision from a trained ar- chitect. The sculptures, alluded to deprecatingly by Euro-

pean observers, were possibly done by one Matias de Espana of whom little is known, but whose ability as a sculptor is well documented by the extant figures with which he decorated the fountain.19 Barruncho, who was primarily a

the Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.; another in the library of Stanford University; and a third in the possession of Professor Walter Miles, of Yale University, who kindly allowed me to make

copies of his collection. Fig. 7 is listed as being made from negative no. 4341, and Fig. 8 from negative no. 4336.

I7. AGG, A I.IO.I (I785) 649I-309. 18. For the problem of the lack of skilled labor in Guatemala, see

Markman, op. cit., pp. 44ff., 53; also his "La mano de obra indigena (no espafiola) en el desarrollo de la arquitectura colonial de Guate- mala," in Boletin del Centro de Investigaciones Hist6ricas y Esteticas, Caracas, no. 3, 1965, pp. 88-97.

I9. Markman, op. cit., p. 57, for a short biographical note on Bar-

Fig. 9. The fountain of the Plaza Mayor in 1965 reconstructed in the Plazuela de Espafia (photo: author).

craftsman, probably did actual physical work on the foun-

tain as well as supervise the project in general until its com-

pletion in 1789.20 Bernasconi's plan of the basin shows a simple square with

gently curving, exedra-like projections or hemicycles from

each side (Fig. 6). The same type of plan or outline is found

in many fountains of Antigua, both public and private. In

this respect, the ground plan of the fountain is still quite

runcho; sec also, Angulo, op. cit., IV, p. 433; also Chinchilla Aguilar op. cit., p. 130, who says Espafia was the sculptor, though he does not state his sources for this information. Heinrich Berlin, Historia de la imagineria en Guatemala, Guatemala, 1952, pp. IIIff., gives a short

biographical account of Matias de Espafia, but nothing which might indicate that he worked on the fountain. Espafia worked in Antigua, appearing in the records for the first time in I743. He died in I800.

20. For some accounts of the expenditures on the fountain, see

AGG, A I.I0.2 (I786) I4986-2I08, A 1.10.2 (1786) I4987-2I08, and A I.I0 (1786) 1614-61. The date of completion is given in the in-

scription on the side facing north (Fig. 9), where the fountain is now

located, that is, I8 September 1789.

189

Antiguan Baroque in style. But the contrary is true of the

superstructure, where neoclassic elements are introduced.21

A little kiosk or baldachin-like structure rises from the basin,

conforming in plan to that of the basin itself. Inside it an

equestrian figure is set on a low pedestal. Bernasconi's draw-

ing also shows the walls of the basin decorated with relief

sculptures set in panels. The base or podium of the kiosk it-

self also has some reliefs. Each corner of the podium is also

embellished with a statue in the round of the forequarters of

a rearing horse from whose nostrils the water spouts. The

whole of the fountain is set on a low, three-step platform, also conforming to the outline of the basin, and it is sur-

rounded by low stone posts by way of a fence which Ber-

nasconi probably intended to close with chains. The foun-

tain suffered the loss of the royal equestrian during the

tumultuous days when the independence from Spain was

achieved in 1821. But in its new location even the horse is

is no longer in evidence.22 The structure as it exists today

(Fig. 9), except for the low stepped platform, is exactly the

same as in the photograph taken by Muybridge in 1876

(Fig. 7). It thus serves as a basis of comparison with Bernas-

coni's plan in order to determine what changes were made

by Barruncho.

21. For the fountains of Antigua see Markman, op. cit., pp. I46ff., and especially Fuente de los Dominicos, pp. I47ff., figs. 92-94, and the Fountain near La Merced, pp. I48ff., figs. 95-98. The same type of outline, a square with a curvilinear projection on each side, is also

employed for window openings and even for the cross section of arcade piers in cloisters, as for example in the Escuela de Cristo, ibid., p. 185, fig. II.

22. John Lloyd Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Cliiapas, and Yucatan, New York, 1841, I, pp. 92ff.; Boddam-Wheth-

am, op. cit., p. 24; Diaz, op. cit., p. I34. The fountain had been dis- mantled at some unspecified date, probably late in the nineteenth

century, and dumped on the outskirts of the city. In the I930s it was restored and erected anew in the Plazuela de Espalia where it can be seen today. See ASGH xiv, 1937-1938, p. 32.

