D E S C E N DA N TS

OF AZTEC
PIC TO GR A P H Y
Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long Series in Latin American and Latino Art and Culture
D E S C E N DA N TS
OF AZTEC
PIC TO G R A P H Y
The Cultural Encyclopedias
of Sixteenth-Century Mexico

Elizabeth Hill Boone

University of Texas Press   Austin

Publication of this book has been aided by a grant from the
Wyeth Foundation for American Art Publication Fund of CAA.

Publication of this book has also been aided by the School of

Liberal Arts, Tulane University.

Copyright © 2020 by the University of Texas Press

All rights reserved
Printed in China
First edition, 2020

Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work

should be sent to:
Permissions
University of Texas Press
P.O. Box 7819
Austin, TX 78713-7819
utpress.utexas.edu/rp-form

∞ The paper used in this book meets the minimum requirements

of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) (Permanence of Paper).

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Boone, Elizabeth Hill, author.

Title: Descendants of Aztec pictography : the cultural encyclope-
dias of sixteenth-century Mexico / Elizabeth Hill Boone.
Description: First edition. | Austin : University of Texas Press,
2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020008830 | ISBN 978-1-4773-2167-6 (cloth)
Subjects: LCSH: Aztecs—Mexico—Encyclopedias—16th
century—History and criticism. | Aztecs—Mexico—
Encyclopedias—16th century—Authorship. | Aztecs—
Mexico—Encyclopedias—16th century—Pictorial works. |
Picture-writing—Mexico—16th century. | Nahuatl
language—Writing—History.
Classification: LCC F1218.6 | DDC 972/.01—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020008830

doi:10.7560/321676
 To the memory of Donald Robertson,
pioneer in the art history of the early colonial Mexican codices
Contents

List of Figures ix

List of Tables xii

Acknowledgments xiii

Chapter 1 Paintings from the Past 1

Chapter 2 Graphic Complexity in New Spain 10
Chapter 3 The Encyclopedic Tradition in Europe 30
Chapter 4 The Evangelical Project and Mendicant Investigators 41
Chapter 5 Early Compilations: Codices Borbonicus and Mendoza 55
Chapter 6 The Mid-Century Encyclopedias: Codices Telleriano-
Remensis and Ríos and the Magliabechiano Group 86
Chapter 7 Durán and Sahagún: Cumulative Expositions of the
Late Sixteenth Century 143
Chapter 8 Memories in Figures 196

Notes 205

References Cited 217

Index 232
Figures

2.1. Codex Vienna 11 4.1. Atrium of the ideal monastic establishment. Diego
2.2. Printed book of alphabetic writing. Alonso de Molina, Valadés, Rhetorica christiana, p. 107 46
Confesionario mayor 12 4.2. Pedro de Gante instructing indigenous men. Diego
2.3. St. Augustine holding the church. Juan de la Cruz, Valadés, Rhetorica christiana, p. 107 47
Doctrina christiana 15 4.3. Friar preaching about Creation. Diego Valadés,
2.4. St. Francis receiving the stigmata. Pedro de Gante Rhetorica christiana, p. 107 51
(attributed), Cartilla para enseñar a leer 17 5.1. Trecena 7. Codex Borbonicus 7 57
2.5. Woodcut print of Moses 18 5.2. Primordial couple. Codex Borbonicus 21 58
2.6. Mass of St. Gregory 19 5.3. Festivals of Tlaxochimaco and Xocotlhuetzi. Codex
2.7. Rebus prayer. Heures à l’usage de Rome, 99v 20 Borbonicus 28 59
2.8. Inscription. Francesco Colonna, Hypnerotomachia 5.4. Festival of Hueytozoztli. Codex Borbonicus 25 60
Poliphili, 262 21 5.5. Festival of Ochpaniztli. Codex Borbonicus 29–30 62
2.9. Emblems. Andrea Alciati, Emblematum libellus, 5.6. Festival of Panquetzaliztli overlain by the New Fire
pp. 56–57 22 Ceremony. Codex Borbonicus 34 64
2.10. Water goddess Chalchiuhtlicue. Codex Borbonicus 5 5.7. Repeat of festival of Izcalli. Codex Borbonicus 37
24 65
2.11. Annals events. Tira de Tepechpan 10 26 5.8. Protocol for ritual. Codex Fejérváry-Mayer 10 66
2.12. The days and fates of trecena 5. Codex Borbonicus 5 5.9. Introductory text and the founding of Tenochtitlan.
27 Codex Mendoza 1v–2r 71
3.1. Animals in Bartholomeus Anglicus, De proprietatibus 5.10. Ahuitzotl and conquests. Codex Mendoza 12v–13r 72
rerum/Van de proprieteiten der dingen, folio Q2v 32 5.11. Tribute from Xoconoxco. Codex Mendoza
3.2. Pilgrims. Olaus Magnus, Historia de gentibus septentri- 46v–47r 73
onalibus, p. 151 35 5.12. Initial unit of part three. Codex Mendoza 57r 75
3.3. Saracens. Bernhard von Breydenbach, Peregrinatio in 5.13. Punishments and activities of children. Codex Men-
Terram Sanctam 36 doza 59v–60r 76
3.4. Woman and peasant. Christoph Weiditz, Trachtenbuch, 5.14. Life choices at age fifteen. Codex Mendoza 61r 77
pp. 18–19 36 5.15. Palace of Moctezuma. Codex Mendoza 69r 78
3.5. Italian woman. François Deserps, Recueil de la diversité 5.16. Honorable labor contrasted to vices. Codex Mendoza
des habits, p. 7r 37 70r 79
3.6. The iconography of Saturn by Colard Mansion. Pierre 5.17. Symbol for Ahuitzotl compared with representation
Bersuire, Ovide moralisé, folio 1r 39 of a father. Codex Mendoza 13r, 60r 81

ix
6.1. Panquetzaliztli. Codex Telleriano-Remensis 5r 88 6.34. Thirteen days of the first trecena. Codex Tudela
6.2. Trecena 5. Codex Telleriano-Remensis 11v–12r 91 98v–99r 135
6.3. Migration history. Codex Telleriano-Remensis 6.35. Lords and tree of the first group of five trecenas. Codex
26v–27r 93 Tudela 97r 135
6.4. Annals history: the preimperial lords of Tenochtitlan. 6.36. Deerskin almanac. Codex Tudela 125r 136
Codex Telleriano-Remensis 30v–31r 94 6.37. Dress of Mexica women. Codex Tudela 2v–3r 139
6.5. Annals history: from the death of Itzcoatl to the great 7.1. Frontispiece and first page of Diego Durán’s Historia
famine. Codex Telleriano-Remensis 31v–32r 95 de las Indias, 1v–2r 145
6.6. Annals history: the civil war of 1473. Codex Telleriano- 7.2. Huitzilopochtli. Diego Durán, Gods and Rites, ch. 2,
Remensis 36v 96 Historia, 231r 147
6.7. Annals history: postconquest events of 1532–1537. 7.3. Xocotlhuetzi. Diego Durán, Gods and Rites, ch. 12,
Codex Telleriano-Remensis 44v–45r 98 Historia, 276r 149
6.8. Layers of the cosmos. Codex Ríos 1v–2r 101 7.4. Second veintena: Tlacaxipehualiztli. Diego Durán,
6.9. First age of 4 Water. Codex Ríos 4v 102 Calendar, Historia, 327r 150
6.10. Trecena 1. Codex Ríos 13v–14r [12v, 27r] 103 7.5. Founding of Tenochtitlan. Diego Durán, History, ch. 5,
6.11. Veintena of Atlcahualo. Codex Ríos 42v 104 Historia, 14v 153
6.12. Zodiac Man. Codex Ríos 54r 106 7.6. Quetzalcoatl/Ehecatl. Diego Durán, Gods and Rites,
6.13. Practices of sacrifice. Codex Ríos 54v–55r 107 ch. 6, Historia, 251v 156
6.14. Costume of an Aztec lord. Codex Ríos 60r 108 7.7. Feast of Tlacaxipehualiztli. Diego Durán, Gods and
6.15. Beginning of the annals: migration from Chicomoztoc. Rites, ch. 9, Historia, 266r 157
Codex Ríos 66v–67r 109 7.8. Fourth veintena, Hueytozoztli. Diego Durán, Calendar,
6.16. Spanish conquest of Tenochtitlan. Codex Ríos 89r, Historia, 329r 158
89v 110 7.9. Tenth veintena, Xocotlhuetzi. Diego Durán, Calendar,
6.17. Ritual mantles. Codex Magliabechiano 3r 117 Historia, 336r 159
6.18. Day names. Codex Magliabechiano 11v 118 7.10. Itzcoatl participating in the conquest of Coyoacan.
6.19. Veintena of Tlacaxipehualiztli. Codex Magliabechiano Diego Durán, History, ch. 10, Historia, 29r 160
29v–30r 120 7.11. Accession of Tizoc following the death of Axayacatl.
6.20. Veintena of Atemoztli. Codex Magliabechiano Diego Durán, History, ch. 39, Historia, 111r 160
43v–44r 120 7.12. Moctezuma distributing provisions. Diego Durán,
6.21. Painting of the veintena of Xocotlhuetzi. Codex History, ch. 30, Historia, 89v 161
Magliabechiano 37v–38r 121 7.13. Strapwork cartouche. Victoria and Albert Museum,
6.22. Pulque god Tlaltecayoua. Codex Magliabechiano London, No. 16831 162
55r 121 7.14. First three veintenas. Bernardino de Sahagún, Primeros
6.23. Funerary rite for a merchant. Codex Magliabechiano memoriales, ch. 1, paragraph 2 169
68r 122 7.15. Variety of offerings. Bernardino de Sahagún, Primeros
6.24. Heart sacrifice. Codex Magliabechiano 70r 123 memoriales, ch. 1, paragraph 3 171
6.25. Priests offering blood. Codex Magliabechiano 7.16. The array of the deities. Bernardino de Sahagún,
87v–88r 123 Primeros memoriales, ch. 1, paragraph 5 171
6.26. Four supernaturals. Codex Magliabechiano 89r 124 7.17. Rulers of Mexico. Bernardino de Sahagún, Primeros
6.27. Veintena named Hueymiccailhuitl, showing images of memoriales, ch. 3, paragraph 1 174
Xocotlhuetzi. Codex Tudela 20r 127 7.18. First rulers of Texcoco. Bernardino de Sahagún,
6.28. Veintena of Tlacaxipehualiztli. Codex Tudela 12r 128 Primeros memoriales, ch. 3, paragraph 1 174
6.29. Pulque god Toltecatl. Codex Tudela 34r 130 7.19. Duties of the priests. Bernardino de Sahagún, Primeros
6.30. Funerary rite for a lord. Codex Tudela 58r 131 memoriales, ch. 1, paragraph 4 176
6.31. Priests offering blood. Codex Tudela 76r 132 7.20. Weapons and military costumes. Bernardino de
6.32. Betrothal and the punishment for adultery. Codex Sahagún, Primeros memoriales, ch. 4, paragraph 8 177
Tudela 74r, 75r 133 7.21. Format of Florentine Codex, book 3, 1:204v–205r 178
6.33. Ritual mantles. Codex Tudela 85v 134 7.22. Veintenas cued to the dominical days. Florentine
Codex, book 2, 1:11r–57r 181

x • Figures
7.23. Goldworking. Florentine Codex, book 9, 2:361r 184
7.24. First four rulers of Mexico-Tenochtitlan. Florentine
Codex, book 8, 2:251r 187
7.25. “Master of Both Traditions.” Florentine Codex, book 3,
1:213r 188
7.26. “Master of the Complex Skin Tones.” Florentine
Codex, book 1, 1:273v 188
7.27. Artist working in the indigenous pictographic tradi-
tion. Florentine Codex, book 8, 2:283v 189
7.28. Featherworking. Florentine Codex, book 9, 2:371v 191

Figures • xi
Tables

5.1. The veintena section in the Codex Borbonicus 61

6.1. The veintena section in the Codex
Telleriano-Remensis 90
6.2. The veintena section in the Codex Ríos 105
6.3. The veintena section in the annals of the
Codex Ríos 111
6.4. The veintena section in the Codex Magliabechiano 119
6.5. The veintena section in the Codex Tudela 129
7.1. Chapter contents of Durán’s Gods and Rites
treatise 146
7.2. The veintena section in Durán’s Gods and Rites
treatise 148
7.3. The veintena section in Durán’s Calendar 151
7.4. The veintena section in Sahagún’s Primeros
memoriales 170
7.5. Supernaturals pictured in Sahagún’s Primeros
memoriales 172
7.6. Hymns in Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales 173
7.7. Contents of the books of Sahagún’s Florentine
Codex 179
7.8. Chapters and the gods in Sahagún’s Florentine
Codex 180
7.9. The veintena section in Sahagún’s Florentine Codex,
bk. 2, chs. 1–19 182
7.10. The veintena section in Sahagún’s Florentine Codex,
bk. 2, chs. 20–37 183

