Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:01:11.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Devil and the Dolorosa: History and Legend in Quito's Capilla de Cantuña

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2015

Susan Verdi Webster
Susan Verdi Webster*
Affiliation:
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most popular and enduring legends in the Andean city of Quito recounts the vivid tale of a young Indian named Francisco Cantuña, the son of a powerful Inca captain, who lived and died in the sixteenth century. Maimed and horribly disfigured when the Inca general Rumiñahui burned the city of Quito, Cantuña was present when the general hid the treasure of Atahualpa before the arrival of the conquering Spaniards. In the aftermath of occupation, the young Cantuña was adopted by a benevolent Spaniard who taught him to read, write, and live a good Christian life. In return, Cantuña rewarded the Spaniard, as well as several local churches and chapels, with large sums of gold, which he secretly melted down from Atahualpa's hidden treasure. News of Cantuna's beneficence prompted all manner of speculation and suspicion among the local populace, to the extent that he was called before a tribunal to account for his mysterious wealth. In order to preserve the secret of the Inca treasure, Cantuña testified that he had acquired his riches by signing a pact with the devil. On this point, the earliest published version of the legend affirms that his testimony was a deliberate lie intended to quiet the gullible authorities, because Cantuna “was in reality a good Christian” who was very devoted to a local image of the Dolorosa (Virgin of Sorrows).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , July 2010 , pp. 1 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Research for this study was generously supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Council of Learned Societies, the Fulbright Senior Scholars Program, and the College of William and Mary. In Quito, the author gratefully acknowledges the important contributions of Ximena Carcelén, whose kind collaboration was crucial for this study, as well as Fr. Walter Eras OFM, Padre Gustavo Riofrio, Jorge Salvador Lara, Christiana Borchart de Moreno, Segundo Moreno, Jorge Moreno Egas, Juan Vitta, Patricio Carvajal, José Vera, and Susana Cabeza de Vaca. Special thanks are due to Hernán L. Navarrete for his constant support, and for many of the photographs that grace the text. Thanks also to the two anonymous reviewers for their insights and helpful comments.

1. Numerous versions of the legend circulate today in publications and oral tradition, as well as among tour guides and on the Internet. Most variants are based on de Velasco, Juan Historia del Reino de Qtiito en la America Meridional, vol. 3 [1789] (Quito: Imprenta del Gobierno por Juan Campuzano, 1842), pp. 62–64.Google Scholar Subsequent accounts that adapt, transform, and embellish Velasco include Cevallos, Pedro Fermín Resumen de la bistorta del Ecuador, desde su origen hasta 1845, vol. 1 (Lima: Imprenta del Estado, 1870), pp. 273–274;Google Scholar Compte, Francisco Maria Varones ilustres lie la orden seráfica en el Ecuador, vol. 1 (Quito: Imprenta del Clero, 1885), pp. 214–217;Google Scholar Suárez, Federico González “La tradición de San Francisco,” in Quito: Tradiciones, leyendas y memoria, ed. Rubio, Edgar Freiré (Quito: Libresa, 1994), pp. 156–60;Google Scholar Navarro, José Gabriel Artes plásticas ecuatorianas (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1945), pp. 54–58;Google Scholar and Marín, Luciano Andrade La lagartija que abrió la calle Mejia: Historietas de Quito (Quito: FONSAL, 2003), pp. 215–221.Google Scholar

2. de Santa Gertrudis, Juan Maravillas de la naturaleza, vol. 3 [1775] (2nd cd., Bogotá: Banco Popular, 1970), pp. 254–255.Google Scholar

3. Velasco, Historia del Reino 3, pp. 62–64.Google Scholar

4. The Franciscan author locates his protagonist some fifty years earlier. Gertrudis, Santa Maravillas 3, p. 254.Google Scholar

5. “porque los españoles de aquel tiempo creían firmemente que los indianos tenían trato con el demonio” and “creen hasta ahora muchísimas personas por verdadero aquel pacto.” Velasco, Historia del Reino 3, p. 63.Google Scholar Unless otherwise indicated, all translations to English are by the author.