Fig. Io. Marcos Ibafiez, Plan of the cathedral of La Nueva Guate- mala, dated I6 February 1782. Detail, the facade. AI, Guatemala, 95I (photo: after Angulo, Pianos, pl. I5o).

I90

The low fence of stone posts was never installed, for they do not appear in Muybridge's photograph. The panels on the basin walls were never decorated with the bas-reliefs as intended by Berasconi. Nor is the podium of the kiosk so decorated. The quality of the workmanship of the four horses springing from the corners of the kiosk leaves much to be desired. Bernasconi shows them rearing up with their

forelegs unencumbered and pawing the air (Fig. 6), where- as here they each rest their forelegs on a large stone ball which is seemingly suspended in air (Figs. 7, 9), except in the case of one horse where the ball rests on the ledge of the

very corer of the podium. The rendition of the anatomy of the horses can hardly be considered what one would ex-

pect from an experienced sculptor. It is rather from the hand of a stonecutter who was accustomed to execute mold-

ings and other architectural details, but who had little, if any, experience carving figures and whose style, if style it be at all, is best characterized as "naive" or "primitive" in the modern sense.

The curvilinear surfaces of the hemicycle-like projections between the rearing horses are incised with random undu-

lating grooves and were obviously intended by the sculptor to represent the waves of the sea. One side only is spared this surgery, the one with the inscription facing north as the fountain is oriented today (Fig. 9). Barruncho allowed him-

self, or his sculptor, a little whimsical liberty by way of further decoration by placing what may be regarded as the head of a snarling serpent of some kind, with teeth and

tongue visible, on the center of each opening of the kiosk above the waves on each projecting curvilinear section. These reptiles prove to be rather superfluous companions to the Pegasi, and one may speculate at will as to what they were supposed to symbolize. What the stone balls under the

forelegs of the horses represent will ever remain a mystery locked in the mind of Barruncho.

The construction history of the cathedral was even less felicitous than that of the fountain. Not only did it suffer the vicissitudes of changes in plan, but also from the apathy of indifferent architects whose aims were thwarted for lack of funds or because of meddling by local authorities.23 Iba-

iez, who had made the original plan, left Guatemala when the building had barely reached foundation level. His task was then taken over by Bernasconi, who died shortly after- ward. In the interim, some local craftsmen, completely un- conversant with the new style in which the cathedral had been designed, took over the supervision of the building

23. See note 9 above for historical and documentary data on the construction of the cathedral.

works. Fortunately they did not remain in charge for very long when they were replaced, not by a single architect who might have seen the job through to completion, but

by a series of Spaniards, the most important one of whom was Josef Sierra, more a military engineer than a civil archi- tect. Each worked for short periods of time and changed or added something to the original plan of Ibafiez. Such then was the fate of the building that was to introduce the neo- classic style to Guatemala and the rest of Central America, a style which came to be the symbol of the independence from Spain.

The cathedral formed the major eastern element for the

spatial delineation of the Plaza Mayor. But it did not stand isolated there, for almost from the very first it was flanked

by the Palacio Arzobispal on the north and the Colegio de Seises, or Infantes, on the south (Figs. 11, I2). The former

was designed by Bernasconi.24 The side of the building fac-

ing the plaza is carried out as a blind arcade, being a varia- tion of the true arcades erected on the other three sides of the plaza. The entrance is accented by a door set in a bay with rusticated pilasters surmounted with a triangular pedi- ment, a treatment not unlike that of the entrances of the

Capitania on the opposite side of the plaza. The balustrade, or "Roman attic," which crowns the wall adds a little more

height to the building. The device is well known in the

eighteenth-century Antiguan style, for instance in the Uni-

versity of San Carlos and the Seminario Tridentino, two

examples of the culmination of the style which developed in Antigua after the earthquake of I717.25 In this sense, then, Bernasconi did not make a complete break with the local Baroque idiom, the treatment of the door being the

only element reminiscent of the new style. He had designed the blind arcade with engaged half-columns (Fig. II), also in keeping with the eighteenth-century Antiguan Baroque vocabulary. But his plan was changed after his death, and

flat, unadorned pilasters now set off the bays of the arcade

(Fig. I2).