xii
Acknowledgments
D
onald Robertson, to whose memory this
book is dedicated, warned me as a graduate
student not to work on the Codex Magliabe-
chiano Group, because he said it was “a can of
worms.” He was right, of course. My interest in the Codex
Magliabechiano had been sparked by a singular image of a
frontally oriented skeletal figure, wearing a “skirt” of leather
strips bordered by shells with fanged faces at the joints
and a necklace of hearts and hands (fol. 76r). Labeled a
Tzitzimitl, it shared attributes with the monumental
“Coatlicue” sculpture. That painted image seemed like a
key to understanding the great stone figure, so I naturally
wanted to know how that image came to be painted that
way in that manuscript. It then became a question of what
the Magliabechiano essentially was. That interest led to
my dissertation and subsequent publication (Boone 1983)
on the Magliabechiano Group of Mexican pictorials. The
book focused internally on the manuscripts of the group
and proposed a stemma for the cognates, but it never really
answered the larger questions posed by these manuscripts
as colonial products that purported to replicate Pre­
conquest realities.
For years afterward my interests turned to other genres
of Mexican painted books—notably the pictorial histories
and the divinatory manuals—and more broadly to Mexican
pictography as a graphic system, but I always intended to
return to the early colonial creations. Initially my goal was
to focus on the two major European literary genres that
came to Mexico and became pictorialized there: the picto-
rial catechism and what I call the cultural encyclopedia
(the pictorial compilation of Aztec culture). Work for this
advanced considerably while I was the Andrew W. Mellon
Professor at the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual
Arts (CASVA), National Gallery of Art (2006–2008). But
this project soon became unwieldy and had to bifurcate.
Louise Burkhart helped me recognize that the pictorial
catechism not only deserved its own treatment but also
required the insight of a specialist in Nahuatl devotional
literature. She became the driving force for our study of
the Atzaqualco catechism with David Tavárez, published
by Dumbarton Oaks as Painted Words (2017).
This freed me to focus on the cultural encyclopedias.
My graduate work on the Magliabechiano had raised many
questions that still awaited answers: for example, how did
the Magliabechiano Group examples fit with those other
pictorial manuscripts painted in the early colonial period
to explain Preconquest Aztec culture to those exterior to
it? By “exterior to it” I mean not only Europeans but also
indigenous descendants of the increasingly distant Pre­
conquest past who participated in the projects and com-
posed part of the audience. Why were such manuscripts
created, how were they conceptualized and structured,
and how were the signifying images from Aztec pictog-
raphy repurposed to become illustrations that interfaced
with textual explanations and were intended to be seen by
colonial eyes? These cultural encyclopedias, by virtue of
their external audience, their broad range, and the union
of paintings and texts, have become the principal sources
for understanding Aztec ideology and culture. But they
present the Aztec past through the filter of European goals
xiii
and models, which is a feature that is not often acknowl-
edged. It became important to me to see how the manu-
scripts joined genres and graphic expressions from the
two traditions.
I have been fortunate over the years to study the physi-
cal properties of six of the nine manuscripts in the corpus
in person, all but the Codices Borbonicus and Ríos and
Sahagún’s Florentine Codex. For these opportunities I
am grateful to the librarians of the host repositories and
funding from the University of Texas, the Samuel H. Kress
Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humani-
ties, and Tulane University. I am particularly grateful to
those scholars who have studied the manuscripts inten-
sively and/or published them in facsimile and thereby
made them available to me and others in excellent color
photographs: Frances Berdan and Patricia Anawalt for the
Mendoza; Ferdinand Anders and Akademische Druck-
und Verlagsanstalt (ADEVA) for the Codices Borbonicus,
Ríos, and Magliabechiano; Eloise Quiñones Keber for the
Telleriano-Remensis; José Tudela de la Orden and Juan
José Batalla Rosado for the Tudela; Fernando Horcasitas,
Doris Heyden, and Christopher Couch for Durán; and
the many others who have published aspects of Sahagún’s
project, including, for the paintings, Ellen Baird, Pablo
Escalante Gonzalbo, Diana Magaloni Kerpel, Jeanette
Peterson, Eloise Quiñones Keber, and Kevin Terraciano.
There are outstanding published facsimiles of all save
Durán’s Historia, which is now available online through
the Biblioteca Nacional de España; most others are also
viewable digitally from the libraries’ websites. My study is
a synthetic analysis based on the more detailed studies of
these authors and others.
My two years at the CASVA allowed me to focus on the
European literary genres, especially the encyclopedias,
studies of pagan gods, early ethnographies of foreign cul-
tures, hieroglyphics, and emblemata. They also encouraged
me to think about the range of European graphic systems
in a new way. I am grateful for the support and advice of
dean Elizabeth Cropper and asso­ciate deans Peter Luke-
hart and Therese O’Malley and to my assistants Eva Stru-
hal and Jessica Ruse, who found obscure sources, tracked
images, and translated difficult passages. My fellow CASVA
members challenged me to consider the issues posed by
their art historical worlds and thus to interrogate my own.
In 2010 a series of four lectures on the theme “Ideologies
xiv • Acknowledgments
in Translation: The Graphic Restructuring of Religious
Knowledge in Sixteenth-Century Mexico” that I gave in
the Section des Sciences Religieuses, École Pratique des
Hautes Études, Sorbonne, helped me focus on graphic
mnemonics, multivisuality in early colonial Mexico, and
the European construction of Aztec religion. I am grateful
to Daniele Dehouve for that opportunity.
Very many Mesoamerican scholars have generously
shared their insights and time over the years. First, I am
grateful to Donald Robertson and H. B. Nicholson, who
from the 1970s onward shared their deep knowledge of
Aztec sources and guided me in so many ways. A number
of colleagues have invited me to participate in special con-
ferences relevant to this project or lecture at their universi-
ties, and each opportunity brought new suggestions and
insights. For these opportunities and their thoughtful com-
ments, I thank Ralph Bauer, Dora Sierra Carillo, Davíd
Carrasco, Michael Carrasco, James Cordova, Bryan Just,
Bryan Keene, Marcy Norton, Justyna Olko, Jeanette Peter-
son, John M. D. Pohl, Frank Salomon, Michael Schreffler,
and Kevin Terraciano.
Others who have encouraged and help shape this work
include Anthony Aveni, Ellen Baird, Juan José Batalla
Rosado, Frances Berdan, Daniela Bleichmar, Louise Burk­
hart, María Castañeda de la Paz, Tom Cummins, Lori
Diel, Stephen Houston, Cecelia Klein, Andrew Laird,
Dana Leibsohn, Alfredo López Austin, Leonardo López
Luján, Diana Magaloni Kerpel, Barbara Mundy, Guilhem
Olivier, Michel Oudijk, and Eloise Quiñones Keber. Jorge
Gómez Tejada generously shared with me an early draft
of his forthcoming edited volume on the Codex Mendoza.
I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers and wish
that I could thank them personally for their excellent sug-
gestions. It is such a joy to be part of this community of
principled and generous scholars.
The compilation of the final manuscript was aided by
Hayley Woodward, who helped organize the images and
edit the bibliography. I also thank Kerry Webb, Lynne
Ferguson, and the staff at the University of Texas Press,
as well as Kathy Lewis for her expert copyediting and
Kay Banning for the index. I am grateful for a generous
Wyeth Foundation of American Art Publication Grant
and a Lurcy Grant from Tulane’s School of Liberal Arts
that supported the inclusion of color images.
Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own.
D E S C E N DA N TS
OF AZTEC
PIC TO GR A P H Y
Chapter 1
Paintings from the Past
I
n 1533, just twelve years after the fall of
Tenochtitlan, the two most powerful Spaniards in
colonial Mexico launched a comprehensive investiga-
tion into Aztec ideology and practice. The Crown
wanted more information about the conquered people
in order to govern effectively, intellectuals in Spain were
questioning the very rationality of the Aztecs, and friars
proselytizing in Mexico needed the ability to recognize the
pagan practices around them. Knowledge of Preconquest
Aztec culture had become increasingly necessary. Although
friars were already baptizing local inhabitants en masse,
and Spanish officials were working to transform Aztec
Mexico to New Spain, Europeans remained exterior to
indigenous thought and ritual practice.
Therefore, the president of the Real Audiencia (Sebas-
tián Ramírez de Fuenleal) and the head of the Franciscan
order in Mexico (Martín de Valencia) called upon the
Franciscan friar Andrés de Olmos to “compile in a book
the antiquities of these Indians, especially those of Mexico-
Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlaxcala so that there would
be some memory, and the bad could be better refuted, and
if something good was found, it could be noticed, [just]
as are noted and held in memory many things of other
Gentiles” (Mendieta 1971:75). They sought information
on the people of the three most powerful indigenous cit-
ies, just as others across the Atlantic had reported on the
customs of other heathen peoples. Olmos was the perfect
choice: a learned and careful man, he had fought idolatry
in the Basque country with Juan de Zumárraga (who later
became the first bishop of Mexico) before the two came to
Mexico in 1528. He had worked closely with the indigenous
people in several major cities and towns in his five years
in Mexico and was the foremost non-native authority on
Nahuatl, the Aztec language.
Olmos sought and received the help of indigenous rulers
for the project. They provided him with both Pre­conquest
painted books and access to knowledgeable elders, to aid
him in documenting Preconquest culture. His informa-
tion on the different gods and beliefs, for example, came
from relevant paintings and accounts provided by the
lords of Mexico, Texcoco, Tlaxcala, Huejotzinco, Cholula,
Tepeaca, Tlalmanalco, and the other major towns (Men­
dieta 1971:77). It is not known whether Olmos first devel-
oped an outline or questionnaire for the information he
sought or whether his study evolved naturally from the
source material. Twenty years later, his Franciscan col-
league Bernardino de Sahagún, who is thought to have
followed Olmos’s lead, would create an outline of all the
topics to cover, which suggests that Olmos may have done
so as well.
For Olmos’s investigative process, we can look also to
Sahagún (1982:54), who recalled his own approach with
some specificity. Sahagún’s Franciscan superior had ordered
him “to write in the Mexican language that which seemed
to me useful for the indoctrination, the propagation and
perpetuation of the Christianization of the natives of New
Spain, and as a help to the workers and ministers who
indoctrinated them” (Sahagún 1982:53). In 1553 he was sta-
tioned in the town of Tepepulco, assigned to the monastery
that Olmos had founded there in 1529, when he informed
1
the town leaders of his ethnographic intent and asked
for their assistance. After some days of deliberation, they
responded positively and assigned Sahagún “as many as ten
or twelve leading elders” who would provide the informa-
tion that he sought (Sahagún 1982:54). Helped by some
of his former students from the Colegio de Santa Cruz
in Tlatelolco who were with him in Tepepulco, Sahagún
conferred with the elders for nearly two years.
This ongoing oral discourse among Nahua elders, tri-
lingual Nahuatl students, and Sahagún was grounded in
Aztec pictography. As Sahagún explained: “They gave me
all the matters we discussed in pictures, for that was the
writing they employed in ancient times. And the grammar-
ians explained them in their language, writing the expla-
nation at the bottom of the painting” (Sahagún 1982:54).
Both Olmos and Sahagún relied on the indigenous image
as the foundation for their studies. Olmos and his native
assistants studied the ancient manuscripts themselves.
Sahagún’s team probably did likewise but also received
paintings formatted to accommodate commentary.
Investigations such as these drew surviving Preconquest
painted books from the shelves of indigenous palaces,
temples, and the residences of administrators and diviners.
They also required new documents that were descended
from Aztec pictography but created for the investigation
itself, such as the manuscripts or sheets of paper brought
to Sahagún that bore pictures with space at the bottom for
written explanations. Sahagún said that he still possessed
them in the 1570s. These paintings were an intermediary
and necessary step in Sahagún’s investigative process. The
friar Toribio de Benavente, known as Motolinía (1951:74),
who was learned in the Aztec past, would say that some
genres of ancient pictography could be understood by
anyone with a little help, although even he admitted that
it sometimes took the deep knowledge of the indigenous
elders to draw out their content fully and voice it correctly
for transcription into alphabetic text. On the pages of these
new documents the alphabetic traces of oral discourses
joined Aztec pictography to yield hybrid accounts directed
to a colonial audience. The images established the topi-
cal content but were expected to be joined and explained
by texts, for one did not fully inform without the other.
The Aztecs’ traditional reliance on pictographic books
ensured that Spanish ethnographic projects would rely on
the visual as much as the oral. Their high pictorial content
and strong indigenous voice make the documents unique
among early modern ethnographic studies.
2 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
Olmos and Sahagún represent for us the general life
span of the friars’ ethnographic investigations. Olmos was
not the first to gather information, for very soon after
the conquest the Crown sought tribute information and
launched a wide-ranging geographic study that was finally
finished with the help of Franciscan and Dominican friars
in 1532.1 Other investigations continued after Sahagún
and his Dominican colleague, Diego Durán, finished their
respective Historias, most notably the Relaciones geográfi-
cas of 1578–1586. Copies of earlier manuscripts continued
to be made into the seventeenth century. But 1533 marks
the beginning of the most comprehensive study of ancient
cultural practices, and Sahagún’s Florentine Codex, fin-
ished around 1577, is among the last of the principal
accounts. Durán finalized his Historia a few years later, in
1581. Within this nearly fifty-year period hundreds of pic-
torial records of Aztec culture were likely created, mostly
at the behest and under the guidance of the friars. They
were the ones who had direct access to and close rela-
tions with the indigenous people and therefore knew their
languages and culture best, so they probably guided even
those reports commissioned by colonial administrators.
Some of these image-based studies and reports, espe-
cially the administrative commissions, focused on secular
matters of particular interest to the Crown: for example,
royal history, imperial conquests, tribute, and social order.
But most concentrated on religious ideology and practice,
the kind of information that the friars most needed to
help them combat idolatry. As Sahagún (1982:59) put it,
“to preach against these matters [idolatrous beliefs and
practices], and even to know that they exist, it is needful to
know how they practiced them in the times of their idola-
try.” Durán (1971:470) echoed this sentiment when he said
his intent was “to give advice to my fellow men and to our
priests” so that “no heathen way [would] be concealed, hid-
den.” The studies therefore concentrated on the gods, the
religious ceremonies and devotions, and the calendar that
regulated so many of the ceremonies.
A mendicant thread runs through these studies. In
particular, the Franciscans and Dominicans were closest
to the indigenous communities and considered them-
selves their protectors against injustice and exploitation
by the secular forces (administrators, encomenderos, and
the like). Among the most celebrated and important of
the friar ethnographers were three Franciscans: Olmos,
Motolinía (who arrived with the first twelve Franciscans in
1524), and Sahagún. Motolinía is not associated with any
surviving pictorials, except for a calendar diagram inserted
later among his extant texts, but he explained to his readers
that his account of Aztec culture was based on indigenous
manuscripts. He also spoke knowingly about the content
of native painted books and claimed proficiency in inter-
preting pictography. The principal Dominican expert on
Aztec culture was Diego Durán, who may have felt some
competition with Sahagún, working at the same time.
Durán’s Dominican colleagues Juan de Ferrer and Pedro
de los Ríos were also employing pictorial manuscripts to
interpret Aztec culture, but their studies did not have the
same impact as the others.
Olmos emerges as a pivotal figure. As the first com-
piler of native cultural features, he became something of a
model for others. All copies of his book of antiquities and
subsequent summary are lost, but traces of his investiga-
tions survive in many of the ethnographic accounts, includ-
ing those by Motolinía, the judge Alonso de Zorita, and
Gerónimo de Mendieta, the chronicler of the Franciscan
enterprise. The material he gathered is also preserved in
texts transcribed from what would have been his pictorial
manuscripts—the Historia de los mexicanos por sus pintu-
ras and Histoyre du Mechique—and perhaps also in the
family of pictorials known as the Magliabechiano Group.
Although Olmos’s foundational study has not survived,
it lived on in the accounts of others, transcriptions of his
pictorials, and perhaps copies of some of his painted drafts.
The friars who directed the projects, established the
kinds of topics to be treated, controlled the final texts,
and sometimes saw them sent to Europe are named as
the authors when authorship can be established. But the
indigenous contributors provided the subject knowledge
that the projects required: they brought to the projects the
pictorial foundations as well as the original explanations
of these images. These indigenous content providers were
the ones who conveyed the information and shaped its
presentation, in many cases preserving traditional frames.
In this way ancient literary genres and pictographic forms
persisted in the colonial studies. Those that continued
robustly were the Preconquest modes of presenting his-
tory, the calendars, and the divinatory cycle.
The documents are transcultural hybrids that brought
together European and indigenous ways of knowing and
recording. They repurposed native ontologies in order to
explain Mexican ideologies and phenomena for colonial
audiences. These documents brought together different
traditions of recording information and different systems
of writing, juxtaposing and merging very different pictorial
styles. Even the materiality of the encyclopedias, the shift
from amatl (native paper) screenfolds to bound folios of
European paper, required a restructuring and repositioning
of content that could satisfy both the indigenous creator
and the colonial reader.
The Corpus
Of the many pictorial manuscripts created as part of these
ethnographic projects, only nine major ones survive. How-
ever, they are among the most important sources for under-
standing Aztec ideology, history, and religious practice.
Some were originally directed to a local mendicant audi-
ence, but almost all that have survived were soon sent to
Europe, either to inform high-level administrators, includ-
ing the Spanish kings, about Aztec culture or to edify the
colleagues of their compilers. Although few in number,
they represent different phases in the investigative process
and therefore give a sense of the enterprise as a whole.
Perhaps the first efforts are represented by the Codex
Borbonicus, an amatl screenfold with content that is
entirely pictorial, except for a few minor glosses. It may
represent the kind of document that the indigenous rul-
ers brought forth for Olmos’s project. Although its first
(divinatory) part is painted fully in traditional pictography,
a colonial section concerning the yearly festivals and year
count is appended. This addition establishes it as a compi-
lation of different manuscript genres that would not have
occurred before the conquest.
Two manuscripts are working drafts and palimpsests
that bring together the contributions of many different
individuals, with several artists and multiple writers who
added and corrected information over time. They repre-
sent the kind of intermediary manuscripts that joined
texts to indigenous-derived images. These are the Codex
Telleriano-Remensis, which remains the roughest, and
Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, a draft that would lead
to his Florentine Codex. With layers of annotations and
glosses, especially in the Telleriano-Remensis, these reveal
the thought processes and insights of the compilers and
annotators as they added material and gradually layered
their explanations.
Three manuscripts are relatively clean copies of earlier
drafts that elide much of the preparatory back-and-forth
discussion. The Codex Ríos (also called Vaticanus 3738
and Codex Vaticanus A) was commissioned by Pedro
Paintings from the Past  • 3
de los Ríos for a colleague in Rome. It is a copy of the
paintings in the Telleriano-Remensis with texts in Italian
that synthesize the earlier religious annotations, with the
addition of complementary cultural information to round
out the presentation. The other fairly clean copies are the
two major manuscripts of the Magliabechiano Group: the
Codex Magliabechiano and Codex Tudela. As cognates
descended from a lost pictorial prototype, they share much
of the same pictorial content focused on Aztec religion and
ideology, although their texts are entirely different. The
Magliabechiano’s texts were copied from the prototype in
a clear humanistic minuscule by a non-Nahuatl speaker
and addressed to a nonlocal audience; its title, “Book of the
Life of the Ancient Mexicans,” also reflects the Magliabe-
chiano’s external readership outside the indigenous com-
munity. The Tudela is also relatively clean, with writings
in a consistent hand and few changes. Although it contains
the kind of information that mendicants in Mexico would
want to know—such as the dates of festivals—the final
manuscript was prepared for a foreign audience when a
costume study of the kind that fascinated Europeans at
the time was added at the front. Partial cognates and copies
of the Magliabechiano and Tudela are discussed as part of
this group.
Three other manuscripts were final compilations spe-
cifically created for a cross-Atlantic readership. The earliest
is the only secular manuscript in the corpus, the Codex
Mendoza, a pictorial account of the conquests of the Aztec
rulers, the tribute sent to Tenochtitlan, and the lifeways of
typical Aztec males and females. Its content is driven fully
by its painted images (explained in texts and glosses). In
this respect it might represent the kind of intermediary
manuscript that was highly pictorial, but it was finished in
order to be sent to Spain on a soon-departing fleet. Durán’s
final Historia and Sahagún’s Florentine Codex were also
prepared for a European audience and were sent to Europe
soon after completion. Both friars hoped or expected that
their studies would be published or at least circulated.
Within the manuscripts themselves, however, the compil-
ers address topics principally of interest to other friars in
Mexico, so their audiences were both local and European.
Because the corpus is defined by its descendancy from
Aztec pictography and its pictorial content, a number
of related manuscripts fall outside my purview. Several
important textual compilations are transcriptions or
were derived from readings of pictorials. The Historia de
los mexicanos por sus pinturas and Histoyre du Mechique
4 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
(mentioned earlier) are two. The Anales de Cuauhtitlan
and the Leyenda de los soles also preserve something of the
structure of ancient literary genres. The Relación de Micho-
acán that Jerónimo de Alcalá prepared for Viceroy Antonio
de Mendoza around 1540 has quite a number of paintings
that were added after the text was completed, but they
illustrate and depend on Alcalá’s text rather than being
foundational to it. The reports of Juan de Tovar on Texcoco
and Diego Muñoz Camargo on Tlaxcala likewise are not
considered here. Responding to the Relaciones geográficas
questionnaire, Tovar’s work had relatively few illustrations,
and the many drawings accompanying Muñoz Camargo’s
Relación belong to the European tradition and pertain not
to the Preconquest past but to the events of the conquest
and early evangelical efforts. Like Alcalá’s Relación these
accounts are part of the tradition of textual reports, with
added illustrations. They do not themselves derive from
pictographic forerunners.
Means of Knowing the Pictorial
Compilations
The first images of any Mesoamerican pictorial manu-
script to reach a wide European readership were figures
drawn from now-lost pictorials related to the Mendoza
and Magliabechiano. In 1601 the Spanish printer for the
first volumes of Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas’s Historia
general de los hechos de los castellanos en las Islas i Tierra
Firme del Mar Oceano featured nearly twenty figures and
scenes from these manuscripts on the title pages of Década
segundo and the Descripción de las Indias Ocidentales.2 These
images of gods, rituals (including heart sacrifice), warriors,
weapons, and a ruler brought the exoticism and material-
ity of Aztec culture before the eyes of Herrera’s audience,
reading about the conquest and destruction of this very
culture. The figures made the Aztecs both tangible and
incomprehensible.
The next images were of the gods in the Codex Ríos. In
1615 seven figures were welcomed into an expanded con-
ception of pagan gods in the revised edition of Vincenzo
Cartari’s popular Le imagini de i dei de gli antichi, newly
enlarged to include representatives of the Americas.3 Its
location in the Vatican Library gave the Codex Ríos spe-
cial visibility. Two Preconquest divinatory codices were
also held there, and the Ríos’s divinatory section became
an important comparative source in early studies of other
divinatory codices. The first to use it was José Fábrega in
his pioneering study of the Preconquest Codex Borgia, also
in the Vatican. Although Fábrega’s late eighteenth-century
commentary would not be published until the late nine-
teenth century, it was known and consulted by prominent
Americanists during and after his lifetime.
The Codex Mendoza, however, has the distinction of
being the first Mesoamerican pictorial to be significantly
published. In 1625 Samuel Purchase included woodcuts of
most of its painted pages, with English translations of the
texts, in his great opus, Hakluytus Posthumus: Or, Purchase
His Pilgrimages. Although imperfect by today’s standards,
these prints attracted new interest in Mexican pictography
and ensured that the many place signs in the Mendoza
would figure in early studies of Mexican hieroglyphic writ-
ing: Athanasius Kircher republished four (1652–1654), and
Melchisedec Thevenot reprinted almost all of them (1672,
1696) (Glass 1975a:631, 709, 1975b:22).
By the early nineteenth century the Telleriano-Remensis
(then in Paris) and the Madrid (Tolosano-Panes) manu-
scripts of Sahagún’s Historia general had also come to
people’s attention. Alexander von Humboldt published
drawings of the pages of the Telleriano-Remensis and
Ríos along with details from the Codex Mendoza in his
Vues des cordillères et monumens des peuples indigènes de
l’Amerique (1810), which brought them before a large inter-
national audience. Lord Kingsborough (Edward King) fol-
lowed in 1831–1848: his monumental Antiquities of Mexico
(9 vols.) reproduced sixteen Mesoamerican codices fully
and in color, including the Telleriano-Remensis, Ríos, and
Mendoza, as well as the Spanish text of Sahagún’s Histo-
ria (Tolosano-Panes manuscript).4 Shortly before, Carlos
María de Bustamante had brought out a superior edition
of this Spanish version of Sahagún’s Historia (Bustamante
1829, 1829–1830, later reissued several times and translated
into French and English), which was long considered
the standard scholarly edition. Somewhat later José Fer-
nando Ramírez first published the other major Historia,
by Diego Durán (1867–1880), which he had found in a
library in Madrid.
The next wave of scholarly attention came near the
turn of the twentieth century, with a significant cluster
of facsimile editions, most of which were accompanied
by detailed commentaries and transcriptions of the texts.
Joseph Florimond, Duc de Loubat, financed three: the
Telleriano-Remensis (1899, with commentary by Ernst
Théodore Hamy), the Ríos (1900, with commentary by
Franz Ehrle), and the Magliabechiano (1904, without
commentary). Zelia Nuttall had come across the Maglia-
bechiano in Florence in 1890 and issued her own facsimile
in 1903, but her promised full study never appeared. The
Borbonicus was first published about this time: Hamy
oversaw and introduced the facsimile (1899), and Francisco
del Paso y Troncoso wrote the commentary (1898). Paso y
Troncoso had been searching Europe for sources important
for the history of Mexico and was especially interested in
the manuscripts of Sahagún in Madrid and Florence. His
fundamental study of Sahagún’s work—a facsimile of the
Primeros memoriales and other Madrid manuscripts and
drawings from the Florentine Codex—bears the publica-
tion date of 1905–1907, when these volumes were printed,
but they were not bound and distributed by the Mexican
government until 1924, eight years after the scholar’s death
(Cline 1973b:393–396).5 Paso y Troncoso’s reproduction
of the Codex Mendoza, in black-and-white photographic
plates, was issued by Jesús Galindo y Villa in 1925. The
other great Mexican savant of the time was Eduard Seler.
Although he never focused directly on the early colonial
compilations, he employed them comparatively in his anal-
yses of the divinatory manuscript and investigations into
Aztec iconography; his studies amount to detailed read-
ings of many sections. The turn of the twentieth century
thus saw an intense interest in the Mexican painted books
and Aztec studies more generally, likely encouraged by the
400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s 1492 voyage.
These turn-of-the century facsimiles and commentaries
continued to be the fundamental sources for scholarship on
the codices and Aztec ideology for many years. A few new
editions supplemented them. James Cooper Clark pub-
lished a superb color photographic edition of the Codex
Mendoza in 1938, only to see most copies lost in the war.
José Corona Núñez’s Antigüedades de México (1964–1967)
reissued those pictorial codices first published by Kings-
borough (including the complete Mendoza), in color but
with relatively poor photographic plates. Several historians
edited the Spanish text of Sahagún’s Historia (Ramírez
Cabañas 1938; Acosta Saignes 1946; and most importantly
Garibay 1956) and Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles
Dibble launched their long-term (1950–1969, updated to
1982) project that transcribed and translated into English
the Nahuatl text of Sahagún’s Florentine Codex (Cline
1973a:219–221). Meanwhile Garibay produced a new
Spanish edition of Durán’s Historia (1967), and Fernando
Horcasitas and Doris Heyden published their English
translation of Durán’s religious treatises (1971).
Paintings from the Past  • 5
 The Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt (ADEVA) in
Graz then entered the picture and began publishing pho-
tographic facsimiles of very high quality with limited com-
mentary for many Mesoamerican pictorial codices. These
include the Magliabechiano (1970), Borbonicus (1974), and
Ríos (Codex Ríos 1979). To honor the quincentenary of
the Spanish conquest, ADEVA then teamed with Mexico’s
Fondo de Cultura Económica to publish equally outstand-
ing facsimiles, with important commentaries by Maarten
Jansen, Ferdinand Anders, and colleagues (El libro del
Ciuacoatl 1991; Magliabechiano 1996; Codex Ríos 1996).6
Because they were reasonably priced when they first
appeared, these editions have been especially important in
expanding access to the manuscripts.
Other late twentieth-century publications, most with
commentaries, complement ADEVA’s series. Sahagún’s
Florentine Codex was published in facsimile for the first
time (without commentary) in 1979, and the first edi-
tion of its Spanish text was completed by Josefina García
Quintana and Alfredo López Austin (Sahagún 1989b).
Together with Anderson and Dibble’s English translation
of the Nahuatl text, the Florentine was finally published
in its entirety, although split among three different works.
A color photographic facsimile of the Primeros memoria-
les (1993) made that manuscript better known, especially
when it was joined by Thelma Sullivan’s English transla-
tion of the texts, edited by colleagues (1997). The Codex
Tudela, discovered in 1945, was brought out by José Tudela
de la Orden (1980), but this edition has been superseded
by the outstanding facsimile issued in 2002 by Testimo-
nio Compañía Editorial of Madrid, accompanied by an
extensive commentary on the codex and analysis of the
Magliabechiano Group by Juan José Batalla Rosado. A
magnificent four-volume edition of the Mendoza, edited
by Frances Berdan and Patricia Anawalt, was published
in 1992 to mark the quincentennial. My commentary on
the Codex Magliabechiano and analysis of the Magliabe-
chiano Group (Boone 1983) accompanied a reprint of Zelia
Nuttall’s facsimile. Eloise Quiñones Keber’s detailed study
of the Telleriano-Remensis included a new photographic
facsimile (1995a) that effectively replaced the 1899 Hamy
edition. Additionally, Doris Heyden’s English transla-
tion of Durán’s historical treatise (1994) complemented
the earlier translation of Durán’s religious and calendri-
cal treatises (Durán 1971). A new edition of the Mendoza
is also planned soon (Gómez Tejada n.d.). All the major
compilations have thus been available for some time in
6 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
excellent facsimile editions, with serious commentary or
translation. Increasingly, also, the pictorials are becoming
available online through codex databases and the libraries’
websites. The Getty Research Institute is undertaking a
digital edition of the Florentine Codex.
The corpus as an entity has been largely ignored, how-
ever. In his landmark study Mexican Manuscript Painting
of the Early Colonial Period (1959), Donald Robertson
analyzed the pictorial style of all these works but did not
conceptualize or discuss them as a distinct corpus. Rather,
his intent was to locate the individual manuscripts within
regional schools of manuscript painting (e.g., School of
Texcoco). In so doing, however, he was the first to focus
principally on the documents as works in and of them-
selves, rather than sources of ethnohistorical information,
and on the participation of the images in early colonial
stylistic change.
Others have outlined and investigated families of manu-
scripts. The cognates related to the Magliabechiano have
attracted the most attention, likely because of the com-
plexity of their relationships, and have been analyzed as
a distinct family (Boone 1983; Riese 1986; Batalla Rosado
2002a). Riese and I approached the cognates from the
point of view of the Magliabechiano, whereas Batalla
Rosado took the perspective of the Tudela. The Telleriano-
Remensis and the Ríos were once thought to derive from a
common prototype (Paso y Troncoso 1898:349–351, 1979;
Thompson 1941b) until Quiñones Keber (1995a) demon-
strated that the latter was copied in part from the former.
Other scholars have investigated cognates with the Men-
doza (Berdan 1992; Boone 1992) and Durán’s Historia (e.g.,
Barlow 1945a; Lafaye 1972b; Colston 1973; Couch 1987;
Peperstraete 2007). Many others have approached the
complicated relationships among Sahagún’s manuscripts.
These studies are discussed below with their relevant
manuscripts. It becomes clear, however, that we have been
content to divide up the corpus into clusters of related
manuscripts but not to consider them as representations
of a distinct genre.
Cultural Encyclopedias
My approach here is to do just that: to consider the
nine major documents as belonging to an early colonial
manuscript genre of what are essentially cultural encyclo-
pedias. Although the Mexican versions, with the excep-
tion of Sahagún’s Florentine Codex, do not aspire to be
all-encompassing like medieval or “universal” encyclope-
dias, they bring together, organize, and present informa-
tion on different subjects in a non-narrative manner. They
do so by collecting aspects of the Aztec past according to
cultural categories such as veintena (monthly) rituals, the
calendar, and history and presenting the data in an exposi-
tory fashion. This required the creators to break down
the information into separate and roughly parallel units,
which leveled them and set up lines of comparison between
the units.
Like European encyclopedias and compilations that
collected cultural information on foreign peoples, these
manuscripts were also directed to an audience that was
external to their subject matter. The paintings and annota-
tions contributed by indigenous artists, savants, and assis-
tants were intended for a nonindigenous readership that
was culturally European, whether within Mexico or across
the Atlantic. This community of viewers gives the manu-
scripts a proper identity within the European tradition of
cultural encyclopedias, although they retain close ties to
the indigenous tradition as well.
My focus is principally on the paintings both as the
original source of indigenous information and as the frame-
work for the rest of the content. I treat the annotations
and longer texts as dependent on the images and largely
auxiliary to them, for their intent was to draw out mean-
ing from the paintings, or layer meaning onto them, and
recast it for a European readership. Even with the studies
of Durán and Sahagún, where the texts dominate, the cre-
ators always intended the manuscripts to have a significant
pictorial component; their paintings draw readers back to
Preconquest pictography and encourage viewers to follow
traces of traditional forms. The relationship between the
images and the texts in these compilations is a complex
one, with some texts simply identifying and explaining the
figures and others using the figures as a point of departure
for a collateral discourse.
Individually, the manuscripts have been valued and
used for the insights that they provide on Aztec religion,
economy, and history. This began with early historians
of hieroglyphic writings who referenced the place signs
in the Codex Mendoza (e.g., Kircher 1652–1654) and
Fábrega, who developed his analysis of the Codex Borgia
from images and texts in the Ríos tonalamatl (divinatory
almanac). It reached a high point in the heavily icono-
graphic studies of Eduard Seler, who pulled images from
all the cultural encyclopedias then known. Others have
followed suit. In particular the tonalamatl of the Telleriano-
Remensis has been a key for understanding the divinatory
calendar and the supernatural patrons of units of time. In
the absence of Aztec histories painted indisputably before
the conquest, scholars have embraced the annals in the
Mendoza, Telleriano-Remensis, and Ríos as exemplars of
that tradition. The early colonial compilations have been
recognized as such valuable resources because they were
created specifically to explain Aztec culture to outsiders.
We usually accept the veracity of these images as true
reflections of Aztec figuration and iconography because
of their descendancy from pictography. The ease with
which the compilations translate Aztec culture for us also
seduces us into accepting the texts as fairly accurate expla-
nations. But the texts and to a certain extent even some
of the images were shaped by the creators’ own cultural
traditions, depth of knowledge, and intent. When the god-
dess Tlazolteotl was called another Eve (Codex Ríos) or
another Venus (Sahagún’s Florentine Codex), the writers
were drawing on their own different stores of knowledge
to advance their point of view. We who rely on the manu-
scripts therefore need to account for the biases and exposi-
tory goals of the writers.
To understand the corpus it is helpful to recognize some
of the special features of sixteenth-century Mexico that
impacted the ethnographic projects of the friars and the
native artists who provided them with information. Chap-
ters 2–4 address aspects of early colonial thought and
practice that affected the cultural encyclopedias: graphic
complexity, the European encyclopedic tradition, and the
evangelical project.
Different graphic traditions in early colonial Mexico
came together in a confluence of competing and blending
systems. Native painters and friars recognized and became
comfortable with these multiple systems with relative ease.
Chapter 2 describes this complex mix of graphic strate-
gies—alphabetic writing, pictorial illusionism, European
pictography, and Mexican pictography—that affected the
painters’ graphic approaches.
The pictorial compilations also reflected and partici-
pated in the ongoing European interest in foreign peoples.
When Mendieta described the charge given to Olmos to
compile information on native culture, he referred com-
paratively to studies that had already been made of other
foreigners. The friars came loaded with the understanding
that culture could be categorized and a familiarity with
Paintings from the Past  • 7
others’ accounts of foreign peoples. Chapter 3 summarizes
the major features of the encyclopedic tradition in Europe.
These included the general encyclopedia (which helped
shape Sahagún’s project), ethnographic reports on the
habits of foreign people (which probably resonated with
many), studies of the pagan gods of antiquity (which likely
undergirded the presentation of supernaturals in several of
the codices, most clearly those of Durán and Sahagún), and
costume studies (which appeared in the Tudela and Ríos).
Chapter 4 considers the extraordinary nature of the
evangelical mission in Mexico and the character of
the mendicant friars who carried it out. It introduces the
principal friar ethnohistorians and provides an overview
of their investigations of Aztec culture, explaining the
kinds of educational institutions that led to such fruitful
mendicant/indigenous collaborations.
Chapters 5–7 present the corpus of pictorial compi-
lations, generally moving chronologically and stylistically
from the early efforts to the formal and largely textual His-
torias of Durán and Sahagún. Chronology is necessarily
relative here: only a few codices can be fixed securely in
time, and many projects were ongoing for decades. As the
century progressed, indigenous artists increasingly experi-
mented with and adopted European pictorial conventions,
but these artistic decisions were not uniform. The painters
continued to juxtapose and blend native pictography and
European figuration variously, even within the same picto-
rial presentations and in the latest compilations.
Two of the earliest and most distinctive manuscripts in
the corpus are juxtaposed in chapter 5: the Codex Borboni-
cus and the Codex Mendoza. Both are overwhelmingly
pictorial and hew to indigenous representational canons;
together they give a sense of early efforts to gather cultural
data. The Borbonicus, a screenfold of native paper with a
divinatory tonalamatl in the Preconquest style, has some-
times been considered to predate the conquest, but the
addition of a veintena festival section marks it as a colonial
compilation. The Mendoza is the only secular compilation
in the corpus. Its annals and tribute list are pictographic
presentations in the Aztec tradition, transferred and refor-
matted onto the European page. Like the Borbonicus, its
content is fully carried by the paintings; its glosses and
texts serve only to identify and explain the images.
Chapter 6 deals with what I call the mid-century ency-
clopedias, which recast indigenous images as sites of alpha-
betic discourse. It embraces two sets of paired cognates:
the Telleriano-Remensis and the Ríos (partially derived
8 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
from it) and the Magliabechiano and Tudela, the two
major manuscripts of the Magliabechiano Group. The art-
ists employed paintings to establish the contents of these
four manuscripts, as was the case with the Borbonicus and
Mendoza, but here they arranged the figures on European
paper to accommodate texts that they knew would be
added. Roughly the same amount of space was allotted for
both, so the alphabetic record could balance the visual one.
Chapter 7 analyzes Durán’s Historia and Sahagún’s
Primeros memoriales and Florentine Codex. Finalized in
the last years of the 1570s and early 1580s, they represent
the climax of the pictorial encyclopedic genre. Although
their texts dominate the presentations, with the illustra-
tions then added, these paintings reflect the native tradi-
tion to varying degrees and were integral to the compila-
tions. Durán’s religious images hew more closely to their
Preconquest roots, as do many of Sahagún’s. But in most
cases the image is no longer primary and foundational.
The Primeros memoriales dates from the mid-century
and shares many features with the mid-century encyclo-
pedias, but it is treated in this chapter as a draft for the
Florentine Codex.
Chapter 8 reflects on the corpus as a whole, summa-
rizing the contents of the manuscripts and relating them
to the cultural compilations of Europe. It also follows the
topic of stylistic conservatism, innovation, and juxtaposi-
tion: the endurance of native genres, structures, and forms
and the adoption of new European figural conventions.
The thorny issue of the veintenas—the eighteen feasts
held roughly every twenty days or the twenty-day periods
themselves—requires its own detailed treatment. There
are no known Preconquest representations of the activities
of the veintena festival cycle. Indeed some scholars have
proposed that they were first represented in the early colo-
nial period.7 The codices considered here, except for the
secular Codex Mendoza, all have a section that treats this
cycle but present it very differently. They often identify the
festivals with different names and describe different activi-
ties. Short of a full analysis, I include tables summarizing
the veintena presentations in my discussion of their manu-
scripts; I begin the veintenas with the feast of Xilomaniztli/
Atlcahualo/Cuauhuitlehua, because that is the first feast in
most of the sources.
A note on terminology: I employ the term “Aztec” to
refer to the Preconquest Nahuatl-speaking peoples of
central Mexico who shared a language and culture, which
includes, for example, the peoples of Tenochtitlan, Tex-
coco, and Culhuacan. Since the nineteenth century Ameri-
canist historians have referred to the pictorial manuscripts
of Mesoamerica as “codices.” Medievalists and early mod-
ern scholars may be discomforted by this usage, for they
understand the term to refer to books of leaves bound on
one side. However, Mesoamericanist scholars have found
the term advantageous in characterizing the documents as
ancient manuscripts in book form, whether that book is a
native screenfold, a roll, or a bound set of folios.
Paintings from the Past  • 9
Chapter 2
Graphic Complexity
in New Spain
T
he European chroniclers reporting
on the conquest and the friars who actually
sailed to Mexico knew that knowledge could
be conveyed by a variety of graphic systems.
Although writing in letters and words was their principal
system, they recognized the efficacy of others. Pictures and
images could function for those who did not read alpha-
betically, as the second Nicene Council stated in 787 and
the Council of Trent reiterated in 1563 (Holt 1981–1982,
2:62–64; Fischer 2003:149). Schemas and diagrams from
the medieval tradition organized knowledge in clear and
powerful ways. Both images and diagrams made effec-
tive teaching aids. Egyptian hieroglyphs and emblems
could yield ancient truths. For many of these Europeans,
Mexican pictography was not so different but was just
another system within the broad category of graphic com-
munication. Also, the concept of the book conveyed easily
across cultures.
One of the first reports of indigenous records was the
second letter of Hernando Cortés (1986:109), which spoke
of imperial tribute rolls recorded “in characters and draw-
ings on the paper which they make, which is their writ-
ing.” The Franciscan friar Toribio de Benavente (Motolinía
1951:74) recognized Preconquest manuscripts as “books . . .
written in symbols and pictures. This is their way of writing,
supplying their lack of an alphabet by the use of symbols.”
The judge Alonso de Zorita (1963:128) described judicial
records as being written “in native characters.” Although
the Jesuit José de Acosta (2002:334–335) judged Mexican
pictography to be unequal to the European alphabetic
10
system, he allowed that the Mexicans had “some kinds of
letters and books,” written in “pictures and hieroglyphs, . . .
hence [they] were able to express whatever they wanted”
(339, 340). Several authors—including the humanist Peter
Martyr d’Anghiera (1912, 2:41), Bishop Bartolomé de las
Casas (1967, 2:497), and the Franciscan friar Diego Valadés
(1989:233–235)—found similarities between Mesoameri-
can scripts and Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, which was
also figural. Valadés (1989:235), in particular, noted that
the Mexicans “had in common with the Egyptians the
expression of ideas by means of figures” by referring to the
hieroglyphics of Horappolo, which were so popular among
neoplatonic humanists (discussed below), and by regard-
ing pictography as equivalent to the symbolic, figural, and
secret scripts created by ancient sages, philosophers, kings,
and lords.1
The Mesoamerican perspective on this issue is harder
to represent with examples. The only record is via Martyr
d’Anghiera, who in 1516 published an account of a Meso-
american (probably from the Maya region) who had fled
to Panama and there saw a judge reading a book. The man
“started with surprise, and asked through interpreters, . . .
‘You also have books? You also understand the signs by
which you communicate with the absent?’ He asked at the
same time to look at the open book, hoping to see the same
characters used among his people; but he saw the letters
were not the same” (Martyr d’Anghiera 1912, 1:400). This
indigenous reader recognized it as a book (although it was
written in a foreign script) because he came from a society
that had a socially defined and economically supported
2.1. Codex Vienna. Screenfold manuscript that recounts Mixtec cosmogonic history on this face. Codex Vindobonensis Mexicanus 1, Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek, Vienna. Photograph by Elizabeth Boone from Codex Vienna (1963).
cultural category that included books and writing (Martyr
d’Anghiera 1912, 2:5).
The books he knew were, like European books, objects
created by the skills, labor, and resources of a variety of
individuals and supported by extensive cultural, intellec-
tual, and economic networks. Physically, too, Mesoameri-
can screenfold books resembled European books in being
crafted of flat sheets of a thin substance that was divided
into rectangular surface planes (figure 2.1). These surface
planes, like those of European books, existed solely to sup-
port signifying marks arranged in specific and meaningful
ways.2 They were carriers of signs and containers of knowl-
edge. The distinct qualities of a book allowed Europeans
and Mesoamericans to recognize the others’ products.
This chapter treats the variety of graphic systems that
interacted in sixteenth-century Mexico. The principal
European systems were alphabetic writing and pictorial
illusionism or what I term mimetic figuration: the kind of
tridimensionality achieved in paintings and prints. These
were accompanied by a glyphic strand of figuration that
was similar to pictography in employing figures (often flat)
on a nonmimetic flat ground, which I term European pic-
tography. Indigenous Mexican pictography is the fourth
system that contributed significantly to the graphic mix of
early colonial Mexico.
Alphabetic Writing
As the principal script of Europe in the sixteenth century,
alphabetic writing came to Mexico as the new, superior
manner of recording information. Today it reigns as the
dominant writing system of the Western world, the matrix
by which ideas, opinions, and facts are communicated in
this and many other books. Thus, we all know what it is
(figure 2.2). However, our very familiarity with alphabetic
writing means that we take its properties and characteris-
tics for granted. Most who study alphabetic writing recog-
nize it as the method of conveying linguistic information
relevant to a specific language by means of graphic marks
that cue the individual sounds of that language.3 In this
definition, alphabetic writing does not necessarily record
speech acts as such; rather, both writing and speech yield
language. The distinction is a good one, for many scholars
have pointed out that alphabetic writing does not eas-
ily record all aspects of spoken language (such as pause,
emphasis, tone) and that its functional and grammatical
principles are somewhat different from those that govern
speech.4 Written language and spoken language are slightly
different things.
The marks of alphabetic writing, like those of pictog-
raphy, do not usually have a three-dimensional presence
or tactility; nor do they have an existence outside of the
Graphic Complexity in New Spain • 11
surface on which they are put. They are physically depen-
dent on the ground created to support them. Writing,
then, should be considered in terms of its field, graphemes,
orthography and syntax, and extralinguistic information.
Field
Writing is not simply a combination of letters of the alpha-
bet but is the interrelationships of letters, other marks
(e.g., diacritics and punctuation), and spaces and their
configuration on a ground (figure 2.2).5 This ground is a
two-dimensional surface; although we usually conceptual-
ize it as being neutral, it is an important semiotic field that
carries nonmimetic meaning (Shapiro 1969).
In printed books the surface is a sheet or folio of paper
(or, rarely, animal hide) that has been layered and sewn
together with other sheets in gatherings or quires, which
are bound on the sewn end as a codex. Although the
2.2. Printed book of alphabetic writing. Alonso de Molina, Confesionario mayor, en lengua mexicana y castellana (Mexico City: Antonio de
Espinosa, 1565), fols. 24v–25r. Rare Books Collection, Latin American Library, Tulane University.
12 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
pictorial documents of Precolumbian and early colonial
Mesoamerica are usually called “codices” by Mesoameri-
canist scholars and laypersons alike, a codex is usually
thought of as a book of folios bound on one side. For each
of the folios, the recto (front) side and the verso (back)
side carry their own subtle meanings, which was some-
thing that the indigenous manuscript painters had to
manage in the early colonial period. A book’s title page
and major divisions of the text are always on a recto side,
for example, unless the printer is forced to crowd the texts
into as few folios as possible; likewise, these major features
are oriented to the top of the sheet. Because the Mexican
pictographic tradition was so different, it fought against
the European practice.
Margins of blank space between the text and the edges
of the page establish the rectangular boundaries of the
text itself, but they can also hold secondary data such as
personal notes and bibliographic references. The margin is
thus both a frame and a zone of amplification. European
manuscripts and books have margins, but Preconquest
manuscripts do not. In addition to written words, the field
can also contain other graphic forms like diagrams, pic-
tures, and other types of notations.
Graphemes
The marks belonging to the linguistic category of graph-
emes are the fundamental units of the system. Most are
phonemic, in that they reference sound. But others, such
as punctuation marks, support orthographic and syntactic
meanings within the language; other nonalphabetic sym-
bols, such as numerals, are exterior to a single language.
All are conventional symbols whose meaning has been
established by usage; they are unmotivated in the linguistic
sense that they do not have a direct and obvious connec-
tion to their referents.6 The individual letters that com-
pose the proper noun “Dios,” for example, have no relation
to the supreme sacred being of Christianity, except that
they spell the name of God in Spanish but not in Latin
or English. The meanings of all the individual graphemes
cannot be deduced according to their visual appearance,
so they must be learned. The letters can also come in dif-
ferent styles (e.g., black letter or Gothic: figure 2.2). Some
majuscule forms can take on figural decorations, so the
range of graphic imagery is quite extensive within the rect-
angular confines of the spatial “box” in which the letters
were graphically formed.
All these marks are canonically arranged side by side
along horizontal rows that are sequenced left to right in
Western manifestations.7 The sequence of graphemes in a
text will canonically begin on a recto side of a folio and con-
tinue onto the verso side, then to the recto of the following
folio, and so forth. This seems obvious to us, who already
read and write, but the tight sequence and directionality
are two of the distinctive features of alphabetic writing in
western Europe, so different from Aztec pictography. Only
on title pages and some other specially configured texts are
the graphemes positioned according to a position’s fixed
value. In all cases, the graphemes are purposefully posi-
tioned relative to the other forms sharing the space (Harris
1995:121, 124), where they absorb and give meaning accord-
ing to their spatial relationship with other marks, a feature
they share with pictography.
When graphemes combine to form words, they achieve
the next level of signification as meaningful forms. As the
antique scriptura continua began to be segmented into
individual words separated by extra space in the Middle
Ages, the change led to silent reading, sight-reading, and
other changes in reading patterns (Saenger 1997).8 This
spatial separation of words allows the visual recognition
of words as individual graphic units, each with a distinc-
tive shape (the “Bouma shape”) created by the combina-
tion of different letters. The word itself is thus recognized
as an image. High-frequency words especially are easily
recognized visually by the configuration of their shapes
rather than sounded out grapheme by grapheme. Less
frequent and more complex words may be read according
to their internal or sublexical components. Thus, alpha-
betic writing entails a fair degree of nonmimetic iconicity.
Reading does not happen simply by sounding out sequent
letters; rather it involves the visual recognition of letters,
of sublexical clusters of letters, and of whole words as
units of signification.9 This is a feature that it shares with
Mexican pictography.
Orthography and Syntax
The graphic formation of individual words and the for-
mulation of meaningful phrases, sentences, and larger
statements (such as paragraphs) are governed by a lan-
guage’s orthographic and syntactic rules, embracing both
vocabulary and grammar. Dictionaries and grammar books
provide the rules for written and spoken exposition, which
are specific to the language. Orthographic conventions gov-
ern how marks (principally letters) are combined to form
words; syntactic or grammatical rules determine what
words are used, how they are used, and how they combine
with others to create statements. These rules govern the
formation of phrases, sentences, and paragraphs.
Although much of language is carried by the sequences
of the words themselves, Malcolm Parkes (1993:4) reminds
us that punctuation marks are “an essential component of
written language,” functioning to clarify uncertainties and
signal semantic nuances in a text. They not only identify
the boundaries of sentences and the grammatical con-
stituents within them (e.g., clauses) but adjust the mean-
ing of words (mark pause, emphasis, and possession, for
example). Punctuation marks are particularly interesting
for students of pictography because they are important
but nonalphabetic components of the writing system.
Some modify the phonemic value of word units, but
most are nonphonemic qualifiers necessary to the sense
of the statement.
Graphic Complexity in New Spain • 13
Extralinguistic Information
Nonlinguistic elements on a page also contribute to the
text’s message. Pictures and diagrams provide their own
distinctive statements (figure 2.2), and purely decorative
elements (embellishments) modify and qualify it. The
large figural capitals of the medieval manuscript tradition
initiate sections of text. Even the form or style of regular
letters—Gothic, roman, italic—can contribute meaning to
the printed texts. For example, many of the doctrinas and
catechisms printed in sixteenth-century Mexico used the
conservative Gothic typeface that recalled the medieval tra-
dition of religious manuscript production. The humanistic
minuscule of the Codex Magliabechiano (chapter 6) sig-
naled it to be a humanistic effort. Marks and words written
in red ink brought attention to those forms. As medieval-
ists have noted, in manuscripts “the visual presentation of
a text was considered, at least by the learned, to be a part
of its meaning” (Carruthers 1990: 4). This was no less true
in early colonial Mexico.
In sum, alphabetic writing as it was employed in
sixteenth-century Mexico was a highly specialized prac-
tice that required extensive training in both writing and
reading. It was supported by an elaborate economic
and technological network that provided the supplies and
held the written products for use by others (libraries).
Alphabetic writing involved graphic marks applied to a
specially prepared ground in meaningful configurations
that followed learned conventions of orthography, syntax,
and typography. It was the central and defining feature of a
cultural category devoted to the presentation and preserva-
tion of knowledge and came laden with social value. In all
these respects alphabetic writing was equivalent to indig-
enous pictography, which explains why Cortés, Motolinía,
and others considered pictography to be the indigenous
way of writing.
Alphabetic writing, however, departs from pictography
in the way it records data and the kind of data it records.
Its goal was to record passages of a linguistic nature, to
record words and sentences that could be spoken that were
specific to a single language. It also employed spacings
and nonalphabetic graphemes to characterize and qualify
the lettered text. Although writing itself was adaptable
to many languages, its orthographic and syntactic rules
depended on the language being expressed.
14 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
Mimetic Figuration
The European partner to alphabetic writing was the image
that purported to replicate the optical appearance of beings,
objects, and environments. Although this graphic category
is often called pictorial illusionism, in the sixteenth century
and earlier it always featured figures of one kind or another;
only later, in the nineteenth century, would atmospheric
effect take precedence over figural form in Western art.
Mimetic figuration, like alphabetic writing, is founded on
a specially prepared two-dimensional surface, but it trans-
forms the surface into a tridimensional projection that
recedes or comes forward. Even the flat golden grounds of
Byzantine icons embrace figures of bodily substance.
The conventions of mimetic figuration cue the viewer to
see within its frame a visual tridimensionality that approxi-
mates what an ideal eye would be able to see.10 The artists
accomplished this by drawing the outlines and interior
shapes of beings and objects according to their appearance
from a single vantage point, which ignored the conceptual
ideal of the body’s fundamental characteristics.11 The art-
ists suggested plasticity of form by changing the width of
contour lines. They described the volumes and textures
of a surface by juxtaposing areas of light and shade and
also foreshortened parts that were to be read as farther
back in space. Through these techniques, which became
standard formulae in the Renaissance, the artists called on
the viewer to see corporeal form.
To impart depth to scenic space, Western artists over-
lapped forms or stacked overlapping planes vertically to
signal the receding stages of greater depth. They rendered
figures smaller and placed them higher on the picture plane
to locate them farther back in space. By means of atmo-
spheric perspective, they replicated the optical sense that
objects closer to the viewer are sharper and clearer, in both
their linear details and color value, whereas more distant
objects are less distinct. The artists employed the principles
of color perspective (e.g., warm and highly saturated colors
appear to advance, whereas cool and gray colors appear to
recede) to bring some forms closer to the viewer and push
other forms farther back into space. They also represented
shadows cast by one object over another to locate the forms
relative to each other, a technique developed in the Renais-
sance (Kauffman 1975: especially 258–262). Not every
pictorial image, of course, employed all these techniques;
rather, artists drew differentially on those most relevant to
the pictures they created. These techniques of perspectiva
naturalis (optical perspective) allowed Western artists to