6. de Velasco, Juan Historia del Reino de Qiiito en la America Meridional, vol. 2 [1789] (Quito: Imprenta del Gobierno por Juan Campuzano, 1841), pp. 27–28, 47–48.Google Scholar

7. Despite Velasco’s claim, the mystery was far from resolved in his time, as the accounts of eighteenth–century treasure seekers indicate. See, for example, de la Condamine, Charles-Marie Diario del viaje al Ecuador, trans. Eloy Soria Sanchez (Quito: Coordinación General del Coloquio “Ecuador 86,” 1986), pp. 125–126;Google Scholar Gertrudis, Santa Maravillas 3, pp. 255–257;Google Scholar ANH/Q, Criminales, caja 17, expte. 5, fols. 1–178; and Webster, Susan V. Arquitectura y empresa en el Qttito colonial: José Jaime Ortiz, Alarife Mayor (Quito: Abya Yala, 2002), pp. 98–109.Google Scholar The hunt for Atahualpa’s treasure continues today. The modern literature is too vast to cite; however, representative examples include, Honigs-baum, Mark Valverde’s Gold (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2004);Google Scholar Lourie, Peter Sweat of the Sun, Tears of the Moon: A Chronicle of Incan Treasure (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998);Google Scholar Castillo, Alfonso Mostacero El tesoro de Atahıtalpa (Madrid: El Atelier, 1993);Google Scholar and Hemming, John The Search for El Dorado (New York: Dutton, 1978).Google Scholar

8. “en hacer bien á muchos pobres […] [n]adie sabia por donde había mudado Suárez de fortuna.” Velasco, Historia del Reino 3, p. 63.Google Scholar

9. For example, Suárez, González “La Tradición,” pp. 156–157,Google Scholar credits Cantuña with the construction of the pretil at the Franciscan Monastery. Gertrudis, Santa Maravillas 3, p. 254,Google Scholar states that Cantuña himself built the Capilla de los Dolores at the Franciscan establishment. In a remarkable twist, Marín, Luciano Andrade La lagartija, pp. 220–221,Google Scholar attempts to demonstrate that the Capilla de Cantuña was built over the original house that the sixteenth-century Cantuña inherited from his adoptive Spanish father by pointing to archaeological excavations that revealed a large chamber beneath the chapel (undoubtedly a crypt), which he interprets as the “secreto subterrano” wherein Cantuña forged the Inca treasure.

10. “la cual la hicieron como propia los indianos.” Velasco, Historia del Reino 3, p. 64.Google Scholar

11. For examples of Velasco’s conflation of historical and legendary material, see Lane, Kris on the “Great Jívaro Revolt of 1599,” in Qttito 1599: City and Colony in Transition (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2002), pp. 116–149;Google Scholar and the “Cara/Scyris” controversy, as summarized by Willingham, Eileen in Guide to the Documentary Sources for Andean Studies, ed. Pillsbury, Joanne (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008) 3, pp. 706–707.Google Scholar

12. Grizzard, Mary “The Retablos Mayores of the Cantuña Chapel of San Francisco in Quito, Ecuador,” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas 16:62 (1991), p. 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Grizzard does not provide citations for her information; however, the “1669 burial record” to which she refers is likely the sepulchral stone of a later Francisco Cantuña, now located in the Franciscan cloister.

13. It is possible that information regarding the existence of the legendary sixteenth-century Camuña simply did not make it into the relatively sparse documentary record that exists for this period. Had he been so notorious, however, one might expect to find at least some evidence among the remaining sixteenth-century documents or the colonial chronicles. Neither the Franciscan nor the Jesuit chroniclers of the mid-colonial period mention the legend of Cantuña, specifically de Cordova, Diego Crónica franciscana de las Provincias del Peru (1651),Google Scholar and de Mercado, Pedro Historia de la Provincia del Nuevo Reino y Qttito de la Real Compañía de Jesús (c. 1683).Google Scholar The Jesuit priest, Mario Cicala, does not recount the tale of Cantuña, although he mentions popular devotion to an image of the Virgen Dolorosa, which he notes was “llamada por todos de Cantuña.” In what may be an oblique reference to the legend, Cicala adds, “[s]e narran milagros y gracias hechas por aquella devotísma imagen, verdaderamente extraordinaria y sin par.” Cicala, Descripción histórico-topográfica de la Provincia de Çhtito de la Compañía de Jesús [1771] (Quito: Biblioteca Aurelio Espinosa Pólit, 1994), pp. 162–163.Google Scholar

14. ANH/Q, Testamentarias, caja 31, 1701–1702, expte. 1. For examples of scholarly confusion regarding the two dates, see Grizzard, “Retablos Mayores,” p. 104;Google Scholar Vargas, Patrimonio artístico, p. 22;Google Scholar and Navarro, Artes plásticas, pp. 54–58.Google Scholar

15. Archivo General de Indias (hereafter AGI), Quito 23, Ν. 14, “Los diputados de la Vera Cruz de Quito piden merced,” n.p.