The design of the cathedral faqade by Ibaniez (Fig. Io) is rather low and overextended in width. It is flanked by rather squat towers slightly lower in height than the very pinnacle of the pediment over the central bay. Furthermore,

they are separated from the side bays by a narrow uninte-

grated interval of space. This rather low and disjointed or-

24. (Fig. II). AI, Guatemala, 571. See Torres Lanzas, op. cit., nos. 253, 254; see also Angulo, op. cit., iv, pp. 4IIff., and pls. I50, 153 for

reproductions of the same. 25. For the University of San Carlos and the Seminario Triden-

tino see Markman, op. cit., pp. 198-203, figs. 188-196, and pp. 197- 198, figs. I83-I87.

I9I

I.l_ L.I ..Z<) BsP . D.' " )HIYVII jEI_1. I<-). ;B.I,,4.31SPar :', T ,j/

',.3- -. '

V,,. /,, F, /f,f,, /,, , ,, ?/,,/ , ,,,;,,.,, ,,, .', /r,,., 9.,,,.

F' "

I T I I

1' -?rS?,))C.. ?=. :) ' I J) ch/ .u .1,

'' -I?r??1?r?-;x. ? it. 4 ?1CtFriP C '" v r

'I..g ? ??? ? i; &"

It? i i tc? .1 .

3(r,

i

t 'E4 . c ?( I

C-t?..l ( ,,, ? u7

't--...s.; I'r CICc;L i. -

tr ?. I, c?j .? U j i

?c!i c, I iir

C1 .

.., i 'Y iri

1 t ? ? ? ? ? : i? ? r???8

.1 i

Fig. ii. Antonio Bernasconi, Plan of the Palacio Arzobispal, dated 13 October I784. AI, Guatemala, 57I (photo: after Angulo, Pianos, pl. 153).

r7: 1" i FIN- t. -_t I

t r - r '.., 1 i

: 'T jw -t " - ..-I

I92

Fig. 12. Palacio Arzobispal in 1965 (photo: author).

ganization of the elements of the composition resulted from Ibafiez' desire to conform to the wishes of the royal authori- ties who were fearful of raising any building to any great height despite the requirements or norms of good architec- tural design. These apprehensions were in a sense made legalized architectural practice in the cedula of 1775 where article No. I I orders that private houses were to be no more than four and one half varas high. Also in article No. 27 it is explicitly stipulated that the new cathedral not be of an excessive height, so as to avoid the dangers of earthquakes, and that the height of its tower be kept to a minimum for greater security.26 The fear of new destruction was so great that much time was taken up by a discussion, peripheral to that of the roofing of the cathedral, concerning the necessity of devising a new method of construction that would be earthquake-resistant.27

In such an emotional environment caused by the still fresh memories of the destruction of Antigua in 1773, Iba- fiez had perforce to deviate from the norms of good de- sign. This explains why he planned isolated, low towers to either side of the facade. His scheme was changed by his successors, so that the over-all composition of the faqade and the towers now appears better organized (Figs. 7, 13). The architects who succeeded him raised the lower story of the towers up to the height of the main portion of the facade which they now abutted and with which they were lined up in plan. The whole faCade was further unified by an en- tablature common not only to the frontispiece, but also to the lower stories of the towers below the belfries.

26. See note 2 above. 27. Perez Valenzuela, op. cit., pp. 80, 84, I03.

The side bays (with doors opening on the side aisles), which Ibaniez planned to be lower than the central bay, were also raised to the same height as that of the lower story or base of the towers and that of the central bay. Thus the facade was completed up to the height of the main entabla- ture which integrated the five units (two tower bays, two side-aisle bays, and the central bay) into a more unified

composition by 8I13. The attic and remate (finial) over the central bay as well as the belfries of the towers themselves were finally built in the third quarter of the nineteenth cen-

tury, thus completing the changes in Iblanez' original plan devised more than eighty years earlier.28

This change in design of the faqade had a disastrous effect on the composition of the whole of the east side of the plaza. The two low flanking buildings to either side of the cathe- dral had been proportioned in concert with Ibanez' original scheme, and were meant to conform in height to the low, broad, extended facade in the center, thus forming a unified ensemble to close the space of the Plaza Mayor on the east side (Figs. I , 12). As long as the cathedral remained un-

finished and without its belfry towers, the two buildings did not look dwarfed and out of proportion as they do to-

day. The changes in the plan of the cathedral set up a chain reaction requiring changes in the two buildings to either side, but which were never thought of, let alone carried out.29