create a generalized tridimensional environment in which
optically represented forms appear in depth.
Linear perspective, codified in Italy during the fifteenth
century, systematized this environment and unified it as
a measurable space, creating what William Ivins (1938)
has called the “rationalization of sight.” Linear perspective
posits a fixed and single point of viewing and is based on
the principle that parallel lines appear to converge toward
a single vanishing point as they recede into more distant
space: that objects diminish in size proportionally to their
recession in space (Panofsky 1991:62–66). It enables art-
ists to create measurable tridimensional constructions and
2.3. St. Augustine holding the church.
Title page of Juan de la Cruz, Doctrina
christiana en la lengua guasteca con la
lengua castellana (Mexico City: Pedro
Ocharte, 1571). Courtesy of the John
Carter Brown Library.
to locate and represent the appearance of objects within
this space.
Many of these graphic techniques were employed to
create the often-printed image of St. Augustine that domi-
nates the title page of Juan de la Cruz’s Huastec-Spanish
catechism published in Mexico in 1571 by Pedro Ocharte
(figure 2.3).12 In this print St. Augustine is rendered in
frontal pose, holding his attributes and looking to his left:
God in the upper right corner is the source of the divine
arrows that pierce the saint’s upper torso. Although heavy
garments obscure much of the saint’s body, the contour
lines of the cape and tunic describe the figure beneath as
Graphic Complexity in New Spain • 15
it would be seen by the viewer. Within these contour lines
shadows are created by shorter lines drawn parallel to each
other, which play off the nonshaded parts to sculpt the
figure beneath the clothes. The shadows posit a source of
light to the left of the picture’s frame. The figure’s shins,
knees, and arms are revealed primarily by this play of shad-
ing and light, whereas the hands and features of the face are
conveyed by single lines.
St. Augustine’s attributes are visualized mimetically as
well. The miter on his head and crosier in his right hand
identify him as a bishop. His left hand and forearm sup-
port a large book and a miniature church, which indicate
his standing as an author and a father of the church; more
specifically, the book may also signify his major text, The
City of God, which the church may then represent met-
onymically. These attributes are qualities of St. Augustine,
but in the print they are represented as physical objects
that have the same tridimensionality as the man. We rec-
ognize the tubular form of the crosier’s staff because of
the small lines that shape and twist around it. Both the
book and the church are defined by foreshortening and the
juxtaposition of light and shadow.
Other forms within the picture include the parapet
and pillar behind St. Augustine, the clump of landscape to
the middle right, and the figure of God framed by a swirl
of clouds in the upper right. Contour lines and shadows
define the architectural physicality of the parapet and pil-
lar. God is also given a three-dimensional presence here,
seated or standing behind his own cloudy parapet with
his left hand on the orb of the world. He, the orb, and
the clouds are physically defined by shadows and contour
lines, despite their conceptual nature as invisible entities
and concepts. Although clouds are a traditional frame for
God’s appearance in the heavens, here they have evolved
naturalistically from the medieval convention. The arrows
directed by his right hand into the chest of St. Augustine
are also a visualization of the invisible. Thus, the print
gives the viewer mimetic representations of forms that are
mental conceptions as well as those that have a physical
presence.
The complex spatial depth of the print is achieved by
several techniques. St. Augustine is at the forefront, with
his toes on the bottom of the pictorial frame, overlapping
the parapet behind him, which itself overlaps the clump of
landscape on the right. We are thus presented with three
different spatial depths, progressing back into space. The
shadow cast by St. Augustine further grounds him to the
16 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
floor at the front of the picture plane. The squares of the
floor are drawn according to linear perspective in order
to extend this space back to the parapet. The perspec-
tive is low, with a vanishing point about midway between
the saint’s knees and belt. This perspectival construction,
which situates St. Augustine easily within a well-defined
and almost measurable space in front of the parapet, is
ignored in other areas of the picture, however. The mold-
ings on the pillars inconsistently point to different vanish-
ing points, as does the side wall of the church.
The appearance and actions of God further complicate
the pictorial space. The church that St. Augustine holds
overlaps the clouds that surround God, which locate him
behind the saint, and God’s small size relative to Augustine
further pushes him back into the sky beyond the parapet.
Yet God’s arrows cross in front of the saint before they
enter his chest. God’s words, here as arrows, defy the rules
of perspective. Viewers are not particularly bothered by
this, for they recognize the metaphoric nature of God’s
arrows. This picture, like so many in sixteenth-century
New Spain, employs many of the techniques of pictorial
illusionism developed before and during the Renaissance,
but it also retains aspects of the medieval tradition of con-
ceptual representation.
The medieval goal was not to represent an optical, and
therefore momentary, appearance but to remind the viewer
of the thing depicted. Artists strove for conceptual realism
rather than optical illusionism. They fashioned a tree or a
hill town, for example, according to a standard or schema
of these entities. Medieval artists created depth by posing
figures in front of a nonrepresentational plane that creates
a relatively flat “stage space.”13 This stage space is composed
of a low ground plane that carries the figures; behind it is
a vertical plane (the background) that is spatially indepen-
dent of these figures.
The woodcut that dominates the title page of the 1569
Cartilla para enseñar a leer attributed to Pedro de Gante
(García Icazbalceta 1981: no. 61), for example, is more medi-
eval and conventional than Renaissance and mimetic (fig-
ure 2.4). Here St. Francis kneels in a recessed but loosely
defined landscape space characterized by conventional ren-
derings of grasses, hills, mountains, and hill towns. Over-
lapping and the diminution of forms place the hill town
on the left well behind St. Francis. St. Francis receives the
stigmata from the crucified Christ borne aloft by a seraph,
in a fairly standard presentation. The seraph appears to be
on the same spatial plane as St. Francis, largely because
2.4. St. Francis receiving the
stigmata. Title page of Pedro
de Gante (attributed), Cartilla
para enseñar a leer, nuevamente
enmendada, y quitadas todas
las abreviaturas que antes tenia
(Mexico City: Pedro Ocharte,
1569). Photograph courtesy of
the Huntington Library.

the saint is angled toward us yet sees Christ, and the lines
of the stigmata overlap the saint’s body. The renderings of
form are conventional rather than illusionistic. The folds of
St. Francis’s drapery, for example, both suggest and obscure
the body underneath it; shadings indicate folds but pertain
to no single light source. This print exemplifies the late
medieval tradition of conceptual representation that found
currency in early colonial Mexico.
Although books were intended to hold words, in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries they could also be heav-
ily illustrated, for the visuals drew and maintained read-
ers’ interests. Printers in early colonial Mexico reused the
same woodblocks and plates over and over, for the goal
was not necessarily to illustrate the text’s specific content
but to enhance it, perhaps extend its message, and enliven
the experience of the reader. Many of the small doctrinal
books, catechisms, and primers published to help instruct
the indigenous community (e.g., Gante 1569; de la Cruz
1571) were heavily illustrated, likely to appeal to a reader-
ship with a tradition of writing in figures.
European Pictography
Accompanying alphabetic writing and mimetic figuration
was a mixed form of graphic practice that lies between
the two but can employ both. It parallels indigenous

Graphic Complexity in New Spain • 17

pictography in significant ways, because it deploys alpha-
betic elements and figural signifiers on a two-dimensional
surface, arranging them diagrammatically or sequentially,
so that the visual elements take their meaning from their
structural relationship with each other. This resonance
with the pictography of Preconquest Mexico very prob-
ably shaped the friars’ views of indigenous pictography. It
embraces a variety of functional genres. Many supported
the medieval tradition of memoria as devotional aids,
schemata, and glyphic iterations of religious knowledge.14
Others were scientific and philosophical diagrams, such
as those that structured the heavens and revealed cues
for illnesses (e.g., the Zodiac Man). The genres of hiero-
glyphics and emblemata exemplified the newer human-
ist interest in nonalphabetic texts and extralinguistic
forms of expression.
18 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
Schemata
The pictography that developed in the Middle Ages largely
served devotional ends as mnemonic guides that signified
or represented theological texts, ideals, or laws in a dia-
grammatic and/or pictorial form. As diagrammatic sche-
mata they organized knowledge, visualized the abstract and
the invisible, and stimulated recall by arranging individual
graphic elements according to their interrelationships.15
A large sheet print from southern Germany, ca. 1465–1480
(figure 2.5), for example, examines the Ten Command-
ments by juxtaposing written texts and pictorial scenes on
the armature of a standing Moses.16 Adhering to its origins
in a “ladder diagram” of a medieval speculum, it establishes
correspondences between the Ten Commandments (cen-
tral column of short texts down the robe of Moses), the ten
abuses of the commandments (right column of images),
2.5. Woodcut print of Moses, the ten plagues, and
the Ten Commandments, ca. 1465–1480, Swabia,
southern Germany. © Trustees of the British
Museum (no. 1872-6-8-340).
and the ten plagues of Egypt (left column of images). The
banderols adjacent to these small images name the plagues
and clarify the transgressions.
Schemata such as these can employ words, phrases,
numbers, images, or all of these as their message carrying
units, but their essential feature is that they organize these
units on a graphic armature that extends their meaning in
a significant way by establishing correspondences. They
allow comparison and analysis of the constituent elements
on many levels and invite what Anna Esmeijer (1978)
has called a “visual exegesis.” Priests and learned writers
employed schemata of various forms to compose sermons
and essays. Lay Christians used them to confess their sins
(Carruthers and Ziolkowski 2002:21–22). Pictorial sche-
mata were featured on some of the didactic lienzos that the
friars used as aids in evangelizing in Mexico (Mendieta
1971:665; Valadés 1989:236–237, 500–501).