16. The exact date of the formation of the parish of San Roque is not specified in the documentary record. On San Sebastián and San Roque as native parishes, see Minchom, Martin The People of Quito, 1690–1810 (Bouider, San Francisco, and Oxford: Westview Press, 1994), pp. 23, 31–32, 151–152.Google Scholar

17. Although no documentation that firmly links the Confraternity of the Vera Cruz de los Naturales and its chapel to the Colegio de San Andrés has yet come to light, the fact that both were located in the first cloister on the southwest corner of the monastic complex strongly suggests that they were related.

18. “dende vna cruz questa de aquel cabo de señor san francisco ques de la cofradía hasta abaxar al camyno rrcal […].” Libro Primero de Cabildos de Qttito (Quito: Archivo Municipal, 1934) I, p. 129.

19. AGI, Quito 23, Ν. 14, “Los diputados de la Vera Cruz de Quito piden merced,” n.p.

20. “en una esquina del primer claustro […] muy sumptuosa y de mucha autoridad y costa.” AGI, Quito 23, N. 14, “Los diputados de la Vera Cruz de Quito piden merced,” n.p.

21. Constructions by Ventura de San Francisco, documented here for the first time, include a house and shop for Juan Pacheco in 1587. Archivo Nacional de Historia, Quito (hereafter ANH/Q), Notaría la, vol. 1, 1582–87, Diego de Avendaño, fols. 467v–468v, and the entire drainage and water system for the Cathedral in 1602 (ANH/Q), Notaría 6a, vol. 11, 1602, Diego Rodriguez Docampo, fols. 667v–668v. He may also have helped construct the Franciscan complex at Riobamba. Archivo Histórico del Banco Central del Ecuador, Quito (hereafter AHBCE/Q), Fondo Jijón y Caamaño, 194, 1560–1589, Gaspar de Águilar, fols. 1026–1027v. See also, Webster, Susan Verdi “Masters of the Trade: Native Artisans, Guilds, and the Construction of Colonial Quito,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 68:1 (March 2009), pp. 10–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. For Francisco Auqui’s education at San Andrés, see Sanz, Benjamín Gento Historia de la obra constructiva de San Francisco, desde su fundación hasta nuestros días (Quito: Imprenta Municipal, 1942), pp. 21–22.Google Scholar

23. Estupiñan, Tamara “El testamento de don Francisco Atagualpa,” Miscelánea Histórica Ecuatoriana 1:1 (1988), pp. 20–21.Google Scholar

24. In 1586, the Confraternity of the Vera Cruz de los Naturales filed suit against the Spanish sculptor Diego dc Robles, from whom it had commissioned two sculptures. The sculptures were to represent “un Cristo de ocho palmos, de a cuarta de alto, y una cruz en que esté clavado, su corona de espinas y un rótulo con cuatro letras y una imagen de Nuestra Señora de bulto de seis palmos, que ha dc ser Nuestra Señora dc la Concepción, las manos puestas.” Archivo General de la Orden Dominica del Ecuador (hereafter AGODE), vol. 31, fol. 565. The confraternity charged Robles with creating a sculpture of Christ that bore significant defects, and of failing to produce that of the Virgin. Without noting the lawsuit, José Maria Vargas mentions that the contract is located in the Dominican Archive, though his citation is incomplete. Vargas, El arte ecuatoriano, pp. 30–31.Google Scholar

25. AGI, Quito 23, Ν. 14, “Los diputados de la Vera Cruz de Quito piden merced,” η.p.

26. ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 15, 1605–06, Diego Rodriguez Docampo, fols. 38v–39. The confraternity commissioned Joan del Castillo, “yndio oficial Pintor y entallador,” to create “un christo coronado con los sayones del paso todo en sesenta rreales” (38v).