The buildings which were finally constructed on the other three sides of the plaza before the independence from

Spain have all disappeared. In accord with the requirement that the new city be planned to conform in layout to that of the ruined capital of Antigua,30 Ibfaez had placed the prin- cipal governmental buildings on the other three sides of the Plaza Mayor allowing himself only some small liberties as to which side in particular each was to occupy (Figs. 2, 5). The side opposite the cathedral, the location of a park today, was reserved for the Capitana (Fig. 8) with its dependencies such as the Casa de Moneda and the Audiencia.31 He placed the Casas Consistoriales on the north side. The south side he reserved for the custom house, the Administraci6n de Ta- bacos, and the post office. The scheme was unified by the

28. The towers were completed between 1863 and 1868 according to Diaz, op. cit., p. 178. Chinchilla Aguilar, op. cit., pp. I92ff., says the towers were built in I865, the frontispiece between the tower bel- fries in 1867, and the lonja (the platform or atrium in front of the facade) in 1881. The towers were destroyed in the earthquake of 1917 and rebuilt during the next decade. Compare Figs. 7, 13.

29. See note 24 above for references to the plan of the Palacio Arzobispal, and note 9 above for references to the plan of the cathe- dral.

30. Perez Valenzuela, op. cit., pp. 78, 8o. 3I. AGG, A 1.80 (date?) 55040-6083.

cL- I??I? n,. r. -- -r:?- -?---e?c7;

1? "" - Z: ?"i:- L-?-

I93

I

Fig. I3. The cathedral in 1965. The Palacio Arzobispal is to the left. The belfries of the towers and the

freestanding frontispiece were rebuilt in the I92os. Compare with Fig. 7 (photo: author).

low porticoes which fronted the buildings on the three sides and conformed to the low cathedral and flanking buildings on the east side. It was precisely these low buildings hidden behind the uniform and monotonously long colonnades which gave the plaza its rather dreary and desolate unaes- thetic aspect.

But one must not ascribe this unattractiveness to a lack of

judgment on the part of those responsible for the design of the buildings, but rather more to the fear of earthquakes. The authorities were less than willing to invest great sums of money, which they did not have in the first place, in new

buildings, knowing full well that the best of structures would be short lived and that those that were more than one story high would be the sooner destroyed. In fact, as

already mentioned above, it was actually illegal to construct

buildings of more than one story, as was specifically ordered in the cedula of I775.32 One can understand why the gov- ernment buildings were but one story high.

The only building of which a complete view exists is the

Capitania (Fig. 8). It shows a long, monotonous colonnade

revealing a repetitious rhythm of void and solid for I60

varas or so. But there are three minor variations or breaks in the pattern of square piers and arched openings. The first is

a short section of three bays near the southern end of the

building with a clock tower above which is treated with a

simple decorative scheme consisting of shallow pilasters, severely plain moldings, and a segmental pediment in the neoclassic manner. This three-bay section marked the en- trance to the part of the building reserved for the Palacio Real. The clock tower was built by Pedro Garci-Aguirre in

1795, after the portico was already standing.33 The piers of the central intercolumniation of this section are differentiat- ed from the rest by rustication, a device which might be conceded to be neoclassic innovation. Further up the colon- nade another slight departure from the monotonous pattern of void and solid marks the entrance to the part of the

building which housed the Audiencia. Here a somewhat more monumental treatment is in evidence. The exterior

plane of the portico is offset for nine bays so that this section

projects slightly from the rest. The piers of the extremes of this section as well as those of the central intercolumniation are also rusticated. Above, the low Roman attic or balus-

trade, which also runs along the entire length of the portico, is slightly higher over these nine bays, while the middle one, or fifth, on center with the door which gave access to the

Audiencia, is topped by a small triangular pediment not

33. Chinchilla Aguilar, op. cit., p. 130. 32. Perez Valenzuela, loc. cit.

194

unlike that still to be seen today on the Palacio Arzobispal on the opposite side of the plaza. Near the north end of the

building was located the entrance to the Casa de Moneda. It was given the same sort of treatment as that which gave access to the Palacio Real except that it lacked the clock tower. This section of the Capitania was still unfinished when Bernasconi died, and so one must conclude that it was finished by others who followed him,34 possibly by Garci-