Glyphic Clusters
These kinds of compositions likewise employ multiple,
simple, and discrete elements on a flat surface, but they
do not arrange the elements in specific patterns and their
elements are figural. The figures have a decided glyphic
quality, being relatively simple and placed without strong
relational ties to pictorial space. Often these glyphs are
arranged loosely around a central figure, where they rep-
resent units of knowledge—such as fables, events, and
actions—that can be expressed orally or simply under-
stood as constructs.17 They do not recall specific words
but signify units of knowledge more directly. Their two-
dimensional and glyphic qualities align them with the fea-
tures of Mexican pictography.
This mode was a common way to present Christ and
his Passion (the Arma Christi or “weapons of Christ”),
especially in early colonial Mexico, by means of the Mass
of St. Gregory, which juxtaposes an illusionistically figural
representation of Christ with the glyphic symbols of his
suffering and crucifixion (figure 2.6). Many of the glyphs
represent the objects used during his ordeal (including a
whip, scourge, and nails), while others represent events
and the individuals involved (such as the dice of those who
wagered over his cloak, the hands that were washed, and
the kiss of Judas). A chalice and paten refer metaphorically
to Christ’s promise of salvation. Each glyph calls up an epi-
sode or an actor in the drama or states a devotional truth.
The glyphs that occupy the field around Christ rupture the
2.6. Mass of St. Gregory, ca. 1420–1430, with the Virgin and St. John.
Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museen, Berlin, Germany, Inv. 200-1.
Photo by Joerg P. Anders/Art Resource, NY.
three-dimensional pictorial space he otherwise inhabits.
Whereas St. Gregory kneeling on the floor and Christ on
the altar occupy a relatively shallow space, the Virgin and
St. John float on the two sides in undefined space.18 The
glyphs of the Passion that fill this space flatten it even fur-
ther into a vague plane roughly parallel to that occupied by
Christ, on or near the print’s surface.
These kinds of presentations employ relatively simple
images as glyphic signifiers to recall stories and events,
juxtaposing the glyphs with pictorial presentations that
are otherwise largely mimetic and three-dimensional. As
sites of devotion, the prints and paintings of the Mass
of St. Gregory found a fertile home in sixteenth-century
Mexico, perhaps because the cult of St. Gregory was
strongly imported, but perhaps also because the glyphic
nature of the images appealed to the indigenous population
accustomed to glyphic pictography. In Mexico, átrio crosses
became favored sites for the glyphs of Christ’s passion.

Graphic Complexity in New Spain • 19

Rebus Expressions
Rebuses are the operational opposites of glyphic clusters.
Whereas glyphic clusters cue the content but not the exact
words of biblical and other religious texts, rebuses call up
the spoken words of specific phrases and sentences. They
operate on the principle that images, individual letters, and
other graphic signs represent sounds, syllables, or specific
words rather than the things, events, ideas, or concepts
behind these words. Either the images refer ideographically
to whole words or phrases (e.g., the image of the Virgin
Mary to signify “Virgin Mary”) or the voicing of graphic
elements yields sounds via punning (the musical note mi
to represent the sound mi). Rebuses are probably as old as
writing, with a historical trajectory reaching back to ancient
Egypt and appearing early in Europe on Roman tombs
and coins. In the fifteenth century complex pictorial riddles
became a popular intellectual exercise in European liter-
ary circles.19 The influential Italian calligrapher Giovanni
Battista Palatino included several examples in his popular
survey of ancient and contemporary scripts (1540).20
Although rebuses could be pictorial games and refined
intellectual challenges, they could also record prayers.
For example, the Heures à l’usage de Rome of 1512 records
a prayer to the Virgin in parallel rebus and French text
(figure 2.7), which reads:

With folded hands three times I praise

The very excellent trinity
Hail Our Lady, fountain of jubilation
Noble crowned empress of heaven
Queen of angels, merciful to the world
Rose of peace and of harmony
Protect the world from enemies
My soul belongs to God Amen.21
A mains ioictes [jointes] trois fois ie [je] loue
La trinité très excellente
Salut à notre dame fontaine de liesse
Noble cour[r]oné emperiere des cieulx [cieux]
Royne [reine] des anges au monde charitable
Rose de paix & de concorde
Garde le monde des ennemis
La miene âme à Dieu soit Amen.
This rebus has a particularly rich combination of letters,
numerals, musical notes, and images that function both
phonetically and logographically, and it employs them
2.7. Rebus prayer. Heures à l’usage de Rome (Paris: Jean de Brie, 1512),
folio 99v. ARS 8-T-25522 RES, Bibliothèque Nationale de France.
variably. Like all rebuses, it requires an orality, because the
sequence of signs and images only makes sense if they are
voiced. Although they may be voiced silently (or nearly
so), the voicing still occurs in the reader’s mind. Bartolomé
de las Casas (1967, 2:505) and Gerónimo de Medieta
(1971:246) describe some of the sixteenth-century Mexican
catechisms as being in rebus.
Hieroglyphics and Emblemata
The interest by intellectuals in the semiotic potential of
rebus expression was part of a much broader climate of
experimentation in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries
with expressions that mixed verbal and visual languages.
This experimentation was fueled by an array of images
newly recognized for their hermeneutic possibilities and
driven by an excitement about the truth content of signs

20 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography

and images (Manning 1999:xi–xii; Bolzoni 2001:xv, xxii,
100). The catalyst was the “rediscovery” of Egyptian hiero-
glyphics in the early fifteenth century and the sense, within
neoplatonic thinking, that these signs were universal sym-
bols that could yield their secrets across time, culture, and
language; they were thought to represent knowledge of a
purer kind that could not be expressed in alphabetic writ-
ing and were considered keys to the deep knowledge of the
ancients that held and embodied fundamental truths.22
This new attention to the symbolic potential of images
and signs created an intense interest among artists and
intellectuals in hieroglyphics and various forms of figural
expression, such as emblemata.
Many hieroglyphics were featured in the enigmatic
romance Hypnerotomachia Poliphili (The Strife of Love in
a Dream of Poliphili) by Francesco Colonna (1499), which
illustrated a series of fictional antique monuments with
hieroglyphic inscriptions (figure 2.8).23 These entered into
the canon of supposed antique texts and established a cor-
pus of whole, discrete texts that were imitated and mined
for symbols. Hieroglyphic texts from the Hypnertomachia
reappeared in paintings and sculpture and decorated the
balustrades of a courtyard at the University of Salamanca,
where Sahagún and other Mexican friars were trained
(Pereda 2000:207–308). Giovanni Pierio Valeriano, who
published a magnificent compendium of hieroglyphic data
and interpretation in 1556, linked hieroglyphic texts with
Christian revelation and argued that “to speak in hiero-
glyphs is nothing else than to lay open the nature of divine
and human affairs.”24 Egyptian hieroglyphs, their use, and
their interpretation formed one current in what Rudolf
Wittkower (1977:127) called “the broad stream of Renais-
sance allegory and symbolism.”
Other currents included personal devices and symbolic
statements expressed by means of figures, such as Pillars
of Hercules with the motto Plus Oultre (Even Further)
of Charles V (Harthan 1981:104). Like hieroglyphic texts,
emblemata were designed to express fundamental truths
through figures. Structurally, emblems were composed of
three parts: the image, a title, and a poetic explanation and
exegesis, each of which should have a delicate but mean-
ingful relationship with the others (Daly 1998:8; Moffitt
2004:7–8). Because of its exquisite play between image
and text and the balance of its three parts, the emblem was
a darling of late Renaissance thought. The creator of the
genre was also the author of the most famous collection of
emblems: the Milanese humanist Andrea Alciati, whose
Emblematum libellus (first published 1531) established the
standard for emblem illustration for over a century (fig-
ure 2.9).25 Reprinted and expanded many times, Alciati’s
2.8. Inscription on a
sarcophagus, Francesco
Colonna, Hypneroto­
machia Poliphili (Venice:
Aldo Manuzio, 1499),
262 [q6v]. Boston Public
Library, Rare Books and
Manuscripts Department,
Q.401.22 FOLIO.
Graphic Complexity in New Spain • 21
2.9. Emblems “Maturandum” and “In Astrologos.” Andrea Alciati, Emblematum libellus (Paris: Christianus Wechelus, 1534), pp. 56–57. By
permission of the University of Glasgow Library, Special Collections.
emblem book was translated into French, German, Span-
ish, and Italian and emulated by dozens of other authors;
at least 5,300 emblem books were printed during the six-
teenth and seventeenth centuries (Daly 1998:204).
Hieroglyphic and emblematic thinking flowed with
the Europeans into Mexico and took root among human-
ists in the Spanish-controlled capital of Mexico City.26
Such expressions went on public display there when the
catafalque for Charles V was erected in 1559.27 Encrusted
with hieroglyphic and emblematic statements, the seventy-
foot-high memorial was constructed in the largest available
space in Mexico City, the atrium of the Franciscan convent
of San Francisco, where Pedro de Gante had his famous
indigenous school. Fabricated in wood but decorated with
22 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
sculptures, paintings, and inscriptions displaying emblem-
atic thought and expression, the catafalque was an object
of great interest to indigenous and Spanish people alike:
although the Spaniards designed it, indigenous artisans
and laborers constructed and embellished it. The final
ceremony involved over two thousand of the indigenous
lords and nobles from the region; over forty thousand
people crowded into the atrium to attend the ceremony.28
Hieroglyphic and emblematic expression was thus a via-
ble, if specialized, alternative to alphabetic writing among
many European humanists. It was part of a broad climate
of experimentation with expressions that mixed verbal
and visual messages.
These diverse genres of diagrammatic and pictographic
expression developed as a rich alternative to alphabetic
writing for the communication of knowledge. Those that
were deeply seated in the medieval art of memory were
avenues of devotional reflection. The rebuses, hieroglyph-
ics, and emblemata, however, belonged to the realm of
humanist play. All were genres familiar to the Mexican
friars, who occasionally employed them as aids to conver-
sion. This rich and diverse corpus of imagery also shaped
the friars’ perception of Aztec pictography.
Aztec Pictography
Those who reported on Mesoamerican books and pictog-
raphy described them with a familiarity that came from
recognition. Some, like Martyr d’Anghiera, las Casas, and
Valadés, compared pictographic images to the ancient
hieroglyphs of the Egyptians. Others, like Acosta, com-
pared Mesoamerican scripts to other writing systems that
they knew. These men easily recognized Mesoamerican
codices as belonging to the cultural category of books and
writing, different from their own but not totally unlike
it either.
The supports for Mexican pictography could take the
form of long rolls or large panels of hide, paper, or cloth.
Most commonly they were screenfolds of hide or paper
(figure 2.1), which, as physical objects, have much in com-
mon with European books. They share a general size,
shape, and portability and are objects meant to receive con-
tinued visual inspection and to be the source of thought,
action, and discourse. Unlike their European counterparts,
however, screenfold books were composed of a single long
strip of hide or pounded fiber folded back and forth to
create individual pages.29 Although the resulting surfaces
are thicker and harder than the thin sheets of European rag
paper, both kinds of books aspire to have white or nearly
white pages that provide a clean, bright field for the marks.
In both, the page is the distinctive and specialized support
for the marks; Mesoamerican books are usually read by
turning the pages along their folds.
Like alphabetic writing, Mexican pictography assem-
bles conventional, two-dimensional marks on a specially
prepared surface that is both physically and conceptually
flat. Meaning is conveyed both by the marks themselves
and by their placement relative to each other on the plane.
These marks often follow a meaningful sequence, but in
pictography they can be organized horizontally, vertically,
or diagrammatically and with varied directionality.
Figural Images
The representation of pictography is of a conventionalized
two-dimensional kind: in its canonical signification and
flatness, it has affinities with alphabetic and other writing
systems. The marks of pictography, however, have a greater
iconicity than do the letters and punctuation marks of
roman script, which was one of the reasons the European
chroniclers denied it the status of writing. The other objec-
tion was that it did not record spoken language (Acosta
2002:334–335, 340–341). Mexican pictography is similar
to mimetic figuration in that its marks are figural and usu-
ally picture in some way what they index. They do not,
however, describe the optically perceived shape and quality
of objects that are exterior to the page, as does mimetic
figuration. Rather, like alphabetically written words, they
are graphic abstractions for entities, qualities, events, times,
locations, and sometimes sounds. Their shapes are canoni-
cal rather than illusionistically representative. The day sign
Reed, for example, is rendered in the same way in Aztec
sculpture as in the Aztec codices, regardless of the author,
and looks very little like an actual reed; in the Mixteca,
the day sign Reed takes a different canonical form. In pic-
tography every effort was made to preserve the flatness,
regularity, and graphic conventionality of the images.
The great majority of images are based on human
and animal forms, sometimes fused or with interchange-
able parts. Other images refer to the natural and cultural
things of the physical world, such as natural bodies (rivers,
earth, sky) and human-made objects (houses, weapons,
jade necklaces). All these are represented in a manner that
displays the most characteristic features of the form and
allows it to hold the most information. Max Verworn
(1914) coined the term “ideoplastic” to describe such figures
in early Egyptian and non-Western art, meaning that the
rendered form accords with the idea of the original form
rather than with its optical image. An ideoplastic image is
a stable and inert rendering of form that is understood and
known rather than seen. This is an apt description of the
images of pictography. In figure 2.10, for example, the water
goddess Chalchiuhtlicue’s legs, arms, and head are simply
attached to a profile torso without any effort to render the
joints and junctures anatomically. The hands and feet are
not distinguished left from right, and the accouterments
are all rendered to display their components and charac-
teristics. Although the body is fully in profile, the nose
ornament and pectoral are rotated to be seen frontally.30
Another feature of this complex pictographic image is
Graphic Complexity in New Spain • 23
its accretive and agglutinative character: it is composed
of multiple visual elements that are attached to a core.
Agglutination is a principal characteristic of the grammar
of Nahuatl, which relies on nominal and verbal words con-
structed by the addition of multiple affixes to a stem; these
words, with or without their affixes, can be combined to
form other distinct words. Moreover, Nahuatl achieves its
messages by means of the sentence-word, a word that con-
tains all the elements necessary to a complete sentence, as
J. Richard Andrews (1975: xii) has noted. The same pack-
ing on of separate meaningful elements to build a mes-
sage can be seen in pictography, and we should recognize
that many complex pictographic images likely function as
figural sentences. Thus, it can help us understand picto-
graphic images as elements in a writing system if we keep in
mind that they are agglutinative constructions in the same
general manner as the Nahuatl language.
The relationship between the image and what it signifies
can vary along a sliding scale of indexicality that extends
from the relatively straightforward picture to the graphic
articulation of nearly unfathomable (to us) metaphoric
meaning. Representational abstractions of various sorts
occur within this scale: symbols that are linked to their
referents only by convention, various levels of synecdoche
and metonymy, and, of course, metaphors of many levels.
At their simplest, images picture what they signify. Many
are based on the human form, which is posed or laden with
attributes to achieve a more specific meaning. Graphic
abstractions, as opposed to cognitive abstractions, usually
refer in some oblique way to a feature of the things being

2.10. Water goddess

Chalchiuhtlicue as the
principal patron of the
thirteen-day period
beginning on the day
1 Reed (trecena 5).
Codex Borbonicus 5.
Source: Bibliothèque
de l’Assemblée
Nationale, Paris.

24 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography

indexed, although there are full abstractions as well. Among
the Aztecs, for example, the glyphs for stone and stoniness
have S-curved striations of rock formations and double-
volute bumps that are graphic qualifiers of earthly things
(figure 2.10, upper left). Other glyphs are full abstractions,
whose symbolism must simply be learned: for example, the
modified X-shape that stands for movement.
Beyond these first levels of identification often lie
deeper, richer layers of meaning. The principle of synecdo-
che (a part standing for the whole) transforms the unspun
cotton headdress of Tlazolteotl into a mark for that deity:
the appearance of Tlazolteotl’s headdress in the panel
containing Chalchiuhtlicue (figure 2.10, upper right and
again within the flow of water) is an index of her presence
and thus some aspect of her realm. Metonymy is at play
when the combination of a round war shield with spears
is a convention for war or conquest (figure 2.10, within
the flow of water). Many images are loaded with diverse
meanings. The figure of a rabbit, for example, can signify
a small mammal to be eaten, a state of uncivilized being, a
metaphor for pulque and inebriation, the inhabitant of the
moon (and thus the moon itself ), and one of the twenty
day signs. It can also signify the earth itself or appear as
part of a place sign (e.g., Tochpan). Its context largely
determines how and on what level it should be read.
The range of data and thought conveyed by pictography
was great. Painted manuscripts recorded cosmologies, his-
tories, tribute and censuses, legal matters, prophetic forces
and the passage of time, protocols for ritual, and rhetorical
orations. Pictographic images were used to encode enti-
ties, qualities and states of being, places, abstract concepts,
actions and events, temporalities, and appellatives that
name humans, human groups, and places. Appellatives
stand out as glyphs that record or cue the specific sounds
and words of personal and place-names.31
Given this topical range, it is clear that pictography
functions well to record factual information, especially if
this information has a physical presence. Its images readily
identify people, things, and places; they signify any number
of basic events and record times. Other realms of knowl-
edge and understanding, especially qualitative matters,
are not so easily recorded, however, except by reference
to specific images (e.g., a flower on a speech scroll to indi-
cate flowery speech: sacred speech, song, or high rhetoric).
Pictography does not indicate causality, except as can be
inferred from a series of events. Neither does it signify
emotions or personal feelings, except when occasionally
revealed in tears from the eyes. Pictography is best at
identifying concrete things and events, which it can easily
picture. Pictography uses conventional glyphs for abstrac-
tions that are relatively specific but invisible (e.g., dates).
For other kinds of abstract conceptions it works obliquely
through metaphor, and these metaphorical significations
are the most difficult for us to recover.
Space and Syntax
The spatial field of pictography shares some features with
the surface of alphabetic writing and other features with
the field of European figuration. However, it is unlike
both in different ways. All three systems organize marks
on physically defined surfaces, usually rectangular. But
whereas alphabetic writing always respects the authority
of the page—moving from upper left to lower right, page
after page, and bounded by margins that define the text
block—pictographic messages can flow uninterrupted
along registers onto adjacent pages, especially across the
interior fold of a two-page spread. In both systems the
position of the marks on the page has no predetermined
value or inherent meaning (e.g., a mark in the upper right is
not necessarily different from one in the lower left); rather,
the marks are located according to their spatial relationship
or relative position to other marks sharing the page.
As with alphabetic writing, the field of pictography is
neutral and nonmimetic; it holds the images without any
perceived tridimensionality. This ground is usually inac-
tive in alphabetic script, in that it does not usually convey
particular meaning in and of itself; rather, it functions
principally to cluster marks into words and words into
paragraphs. In contrast, pictography employs space more
actively and diagrammatically: it can organize its marks in
registers, cells, or larger panels, and its sequences of marks
are much looser and more variable spatially. These arrange-
ments also carry specific meaning.
In this and other respects the spatial field of pictog-
raphy is like that of European pictorial figuration. They
both employ space purposefully to define and qualify the
images. In Mexican pictography, however, these qualities
are never three-dimensional. Preconquest painters took
pains to keep the figures flat and inorganic in order to keep
them aligned at the fore of the surface plane. This flatness
of ground is also shared by some medieval and Byzantine
paintings (e.g., the gold field surrounding sacred personae
in Byzantine icons), but the fields of pictography do not
carry this type of symbolism. Instead, the pictographic
Graphic Complexity in New Spain • 25
2.11. Events recorded for the years 12 Reed to 3 Reed in the annals history for Tepechpan and Tenochtitlan, reading left to right. Tira de Tepechpan 10.
Bibliothèque Nationale de France.
field functions syntactically to separate, qualify, and join
the images in more complex messages. Two of the most
important pictographic genres, which continued to be
reproduced in the cultural encyclopedias, were the annals
and the divinatory almanacs. Each employs space differ-
ently to construct its message.
The Aztec annals use the spatial field to link events to
their dates. It does so by conceptualizing the space next
to a year date as pertaining to that year and no other. The
Tira de Tepechpan (figure 2.11), for example, defines the
26 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
temporal field of each year as a vertical strip above and
below the year. It locates the corpse bundle of the Tenochca
ruler Itzcoatl (Obsidian Serpent) directly below the year
12 Reed, fixing his death to that year. At the bottom of that
vertical field is the contemporaneous conquest of Azcapo­
tzalco (signified by its place-sign [an ant heap] and burning
temple-pyramid). The temporal field of the following year,
13 Flint, then includes the accession statement of Itzcoatl’s
successor, Moctezuma, also below the year sign. Above
this year sign it records the accession and marriage of the
Tepechpan ruler Quaquauhtzin and his death at a specific
location three years later. Events in colonial annals occa-
sionally spill over into adjacent years, so the history painter
ties these events to their correct years with a line.
The painters of divinatory almanacs generally employed
space very differently. The goal of the almanacs is to reveal
the supernatural forces that govern units of time, so the
temporal units receive meaning from the images around
them but do not usually provide any themselves. In other
words, day and year dates in the almanacs do not actually
date the images around them (as is the case in the histo-
ries) but are themselves conditioned by these images. Rect-
angular frames almost always unite temporal signs with
meaningful images in cells. The almanac for a thirteen-
day period governed by Chalchiuhtlicue (figure 2.12), for
example, borders the large panel of prognosticatory data

2.12. The days and fates of the thirteen-day period (trecena 5) governed by Chalchiuhtlicue. The diagram identifies the day coefficients (1, 2, etc.),
the Night Lords (NL), the Day Lords (DL), and augural Volatiles (V). Codex Borbonicus 5. Source: Bibliothèque de l’Assemblée Nationale, Paris.
Diagram by Marcus Eberl.