27. Docampo, Rodríguez “Descripción y Relación del estado eclesiástico del Obispado de San Francisco de Quito [1650],” in Leiva, Pilar Ponce (comp.), Relaciones Histórico-Geogràfìcas de la Audiencia de Qttito, vol. 2 (Quito: Abya Yala, 1994), p. 253.Google Scholar

28. “capilla nueba de la Santa beracruz de los naturales.” ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 225, 1668, José Gutiérrez, fol. 166. Above the choir window on the facade is a low-relief carving of the traditional escutcheon of the Vera Cruz: a cloth-draped cross atop a hill.

29. ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 85, 1729–1733, Antonio López de Salcedo, fols. 15–17v.

30. The earliest references to the “Capilla de Cantuña” appear in three burial records from the Archivo Parroquial del Sagrario, Quito (hereafter APS/Q), “Libro de Muertos, de Mestisos, Montañeces, Yndios, Negros, Y Mulatos desde 3 de Julio de 1693, hasta 24 de Agosto de 1729,” vol. 1, 1693–1729: “acompañe hasta la Capilla dc Cantuña, en S[an] Francisco, donde se enterró el cuerpo difunto de Ana Cantuña viuda …” [20-V1II-1728, fol. 134]; “acompañe hasta la Capilla de Cantuña donde se enterró el cuerpo de Petrona vesina de quito, nuestro feligrés muger que fue dc Francisco Torres …” [l-IX-1728, fol. 134]; and “acompañe con Cruz alta a la capilla de Cantuña a Francisca Cantuña viuda …… [8-XI-1728, fol. 133v]. Another document, dated 1733, records that the Confraternity of Nuestra Señora de los Dolores “fundada en la Capilla que llaman de Cantuña” sold a block and a half of land “por auerlas dejado por clausula de testamento Francisco Cantuña Yndio.” ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, voi. 85, 1729–1733, Antonio López Salcedo, fols. 227–228v.

31. ANH/Q, Notaría 3a, vol. 8, 1680–81, Manuel de Rivadeneira, fol. 46. CantuñVs migrant status is not unique; indeed, many of Quito’s seventeenth-century artisans were relatively recent transplants from surrounding communities. Exemption from the mita undoubtedly fostered such migration. See especially, Powers, Karen Vieira Andean Journeys: Migration, Ethnogenesis and the State in Colonial Qttito (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1995), pp. 46, 73;Google Scholar Newson, Linda A. Life and Death in Early Colonial Ecuador (Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995), pp. 186–87, 193;Google Scholar Minchom, People of Quito, pp. 57–59, 65–66;Google Scholar and Webster, “Masters of the Trade,” pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

32. Cushner, Nicholas P. Farm and Factory: Tíje Jesuits and the Development of Agrarian Capitalism in Colonial Quito, 1600–1767 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982), p. 53.Google Scholar

33. “Francisco Cantuña yndio nuestro primo hermano y natural del d[ic]ho pueblo de zangolqui.” ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 214, 1664–65, Pedro de Aguayo, fols. 197–198v; and ANH/Q, Notaría 3a, vol. 12, 1687–90, Bernardo Espinosa de los Monteros, fols. 577v–579.

34. ANH/Q, Notaría 4a, vol. 49, 1699, Manuel Ccvallos y Velasco, fol. 320.

35. “no trajo a mi poder docte alguno.” AHN/Q, Notaría 4a, vol. 49, 1699, Manuel Cevallos y Velasco, fol. 318v.

36. With regard to Cantuña ITs inability to sign his name, it is instructive to recall Velasco’s claim that Suárez, Hernán Cantuña’s adoptive Spanish father, discovered “en la fealdad de Cantuña un gran fondo de juicio, capacidad y talentos, lo instruyó en la religion cristiana, le enseño á leer i escribir […].” Historia del Reino 3, p. 62.Google Scholar Although many Andeans learned to read and write, others remained illiterate (defiantly or otherwise), or were literate only insofar as they were capable of signing their names to official Spanish documents. Cantuña II, for all of his professional prowess, administrative abilities, and close association with the Franciscans, was apparently not an acculturated member of the indios ladinos. On native literacy and alternative literacies, sec especially, Minchom, People of Quito, p. 92;Google Scholar Rappaport, Joanne and Cummins, Thomas B.F. “Literacy and Power in Colonial Latin America,” in Bond, George C. and Gilliam, Angela, eds., Social Construction of the Past: Representation as Power (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 91–112;Google Scholar Rappaport, Joanne “Object and Alphabet: Andean Indians and Documents in the Colonial Period,” in Boone, Elizabeth Hill and Mignolo, Walter D., eds., Writing Without Words: Alternative Literacies in Mesoamerica & the Andes (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1994), pp. 271–292;Google Scholar and Webster, “Masters of the Trade.”