Aguirre in I795. The type of piers employed in this portico, except for those which were rusticated, was actually no in- novation at all, for similar square piers had been used for the cloister arcade of the convent of Santa Clara in Antigua, dated I734.35

The evidence for the other two sides of the plaza from

photographs and drawings is not as complete as that for the west side (Fig. 7), but still there is enough to make it possi- ble to conclude that, though simpler in detail, the same style was followed in the construction of the porticoes as in that of the Capitania.36 On the long and monotonous facade of the Casas Consistoriales, a clock tower somewhat like that of the Capitania rose one story above the arcade. This build-

ing was still at foundation level in 800o, so that it is quite likely the clock tower was built even after the independence from Spain.37

On the south side, opposite the Casas Consistoriales, was located the custom house. Some idea of the design envi- sioned by Ibaniez for this side may be gained from the plan he did in 1777 for the Administraci6n de Tabacos which he set contiguous to the post office, which in turn was followed

by the custom house (Fig. 4). He intended to repeat the scheme of the Capitania with but one slight difference, namely, segmental pediments to mark the entrances rather than the triangular ones marking the entrances to the Audi- encia and the Casa de Moneda. This building was never built as he had planned, at least not in the location he had

put it, for the house of Fermin Aycinena was to occupy the

greater part of that side of the plaza.38

34. Angulo, op. cit., IV, p. 432, n. 2.

35. Markman, op. cit., pp. I72ff., figs. I40-I44. For the eighteenth- century arcaded facades of the Ayuntamiento and the Capitania in Antigua see also, ibid., pp. 74ff., I80-I83, figs. 155-I60 and pp. 203- 206, figs. 197-206. These were quite graceful and well proportioned, being two stories high and considerably shorter in length. In fact the plaza of Antigua was approximately Ioo varas (the vara is about 33 inches) on each side, whereas the plaza of La Nueva Guatemala is about I60 by I60 varas. The one story arcades seemed endlessly long and monotonous. See Fig. 8.

36. See Perez Valenzuela, op. cit., p. 226; also AGG, A I.10 (I777) 1586-59 and A I.IO.I (I785) 6499-309. See note 5 above for refer- ences to some nineteenth-century visual material.

37. Diaz, op. cit., p. 122, says it was built after I821. 38. For a plan of the proposed Casa Aycinena dated 1781, see

The western half of that side was occupied by the custom house which was probably begun while Ibanez was still in Guatemala. After his departure, Bernasconi took over the

supervision of the construction of this building. After the latter's death in 1785, Bernardo Ramirez was put in charge. Ramirez had worked for many years with Diez de Navarro in Antigua and had been given thejob of building the water

supply system for the new capital.39 As far back as 1774, at a time when Antigua had not yet been completely aban- doned and the new city existed more on paper than in fact, Ramirez had done a plan for a custom house.40 But this plan (Fig. 14), along with Diez de Navarro's for the city itself, was superseded when Ibaniez arrived. The custom house, when it was finally built after 1783, at first under Berna- sconi's and later under Ramirez' direction, utilized the scheme for the portico which Ibaniez had designed in his

plan for the Administraci6n de Tabacos (Fig. 4), and which Ramirez continued along the whole side of the plaza front-

ing the Aycinena house as well (Fig. 7). The building on the north side of the plaza which housed

the city council, the Casas Consistoriales, was the very last to be completed and, as mentioned above, was hardly above foundations at the turn of the nineteenth century. It had been in the planning stage as far back as 1783, the year Iba- fiez left Guatemala, at which time Ramirez was of the opin- ion that the colonnade of this building follow the same pat- tern as that decided for the custom house.41 The Casas Con- sistoriales were to close the square, with the same monoto- nous low colonnade, about the time of the independence from Spain.

CONCLUSIONS

Ibafiez was probably thinking of making an improvement in circulation over that of the closed plazas of Castilla, as for

example those in Salamanca and Madrid, when he set out to

design the Plaza Mayor of Guatemala City. He visualized a

large open area with the added advantage of the main streets of the town forming its perimeter. Knowing that

Angulo, op. cit., Iv, 429ff., pl. I69. See alsoJuarros, op. cit., I, pp. 65ff.; and Diaz, op. cit., p. 123, who states the Portal del Comercio was built by the Aycinena family. Most of the property on that side of the plaza did in fact belong to the Aycinenas until well into the twen- tieth century. Some of it still does.