Graphic Complexity in New Spain • 27

with twenty-six small rectangular cells. Thirteen contain
day signs and the images of the Night Lords, with arms
outstretched, who influence the day; thirteen adjacent cells
include Volatiles (flying creatures) and Day Lords, who
provide additional augural meaning for the days. Space
works in these cells simply to bring together calendrical
units and their forces.
Within the large panel, however, pictographic space
carries stronger associative powers that draw the images
together into a discrete set. By aggregating them in this
way, it establishes them as syntactically equivalent items
related to Chalchiuhtlicue and the thirteen-day period, but
it does not suggest that they share any physical proximity.
Rather, they collectively qualify the thirteen-day period.
Most almanacs in the divinatory manuscripts either locate
the temporal unit with its meaningful symbols in a shared
space or put them in adjacent cells.
In these ways, the spatial field that surrounds the images
in Mexican pictography carries topological, relational qual-
ities that organize the figures into meaningful statements.
Although each genre has its own syntactic conventions, all
the genres of pictographic documents use space syntacti-
cally to join images in specific kinds of relationships and
disjoin them from others.
Thus, like other scripts, pictography is characterized
by marks on a flat ground. It differs from other scripts,
however, because the marks that compose its semantic
realm are figural images rather than abstract symbols, and
its syntax is carried by the spatial relations between the
multiple marks that jointly occupy that ground. Although
the chroniclers who described or commented on pictog-
raphy focused on the figural images—the pictures and
hieroglyphs of which Acosta spoke—and largely ignored
the features of their spatial display, it is this spatial display
that enables the images and composes them into messages.
The grammar of pictography is thus found in the active
signification of the field that the images occupy.
As graphic systems, alphabetic writing and pictography
share an insistent two-dimensionality and nonmimetic use
of marks. Although the marks of pictography are figural
and thus usually have a visual connection to what they ref-
erence, they do not purport to represent the actual visual
perception of a thing but to encode and reference data,
as do words, numbers, and symbols in European graphic
codes. The range of pictographic images is necessarily
great, although there are many fewer pictographic images
28 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
than there are written words in the Spanish language of the
sixteenth century. So, in contrast to the seemingly limitless
information encoded by alphabetic writing, pictography
is relatively limited in the kinds of information that it
records. It documents things, concepts, and qualities that
are fairly concrete and usually related to human affairs: it
easily indexes objects, beings, places, actions, events, and
temporalities and can signify some fundamental qualities
and abstract concepts. Others, however, especially those
that are subtly nuanced or have to do with emotions or
thoughts, remain outside its semantic domain, except
through metaphor.
Alphabetic writing and Mexican pictography also differ
because the latter does not usually cue the sounds of spo-
ken language. Only in appellatives are images consciously
employed to yield sounds, perhaps because names, as
semantic units, are inherently specific rather than generic
and must carry consistent voicings. The nonglottic charac-
ter of pictography means that it can easily function among
peoples who speak different languages, especially within
the multilingual world of Postclassic Mexico. Its syntax is
also graphically spatial, rather than reliant on the gram-
matical rules of a spoken language.
In these respects, Mexican pictography shares many
features with European pictography. Both rely on a non-
mimetic ground and employ it as a syntactic signifier.
Although European pictography uses a wider range of
semantic forms—mimetic pictures, glyphs, words—both
pictographies arrange their semantic elements purpose-
fully to define, qualify, and organize them meaningfully.
The figural nature of Mexican pictography and the
fact that it features predominately human forms and rec-
ognizable objects align it somewhat with the art forms
of Europe. But this resemblance is both superficial and
delusive, for the goals of the systems are fundamentally
different. European mimetic figuration seeks to replicate
or reference an optical perception, even if it employs some
conventional elements, and often represents personal and
emotional aspects of individuals at a particular time and
place. In contrast, Mexican pictography records beings,
things, and concepts conventionally. Its data tend to be
generic rather than idiosyncratic, although appellatives
name and identify specific people and places. Because
Mexican pictography seeks to record stories about the
past, social and political relationships between peoples,
prophetic forces that accompany different units of time,
cosmic structures, and the like, it belongs to the indigenous
cultural category that is most equivalent to the writing
of Europeans.
All of these systems were graphic alternatives for
recording information in sixteenth-century Mexico. The
friars arrived already fluent in alphabetic writing, mimetic
figuration, and European pictography. Those who were
well educated were also familiar with specialized European
forms such as the rebus, hieroglyphics, and emblemata.
Many, especially the early Franciscans and Dominicans,
soon learned to interpret Mexican pictography, although
true fluency evaded almost all of them. Leading members
of the indigenous communities soon learned to recognize
European writing and picturing, and the native intellectu-
als achieved real proficiency. Many native artists embraced
the new pictorial system and became accomplished. Both
groups accepted the multitude of graphic codes of record-
ing information and recognized the features that they
had in common. The concurrence and juxtaposition of
these multiple systems in sixteenth-century Mexico and
the deep indigenous tradition of pictography allowed
the pictorial encyclopedias of Aztec culture to develop
as they did.
Graphic Complexity in New Spain • 29
Chapter 3
The Encyclopedic
Tradition in Europe
I
n the mendicant project to record and
comprehend Aztec culture, the challenge for the
friars was threefold: to determine what informa-
tion should and could be gathered, to gather it,
and to organize it in a compilation. The friars and their
assistants had to extract from the countless aspects of the
Pre­conquest past and indigenous present—including ide-
ologies, systems, practices, and the physical world—those
data that were both significant to their projects and able
to be collected. These they had to organize in some coher-
ent way so that the compilation was more than an undif-
ferentiated mass of data. This presupposed and required
taxonomies, principled categorizations of knowledge that
allowed the data to be identified and juxtaposed in associa-
tive or analogous relationships. For this the friars fell back
on their experiences with different kinds of compilations
developed in Europe, finding models previously developed
in ancient and medieval encyclopedias and in more special-
ized compositions.
A cluster of preexisting European genres reported on
the past and present world. There were histories, to be sure,
but also cultural compilations that ranged from the broad
to the specialized. The most inclusive was the universal
encyclopedia, which was a clear and logical reference point
for Sahagún’s Historia general and may have been a model
for others; examples were usually present in any good-sized
library. Three more specialized genres were also relevant:
collections of customs, regional and ethnic costume, and
pagan gods. The “collection of customs” was a summary
of human cultural and social features, including those of
30
foreign peoples with whom Europeans were increasingly
in contact. The costume studies represented the dress
of different social and ethnic groups within and outside of
Europe; they were also protoethnographies for Europe-
ans who understood that dress revealed and even affected
character. The third was the “collection of pagan gods,” a
survey of the gods and mythologies of ancient Greece and
Rome, which recaptured classical ideologies and brought
the pagan gods back to the attention of humanists. All
organized cultural information about peoples who were
foreign to their readership.
The connection between some of the European genres
and the Mexican manifestation is strong. For example, the
medieval universal encyclopedias served as a model for
Sahagún’s comprehensive project, and the costume study
appeared in both the Codex Tudela and Codex Ríos. The
links to the other genres are less obvious and have not yet
been fully investigated, but we should recognize that these
genres would have resonated in the minds of the friars as
they considered Aztec gods and their festivals. The special
goals and challenges of the Mexican compilers, however,
often led to rather different outcomes.
Ancient and Medieval Encyclopedias
Although the term “encyclopedia” today encompasses
many kinds of ordered assemblages, its ancient roots lie
in compendia of texts and excerpts that pertained roughly
to the range of philosophical concepts, the human arts,
and the natural world. Their function was to instruct
nonspecialists—students and the self-taught—and to pro-
vide moralizing passages and exemplum material that could
be useful in biblical interpretation and sermons during the
Middle Ages in the West. The first encyclopedists were
compilers, who gathered and reiterated specific excerpts
from a diverse range of authors and contexts, duplicat-
ing and thereby preserving material found elsewhere and
ordering them within topical chapters. This organization
of elements from diverse sources by topic effectively estab-
lished parallels between the individual passages and invited
interpretation based on these parallels (Blair 2010:176). All
the ancient and medieval works generally considered to
be encyclopedias contained comprehensive descriptions
of the natural world, often in connection with informa-
tion from other fields, such as ethics or history. They were
understood to be Weltbücher (world books) that reflected
the state of total human knowledge, including an inventory
of all things created (Voorbij 2000:34–35; Meier 2004:95);
often they bore the simple title “on the nature of things.”
This genre was born in late antiquity but flourished espe-
cially in the Middle Ages.1
The most celebrated early work is the Naturalis histo-
ria (Natural History) of Pliny the Elder (AD 77), a hugely
popular treatise that was to exert a profound influence on
later compilers. Indeed, the Natural History remained an
encyclopedic staple throughout the Renaissance.2 Pliny
claimed to have gathered together 20,000 facts from hun-
dreds of authors in its thirty-seven books (Blair 2010:17),
material that covered both the Roman world and foreign
peoples beyond it. Although his focus was natural history,
he strove to be comprehensive and included an enormous
amount of other information by means of frequent digres-
sions. Dividing the cosmos into heaven and earth, he first
attended to the celestial realm (bk. 2) and then concentrated
on the earth (bks. 3–6, including ethnographies of different
lands) and the earthly things that are animate (humans in
bk. 7 and animals in bks. 8–11) and inanimate (plants in bks.
12–32 and minerals in bks. 33–37) (Murphy 2004:30).
Drawing on so many authors from multiple intellectual
traditions, the Natural History set the example for the way
diverse discourses could be organized into a larger whole
(Murphy 2004:215). Echoes of Pliny’s topical organization
would reappear in Sahagún’s Historia general. Many later
compilers, including Durán and Sahagún, also followed
Pliny’s organizational template of topically focused books
containing relatively short numbered paragraphs on differ-
ent subjects, arranged in a logical sequence of subjects.
Pliny’s influence is also evident in the medieval ency-
clopedic tradition, which is considered to have begun with
Isidore of Seville’s Etymologiae (Etymologies or Origins).3
Writing in the seventh century, as the cultures and lit-
erature of antiquity were falling into decline (Ribémont
1995:69), Isidore sought both to preserve classical knowl-
edge and literature and to create an epitome of universal
Christian knowledge. For these purposes, he gathered
extracts relating to the origin and meaning of words from
a broad array of classical texts in order to recapture the true
nature of each word (Twomey 1988:184). His motive was
pedagogical: to provide priests and monks, as well as others
of the literate governing class, with the general necessary
knowledge of divine and human matters. Stephen Barney
has described the Etymologies as “a little library for Chris-
tians without access to a rich store of books” (Barney et al.
2006:19).
The twenty books of the work are often grouped in two
blocks of ten. The first ten sequentially concern the seven
liberal arts, medicine, law, the “sacred sciences,” and human
social institutions (e.g., language, politics, kinship, and cit-
ies). Books 11 through 20 then cover natural history and
other human institutions, material culture, and activities
(such as agriculture) (Barney et al. 2006:20). Isidore’s ency-
clopedia remained the basic source of knowledge from the
ancient world and one of the most influential of the medi-
eval encyclopedias that continued to be popular through
the Renaissance. A thousand manuscript versions survive
today; ten printed editions had been issued by 1500 (Blair
2010:34). It was one of the essential books that a medieval
and early modern library should have.
Echoes of both Pliny and Isidore appear in the great
encyclopedias of the early and mid-thirteenth century.
Created by clerics and mendicant scholars working inde-
pendently, they drew from the writings of the ancient phi-
losophers and the church fathers and often cover much of
the same material (Keen 2007:3).4 The most comprehen-
sive and influential of these were De proprietatibus rerum
(On the Properties of Things) by the English Franciscan
Bartholomeus Anglicus (ca. 1245) and the voluminous
Speculum maius of the Dominican Vincent of Beauvais
(ca. 1244–1255).5
Bartholomeus’s encyclopedia, with nineteen books
totaling about 400 folios, had the virtue of being a tenth
the size of Vincent’s enormous product and was written
to be accessible to common literate people. It therefore
quickly became the most widely used of all the medieval
The Encyclopedic Tradition in Europe • 31
 3.1. Animals in Bartholomeus
Anglicus, De proprietatibus
rerum/Van de proprieteiten
der dingen (the Dutch edition,
Haarlem: Jacob Bellaert,
1485), fol. Q2v. Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek, 2 Inc.c.a.
1549f. URN:nbn:de:bvb:12-
bsb00079541-4.

encyclopedias. It was translated into several vernacular lan-
guages in the fourteenth century and was one of the first
books printed in Germany and France when presses were
established there in the 1470s (Keen 2007:5). In the hands
of an international brotherhood of Franciscans who stud-
ied and evangelized widely, it quickly spread across Europe
(Keen 2007:5). Over 160 complete manuscript copies still
survive. Nearly 50 printed editions were published by the
1550s; some, like the Dutch edition of 1485 and the English
edition of 1495, were enhanced with woodcut illustrations
(figure 3.1).6
Although Bartholomeus was born in England and edu-
cated at Oxford, he studied theology in Paris, where he
joined the Franciscan order.7 He was sent as a lector to
the new Franciscan center at Magdeburg in Saxony on the
eastern frontier of Christianity, where evidence suggests

32 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography

the conversion of the populace of the area to Catholicism
had been violent (Keen 2007:2). It was in Magdeburg
that he completed Properties (Seymour et al. 1992:10) as a
textbook and a spiritual and practical guide for the friars
under his care, who were on the front lines of the evan-
gelical effort (Keen 2007:2). It was a Franciscan product
“nurtured and produced in Franciscan schools” (Seymour
et al. 1992:15, 12) in a milieu parallel to what the mendi-
cants would later experience in Mexico in the sixteenth
century. Bartholomeus’s situation and conversion efforts in
Saxony surely resonated with the Franciscans’ experience
and similar challenges in Mexico. However, Bartholomeus
brought together knowledge from his own culture, whereas
the mendicants in Mexico collected knowledge that resided
in the indigenous community.
Properties synthesizes biblical knowledge and treats the
things and places mentioned in the Bible, but it is prin-
cipally a practical statement of knowledge of the natural
world. Like other encyclopedias of the thirteenth century,
it embraced the new knowledge held in Arab, Greek, and
Jewish works and drew on a very wide range of sources.
Some of the basic ones were the Natural History of Pliny,
the natural sciences of Aristotle, and the Etymologies of
Isidore of Seville.8 Because of its popularity, copies were
held by most of the large libraries in Europe. It exercised
a greater influence on medieval thought than any of the
other thirteenth-century compilations.
Bartholomeus’s nineteen books partially parallel Pliny’s
Natural History in coverage, but as a work of theology and
science together Properties begins with the nature of God,
creation, and the soul (bks. 1–3). Bartholomeus then treats
humankind (bks. 4–9): the nature of humans, the humors
that govern the body, the parts of the body, ages and sex,
and diseases. Books 10–18 describe the four elements that
surround humans (fire, air, water, earth) and the phenom-
ena and elements associated with them (such as birds in
the air, fish in the water, and minerals, plants, and animals
on earth). The final book is a miscellany of natural sci-
ence information not included in the preceding books (e.g.,
color, smell, taste, sound, weights and measures) (Seymour
et al. 1992:10). Within each book materials are variously
ordered hierarchically, chronologically, and alphabetically.
Donald Robertson has proposed that Properties served
as a model for the general organization of materials in
Bernardino de Sahagún’s Historia general, discussed
more thoroughly in chapter 7 (Robertson 1959:169–172,
1966:623–624). The sequence of Sahagún’s topics, like that
of Bartholomeus, generally moves from the god(s) and reli-
gion, to humankind, and finally to the physical world and
the animals and plants that inhabit it. Within Sahagún’s
book on earthly things, however, he seems to have followed
the organization of Pliny’s Natural History, as Ángel María
Garibay (1971, 2:70–72) has noted.
Collections of Customs
A second literary genre that likely influenced the think-
ing of the mendicant ethnographers in Mexico was the
descriptive collection of human manners, customs, and
practices. Partially reliant on pieces of information found
scattered in ancient and medieval encyclopedias and in ear-
lier travel accounts, these collections appeared as a distinct
genre in the early sixteenth century. The most important
examples are Polydore Vergil’s treatise on inventions and
Johann Boemus’s collection of manners and customs.
Polydore Vergil conceived his De inventoribus rerum
(generally translated On Discovery) as an encyclopedia
of knowledge approached from the perspective of “firsts”;
his subject was not so much discovery (something found)
but rather the physical, social, and intellectual inventions
of humankind (Vergil 2002; see also Hodgen 1966). In
three books it treats the origins of a wide range of human
practices within Europe and the Mediterranean world.
These include the origin of various artifacts and weights
and measures, the practices of agriculture and medicine,
language, and cultural institutions such as religion, mar-
riage, and laws. With its focus on cultural knowledge and
practice and its relative precision, it was a great departure
from the medieval encyclopedias, wherein cultural infor-
mation was scattered, sparse, and stereotyped. First pub-
lished in 1499 and in expanded form in 1521, On Discovery
was one of the first Renaissance attempts to assemble and
organize even a small collection of human customs. It
enjoyed instant success; by the time Vergil died in 1555,
On Discovery had been republished about thirty times
(Hodgen 1966:315).
Working about the same time as Vergil, the Ger-
man humanist and canon Johann Boemus produced the
other major collection of customs, which focused even
more squarely on the cultural institutions and practices
of peoples across a broad geographic range. Boemus’s
Omnium gentium mores, leges et ritus, published in 1520,
covered ancient cultures as well as contemporary peoples
in Europe, North Africa, and Asia (Boemus 1520, 1970;
The Encyclopedic Tradition in Europe • 33
Hodgen 1953, 1964:131–143; Vogel 1995). His declared
goal was to collect, abridge, digest, and compact together
the manners, customs, and institutions that had hitherto
been scattered piecemeal in other writings, in order that
his readers could compare and judge which were the best,
and then appreciate their own good fortune (Hodgen
1953:285, 1964:131–132). Boemus did not himself travel but
subsumed the writings of over forty ancient, medieval, and
contemporaneous authors. He did not treat the Americas,
however, ignoring accounts of the voyages of discovery.
His great contribution was to reorganize the ethnological
lore of people near and far into distinct cultural categories
for each group. Following in the tradition of the medieval
encyclopedists, Boemus opened his study with a review of
the origins of humankind and the surrounding cosmog-
raphy. He then divided the earth into three parts: Africa,
Asia, and Europe. He covered twenty-five different peoples
in some depth, usually describing aspects such as religion,
marriage systems, funeral rites, warfare, diet, and apparel,
but he also touched upon law, government, habitation, lan-
guage, and transportation (Hogden 1953:286–287).
Many of these aspects of culture (such as funeral rites,
warfare, and diet) had already been articulated by travelers
to distant lands in the later Middle Ages. Two of the most
objective and careful—as distinct from those like John
Mandeville who highlighted the marvelous and fabulous—
were John de Plano Carpini and William Rubruck. Both
Franciscans, they were independently sent as papal and
royal emissaries to the court of Kublai Khan in 1245–1247
and 1253 respectively and, upon returning, described in
detail the manners and customs of the Mongol peoples
(Hodgen 1964:89–94; Rowe 1965:6–7; Dawson 1980).9
Although their reports do not seem to have circulated
widely as independent documents, their cultural descrip-
tions were extracted by others and came thereby to influ-
ence later writers. Vincent of Beauvais included extracts
from Carpini’s Ystoria Mongalorum in Speculum historiale
(the most popular part of Vincent’s Speculum maius), which
reached a broad audience, including both Mandeville and
Boemus (Hodgen 1964:103–104, 138, 142; Guzman 1974).
Rubruck’s report, which focused especially on religious
beliefs and practices, was partially included in the Opus
majus of fellow Franciscan Roger Bacon, who “advocated
the study of manners and customs of peoples, especially
by the missionary clergy” (Hodgen 1964:103–104). In these
ways, the Franciscans’ ethnographic information filtered
into sixteenth-century understanding of the East.
34 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
Like Vergil, however, Boemus brought a new compara-
tive dimension to cultural description and defined a wider
range of cultural categories (Vogel 1995:19–20). In this
way, he initiated a new ethnological and literary genre that
was repeated throughout the Renaissance.10 His Manners
is the first scientific approach to cultural practices and
institutions. The little book was an immediate success; it
was translated into several languages, reprinted often, and
widely circulated (Hodgen 1953:285, 1964:132–133; Vogel
1995:17–18). Bartolomé de las Casas cites Boemus’s trea-
tise as a source that records Bacchanal festivals still being
performed in Bohemia (Luper 2006:277). A late sixteenth-
century edition was held in the library of the Colegio de
Santa Cruz in Tlatelolco (Mathes 1982:50).
The popularity of Boemus’s Manners may well have
spurred Olaus Magnus to write an influential cultural and
natural history of Sweden and other Scandinavian coun-
tries. Magnus had left his native Sweden when it became
Protestant and lived in exile in Rome, where he carried
the title archbishop of Sweden ( Johannesson 1991:1–36,
139–14; Foote 1996:xxv–xxxvii). There he wrote the Histo-
ria de gentibus septentrionalibus, published in Rome in 1555,
to chronicle the customs, folklore, and geography of Scan-
dinavia, including the fantastic monsters said to prowl
the northern seas.11 Organized in twenty-two books, the
monumental Historia begins its coverage with climate and
geography then treats aspects of warfare, politics, and peace
and the labors and activities of the populations. It devotes
the last six books to the animal kingdom, from human-
kind to insects (Magnus 1555, 1996). Its emphasis on the
rich natural resources and pious population suggests that
Magnus’s goal was to encourage the Catholic reclamation
of the region ( Johannesson 1991:156; Foote 1996:xxxviii).
As the first systematic account of the customs and natural
history of far northern Europe, it enjoyed great popular-
ity among well-educated readers (those who read Latin)
who were curious about other peoples. It is worth noting
that a copy of the first edition (1555) was in the library of
the Colegio de Santa Cruz. This edition ran to some 900
pages. Woodcut illustrations appear at the head of most
chapters, so nearly all of its pages carry a graphic image
(figure 3.2).
Collections of customs like those of Vergil, Boemus,
and Magnus reflected and responded to the early mod-
ern quest for knowledge of other peoples and their
customs. The other genre related to this quest was the
costume study.

Costume Studies
European interest in the appearance and customs of for-
eigners ran as a current through the Middle Ages, but it
began to coalesce as a figural genre by the late fifteenth
century. The earliest manifestations were focused on the
dress of non-Europeans.12 It then grew, especially in the
sixteenth century, when Europeans paid attention to the
visage and dress of peoples as signs of their cultural iden-
tity: clothes were seen as markers of social rank and behav-
ioral habits ( Jones 2006:93).
3.2. Pilgrims bringing their children
to church for baptism. Olaus
Magnus, Historia de gentibus
septentrionalibus (Rome: Apud
Ioannem Mariam de Viottis
Parmensem, 1555), book 4, ch. 17,
p. 151. Project Runeberg, scanned by
the Norwegian National Library.
An early example was Bernhard von Breydenbach’s
popular Peregrinatio in Terram Sanctam of 1486, which
reported on his journey from Venice to Jerusalem and
other principal sites in the Holy Land and his return
through Egypt. It was the first printed travel account to be
extensively illustrated, with woodcuts by Erhard Reuwich
that accurately represented the distinctive dress of Turks,
Saracens, Greeks, Ethiopians, Jews, and Syrians, among
other topics (Mayor 1971:43; Ross 2014:74–86) (figure
3.3). Twenty editions were printed by 1522. Breydenback’s
The Encyclopedic Tradition in Europe • 35

Peregrinatio brought the clothing of foreign peoples to the
eyes of Europeans.13
The first surviving costume study with European
regional and ethnic breadth was Christoph Weiditz’s
so-called Trachtenbuch (costume book, ca. 1529) (Wei-
ditz 2001).14 During his travels to and with the court of
Charles V in 1529, Weiditz painted the diversity of people
he encountered in the Netherlands, Spain, and neighbor-
ing lands, probably with the intention of having woodcuts
made and distributed (Hampe 1994:8–24; Casado Soto
36 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
3.3. Saracens. Bernhard von Breydenbach, Peregrinatio in Terram
Sanctam (Mainz: Peter Schöffer the Elder, 1486). Woodcut by Erhard
Reuwich. Wikimedia Commons.
3.4. Left, woman of Galicia going to the spinning room; right,
Castilian peasant going into the city to market. Christoph Weiditz,
Trachtenbuch, pp. 18–19. Hs 22474 © Germanische Nationalmuseum,
Nuremberg.
2001:57–60). The 154 existing painted pages depict a range
of classes and folk types, including Castilian noblemen
and noblewomen, peasants and galley slaves, Basques and
Catalonians, Moriscos from Granada, and the Aztecs
and other Amerindians who were then at Charles’s court
(figure 3.4). The paintings feature single individuals or
small groups, mostly posed against a neutral ground for
the best display of the details of their dress and aspect;
glosses identify the people and their activities (Hampe
1994:26). Although these paintings were not themselves