37. ANH/Q, Notaría 4a, vol. 53, 1701, Manuel Cevallos y Velasco, fols. 231–.

38. Cantuña was named Maestro Mayor y Veedor of the blacksmiths’ guild in the years 1684, 1685, and 1700. AHM/Q, Libro del Cabildo de Quito, vol. XLII, 1684–87, fols. 6v, 40v; and vol. XLIII, 1699–1704, fol. 30v. The Libros de Cabildo for the years 1688–90 and 1698–99 are no longer extant; however, Cantuña may have held the post during those periods.

39. “Francisco Cantuña yndio oficial herrero.” ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 181, 1645–56, Francisco de Atİenza, fols. 211–213v. According to the document, the house was located “en la parrochia de san rroche que linda por la parte de arriba tierra de yndios yanaconas del combento de san fran[cÌs]co y por un lado casas de fulano de la carrera y por E! otro calle rreal En medio casas de esteban barbero yndio …” (21 lv).

40. ANH/Q, Notaría la, voi. 181, 1645–56, Francisco de Atienza, fols. 406v–407v. The confraternity acknowledged the sale thirteen years later, when Cantuña paid the 70 remaining pesos. ANH/Q, Notaría 4a, vol. 23, 1664, Antonio de Verzossa, fols. 182v–184v.

41. Estupiñan, “El testamento de don Francisco Atagualpa,” p. 35.Google Scholar

42. “yndio maestro cerrajero natural del pueblo de Sangolqui.” ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 205, 1660–61, Tomás Suárez de Figueroa, fols. 289–293v.

43. “el atrio que en el d[ic]ho combento del Carmen ubo de joan diaz mar[tine]z Para la primera fundación que se hizo en las casas del dotor [sic] ensinas […] yermo y sin edificio”Ibid., fol. 291v.

44. “por la parte de arriua con casas del d[ic]ho francisco Cantuña que las edifico En cl sitio que fue de joan dias martines y se le vendió por el otorgante en nom[br]e del d[ic]ho comuento […] y por la otra frente con el d[ic]ho comuento de nuestra señora de las mercedes.” ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 214, 1664–5, Pedro de Aguayo, fols. 58–65v.

45. ANH/Q, Notaría 4a, vol. 23, 1664, Antonio de Verzossa, fol. 184.

46. That the dowry offered by Cantuña İn 1667 was substantial is suggested by a comparison of two roughly contemporary dowries. In the same year of 1667, don Francisco Condor, governor and cacique of Oyumbicho (a community to the southeast of Quito), and his wife, doña Regina Tituasan, offered a dowry for their daughter that gave properties and belongings valued at 1,300 pesos to their son-in-law, don Juan Llamoca. Unlike Cantuña, Chuquicondor was a native lord who possessed lands and wealth, yet the dowry he offered did not significantly exceed that of the native artisan. ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 220, 1666–68, Francisco Hernández Marcillo, fols. 381–382v. In 1688, the Creole or mestizo builder Juan Enriquez signed a dowry contract giving his son-in-law 1,155 pesos, an amount roughly comparable to that offered by Cantuña in 1667. ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 248, 1676–89, Juan García Moscoso, fols. 60-61v.

47. “las paredes y puerta de piedra para hacer una casa”; and “una herramienta de herrero que valga cien pesos.” ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 222, 1666–69, Pedro de Aguayo, fols. 65–65v. Given the 1667 date of this document, Marcos de Ortega, Cantuña ITs new son-in-law, appears to have been the grandson of doña María Atahualpa Ynga. If this was the case, the family ties between Cantuña II and the Atahualpa clan may well have played a role in the legends that associate Cantuña with the treasure of the Inca. One Marcos Ortega is cited in a document of the 1680s as the grandson of doña María Atahualpa Ynga, and appears to be the same person who married Cantuña’s daughter. See de Moreno, Christiana Borchart La Audiencia dc Quito: Aspectos económicos y sociales, siglos XVI–XVIII (Quito: Banco Central del Ecuador/Abya Yala, 1998), pp. 193, 221.Google Scholar

48. Ibid.

49. ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 233, 1670–73, Pedro de Aguayo, fols. 58–59v.