39. Angulo, op. cit., rv, p. 432, n. 2; see also Markman, op. cit., pp. 62ff., for biographical data on Ramirez.

40. (Fig. 14). AGG, A 3.5 (I774) I375-72, folio 5. 4I. Perez Valenzuela, op. cit., p. 226; see also AGG, A I.10.2

(1783) i66o-68.

I95

Fig. I4. Bernardo Ramirez, Plan for the custom house of La Nueva Guatemala, dated I774. AGG, A 3.5 (1774) I375-72, folio 5 (photo: author) .

structures had to be kept low, he designed a squat, widely spread out cathedral facade. In keeping with the low pro- portions established on the east side, the other sides were to have low porticoes to define the space. But his ideas were used piecemeal, so that the changes which were subse-

quently made threw his scheme out of balance, changing its basic character. That the whole aspect of the Plaza Mayor, when finally completed, seemed impoverished aesthetically is not surprising when one considers the conditions under which it came into being. The responsibility for the con- struction and redesigning of the buildings passed from ar- chitect to architect, also often falling into an artistic inter-

regnum when unlettered maestros de obras and only some- what more knowledgeable aparejadores were put in charge of even so important a monument as the metropolitan cathedral of all Central America. Except for the general scheme as visualized by Ibianez, and as carried on briefly by his successor Bernasconi, not a single building was built as

originally planned.

Another factor which contributed to the nondescript ap- pearance of the plaza was that of the poverty of the country which was aggravated by the constant destruction of earth-

quakes. As a result of this, not only the government's sources of income were wiped out, but, what was even worse, the commerce, industry, and capital in the form of real property of private citizens were destroyed time and time again so that only in rare instances could wealth be ac- cumulated on a permanent basis. The new city was built by and for an impoverished citizenry who had lost most of their real property in Antigua in 1773, and then were forced to abandon what little had been left intact and move to the new capital. This poverty, coupled with the fear that all new building works would soon come to the ground, dampened men's spirits who saw little purpose in embel- lishments which were, even at best, doomed to be only transitory.

Still another factor which had a deleterious effect on the execution of the designs of Ibafiez was the use of second-

I96

hand materials taken from the ruined city of Antigua. It was not necessarily malice alone on the part of the then

president of the Audiencia, Martin de Mayorga, who or- dered the public buildings in Antigua dismantled so that the materials might be used in the new city. These old materials were hardly appropriate for carrying out any new scheme, and did, in fact, place a limit on what could be designed.42 The Capitania was the first public building to be completed in the new capital largely because materials from the former one in Antigua were made immediately available. The con- struction of the Casas Consistoriales dragged on for long years because the city council was completely impoverished when its sources of income in Antigua were destroyed and no new revenues became immediately available while the new city was being built and settled.

42. For the use of second-hand materials from Antigua in the con- struction of the public buildings of La Nueva Guatemala, see Mark- man, op. cit., pp. I8, 42; Chinchilla Aguilar, op. cit., p. II8; and note I above.

But of all the liabilities enumerated above, that is, the lack of trained architects, the constant change of plan and super- vision, the lack of money, and the use of second-hand ma- terials, perhaps the most important was the ever present threat of further destruction by earthquake. This led to a

feeling of hopelessness, making it impossible even in the first place to hope for, let alone conceive of, a monumental realization of the town plan and its Plaza Mayor. The past 175 years or so have demonstrated that this was not an un- founded fear, fear in the face of ever imminent disaster; for

every single building in the plaza has been destroyed in whole or in part. Even if Ibiaez' plan had been carried out to the smallest detail, nothing would have remained, for the

buildings of the plaza were finally obliterated in the earth-

quake of I917. It was only after the introduction of rein- forced concrete construction in the twentieth century that the plaza began to be girded with buildings of more than one story for the first time in its history. But by that time

any desire to recreate the impoverished original plan- which there was not-would have been totally meaningless. All that is left of Ibanez' original conception today is the

emptiness of the open space.