3.5. Italian woman. François Deserps, Recueil de la diversité des
habits, 3rd ed. (Paris: Richard Breton, 1567), p. 7r. Bibliothèque
Nationale de France.
published in the sixteenth century, they were known fairly
widely. Several other sixteenth-century compilations drew
on them directly or indirectly.15
In the late 1550s this growing interest in the costumes
(and thereby the characters) of diverse people gave birth to
the costume book as a distinctive publishing venture.16 The
first widely available publication was by François Deserps:
Recueil de la diversité des habits que sont de present en usage
dans les pays d’Europe, Asia, Affrique et Islas sauvages le tout
fait après le naturel (Collection of the Variety of Costume Pres-
ently Worn in the Countries of Europe, Asia, Africa, and the
Wild Islands) published in Paris in 1562.17 A small book
of 121 woodcut plates on 64 folios, the Recueil exemplifies
the genre (figure 3.5). Each plate features a single figure
standing or striding on a strip of earth above a label and
four lines of descriptive verse, together framed by a deco-
rative border. It begins its survey locally with the dress
of various classes and then gradually broadens its reach
outward geographically to more distant regions, including
Asia, Africa, and the Americas.
Within fifty years over a dozen other costume books
were published in multiple editions. These culminated in
Cesare Vecellio’s monumental Degli habiti antichi et moderni
de tutto il mondo of 1590, which included 428 woodcuts,
and the expanded 1598 edition, which included 503 (Rosen-
thal and Jones 2008:8). By bringing the dress of other
peoples vividly into upper-class and middle-class Euro-
pean homes, costume books responded to and encouraged
curiosity about the people of distant places (Defert 1984;
Jones 2006:93). Two of the early Mexican pictorial com-
pilations—the Codex Tudela and Codex Ríos—contain
sections that illustrate and describe regional costumes.
Collections of Pagan Gods
Concurrent with this interest in foreign cultures was
increased attention to the pagan gods of antiquity. This
began as early as the seventh century, when Isidore of
Seville included a chapter on the pagan gods in his Etymolo-
gies, briefly treating nineteen deities (Isidore 2006:183–190;
see also Wilkins 1957:511). It gained impetus, however, in
the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries when authors such
as Albricus, Petrarch, Pierre Bersuire, and Giovanni Boc-
caccio came to focus more exclusively on the gods of antiq-
uity. The trend culminated in a cluster of new manuals on
pagan gods written in the 1540s and 1550s by Lilio Grego-
rio Giraldi, Natale Conti, and Vincenzo Cartari (Seznec
1972:229–256). Although these mid-century Italian manu-
als were immensely popular as soon as they were released,
they came too late to have been long in the minds of the
Mexican friars. The earlier studies of Albricus, Petrarch,
Bersuire, and Boccaccio, however, were profoundly influ-
ential and were read from the fourteenth century onward.
This new genre devoted to the properties and realms
of the pagan gods of Greco-Roman antiquity developed
principally from the thirteenth-century treatise De diis
gentium et illorum allegoriis or Liber ymaginum deorum, by
an author known principally as “Albricus philosophus.”18
It was a mythological manual, organized like a diction-
ary, whose goal was to provide reference sources that could
be used in interpreting works of poetry and art. Albricus
The Encyclopedic Tradition in Europe • 37
searched the classical myths for hidden meanings and, like
earlier compilers, gathered information from a broad array
of sources, but he blended them into a single text.
Albricus began with an explanation of the creation of
the gods and devoted a chapter to each of almost twenty,
describing each god’s appearance and physical attributes,
realm of influence, associated meanings, and relation to
other gods. His description of Saturn is a good example:
Saturn.
1. The first god was Saturn: they say that he was old,
sad, white haired, his head covered in a blue grey
cloak, that he devoured his own sons, and carries a
sickle and in his right hand a fire-vomiting snake that
devours its own tail.
2. History maintains that Saturn’s father and Jove, his
son, had obtained a kingdom in Crete. (Bode 1834,
1:153)19
The chapter continues in this vein with details about
Saturn’s offspring, actions (e.g., in war and viniculture),
and astronomical associations. The description then cycles
back to Saturn’s attributes in order to explain them in some
detail: why he appears old, sad, and so forth and carries
a sickle and a fire-vomiting snake (Bode 1834, 1:153–157).
Albricus’s treatise, with its emphasis on visual appear-
ance, would exert “a profound and lasting influence on the
iconography of the gods” (Seznec 1972:170), informing
every subsequent mythography one way or another (Bull
2005:21).
Albricus’s treatise was used, for example, by Petrarch,
who was the first to focus solely on the physical attributes of
the Olympian gods, without embellishing them with inter-
pretations and moralizations (Wilkins 1957:511–513). In
the third canto of his epic Africa (ca. 1338–1344), Petrarch
walked the reader through the splendid hall of the king of
Numidia that housed the images of fourteen ancient gods.
Ernest Wilkins (1957:517) notes that “Petrarch was the
first writer to compose a sequence of pictorial descriptions
of the pagan divinities freed from interpretative incrusta-
tions and designed solely for the purpose of adornment.”
Petrarch’s emphasis on the visual manifestations finds reso-
nance centuries later in Durán’s and Sahagún’s listings of
the visual attributes of the Aztec gods.
Other treatises drew from Albricus by way of Petrarch
or from both. Petrarch’s friend Pierre Bersuire, for example,
devoted the fifteenth book of his sixteen-book Reductorium
38 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
morale (ca. 1328–1342) to allegories of the pagan legends.
This book came to have a life of its own as the Ovidius mor-
alizatus, a moralization of Ovid, whose prologue described
the realms, meanings, and appearance of the classical dei-
ties (Wilkins 1957:512–519; Seznec 1972:174–176; Bull
2005:21). Bersuire’s Ovid was immediately and enduringly
popular, reproduced many times in manuscript and then
in print form and occasionally illustrated. For example,
elaborate woodcuts by Colard Mansion enhance the
French translation of 1484 (Bull 2005:21) (figure 3.6). The
influential De deorum imaginibus libellus (ca. 1400) also fol-
lowed Petrarch in describing only the physical nature and
attributes of each god.20 Its twenty-three short chapters
provide visual descriptions of twenty-three gods, begin-
ning with the planetary deities. Concise and often repro-
duced, the Libellus satisfied the needs of those who wanted
just the fundamental information on the appearance of the
gods. These treatises by Albricus, Petrarch, Bersuire, and
the author of the Libellus—all in the Albricus tradition—
established the distinctive iconography for the pagan gods
that was to endure into the sixteenth century. Editions of
Albricus and the Libellus appeared in print several times
in the late fifteenth century and continued to be published
throughout most of the sixteenth (Seznec 1972:225). The
brief Libellus was also often included in mythographic
compendia.
However, the best-known and most broadly influential
of the fourteenth-century studies of the pagan gods was
Giovanni Boccaccio’s Genealogia deorum gentilium (Geneal-
ogy of the Pagan Gods, ca. 1360–1372).21 Its fifteen books
cover 950 mythological individuals and groups, with infor-
mation drawn from around 200 authors (Seznec 1972:221;
Bull 2005:22; Solomon 2011:vii, xv, xix). It focuses not on
visual attributes but on the supernaturals’ parentage and
stories, although it identifies the attributes when they are
integral to the stories. It outpaced all the other treatises in
popularity and remained a key reference work for classi-
cal mythology for centuries. It was the principal source to
which educated people turned for the imagery and mythol-
ogy of the classical gods until it was replaced by a series of
three Italian manuals published beginning near the middle
of the sixteenth century (Seznec 1972:228–229).22
These Italian studies are Lilio Gregorio Giraldi’s De deis
gentium varia et multiplex historia (1548), which influenced
Natale Conti’s Mythologiae (1568) and Vincenzo Cartari’s
Le imagini con la spositione de i del de gliantichi (1556).23 All
expanded the pagan corpus to include gods of Egypt and
3.6. The iconography of Saturn by Colard
Mansion. Pierre Bersuire, Ovide moralisé
(Bruges: Colard Mansion, 1484), folio 1r.
The Morgan Library & Museum, New York.
the Middle East and drew more directly on Greek sources.
Although they reveal some disdain for the medieval com-
pilers like Albricus and Boccaccio, they drew from them
anyway. Giraldi concentrated on the names, etymologies,
and epithets of the gods; Conti offered deeper interpre-
tations of the fables; and Cartari was first and foremost
an iconographer. Cartari, who boasted that he studied
classical figural monuments, coins, and metals, described
the gods’ statues and representations with a view to pro-
viding pictorial subjects for painters and sculptors. The
third (1571) edition of his manual was illustrated with vivid
woodcuts that led to its outstanding popularity (Seznec
1972:251). The enlarged 1615 edition included pictures of
Aztec gods derived from the Codex Ríos.
The mid-century Italian mythographies appeared after
the efforts to gather cultural information in Mexico were
already underway, so it is hard to judge how much impact
they may have had. But certainly they represent the ways
educated people could have thought about pagan gods out-
side the boundaries of Christianity. Collections of pagan
gods or the idea of such studies—including the Albricus
tradition and Boccaccio—may well have helped the mendi-
cant friars frame the questions that they would ask of their
informants, determine what they would ultimately include,
The Encyclopedic Tradition in Europe • 39
and decide how it would be organized. European interest
in the gods’ origins, realms, and visual attributes may have
pointed the Mexican compilers to these particular aspects.
These European compendia—the encyclopedia and the
various collections of customs, costumes, and gods—
responded to a fundamental desire to regularize and make
sense of different kinds of knowledge and practice. Some,
like the universal encyclopedia, focus broadly on the world
in which their readers lived, with less attention paid to the
geographic and cultural edges. However, the more special-
ized collections of customs, dress, and gods purposefully
set their gaze outward geographically and back in time
in the case of the gods. They brought before the reader
that which was geographically or temporally foreign and
thus strange or distinct. As Europe increasingly began to
look outside itself, these outwardly gazing compilations
addressed the need to understand and express difference
in concrete terms.
A Franciscan connection and an evangelical thread run
through several of these scholastic projects. It is perhaps
not inconsequential that Bartholomeus Anglicus was a
Franciscan proselytizing on the eastern fringe of Christian
Europe when he finished On the Properties of Things in the
mid-thirteenth century. Not much later, the Franciscans
John Carpini and William Rubruck were sent as emissaries
to the heathen Mongols, Carpini to advance political aims
and Rubruck to advance evangelical ones. Their account of
the Mongol customs set a new standard of thoroughness
and objectivity in describing foreigners. Carpini’s report
was then embraced by the Dominican Vincent of Beau-
vais, and Rubruck’s report lived on in the writings of fel-
low Franciscan Roger Bacon. Olaus Magnus’s Historia may
have been intended to inspire a reaffirmation of Catholi-
cism in the Lutheran far north. As early as the thirteenth
century and continuing to the sixteenth, knowledge gather-
ing was one of the weapons of evangelization.
The sixteenth-century Mexican compilations are dis-
tinctive for their high pictorial content, which raises the
question of whether the European genres were likewise
pictorial to any great degree. Indeed, many were well illus-
trated. Some manuscript versions of the encyclopedias
of Bartholomeus Anglicus and Vincent of Beauvais were
embellished with elaborate paintings that restate and rein-
force the content of the text. Once the compilations began
to be printed, illustrations became more numerous. The
40 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
1485 edition of Bartholomeus’s encyclopedia was enhanced
with many woodcut illustrations, as was the 1484 edition
of Bersuire’s Ovid (figures 3.1, 3.6). Olaus Magnus’s pub-
lished report on Scandinavian customs featured a woodcut
on just about every page (figure 3.2). The most pictorial
of all the compilations was the costume study, which was
essentially a series of figural representations, with some
texts added (figures 3.3–3.5). Although the costume study
was based on images, all the other compilations included
images only to illustrate the texts, which were always fore-
most and fundamental.
We can assume that the friars in Mexico would have
been generally familiar with all or most of these European
genres. As explained in chapter 4, the Mexican friars were a
select group that was spiritually and intellectually primed as
the advance guard of the evangelical effort. Many were uni-
versity trained and very learned, current with religious and
secular thought of the day. As did their colleagues centuries
earlier in Europe, they clearly saw how important it was
to gather information on the peoples that they sought to
convert and to educate the converts in European ideas and
ways. The Colegio de Santa Cruz in Tlatelolco became an
advanced instrument of just this effort. Its famous library,
whose content is discussed in chapter 4, included many
of these European compilations of knowledge: the major
classical and Christian authors, humanist essays, cosmog-
raphies, cultural histories, and encyclopedic compendia.
The goal of this chapter has not been to identify spe-
cific prototypes for Mexican images and manuscript forms.
Such an effort to link a particular Mexican manifestation
with an individual source in Europe is not particularly use-
ful in understanding the cultural encyclopedias of early
colonial Mexico as a class of documents. The search for
specific prototypes tends not to yield much in the way of
the broader context. Rather, the goal of this chapter has
been to suggest something of the general knowledge base
that the friars and the indigenous assistants would have
had and to highlight some of the kinds of encyclopedic
studies and genres with which they would have been famil-
iar. This can help us understand what was in the Mexican
friars’ minds as they gathered and assembled cultural and
religious data and what kinds of documentary genres per-
haps helped shape their efforts. The difference between the
European genres and the Mexican ones also points up how
specialized and pertinent the Mexican projects were to the
early colonial reality.
Chapter 4
The Evangelical Project
and Mendicant Investigators
T
he evangelical project in the Ameri-
cas began in earnest in the same year as the
conquest of Tenochtitlan, with the bull that
Pope Leo X issued in 1521, ordering friars of
the Franciscan order to propagate faith in the land of the
faithless: Mexico. In such a new land that lacked bishops,
Leo gave the friars the authority of bishops and charged
them to propagate the word of God, to hear confessions
and celebrate mass, to administer the sacraments, to found
churches, and to convert, baptize, and herd together the
sons of the church. After Leo’s death that year, newly
elected Pope Adrian IV responded in 1522 to Charles’s
ardent desire to convert the recently conquered Mexicans
with his own similar instructions to send mendicant friars,
in particular the Franciscans, to Mexico with his author-
ity. Adrian placed the project of evangelization under the
supervision of the Spanish Crown, effectively making
the evangelical project a Spanish one.1 Adrian’s pact with
Charles was one between two rulers (one religious and one
secular) who knew each other well.
However, the larger project grew out of the intellec-
tual traditions and political climate of Europe in the first
decades of the sixteenth century. In Germany the Refor-
mation galvanized by Martin Luther against the material,
wealthy, and powerful church had caught the imagination
of theologians and laypeople. In Spain the Roman Catholic
Church had already undergone its own reforms against
excess and clerical abuses, using the strict and ascetic prin-
ciples of the Observant branch of the Franciscan order
as the model. After Charles V’s predecessors, Isabel and
Ferdinand, forced the Jews and Moors in Spain to convert
or leave, Spain was officially Catholic. It then transferred
its evangelical desires to the lands newly conquered in the
Americas. Thus, a constellation of interests, goals, and
personal connections came together with the religious
and political situation in Spain to send the mendicants to
Mexico, with the Franciscans in the vanguard. We can gain
an understanding of some features of the evangelical proj-
ect by reviewing some of the forces, traditions, and desires
that lay at its foundation.
Forces of Reform
The mendicants were sent to Mexico just a few years after
the spark of Martin Luther ignited a growing dissatis-
faction with Catholic institutional traditions and began
a social and religious transformation that shook Europe.
The Reformation—the rejection of the established church
and the birth of new, reformed religious denominations—
began as a cluster of fast-growing objections to what many
religious figures saw as abuses by the church and its clergy.2
Discontents in the social, political, and religious spheres
had been building for a number of years.
Spain was largely immune from these forces, because
it had just emerged from a crucial period of religious
and political consolidation that left the Roman Catholic
Church particularly strong. In the late fifteenth century
the “reyes católicas” (Catholic rulers) Isabel and Ferdinand
had successfully united many of the separate kingdoms
that composed Spain and prevailed in a long campaign to
41
transform Spain into a Catholic monarchy. Following a
century of active persecution and coerced conversion, they
expelled the Jews in 1492. That year, their troops conquered
the Islamic Emirate of Granada, and the Muslims were
forced to convert to Christianity or leave. Meanwhile,
Spain’s Catholic institutions were being reformed and
brought under royal control, effectively blocking papal
interference (Maltby 1996:93; MacCulloch 2004:55–62).
As a result of these efforts, Catholicism was central to the
identity of the Spanish kingdoms in a way that it was not
in countries to its north. Although the Reformation did
not itself take hold in Spain, the reform movements were
part of the climate in which the Spanish Catholic Church
positioned itself.
With its internal territory secure, Spain was well posi-
tioned to embark on the extraordinary project of explora-
tion and colonization across the Atlantic. It began also in
1492, when Christopher Columbus departed from the port
of Seville to explore what he thought would be Asia. His
successful return with news and evidence of the people
and lands he had seen led to the other voyages that would
eventuate in the exploration and colonization of the Carib-
bean and lower Central America. Seventeen years after
Columbus’s first voyage, Hernando Cortés sailed from his
base in colonized Cuba to “discover,” explore, and eventually
conquer Aztec Mexico.
Spain’s religious institutions were well prepared to
launch the large-scale evangelization project in the Ameri-
cas because of experience proselytizing and converting
nonbelievers at home and in colonized lands closer to
home. The forced conversion of non-Christians within the
Iberian peninsula—the Jews, who then became conversos,
and the Muslims, who then came to be known as Moris-
cos—created the great need and opportunity for evangeli-
cal work. Franciscans were sent to preach the Gospel to the
Muslims and conversos in the south of Spain. Franciscans
had also been sent to the Canary Islands to convert those
people after Spain colonized the islands at the end of the
fourteenth century (MacCulloch 2004:65). These efforts
preceded and became to some degree models for the later
work in Mexico.
Franciscan Priority
The Franciscans, the Order of Friars Minor, were the logi-
cal choice to initiate the evangelical effort in Mexico. The
order had just undergone a successful reform in Spain
42 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
that shaped it into an ideal instrument for proselytizing
in Mexico and had already been active in Spanish cam-
paigns to convert Jews and Muslims. Within Spain and in
the northern lands controlled by the Habsburg emperor,
the Franciscans were powerful in both religious and
political theaters; among their numbers were individu-
als well connected with the papacy and the royal family.
This constellation of personal affiliations within an order
characterized by political power, progressive thinking, and
religious ascendancy positioned the Franciscans ideally to
evangelize in Mexico.
The head of the Franciscan order in Castile, Francisco
Ximénez de Cisneros, was the most powerful cleric in
late fifteenth-century and early sixteenth-century Spain.
A statesman as well as a theologian, Cisneros was con-
fessor to Queen Isabella and during his life became arch-
bishop of Toledo and primate of Spain, cardinal of Rome,
and inquisitor-general; twice he served as regent of Spain
after Isabella’s death.3 It was Cisneros who reformed the
Franciscan order and made it the major force in Spanish
Catholicism; his personal views also shaped the opinions
and attitudes that the Franciscans would carry to Mexico.
Among these was a desire to put humanistic learning
in service of the church. To this end Cisneros founded the
Universidad Complutense at Alcalá de Henares, an institu-
tion with a broad theological focus but with an emphasis
on the humanities, languages, and medicine, areas in which
it was soon distinguished. Antonio de Nebrija, author of
the first Spanish grammar (the first in any vernacular
language), taught grammar and rhetoric at Alcalá. It was
there also that Cisneros sponsored the creation of the
first printed polyglot Bible, published in six volumes and
presenting six versions of biblical texts in their original
Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, in parallel columns.4
Although Cisneros was unsuccessful in attracting Desi­
derius Erasmus to Spain, Erasmus’s writings, in particular
the Spanish translation of his Enchiridion militis Christiani,
which advocated inner devotion and moral action over
adherence to formal ceremonies, swept through intellectual
circles in Spain.5
With the blessing of Isabella and Ferdinand, Cisne-
ros initiated and oversaw the sweeping reform of clerical
abuses that sought to enforce vows of poverty and chastity
in both the regular and secular clergy, among other goals.
Renowned personally as an ascetic, Cisneros focused first
on his own Franciscan order in support of an Observant
branch derived from the spiritualist branch of the early
fifteenth century that insisted on simplicity, austerity, and
poverty (Mills and Taylor 1998:47). Observants in Spain
were sent to preach among nonbelievers, especially Mus-
lims. The Franciscan Observants became the model from
which Cisneros then hoped to reconstruct the regular
clergy (Phelan 1970:45–46; Lynch 1981:65). The Francis-
can reforms intended to return the order more fully to the
ideals and practices of St. Francis, including strict poverty,
chastity, and evangelical action that would prepare them
for their future American missions. Cisneros himself was
an ardent and impatient evangelist; it was he who advo-
cated the forced mass conversion of the Moors in Granada
when he felt that Archbishop Hernando Talavera’s slower
approach, founded on education, was not yielding suffi-
cient results.6 His advocation of mass conversion and the
burning of heathen books would influence the approach of
many of the first Franciscans in Mexico.
The reforms sweeping the Franciscan order extended to
the deeply intellectual and spiritual as well. The Francis-
can view of the approaching millennium—when, accord-
ing to the Apocalypse, the thousand-year rule of Christ
on earth would begin once Christianity had been brought
to all humankind—was overlaid with the Joachimite
theory of successive ages, each advanced in spiritual grace.
The twelfth-century monk Joachim of Fiore saw history,
like the Trinity, as divided into three great epochs: the Age
of the Father, represented by the Old Testament; the
Age of the Son, represented by the New Testament; and
the Age of the Holy Spirit, when humans would come into
direct contact with God and attain near-angelic perfection.
This third age, calculated to have begun in AD 1260, was to
be governed not by the ecclesiastical organization of the
secular clergy but by the friars of monastic establishments.
Such millennial and evangelical views gave the Franciscans
a propensity and zeal for missionary work in the Americas.
In particular, the friars of the newly established
reformed Province of San Gabriel in Extremadura were
anxious to proselytize in Mexico. These friars of San
Gabriel were the most ascetic, evangelical, and innovative
of the Observant Franciscans in Spain, practicing extreme
poverty, spiritual retreats, and regular flagellation. One
of San Gabriel’s friars later became known in Mexico as
Motolinía, the Nahuatl phrase for “poor one.” These friars
believed themselves to be especially destined to prosely-
tize in Mexico. The first provincial of San Gabriel, Mar-
tín de Valencia, later realized his dreams and his order’s
aspirations by leading the famous first group of twelve
The Evangelical Project and Mendicant Investigators • 43
Franciscans to Mexico. Thereafter, San Gabriel continued
to supply many of the friars who went to Mexico in the
early years.7
Members of the Franciscan order also allied themselves
with the men who explored and conquered Spain’s new
territories. They offered early and crucial support for
Christopher Columbus when the mariner was seeking
financial backing for his plan to sail the Atlantic. Columbus
subsequently took a Franciscan friar with him on his first
voyage and would later join the Third Order of Francis-
cans as a lay member (Steck 1947; Sylvest 1975:24, 90–91).
The Franciscans also favored Hernando Cortés, and he
them.8 A Franciscan friar was close by Cortés’s side during
the final months of the conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan.
Other Franciscans, including Cortés’s cousin, accompanied
the conqueror on his march to Honduras. In advocating
the evangelization of the native population, Cortés wrote
to Charles V and requested that the Habsburg emperor
(and Spanish monarch) send not members of the secu-
lar clergy, who could set a bad example, but mendicants,
with their vows of poverty, to preach and work among the
indigenous people and build monasteries. He specified that
the heads of the Franciscan and Dominican orders should
be given the widest powers.9 Even before Cortés’s letter,
however, Charles V and the mendicant orders in Europe
had already been preparing for work in Mexico.
The conversion of the indigenous population of the
Americas was an unparalleled opportunity for those in
the church and imperial hierarchy. Religious men across
Europe desired to go and only awaited permission to do
so. Soon such permission was channeled through the
Habsburg monarchy and then focused on the Franciscan
order. In a bull of 1521 Pope Leo X authorized two promi-
nent Franciscans to head a mission to evangelize in Mexico.
He gave them the power of bishops, assigning them and
their followers the authority to preach and administer
the sacraments and, in the absence of bishops, to found
churches and monasteries and consecrate the imple-
ments necessary for mass. Both Franciscans were close to
Charles V: Friar Juan Clapión was Charles’s former confes-
sor, and Friar Juan de los Ángeles was one of Charles’s con-
fidants and head of the Provincia de los Ángeles in Spain.
But Clapión died as negotiations for their mission were
underway. De los Ángeles was elected general of the Fran-
ciscan order and was thus unable to leave. The next year
Pope Adrian VI further amplified Franciscan power and
authority with a bull sent directly to Charles. Adrian VI
extended the full apostolic powers of the papacy to the
mendicant orders, specifying especially the Franciscans,
and gave the Spanish Crown responsibility to recruit and
send missionaries. He essentially put the indigenous con-
version in the hands of the mendicants, particularly the
Franciscans, through the office of the Crown.10 Adrian VI,
like Clapión, was close to the Habsburg emperor. A Flem-
ing himself, he had been a professor at the University of
Louvain when he was called to become Charles’s boyhood
tutor and later served as regent of Spain during Charles’s
absence from that country.11 It was natural that Adrian
would put the Mexican missionary enterprise in the hands
of his former pupil and patron.
Charles lost little time in sending Franciscan friars to
Mexico. The first to go were three Flemings from the con-
vent in Ghent, the city of Charles’s birth, who were also
close to the monarch. To head the group Charles chose his
own current confessor, Juan de Tecto, who had taught the-
ology at the University of Paris for many years but was now
guardian of the Franciscan house in Ghent. Tecto’s com-
panions were the aged and learned Juan de Aora and the
lay-brother Pedro de Gante, a kinsman of Charles who had
studied at the University of Louvain. Gante would later
excel as a proselytizer and teacher in New Spain. The three
friars arrived in Mexico in August 1523.12 Since Juan de los
Ángeles himself was unable to travel to Mexico because of
his new responsibilities at home, he turned to Martín de
Valencia, provincial of the newly founded Province of San
Gabriel in Extremadura, to lead a group of twelve friars to
Mexico. Their number was in conscious imitation of the
twelve apostles, which they considered themselves to be.
Even as Adrian’s bull specified, they were consciously to
follow the example of the apostles of Christ. Valencia was
a natural choice to head the mission, for San Gabriel was
home to an innovative group of radical spiritualists, ascet-
ics who followed strict standards of poverty and located
their religious houses not in the cities but in the country­
side among the poor, where they felt most needed.13 Many
shared Valencia’s vision that their mission was to bring infi-
dels into the church in preparation for the last and third
great age prophesied by Joachim of Fiore. The Franciscans
saw themselves as being divinely ordained to evangelize
in the newly discovered land and were perfectly suited to
do so (Sylvest 1975: 86–95). Within San Gabriel, Valencia
found eager recruits for Mexico.
44 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
Mendicants in Mexico
The Franciscans arrived in Mexico in 1524, less than a
year after the earlier group of three Flemings, and had a
profound impact on the evangelical effort. The evangelical
mission is said to have begun with this group of twelve.
Whereas the two senior Flemings died after only a short
time in Mexico, leaving only Pedro de Gante to continue
their work, most of the twelve thrived in Mexico. This
group included Motolinía (Toribio de Benavente, author-
ity on native culture, guardian of the monastery at Tex-
coco, and proselytizer in Guatemala), Antonio de Ciudad
Rodrigo (guardian of San Francisco in Mexico who could
preach in three languages), Francisco de Soto (who built
the monastery at Xochimilco), Martín de la Coruña (who
worked in Cuernavaca and then Michoacán), Juan Suárez
(first guardian at Huejotzinco), Francisco Jiménez (known
for his Nahuatl vocabulary and grammar), and García de
Cisneros (first provincial of the Franciscans and founding
director of the Colegio de Santa Cruz in Tlatelolco, who
with Motolinía laid out and founded the city of Puebla).14
The Franciscans were soon followed in 1526 by a group
of twelve Dominicans, eight traveling from Spain and four
from Hispaniola. Early misfortune plagued this mission,
however. Five friars died of illness within the year, and
poor health sent another four back to Spain a year later.
Only three remained, headed by Domingo de Betanzos.
The work of the order began in earnest only after another
seven Dominicans arrived in 1528 (Ricard 1966:22–23).
The Augustinians were the last of the mendicant orders
to arrive in Mexico; they came in 1533 as a group of seven.
Although the Dominican and Augustinian presence chal-
lenged the monolithic Franciscan enterprise, the Francis-
cans still dominated in numbers of friars and convents.
Mendicant friars continued to arrive in Mexico on every
fleet: by the late 1550s there were 380 Franciscans in 80
convents, 210 Dominicans in 40 convents, and 212 Augus-
tinians in 40 convents (Lejarza 1948:115; Ricard 1966:23;).
The missionaries who came to Mexico were an extraor-
dinary group. Zealous and determined in their mission,
they were also spiritually and intellectually prepared for
the hardships and challenges that they would face. They
were by and large a very select group, drawn from across
Europe, including Flanders, France, Italy, and Dacia as well
as Spain.15 Some of the first Franciscans were of noble
blood or had close personal connections to Charles V or
other monarchs. Tecto was Charles’s confessor, Gante his
kinsman, and Juan de Gaona, a member of Charles’s court
until he left for Mexico in 1533; Jacobo de Testera had
connections with the French court (Mendieta 1971:689).
Many were well educated and fully conversant with the
humanistic currents of time, so they were well versed in
the kind of medieval and early modern compilations sum-
marized in chapter 3. They were equally aware of refor-
mation movements growing especially in the north. They
had studied at some of the most prestigious universities
in Europe: Paris, Louvain, Salamanca, Valladolid, and
Cisneros’s new university at Alcalá de Heneres. A few had
also been professors at home before they brought their
scholarly interests and pedagogical skills to Mexico.16
Gerónimo de Men­dieta, who chronicled the Franciscan
order in Mexico and is thus not without bias, speaks with
pride of the learned and illustrious backgrounds of his fel-
low Franciscans, “almost all [of whom are] learned men and
very select religious” (Mendieta 1971:187).17 Although some
of these friars (the Franciscans) were devoted to a personal
asceticism and proselytizing a simple, austere Christianity,
they included some of the most sophisticated and forward-
thinking religious men of their day.
Education
From the onset, the Franciscans recognized education as
the critical component of their evangelical mission. Within
a few years of the conquest schools for the sons of indige-
nous elites began to be established. These schools were nat-
urally attached to monastic complexes and complemented
by the widespread instruction in Catholic doctrine and
practice that took place wherever the mendicants estab-
lished a monastery. Two institutions in particular stand out
for their contribution to the creation of an indigenous elite
trained in the religion and culture of Europe: the primary
school of San José de los Naturales in Mexico City and the
Colegio de Santa Cruz in Tlatelolco.
The principal and pivotal figure in the first years was
Pedro de Gante, the youngest of the three Flemings who
arrived in 1523 and the only one to survive very long.18
Gante began his educational mission as soon as he arrived
and was celebrated as the great educator of the native
people throughout his long life. He was first housed in
a noble palace in Texcoco, across the lake from Mexico-
Tenochtitlan, because the former Mexica capital was still
largely in ruins. There he began to work with the sons
of the Texcocan lords, former allies of Cortés, and also
started to develop what would become a prodigious facility
The Evangelical Project and Mendicant Investigators • 45
in Nahuatl. By the time the group of twelve Franciscans
arrived in Mexico some months later, the Texcocan pupils
had learned the catechism sufficiently to be baptized with-
out delay. Gante continued to teach reading, writing, and
singing to noble boys in Texcoco for a few more years before
moving to the new Franciscan monastery of San Francisco
in Mexico City, where he is credited with establishing the
first open chapel for the indigenous people, San José de los
Naturales, and the first primary school for native children,
which came to serve the whole valley of Mexico.
Gante’s school of San José de los Naturales became the
most famous of the mendicant primary schools.19 Within
the monastery of San Francisco, it was closely associated
with the open chapel, an edifice that attracted a large
indigenous population and grew to sumptuous propor-
tions, easily overshadowing the cathedral in size. Just as the
open chapel became the center of indigenous Christianity
in Mexico City, the school grew in size and prominence,
attracting the sons of the indigenous elites from a wide
area as students. Enrollment increased from 500 students
in 1529 to 1,000 by 1558 (Gómez Canedo 1982:60). At San
José de los Naturales Gante and other friars gave instruc-
tion in reading, writing, and singing and taught the boys
to assist at mass. Fray Arnaldo de Basaccio, a Frenchman,
also taught Latin grammar there for several years; he was
the first to teach Latin grammar in Mexico.
In rooms and workshops adjacent to the chapel, stu-
dents were also trained in the mechanical arts of Europe
that were previously unknown in Mexico. The Francis-
can chronicler Mendieta specifies that the youths were
trained as tailors, cobblers, carpenters, and painters. He
and Motolinía also celebrate indigenous accomplishments
as blacksmiths, stone and wood carvers, goldsmiths and
silversmiths, casters of bells, saddle makers, weavers, and
embroiderers. Indeed, in Diego Valades’s Rhetorica chris-
tiana, a woodcut of an ideal Franciscan monastery pictures
Pedro de Gante instructing students in a range of trade
crafts; he stands before them pointing to a large cloth that
bears fourteen symbols of the crafts (figures 4.1, 4.2).20
The indigenous tradition of featherwork was also taught
there, adapted to Christian themes, as exemplified by the
well-known feather “painting” of the Mass of St. Gregory,
which bears an inscription declaring that it was fashioned
at San José under Gante’s direction as a gift from don
Diego Huanitzin, governor of Mexico-Tenochtitlan, for
Pope Paul III. Mendieta (1971:609) reports that a signifi-
cant group of artisans coalesced at the school of San José
4.1. Atrium of the ideal monastic establishment. The activities of the friars and indigenous converts are represented within a walled
atrium, punctuated at the corners by posa chapels. Diego Valadés, Rhetorica christiana (Perugia: Apud Petrumiacobum Petrutium,
1579), p. 107. Rare Books Collection, The Latin American Library, Tulane University.