50. ANH/Q, Testamentarias, caja 31, 1702, expte. 1, fols. 4–4v.

51. ANH/Q, Notaría 4a, vol. 49, 1699, Manuel Cevallos y Velasco, fol. 319.

52. “en la calle que baja de la puente de la Merced.” ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 242, 1674–77, Pedro de Aguayo, fols. 362–364V. The holder of the mortgage was the Monastery of San Francisco.

53. “Vn xiron de tierra […] que linda por un lado con el arroyo de Agua que corre hazia la Puente de las mercedes.” ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 242, 1674–77, Pedro de Aguayo, fols. 428v–429v.

54. ANH/Q, Notaría 3a, vol. 8, 1680–81, Manuel de Rivadeneira, fois. 46–48.

55. Ibid.

56. ANH/Q, Notaria 3a, vol. 12, 1687–90, Bernardo Espinosa de los Monteros, fols. 577v–579.

57. The distinction between tiendas and trastiendas likely expresses the difference between tiendas a la calle, which were subject to a tax called the media anata, and trastiendas, or shops that were located within the domestic complex, to which the media anata apparently did not apply. See Webster, Susan Verdi “Los maestros indígenas y la construcción del Quito colonial,” in Las artes en Quito en ci cambio del siglo XVII al XVIII (Quito: FONSAL, 2009), pp. 34–35.Google Scholar

58. ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, Juicios, caja 7, 1735–36, expte. 21–VIII–1736.

59. In terms of the Andean population of Quito, Cantuna’s “rags to riches” biography is not, in fact, unique. Numerous Andean artists and artisans arose from humble circumstances to attain significant wealth and acquire titles of social prestige in Quito. Webster, “Masters of the Trade,” pp. 20–26.Google Scholar For additional native “success stories,” sec Powers, Karen M. “Resilient Lords and Indian Vagabonds: Wealth, Migration, and the Reproductive Transformation of Quito’s Chiefdoms, 1500–1700,” Ethnohistory 38:3 (Summer 1991), pp. 225–49.Google Scholar

60. “5 pesos a Cantuña por una chapa y dos llaves.” Archivo General de ia Orden Franciscana del Ecuador (hereafter AGOFE), 10–1, 12–IV–1693, fols. 2, 285, 322, 337, 367v, 430v. For additional examples, see Sanz, Gento Historia de la obra constructiva, pp. 56–57.Google Scholar

61. Sanz, Gento Historia de la obra constructiva, pp. 56–57;Google Scholar Troya, Alexandra Kennedy and Crespo, Alfonso Ortiz Convento de San Diego de Qttito, historia y restauración (Quito: Museo del Banco Central del Ecuador, 1982), p. 88, n. 24;Google Scholar and Vargas, Patrimonio artístico, p. 30.Google Scholar

62. ANH/Q, Notaria la, vol. 124, 1628–29, Juan del Castillo Figueroa, fols. 19v–22.

63. “cincuenta pares de estribos de palo guarnecidos con ¡erro.” ANH/Q, Notaría 6a, vol. 56, 1652–1653, Gaspar Rodríguez, fols. 10–1 Ον.

64. Cushner, Farm and Factory, p. 100.Google Scholar The batanero earned 42 pesos, the carpenter and the wool carder earned 40, the tundidor 30, the tintorero and the urdidor 24; other workers were paid 18 pesos a year.

65. “adereçallc de manera que de dia y de noche ande y de todas las oras.” ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 77, 1612, Alonso López Merino, fols. 155v–156.

66. ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 207, 1662–63, Francisco Hernández Marcillo, fols. 159–159v.

67. ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 171, 1641–43, Gerónimo de Montenegro, fols. 271–272v.

68. ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 234, 1670–75, Diego Melián de Bctancourt, fols. 105v–107v.

69. Ibid., fols. 88v–90v.

70. ANH/Q, Testamentarias, caja 31, 1702, expte. 1. According to Velasco, Cantuña forged in one night the equivalent of “100,000 pesos de oro,” and he publicly and secretly distributed “bastante milliones” to pious causes. Velasco, Historia del Reino 3, pp. 63–64.Google Scholar

71. An official assessment of Cantuña’s principal residence was undertaken in 1704 by the Spanish architect José Jaime Ortiz, who valued it at 800 pesos. ANH/Q, Testamentarias, caja 31, 1702, expte. 1, fols. 11, 22. For the elite status of two-story, tile-roofed houses, see Walker, Charles “The Upper Classes and Their Upper Stories: Architecture and the Aftermath of the Lima earthquake of 1746,” Hispanic American Historical Review 83:1 (2003), pp. 53–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72. ANH/Q, Testamentarias, caja 31, 1702, expte. 1, fols. 17–18.