4.2. Detail of Fray Pedro de Gante instructing indigenous men on
European trades. Diego Valadés, Rhetorica christiana (1579), p. 107.
Rare Books Collection, The Latin American Library, Tulane University.
de los Naturales, who fashioned statues and altarpieces and
outfitted churches with crosses, candelabras, holy vessels,
and other instruments. San José remained a vibrant school
until Gante’s death in 1572.
Other primary and vocational schools were founded
within and outside the capital, including prominent Fran-
ciscan schools in Tlaxcala and the more distant realms
of Jalisco and Michoacán. A large Dominican school was
attached to the monastery of Yanhuitlan in Oaxaca. All the
Augustinian monasteries had schools that trained indig-
enous students to read, write, sing, play musical instru-
ments, and attend mass. For a time, schools for girls were
established in the major cities in central Mexico, where
girls learned the catechism, the Hours of the Virgin, sew-
ing, embroidering, and household tasks. Additionally,
each monastery gave instruction in the Christian doctrine
(Ricard 1966:207–214).
Within a few years of the conquest, the desirability of
more advanced education for the sons of the indigenous
lords and leaders began to be openly discussed, and let-
ters recommending such training were sent to Charles V
(Gonzalbo Aizpuru 1990:111; Baudot 1995:105). The Fran-
ciscans in particular favored a college that would train
the future rulers of the indigenous community accord-
ing to the pedagogical standards of Europe. Many of the
Franciscans also hoped that the college would train an
indigenous clergy.21 These aspirations bore fruit in 1536
when the Colegio de Santa Cruz was established as a col-
lege for the indigenous nobility.22 Administered initially
by the Franciscans, it was sponsored by the three most
powerful men in Mexico: Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal
(president of the Second Audiencia), Juan de Zumárraga
The Evangelical Project and Mendicant Investigators • 47
(first archbishop of Mexico), and the newly arrived vice-
roy, Antonio de Mendoza. Charles V and Mendoza con-
tributed materially to its establishment, and the Spanish
Crown continued to provide support for its maintenance
thereafter. The Colegio de Santa Cruz began auspiciously
with seventy pupils chosen from among those who had
distinguished themselves at the Franciscan school of San
José de los Naturales in Mexico-Tenochtitlan, boys and
young men who were among the indigenous nobility. It
soon expanded its student body by recruiting two or three
noble boys aged ten to twelve years from each major town
in the land, drawing noble sons from the whole territory. In
this way, the college effectively concentrated the indigenous
elite of a future Mexico under Franciscan tutelage.
The Franciscan staff of the college included some of
the most learned of the friars. The well-known ethnogra-
phers Bernardino de Sahagún and Andrés de Olmos were
among the first faculty. Its first head was the provincial
of the Franciscan order in Mexico, García de Cisneros.
Arnaldo Basaccio, who had previously taught Latin gram-
mar at San José de los Naturales, became the college’s first
Latin grammarian, followed by Sahagún for four years and
then Olmos. Juan de Gaona, trained in theology and the
arts at the University of Paris, later taught rhetoric, logic,
and philosophy at the college. Other Franciscan instructors
included Juan Focher, who had taught law at the University
of Paris before he took the habit and turned his interests to
theology and canon law, and the learned Francisco Busta-
mante, who twice served as commissary general of the
Indies and twice as provincial of the order in New Spain.
They were assisted by Miguel from Cuauhtitlan, the first
indigenous student to advance to the role of professor.23
All were fluent in Nahuatl, which was essential for the
intensive engagement with the indigenous pupils.
At the Colegio de la Cruz, the sons of the indigenous
lords received the classical program of studies similar to
that of a Franciscan seminary, including the seven liberal
arts. In addition to scripture and theology, the trivium
of grammar, rhetoric, and logic was taught, along with
the complementary quadrivium of arithmetic, geometry,
astronomy, and music. Instruction in medicine (the use of
herbs and roots) was added to the curriculum, especially
after the devastating epidemic of 1546/1547. Latin was the
language of instruction; although the Spanish language
was not emphasized, the students also gained fluency in
Spanish, such that Sahagún referred to them as the trilin-
guals. Life in the college was similar to life in a seminary,
for the students lived together in dormitories, shared com-
munal meals, heard mass before beginning work, and par-
took in the rhythms of a seminary (Ricard 1966:219–220).
In 1546 the Franciscans turned the college’s adminis-
tration and instruction over to its former students, who
established rules and elected a rector, counselors, and
professors. One of the college’s alumnae, Miguel from
Cuauhtitlan, had already been teaching Latin grammar
there for several years, and others were ready to assume
governance and instruction.24 The timing of this transfer
was disastrous, however, for the devastating epidemic of
hemorrhagic fever, known as Cocoliztli (Pestilence), that
began in 1545 and ran for three years claimed the lives of
many of the collegians. Viceroy Mendoza reported to his
successor, Luis de Velasco, that the epidemic took most of
the college’s former pupils, including “the most able ones
that there were.”25 Thereafter the college struggled admin-
istratively and financially, for the Crown’s support was
insufficient and the viceroys who succeeded Mendoza and
Velasco showed little interest in the institution. Although
for many of the friars one goal of the college was to train an
indigenous clergy, a synod of 1555 forbade the ordination
of indigenous men, mestizos, and men of African ancestry,
which effectively undercut its religious mission.26 Bishop
Zumárraga had earlier complained that the students were
marrying and returning to their communities rather than
continuing their scholarly studies in pursuit of the celibate
life of a priest.27 By the 1560s the buildings were in such
disrepair that students could no longer live on campus, and
the college became a day school only.
Around 1570 the Franciscans again took control of the
college in an attempt to revitalize it. The viceregal admin-
istration continued to fund basic provisions, salaries, and
new books for the library, but this support was insufficient.
The college never regained its early strength and purpose.28
The great epidemic of 1576–1580, known as Huey Cocoliz-
tli (Great Pestilence), again decimated its population, from
which it could not recover.29 Although the college contin-
ued to function as an educational institution, by the end of
the century Latin and the liberal arts were no longer taught;
its curriculum had become that of a primary school.
The 1570s also saw a shift in the intellectual climate of
the Colegio de Santa Cruz away from a college per se and
toward a center of indigenous studies. Sahagún returned
in the early 1570s and took over its administration, while
the great Nahuatl linguist Alonso de Molina served as
guardian of the monastery. Both were actively pursuing
48 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
ethnographic and linguistic projects (Sahagún was pre-
paring his Historia general); together they refocused the
college as a center for the study of indigenous culture and
language. A nucleus of advanced students and former stu-
dents remained attached to the college. Some had already
been teaching there. Now they continued to work as infor-
mants, translators, and collaborators with Sahagún and
Molina.
The first splendor of the Colegio de Santa Cruz came
in the years from 1536 to 1546, when the Franciscans were
passionately involved and committed and the possibility of
an indigenous clergy was still alive. It was then also that the
college enjoyed its greatest support from the secular gov-
ernment of New Spain, and its highly educated Franciscan
professors were in their prime. Even after the Franciscans
ceded control to their indigenous alumnae and the college
faltered, however, its influence remained strong, for the tri-
linguals, students, and Franciscans stayed within the orbit
of the monastery of San Francisco. Antonio Valeriano and
Pablo Nazareo were among its most distinguished indig-
enous instructors (Steck 1944:50–59). Although Sahagún
was called away for work in Xochimilco and Tepepulco, for
example, he later returned in the 1570s to collaborate with
the trilinguals that he and others had trained.
As an institution created for the intellectual and moral
preparation of the future leaders of indigenous Christian
communities, the college succeeded greatly. Some of the
collegians advanced in civilian careers as native governors
of major cities and others as public notaries. Valeriano,
of whom more is known than of the others, stands out
as an example of this success. Trained at the Colegio de
Santa Cruz, he was renowned for his erudition and rhe-
torical skills, which were said to be no less than those of
Cicero and Quintilian. Sahagún considered him the best
and wisest of the trilinguals who assisted in the friar’s
ethnographic project. Outside the college, Valeriano had
a shining political career as governor first of Azcapotzalco
and then of Tenochtitlan. He was one of the celebrated
alumni who taught at the college, even continuing to teach
Latin there in the 1560s and 1570s when he was governor
of Tenochtitlan, at a time when he continued to assist
Sahagún. Juan Bautista described Valeriano after his death
as a man who governed “with prudence and rectitude” and
was “one of the best linguists and rhetoricians in the capi-
tal of New Spain.”30
Foundational to the learning that took place at the Cole-
gio de la Cruz was its magnificent library, which began with
a donation of books by Zumárraga and grew to a sizable
collection, strong in classical and Renaissance holdings as
well as in religion and theology. Inventories taken in the
1570s and 1580s as well as the approximately 250 surviv-
ing books that bear the brands of the Colegio de Santa
Cruz or the monastery of Santiago Tlatelolco, catalogued
by Michael Mathes, suggest the depth and great breadth
of the library.31 In addition to theological books, doctrinas,
catechisms, and sermons, the library was rich in the classi-
cal authors and held works by some of the major Renais-
sance humanists.
The teaching of rhetoric was supported by works of
such classical authors as Cicero, Virgil, Tito Livio, Juvenal,
and Quintilian, as well as the Christian authors St. Jerome,
St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine, to name just a few. Phi-
losophy, moral issues, and logic were represented by Aris-
totle, Plutarch, Seneca, Aesop, St. Thomas Aquinas, Juan
Martínez Siliceo, and Alonso de la Veracruz, among oth-
ers. Histories included Julius Caesar on the Gallic wars and
Pedro Mexía’s Historia imperial. Cosmographies include
Ptolemy’s Geographia, Petrus Apianus’s Cosmographicus
liber, and a six-volume Cosmografía. Some of the human-
ists represented in the collection were Erasmus, Thomas
More, Juan Luis Vives, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola,
and Peter Martyr d’Anghiera. Among the grammars and
dictionaries were the Latin works of Antonio de Nebrija,
Ambrogio Calepino, and Jean von Spauteren as well as
the indigenous-language works of Alonso de Molina and
Maturino Gilberti. The library also contained its share of
encyclopedias and miscellanies, including Pliny’s natural
history, the Byzantine Suda encyclopedia, Johann Boemus’s
epitome of diverse cultures, and Joseph Ravisius Textor’s
Officina. It is clear that the library held a great range of
work, as befitted a college of higher education.
At various times, the college must have contained
many more titles, and probably different titles, which have
since disappeared or lost the brands that identified them
as belonging to the Colegio de la Cruz. In the course of
things, books were lost to theft; others were at times in
the custody of the Franciscan and indigenous instructors
and advanced pupils. Still others were confiscated or with-
drawn under the pressure of censorship that began in the
1550s and grew more prevalent into the 1570s.32 We can
therefore assume that the holdings were even more exten-
sive than the sample of which we have concrete evidence.
Based on this sample, we can expect that the holdings rep-
resented European high culture well, amplified by works
The Evangelical Project and Mendicant Investigators • 49
published in Mexico. These books would have served as
potential models for the framing of indigenous culture and
knowledge within a structure and discourse that the friars
could understand.
From its beginning, the Colegio de Santa Cruz was
always much more than a seminary or a university in the
European model. It was a place of privileged encounter
between the elites of two worlds, the young nobles of
Mexico and the Franciscan intellectuals from Europe, both
pulled from their distinct social matrixes to confront the
Aztec past and face the uncertain Christian future. Learn-
ing at the college was reciprocal and mutual. While the
indigenous students grew accomplished in Christian
theology and in Latin rhetoric and the other liberal arts,
the friars learned the subtleties of Nahuatl and worked
with their students to understand some of the intrica-
cies and history of Aztec culture. The students’ celebrated
accomplishments demonstrated the intellectual capability
of the indigenous people to meet the highest standards of
European scholarship (Karttunen 1995:115). At the college
the indigenous students became masters of Christian the-
ology and authors, along with their Franciscan professors
and colleagues, of the first translations of sacred texts and
the creation of a Nahuatl Christian theater and pedagogy.
Sahagún describes with pride how he and his Nahua
colleagues produced sermons, apostillas (exegetical anno-
tations), and catechisms in Nahuatl that were free from
all heresy only because of the collegians’ deep knowledge
and care (Sahagún 1982:83). The college was also an ideal
ground for the Franciscan investigation into the history,
society, customs, and language of the Mexicans before the
conquest. Informants and assistants were at hand there,
ready to aid in the investigation, a pursuit that required a
dispassionate reflection on the culture of their ancestors.
This reflection on a past that was rapidly disappearing
allowed knowledge of this past to be reframed within para-
digms accepted in Europe, which were learned through the
college’s curriculum and exemplified in the volumes of its
library. As Georges Baudot has argued, most of the first
ethnographic chronicles were born within the climate of
the college (Baudot 1995:113–115). The ethnographic stud-
ies of both Olmos and Sahagún grew out of the experience
of the college. The Badianus Herbal was another of its cel-
ebrated products.
The mendicant schools and colleges established in
Mexico soon after the conquest, exemplified in the super-
lative by the primary school of San José de los Naturales
in Mexico and the Colegio de Santa Cruz at Tlatelolco,
were thus a principal means by which the conquered and
colonized Mexicans learned the languages, visual systems,
and ideology of the Spaniards. There the young Nahua
lords, who would become the indigenous leaders of a
future Mexico, became Christian and alphabetically liter-
ate. In such settings the friars and Nahuas collaborated
to produce and employ material expressions of Christian
faith, such as catechisms. These were also places where
the friars honed their own facility in Nahuatl and learned
from their pupils about the pictography and cultural life
of the Aztecs. Such institutions nurtured social bonds
and collaborative action devoted to the transfer of cultural
knowledge between friars and indigenous people. In these
spaces where education took place, the friars and the indig-
enous people came together in a collaborative project of
ideological translation, where each instructed and learned
from the other.
Mendicant Investigators and the
Keepers of Indigenous Knowledge
The mendicants were the Europeans who worked most
closely with the indigenous population and aligned with
them on moral and intellectual levels, so they were the
members of colonial society who best understood and rep-
resented the needs and aspirations of the native population
to Spanish colonial authorities. The royal office of “Protec-
tor of the Indians,” charged with representing indigenous
interests in legal matters and attending to their well-being,
was first assigned to the Dominican Bartolomé de las Casas
and later to the Franciscan Juan de Zumárraga. Since the
mendicants also strove to maintain a distinction and dis-
tance between the indigenous population and the Spanish
one, it fell to them to translate and mediate between the
two in both secular and spiritual matters.
Fairly soon after the conquest, the mendicants were
called on to convey indigenous tradition, knowledge, and
actuality to Spanish authorities. This is well illustrated by
the Crown’s request for a geographic and economic descrip-
tion of New Spain to help in the reapportionment of lands.
Commissioned in 1523, just two years after the conquest,
it was first assigned to a judge; when no real progress had
been made by 1529, it was reassigned to a committee of
individuals, most of whom were specified to be mendicant
friars (Baudot 1995:27–35). This new group consisted of
the bishop, president, and judges of Mexico as well as four
50 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
Franciscans and four Dominicans, including the guard-
ians of their respective monasteries in Mexico City and the
oldest and most experienced friars in the land, who were
closest to the indigenous population. This Descripción de
Nueva España was finally finished in 1532 and updated a
year later. As the “first systematic investigation of Mexican
affairs,” it became a prelude to the broader ethnographic
works that would follow (Baudot 1995:30, 33).33
When, during its preparation, Sebastián Ramírez de
Fuenleal arrived as president of the Second Audiencia, he
brought increased support for Franciscan efforts to edu-
cate the native populations and record their traditional
values and practices. In 1533, building on the impetus of
the Descripción, he and Martín de Valencia, custodian of
the order of San Francisco, charged the Franciscan friar
Andrés de Olmos with compiling a book on native antiq-
uities in order to preserve the memory of the positive
and negative aspects of this culture (Mendieta 1971:75).
Soon thereafter, at Ramírez de Fuenleal’s suggestion, a
royal cédula ordered an expanded geographic and social
investigation that was to include “particularly their rites
and customs” (León-Portilla 1969:24–25; see also Baudot
1995:41–42). Thus began the great Franciscan project to
document indigenous culture.
Meanwhile, Viceroy Mendoza arrived in 1535 with
instructions to complete the census and determine actual
and potential levels of tribute (Simpson 1982:112). Men-
doza greatly expanded this mandate, however, to include
broader cultural matters. In 1539 he assigned the Francis-
can friar Jerónimo de Alcalá to prepare a report on the
customs of the people of Michoacán in order to help him
govern that region more effectively; this project yielded
the Relación de Michoacán in 1541, an illustrated textual
account of local religious ceremonies, the history of the
region before and following the conquest, and current cus-
toms (Afanador-Pujol 2015). In 1541 he was also having
prepared an account that covered Aztec history, the battles
of the conquest, the towns and provinces of the empire,
and the tribute sent to Moctezuma (Nicholson 1992:1–2),
as discussed in chapter 5. Mendoza also prepared, or had
prepared, a now-lost “relation of the things of this land,”
which probably included material from both accounts.34
Reports like these treated some ideological matters, but
their focus was fundamentally secular: their intent was to
help colonial authorities govern.
The friars, meanwhile, had a pressing need of their own,
which was to spread Catholicism. They met the challenge