73. Ibid., fols. 11–13V.

74. This estimate is based on the inventory and assessment of Cantuña’s possessions, as enumerated and (partially) valued in ANH/Q, Testamentarias, caja 31, 1702, expte. 1, fols. 11–20.

75. “hacia diariamente exorbitantes gastos en limosnas y obras piadosas á las personas y á las iglesias pobres”; and “fabricaron después una buena Iglesia, contigua á la de ellos, dedicada á los Dolores de la Santísima Virgen, con suficientes fondos para mantener el culto y hacer las fiestas de la sagrada imagen.” Velasco, Historia del Reino 3, p. 63.Google Scholar

76. Archivo del Arzobispado de Quito (hereafter AA/Q), Juicios Civiles, caja 55, 1744, fol. 31v.

77. ANH/Q, Testamentarias, caja 31, 1702, expte. 1, fols. 11–14. The subjects represented in Cantuña’s paintings included the Trinity, the Crucifixion, the Holy Sacrament, Saint Jerome, and other unspecified saints. His sculptures included two images of the Virgin, two of Jesus, one San Roque, one Santa Gertrudis, and two crucifixes. The advocations of the sculptures of the Virgin are not specified İn the inventory; however, at least one of them likely represented the Dolorosa.

78. “se haga la fiesta de Nuestra Señora de ios Dolores que se haze El día Sábado bìspera del Domingo de Ramos dc Cada año en la Capilla dc la bcracruz de los naturales del Comuento de San Francisco de esta Ziudad que à acostumbrado hazer el dicho otorgante pagando con d[ic]ha rrenta Predicador, missa cantada, sera, y todo lo demás que fuere nccesario[. . .]yque este permanente d[ic]ha renta hasta lafın del mundo.” ANH/Q, Notaría 4a, vol. 53, 1701,Manuel Cevallos y Velasco, fols. 231–231V. One wonders what became of the original image of the Virgen Dolorosa to which Cantuña II was so devoted (not to be confused with the later image of the Dolorosa that he commissioned for his family altar), for it is not present in the chapel today. This sculpture occupied a side altar in the chapel until at least the mid-twentieth century. Both Navarro and Vargas published photographs in which the Dolorosa appears seated in a throne on an altarpiece adorned with paintings. Navarro, La escultura en el Ecuador, p. 43; Navarro, Contribuciones 1, p. 157;Google Scholar and Vargas, Patrimonio artístico, p. 24.Google Scholar

79. “que me den Vna capilla y entierro en la capilla nueba de la Santa beracruz de los naturales […] y sea en frente del pulpito al lado donde se canta la epistola ynmediata al Crucero del altar mayor.” ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 225, 1668, José Gutiérrez, fols. 166–169v.

80. “la clabason y quicios de bronce, Bisagras, chapa y llaues nesesarias Para las puertas de la d[ic]ha capilla de la Santa beracruz de naturales que a de baler todo poco mas o menos serca de doscientos pesos = asimismo me obligo a dar el adorno de Retablo y una hechura de n[uest]ra Señora dc la limpia conscpçion y otra de nuestro P[adr]e San fran[cis]co = y asimismo me obligo con el fauor de Dios n[ucst]ro Señor a dotar de las misas andando el tiempo y aora de presente la doto en una cantada de n[uest]ro Padre San fran[cis]co en cada un año […].” Ibid., fol. 166.

81. “para perpetuidad desta memoria y Capilla desde luego se nombra por patron della durante los dias de su bida el d[ic]ho francisco Cantuña Y despues de cl a sus hijos legítimos […].” Ibid., fol. 168v.

82. “sea sepultado en la Capilla de la beracruz de los Naturales del Combento de S[a]n fran[cis]co desta Ciudad donde tengo mi entierro.” ANH/Q, Notaría 4a, vol. 49, 1699, Manuel Cevallos y Velasco, fol. 318.

83. Juan Cantuña died in 1711, and his body was carried in public procession “con cruz alta a la Capilla de la Vera Cruz de los naturales dc S[an] F[rancis]co.” APS/Q, “Libro dc Muertos,” vol. 1, 1693–1729, fol. 88. Joseph Cantuña stipulated in his testament that his corpse “sea sepultado en la capilla de la beracrus de los naturales del combento de San fran[cis]co donde tengo bobeda.” ANH/Q, Notaría 4a, vol. 53, 1703, Manuel Cevallos y Velasco, fols. 193r–194v. Francisca Cantuña died in 1728, and her body was carried in public procession “con Cruz alta a la Capilla de Cantuña.” APS/Q, “Libro de Muertos,” vol. 1, 1693–1729, fol. 133v. Agustina Cantuña, who died before her father, requested in her testament that her “cuerpo difunto sea sepultado en la Capilla de los naturales […] en la Bobeda del d[ic]ho mi Padre.” ANH/Q, Notaría la, vol. 278, 1697–1699, Gerónimo Gómez Jurado, fols. 146–148v. Cantuña’s wife, children, and their wives and children were also interred in the family crypt. APS/Q, “Libro de Muertos,” vol. 1, 1693–1729, fols. 24, 34v.

84. Most authors repeat Caspicara’s authorship of the altarpiece and/or the central relief sculpture of Saint Francis receiving the stigmata as though it were fact; however, none cite documentary evidence for this claim. For example, Navarro notes the 1669 date on Cantuña’s altarpicce, but does not question Caspicara’s authorship of the work, even when he discusses Caspicara as an artist of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Navarro, Contribuciones 1, pp. 158–161;Google Scholar Navarro, La escultura en el Ecuador, pp. 172–173;Google Scholar Navarro, Artes plásticas, p. 200.Google Scholar For additional examples, see Vargas, La Iglesia y el patrimonio, p. 36;Google Scholar Vargas, Patrimonio artístico, pp. 23–24;Google Scholar Vargas, El arte ecuatoriano, pp. 140–142;Google Scholar and Arte de Ecuador, siglos XV1II–X1X (Quito: Salvat Editores Ecuatoriano, 1977), pp. 67–72. Although it is possible that the central relief sculpture was a later addition, it is curious that no one has pointed out the obvious conflict between the date inscribed on the altarpiecc (1669) and the period during which Caspicara was active (late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries). If one were to speculate as to its authorship, why not consider late seventeenth-century native masters such as Francisco Tipán or luán Bilatuña? Sec Webster, “Masters of the Trade.”

85. See, for example, Sanz, Rejamin Gento “The History and Art of the Church and Monastery of San Francisco de Quito,” The Americas 4:2 (October 1947), p. 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Others have followed his lead, including the Municipio de Qutito, whose confusing “official” plaque on the chapel facade recounts Velasco, affirming that “[u]no de sus descendientes, Francisco Cantuña, muerto en 1669, está sepultado con honores en el templo franciscano.”

86. “Habrá pues cosa de unos cincuenta años que hubo en Quito un indio herrero, que lo llamaban Cantuña.” Gertrudis, Santa Maravillas 3, p. 254.Google Scholar

86. “En su tienda siempre se hallaban de todas herramientas hechas y muy curiosas, y es voz común que los demonios en forma de indios se las fabricaban. Este emprendió fabricar una capilla a la Virgen de Dolores, toda de cantería fina y pegada al lado de nuestra iglesia, y la llaman Capilla de Cantuña, y también es voz común que la mayor parte de las piedras la labraron los demonios.” Ibid.

87. “Tu fortuna es la amistad que tienes con Chepito el carpintero. Y era así, que este hombre siempre fue devoto del Patriarca San Jose.” Ibid.

88. “Yo pienso que el diablo con la muerte dc Cantuña a quien él había enseñado este tesoro, lo volvió a esconder, cerrando la boca de la cueva.” Gertrudis, Santa Maravillas 3, p. 255.Google Scholar

90. Aspects of Santa Gertrúdises fanciful description of one Spaniard’s attempt to find the treasure correspond to a remarkable historical account of ill-fated treasure seeking on Pichincha, documented in an extensive 1707 criminal case involving the Spanish architect José Jaime Ortiz. See Webster, Arquitectura y empresa, pp. 98–109.Google Scholar The coincidences between the two suggest yet another instance in which Santa Gcrtudis wove history and “common knowledge” into his legendary account.