4.3. Detail of friar preaching about Creation to Nahua men, women,
and children by pointing to a didactic lienzo depicting the story. Diego
Valadés, Rhetorica christiana, (1579), p. 107. Rare Books Collection,
The Latin American Library, Tulane University.
of evangelizing across languages by developing a range of
didactic aids, including graphic and performative ones. For
example, the Franciscan Jacobo de Testera, who could not
master Nahuatl, taught by holding up large didactic lien-
zos. He would explain the details and his assistants would
translate. Diego Valadés’s Rhetorica christiana pictures a
friar explaining the story of Creation by pointing to just
such a lienzo within the confines of an ideal monastery
(figure 4.3). Pictographic catechisms were also developed
to translate the ideas and words of the doctrine into fig-
ural images on the pages of small books. Catholic songs
and religious dramas sung and performed in Nahuatl were
particularly efficacious.35
Intellectual and linguistic translation was key to the
effort. It was not simply a question of spreading Catholic
faith as it had been expressed in Europe. Rather, major
principles of the faith had to be reconceptualized and
translated into things and abstractions that the future
converts could understand. In order to translate Catholic
doctrinal understanding into Nahuatl the friars had to dig
into indigenous religiosity to identify the best equivalents
for concepts such as sacrality, divinity, spirituality, and
even humanity. The Franciscans in particular strove to
articulate the Catholic message in Nahuatl terms (Morales
2008:149–153). Thus the debate exchanged in 1524 between
the Franciscans and indigenous lords of the valley of Mex-
ico, which was later preserved by Sahagún’s Coloquios y
doctrina cristiana, expressed fundamental Christian doc-
trine in Nahuatl terms. For example, the Christian deity
The Evangelical Project and Mendicant Investigators • 51
was described using some of the titles also used in the
colonial period to characterize the Aztec deity Tezcatli-
poca (Morales 2008:151–152). As Louise Burkhart (1988,
1989, 1992, 2017) has explained, the early colonial Mexican
church developed as a hybrid of Preconquest and Christian
thought and practice.
It was imperative that the friars learn something about
the beliefs and practices held before the conquest, since
so many of these continued strongly thereafter under the
veneer of Christianity. As Durán (1971:55) would lament
nearly fifty years after the conquest, “the Indians worship
idols in our presence, and we understand nothing of what
goes on in their dances, in their market places, in their
bathhouses, in the songs they chant (when they lament
their ancient gods and lords), in their repasts and ban-
quets.” It was specifically for this reason that he wrote his
account of the gods and the ceremonies. Sahagún (1982:45)
expressed it well when he explained that “the physician can-
not advisedly administer medicines to the patient without
first knowing of which humour or from which source the
ailment derives”: it is not possible to preach against idola-
tries without knowing about them.
Only a few of the mendicant investigators are known
to us because so many of their notes, journals, and studies
have been lost. Best known are the Franciscan Bernardino
de Sahagún and the Dominican Diego Durán, whose
surviving works of the late 1570s and 1580s have been
fundamental to our understanding of Aztec culture (see
chapter 7). Among their forerunners were the Domini-
can father Pedro de los Ríos, who annotated the Codex
Telleriano-Remensis and commissioned the Codex Ríos
(chapter 6), and another Dominican, Juan de Ferrer, whose
works perished with him at sea. The Franciscan Jerónimo
de Alcalá compiled a study of the people of Michoacán
for Viceroy Mendoza between 1539 and 1541 (chapter 5).
The earliest and most influential, however, were Andrés de
Olmos and Motolinía (Toribio de Benavente), both Fran-
ciscans who arrived in Mexico in the 1520s. They estab-
lished the pattern of investigative research that would be
followed by Sahagún and Durán.
Olmos was widely celebrated for his deep knowledge of
native languages. Fluent in Nahuatl, Totonac, and Huastec,
he compiled grammars and vocabularies for all three and
recorded a set of Nahuatl huehuetlatolli (rhetorical speeches
of the elders), part of which he translated into Spanish.
He also translated into Nahuatl at least a half-dozen Cath-
olic texts. Regarding his major ethnographic project, the
Franciscan chronicler Gerónimo de Mendieta (1971:75–
76) records that in 1533 Zumárraga and Fuenleal commis-
sioned Olmos to compile a book on ancient indigenous
customs, especially of the people of Mexico-Tenochtitlan,
Texcoco, and Tlaxcala, in order to refute the negative and
highlight the positive.36 Baudot (1995:132) suggests that
. Francisco del Paso y Troncoso and Joaquín García Icazbal-
this commission was expressly to defend the indigenous
people from accusations of irrationality and support their
humanity. The religious leaders chose Olmos because he
was the foremost expert in Nahuatl and a learned and
discreet man and perhaps also because Zumárraga had
already worked with him fighting witchcraft in the Basque
region before they journeyed together to Mexico.
Mendieta explains that Olmos accomplished this proj-
ect by viewing all the paintings that the caciques and prin-
cipals of the provinces possessed of their antiquities and
by interviewing elders who answered the questions that
Olmos put before them, compiling all this in “a very copious
book” (Mendieta 1971:75). Olmos drew from the painting
that the rulers of Mexico, Texcoco, Tlaxcala, Huejotzinco,
Cholula, Tepeaca, Tlalmanalco, and the other cabeceras
(head towns) had given him. He traveled widely gather-
ing information, but his base in Tlatelolco was also fertile
ground. Although the Colegio de Santa Cruz would not
be founded for another three years, the Franciscan convent
in Tlatelolco already had a concentration of friars and stu-
dents well suited to aid in his investigations. The students
at Tlatelolco came from the Aztec nobility, so their fathers
had held important posts in political and religious organi-
zations before the conquest, and their memories would still
be fresh (Baudot 1995:132).
Within a few years, Olmos had completed the work and
had three or four copies made, all of which he sent to Spain
and all now lost. Mendieta (1971:75–76) explains that per-
sons of authority in Spain then became aware that Olmos
had compiled the study, and so “a certain bishop prelate”
asked Olmos to make a summary. Olmos did so by “review-
ing his drafts,” which must therefore have remained with
him in Mexico (Mendieta 1971:76). Baudot (1995:169, 171)
proposes that this summary (Suma) was completed around
1536. Although this is also now lost, copies of it remained
in Mexico to be consulted, redacted, and copied by others.
Mendieta claims to have relied on an autograph copy, along
with the writings of Motolinía, for book 2 of his Historia
ecclesiástica indiana, devoted to the rites and customs of the
Indians of Mexico. Alonso de Zorita (1963:61) also refers
to both Olmos and Motolinía as among his sources, and
52 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
Juan de Torquemada used Olmos’s work as well (Baudot
1995:176, 181, 185).
Although Olmos’s original treatise and Suma have dis-
appeared, a few surviving pictorial compilations and text
manuscripts have been attributed to him. Beginning with
ceta in the nineteenth century, scholars have linked Olmos
to the originals from which the Historia de los mexicanos
por sus pinturas and Histoyre du Mechique were copied.
The evidence seems compelling.37 Wilkerson (1974) and
Baudot (1995:208–217) have proposed that the Codices
Magliabechiano and Tudela (discussed in chapter 6)
derive from Olmos’s working notes, although their argu-
ments rest largely on the existence of Olmos’s project in the
early years when the Magliabechiano prototype was being
created (i.e., some of Olmos’s drafts probably looked like
such annotated pictorials).38 More recently, Jorge Gómez
Tejada (2012:181–200, 316, 319) has also proposed Olmos
as the source for the written account of Aztec history
recorded in the Codex Mendoza (discussed in chapter 5),
because it parallels the version told by Mendieta. These
attributions are predicated on the idea that Olmos was
the only major figure, or one of the very few, compiling
such information on Aztec history, rituals, and customs in
the 1530s and 1540s. However, there may well have been
other investigators of Preconquest culture, whose works
have not survived or whose names have not surfaced.
Pedro de los Ríos is known in this respect only because the
Codex Telleriano-Remensis and the Codex Ríos survived;
another Dominican, Ferrer (discussed below), is known
only because Agustín Dávila Padilla mentions his work.
The record is surely incomplete.
Olmos’s large treatise may have been finished in 1536,
for in that year the Franciscan chapter in Mexico asked
his colleague Motolinía to compile a study of Preconquest
life and ideology, as a complement to Olmos’s (Baudot
1995:135). According to Baudot (1995:275), the chapter
sought “an apt and well informed missionary who was
well acquainted with native languages and had traveled
widely and who could begin a thorough investigation of
the natives’ pre-Columbian customs, beliefs, and organiza-
tion. This missionary would also prepare a history of the
work carried out by the missionaries after their arrival, to
complement his investigations of the natives and to pro-
duce a summary of the spiritual conquest and its results.”39
Mendieta (1971:275, 541, 573) described Motolinía as “the
most curious and careful of the ancients [the first twelve
Franciscans] in knowing and committing to memory
knowledge of antiquities” and on other occasions stressed
Motolinía’s wide-ranging curiosity.
Motolinía’s study resulted in a large and influential
book, which Mendieta (1971:266) called De moribus indo-
rum. Although the original is lost, its content survives in
two versions: the Historia de los indios of 1541 and a more
detailed but less finished set of texts, with parts missing,
published as the Memoriales.40 Together the two versions
cover Preconquest culture (gods and ceremonies, temples,
sacrifices, calendars, the character of the indigenous people,
and their way of life) as well as the history of the evan-
gelical project and indigenous life and struggles in the early
colonial period. Motolinía was particularly attuned to the
trauma of the conquest and the suffering inflicted on the
native population by the transformation of Aztec Mexico
into New Spain.
Motolinía’s approach followed that advanced by Olmos,
which was to consult surviving pictorial manuscripts and
ask questions of the elders. In dedicating his Historia to
his patron, the count of Benavente, Motolinía (1971:74)
stated that he treats Aztec history “according to the
ancient books which the natives had or possessed.” Like
Olmos, Motolinía’s work was important for other writers:
las Casas, Mendieta, Zorita, Bautista, and Torquemada
were among those who copied or extracted from his eth-
nographic account. His history of the conquest was inte-
grated into other accounts of the conquest, including those
by Francisco López de Gómara, Francisco Cervantes de
Salazar, and Juan Suárez de Peralta.41
A third investigator whose name has come down to
us was the Dominican Juan de Ferrer. Little is known
about him and his work except for the comments of
Dávila Padilla (1955:286), chronicler of the Dominican
evangelization. Dávila Padilla describes Ferrer as witty,
devout, observant, highly esteemed, and a man with an
exceptional memory and facility in Nahuatl. He reports
that Ferrer had “written a book with certain characters
and figures, that only he understood.”42 Ferrer was so
proud of this work that he wrote to the pope ( Julius III),
who immediately called him to Rome. Lamentably, Ferrer
and his book were lost at sea on the journey, and no trace
of his study remained. Dávila Padilla reported that this
was forty years earlier, which would have placed the final
events in the early 1550s, during Julius III’s papacy. Ferrer’s
book clearly had a high pictorial content and was prob-
ably largely pictographic, as only he could understand the
The Evangelical Project and Mendicant Investigators • 53
images. It stands in contrast, then, to the written accounts
of Olmos and Motolinía.
Together these early friars and others whose names
remain unknown established the process for accessing
indigenous ideology and culture. Although Sahagún
would later begin his research in the 1550s with a question-
naire to guide his investigations (see chapter 7), it is not
known whether any of the earlier friars did so. Instead, we
look for traces of this process in the surviving copies and
descriptions by later chroniclers. The early investigators,
like Sahagún and Durán after them, drew from the old
painted books and worked directly with knowledgeable
elders and principals in their communities, drawing out
oral accounts and encouraging transcriptions of the codi-
ces. Mendieta explains that Olmos collated the materials
given to him by the rulers of the major polities in central
Mexico. Zorita records Olmos’s own explanation of the
process of transferring pictographic material to Spanish
texts: “Fray Andrés de Olmos in his chronicle says that
the Indians had memorized this [rhetorical oration] from
paintings written with pictures and characters, and that
he had some Indians transfer it to the Mexican language,
each one working individually, and when all of them gave
the same translation, he then translated it into Spanish”
(Baudot 1995:226). Motolinía (1951:74) speaks with real
knowledge of five Nahuatl book genres: the annals his-
tory, an account of the days and feasts, and three divina-
tory types (concerning dreams and omens, baptism and
the naming of infants, and marriage). He himself seems
to have developed proficiency in interpreting pictography.
As Zorita notes, Motolinía said that laws were “recorded
in characters and figures easily understood by them [the
indigenous readers] and, with a little help, by anyone else
who wished to understand them, and he [Motolinía]
got what he said from these pictures, and when he had
a doubt, he asked his good teachers” (Baudot 1995:396).
Decades later, Diego Durán (1971: 62–67, 69, 399) would
refer to specific painted books and papers—histories and
calendars—that he consulted during his research.
Several surviving texts preserve the structure of picto-
rial codices and are phrased in part as voicings of these,
such as the Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas and
Histoyre du Mechique, which treat stories of creation and
religion. The Anales de Cuauhtitlan is a linguistic transla-
tion and verbal embellishment of a painted annals history,
as are other annals accounts.
Very few of the many indigenous men who taught the
mendicants to read pictography and who provided con-
tent for the ethnographic projects have been identified.
Consequently the indigenous side of the effort has become
almost invisible. Occasionally these men are remembered
for their status and community (e.g., an old and wise
man from Coatepec, who died of the great plague: Durán
1971:64). Durán (1971:62–65, 68, 76, 404) refers occasion-
ally to specific wise and aged people he questioned, those
knowledgeable in the old ways, and sometimes owners
of painted books, but he does not name them. Neither
does Motolinía name specific individuals. Among Olmos’s
collaborators, Mendieta (1971:81, 144) mentions by name
only his disciple and informant D. Lorenzo, who pro-
vided information on origins (and likely many other mat-
ters), and an old principal of Texcoco named D. Andrés;
unfortunately, nothing else is known of these individu-
als. Sahagún’s project is exceptional is this respect, for
the Franciscan identified his principal collaborators and
assistants: Antonio Valeriano of Azcapotzalco, Alonso
Vegerano of Cuauhtitlan, Martín de Jacobita, and Pedro
de San Buenaventura, along with three scribes (Sahagún
1982:55), as explained in chapter 7. These men were mas-
ters of Nahuatl, Latin, and Spanish and often major fig-
ures in their communities. The best known is Valeriano,
who taught at the Colegio de Santa Cruz, served as gov-
ernor of Azcapotzalco and of San Juan Tenochtitlan, and
was admired for his brilliant rhetoric. Sahagún (1982:55)
refers to him as “the principal and wisest” of his collabora-
tors. Valeriano is often credited as the compiler of the first
account of the miracle of the Virgin of Guadalupe (Nican
Mopohua), ca. 1560.43 He represents the epitome of the
mendicants’ indigenous associates, who were knowledge-
able about their ancient traditions, were literate in pictog-
raphy as well as spoken and written Nahuatl, and could
54 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
convey complex messages across very different discourse
communities.
The ethnographic investigations of the mendicants were
large collaborative projects that involved complicated
exchanges of information, both graphic and verbal, among
and between representatives of the indigenous communi-
ties and the friars. They stand in sharp contrast to other
projects to record non-European cultures, such as the
thirteenth-century ethnographic reports on the Mongolian
people by the Franciscan John de Plano Carpini and Wil-
liam Rubruck (discussed in chapter 3). Those were singular
and largely independent efforts by Europeans to extract
local knowledge for a European readership. The Mexican
projects required teams of indigenous investigators and
interpreters and were intended for both an external Euro-
pean audience and a local Mexican one. The native lords
participated by compelling the wisest and most knowledge-
able of their subjects to assist, as they themselves did when
they brought forth and turned over ancient painted books.
If Olmos’s account is correct, it was not just one knowl-
edgeable elder who interpreted the books for the friars or
provided Nahuatl readings but several. We can imagine
these scholars debating the finer points of their interpreta-
tions among themselves and with the early friars. To be sure,
the elders and sages provided oral accounts to the friars of
remembered events and known concepts, but foundational
to these memories were the images in their painted books.
The Codex Borbonicus may be the closest we come to one
of these painted books that became the site of discourse
between the wise men and the friars. Other painted manu-
scripts considered in the following chapters represent sub-
sequent efforts in the transference of indigenous thought
and expression to a Spanish-speaking audience.
Chapter 5
Early Compilations
Codices Borbonicus and Mendoza
I
t is hard to determine when indigenous
leaders first began to compile sets of paintings cre-
ated by their manuscript painters that represent
indigenous ideologies and practices to inform an
external audience. The first record points to 1533, when
Andrés de Olmos was officially charged with gathering
information for a book on the antiquities of the people
of central Mexico. Soon thereafter, in 1536, Motolinía
was charged with a similar project to complement the
first. There were undoubtedly others whose own names
and projects are unknown to us. Even before these formal
requests for studies of ancient life, Olmos, Motolinía, and
other friars collected information, in the form of paintings,
on various topics and began to compile these into sets and
compilations as aids to conversion. Meanwhile Spanish
and colonial officials were seeking data on matters affect-
ing the governing of the new colony. The Crown requested
information on tribute, which had to come from painted
tribute lists, as early as 1523 and continued thereafter to
renew this request. In 1530 it asked colonial officials to send
the tribute paintings themselves (Boone 1998:156–157). In
the 1530s and 1540s, as explained below, Viceroy Mendoza
sought and commissioned accounts of indigenous history,
economy, and culture.
The two manuscripts considered in this chapter—the
Codex Borbonicus and the Codex Mendoza—represent
two such early compilations. Both are undated, but their
closeness to the canons of ancient pictography situates
them among the early attempts to employ, adapt, and
draw on traditional pictography and manuscript genres.
Both reproduce well-known manuscript types with rela-
tively little alteration. In both, also, the painted images
carry the content in considerable detail; annotations serve
principally to name, identify, and explain the figures and
compositions for those not literate in Mexican pictogra-
phy and Aztec culture—for those outside the indigenous
community. But these glosses and texts do not introduce
much new information. The manuscripts’ painted pages
also retain much of the character of traditional manuscript
paintings, with ideoplastic figures arranged diagrammati-
cally and occupying the pages to their edges. There may
have been the understanding that glosses and explanatory
texts would be added, but these writings would have to be
fit in around the images. The artists worked largely within
the parameters of Mexican pictography, as it was adjusted
to the new purpose.
The Borbonicus and the Mendoza are very different,
however. As an amatl paper screenfold, the Borbonicus
lies closest to the Preconquest tradition. It may well have
been begun before the conquest and was certainly fin-
ished after it. Its focus is the ideology, rules, and practice
of divination and the religious activities of the yearly fes-
tival cycle. The Codex Mendoza is more clearly a colonial
product, destined for an audience in Spain. Where the
Borbonicus is materially indigenous, the Mendoza is a
lavish book of imported paper in the European tradition
but filled with indigenous painted content. It reproduces
two well-known native genres—an annals history and a
tribute list—and adds an account of Aztec lifeways in
order to round out a positive, almost celebratory, picture
55
of the history, material wealth, and moral fortitude of the
empire. It is the only surviving compilation that avoids
religious ideology entirely.
Codex Borbonicus
The Codex Borbonicus is a particularly important source
for understanding Aztec ideology and practice. It con-
tains the most complex and complete of all the painted
almanacs as well as a second almanac that has not sur-
vived elsewhere. It also contains one of the most detailed
pictorial presentations of the veintena (20-day) festivals
held over the course of a calendar year and ties them to the
52-year count.1 Thus it brings together the ideologies and
practices associated with the three fundamental calendrical
systems—the 260-day divinatory cycle, the 365-day festival
cycle, and the 52-year cycle—that were so crucial to ancient
culture. These topics would continue to interest and vex
the friars and Spanish authorities through the sixteenth
century, especially as crucibles of idolatry.
The manuscript is anomalous within the corpus of early
colonial cultural encyclopedias in that its physical features,
format, and style differ so much from the others. It is par-
ticularly close to its Preconquest predecessors, and many
scholars consider that at least part of it was painted before
the conquest (figures 2.12, 5.1, 5.2). As in Preconquest
manuscripts, the Borbonicus conveys data through fig-
ural images (as discussed in chapter 2), with only a sparse
sprinkling of Spanish glosses that attempt to explain the
images to outsiders. Physically, the codex is not a book of
European paper like the other colonial compilations but a
long and broad strip of native amatl (fig bark) paper folded
back and forth into thirty-six pages, sized on both sides but
painted only on one. Originally it extended to forty pages,
before two pages were lost at the beginning and another
two at the end. With pages measuring about 39 centimeters
square, which now stretch to 14 meters when unfolded, it
is the largest of all of the surviving indigenous screenfolds
in both page size and extent.
Its early history is unknown, but Nicholson (1974,
1988b) and Couch (1985:8–10) have shown that it was
likely painted in the southwestern chinampa region of
Lake Texcoco, such as Culhuacan or possibly Iztapalapa
or another city in this area.2 In support of this they noted
that the manuscript’s veintena section emphasizes deities
of agriculture and rain that were particularly important
in the chinampa region (figure 5.4) and that Cihuacoatl,
56 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
the principal deity of Culhuacan, is prominently featured
(figures 5.3, 5.7); the veintena section begins and ends
with festivals dominated by Cihuacoatl (pp. 23, 36, 37).3
Cihuacoatl is also accompanied four times by the other-
wise minor deity Atlahua, a particular god of the chinampa
area (Nicholson 1988b:79). The New Fire Ceremony of
1507 and the burial of the old years are overlaid on two
of the veintena festivals, which also suggests a Culhuacan
origin. As the major city near the hill on which the New
Fire was drilled, Culhuacan would be a natural location for
the dispersal of this fire and the subsequent deposition of
the year bundle.
By the late eighteenth century the codex was in El Esco-
rial in Spain, where a colleague of the historian William
Robertson described it in telling detail. It then contained
all forty of its pages.4 Francisco del Paso y Troncoso sug-
gested that it might have been taken to France along with
so many other appropriated treasures during the French
intervention in Spain in the 1820s. It reached the Biblio-
thèque de l’Assemblée Nationale in Paris in 1836, missing
its first and last two pages. Its name derives from the Bour-
bon Palace, in which the National Assembly is housed.
Content
The manuscript divides into two major sections: the divi-
natory guides and the pictorial descriptions of the festivals
that mark the eighteen twenty-day periods in the civil cal-
endar. These are distinct ideological realms, which in the
Borbonicus have their separate sets of painters, pictorial
style, and scale.5
The divinatory presentation opens with a traditional
almanac that presents the days of the twenty trecenas (13-
day periods), each with its patrons and mantic influences,
one trecena to a page (figures 2.12, 5.1). The Borbonicus ver-
sion is the richest and most fully elaborated type of alma-
nac known: in addition to the patrons and forces of each
trecena, it includes all the days (signs and numbers) along
with their associated Lords of the Night, Lords of the Day,
and Volatiles (Boone 2007:88–95). It frames the multiple
elements in discrete individual cells. On each page a large
cell in the upper left contains the trecena patrons and man-
tic images that govern the entire thirteen-day period. Run-
ning counterclockwise around this cell, beginning with the
lower left corner, are smaller cells containing the thirteen
days of that trecena and their individual influences. The
day signs are accompanied by the numerical coefficients
1 through 13. The days 1 through 7 run left to right along
5.1. Trecena 7, governed by Tezcatlipoca and Tonatiuh. Codex Borbonicus 7. Source: Bibliothèque de l’Assemblée Nationale.
the lower edge of the page, and those numbering 8 through
13 are stacked bottom to top just to the right of the trecena
patrons. Closest physically to the day signs—to their right
and sharing the same cell—are the nine Night Lords (also
listed sequentially in repeating sets of nine), who virtu-
ally embrace the day signs with their outstretched arms.
The thirteen Day Lords and Volatiles (twelve birds and a
butterfly) are included together in adjacent cells, one Day
Lord and Volatile for each day. Each day is thus associated
with its Night Lord, Day Lord, and Volatile and the shared
trecena images. Only the Tonalamatl Aubin also includes
all these elements, although it lacks the detail and precision
of the Borbonicus.
Following this 260-day almanac (tonalamatl) is a two-
page almanac spanning the interior fold of pages 21 and 22
that relates the nine Night Lords to the fifty-two years in
the year cycle, twenty-six years per page (figure 5.2). The
years read in the traditional counterclockwise direction,
Early Compilations • 57
beginning with 1 Rabbit in the lower left. The first twenty-
six (p. 21, figure 5.2) frame the aged primordial couple
Oxomoco and Cipactonal, who are shown with priestly
accouterments and activities: she is divining by casting
corn, while he is flourishing a bloodletter and long-handled
incense pan. Their appearance here is not unexpected,
because other ethnohistorical sources describe the pair as
being responsible for the calendar and the prototypal divin-
ers (Boone 2007:20–28). Opposite them and also framed
by the second twenty-six years (p. 22) are Quetzalcoatl
and Tezcatlipoca, supernaturals who are also prominently
paired in Creation narratives.
There is a noticeable, dramatic shift after this point:
the divinatory material gives way to the festival descrip-
tions. The pictorial style and organization change with
the change in content. Whereas the divinatory images are
relatively large and sure, have details outlined clearly in
full thick frame lines, and are well spaced to cover each

5.2. Primordial couple Oxomoco (left) and Cipactonal (right) surrounded by the twenty-six years 1 Rabbit to 13 Reed, accompanied by the Night
Lords associated with each year. Codex Borbonicus 21. Source: Bibliothèque de l’Assemblée Nationale.

58 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography

5.3. Festival of Tlaxochimaco (left, featuring Cihuacoatl in the center) and festival of Xocotlhuetzi (right). Codex Borbonicus 28. Source: Bibliothèque
de l’Assemblée Nationale.
page evenly to its edges, the painted figures of the veintenas
of part two (pp. 23–37) are relatively small, surrounded
by much empty ground, and often put into experiential
spatial relationships with each other (figures 5.3–5.7). The
format also changes: six pages are divided into two by a
vertical black line (figure 5.3), and two (pp. 29–30) con-
tinue across an interior fold as a single unit (figure 5.5).6
The orientation of the figures varies. Most are oriented
horizontally (so that the top of the presentation is along
the long edge of the paper strip), but some are arranged
perpendicular to the rest of the manuscript (so that the top
of the presentation is along the fold of the strip on the right
side). Two presentations employ a horizontal orientation
at first and shift to the perpendicular one (figures 5.4, 5.5).
Orientational shifts like these are relatively rare in manu-
scripts in the native pictorial tradition, and their meaning
is not fully clear.7
The veintena section pictorially describes the eighteen
Early Compilations • 59
5.4. Festival of Hueytozoztli. Codex Borbonicus 25. Source: Bibliothèque de l’Assemblée Nationale.
festivals celebrated in a single community at the end of the
Aztec year 1 Rabbit and during the next year 2 Reed (1507),
when the 52-year cycle ended and the New Fire Ceremony
launched the next cycle. This was the last New Fire Cer-
emony before the conquest. The presentation opens with
the festival of Izcalli, the last festival in the year 1 Rabbit,
and ends with a repeat of Izcalli associated with the year
3 Flint (figure 5.7).8 The intervening festivals follow in
sequence, but their identity has been made more difficult
because the painter often rendered a variant version of the
60 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
festival and suppressed some expected features while privi-
leging unexpected ones. In particular, he highlights rituals
focusing on rain and agriculture, gives prominence to the
goddess Cihuacoatl, overlays the New Fire ceremony onto
the festivals of Panquetzaliztli, and adds the burying of
bundled years to Tititl (Couch 1985) (table 5.1).
Nine of the eighteen festivals in the Borbonicus are
dominated by gods of water and agriculture. Some, like
Hueytozoztli, are commonly focused on rain and the agri-
cultural cycles: the Borbonicus presents men and a woman
Table 5.1. The veintena section in the Codex Borbonicus, pp. 23–37

Feast
order Page Orientation Name Painting
18 23L | Izcalli Xiuhtecuhtli and Cihuacoatl, paper ornaments

1 23R | Xilomaniztli Bowl of xilotes; Tlaloc

2 24L | Tlacaxipehualiztli Xipe, man with offerings

3 24R — Tozoztontli Tlaloc in Mist House with rubber-paper

4 25 |— Hueytozoztli Tlaloc in large Mist House, people bring children and

other offerings

5 26L | Toxcatl Incensing, Tezcatlipoca, Cihuacoatl largest, Atlahua

6 26R | Etzalcualiztli Olla with maize and corn; Tlaloc with rubber-paper,
Quetzalcoatl and Xolotl with dancers

7 27L — Tecuilhuitontli Ball court with Ehecatl, Cihuacoatl, Ixtlilton, Centeotl

8 27R | Hueytecuilhuitl Commoners receiving offerings, Xipe, Centeotl on

litter, lord

9 28L | Tlaxochimaco Unknown deity, Cihuacoatl, Atlahua with flower garlands

10 28R | Xocotlhuetzi Men dance around xocotl pole

11 29–30 |— Ochpaniztli Left to right: Chicomecoatl with musicians and dance;

flayed Chicomecoatl leaves corn platform; Toci (bottom
left), Chicomecoatl fully dressed on platform flanked
by corn gods in four colors, encircled by Huaxtecs,
Huehuecoytls, and other deities

12 31 — Teotleco Huitzilopochtli and Tezcatlipoca lower right;

continuation of Ochpaniztli ceremony in middle

13 32 — Tepeilhuitl Continuation of Ochpaniztli; Tlaloc in Mist House

14 33 — Quecholli Mixcoatl and Tezcatlipoca; hunting ritual

15 34 | Panquetzaliztli Huitzilopochtli with banner on pyramid at top; rest of

page has New Fire Ceremony

16 35L — Atemoztli Tlaloc and Chalchiuhtlicue in Mist House

17 35R | Tititl Year bundle burial; circle of gods, including Cihuacoatl

twice in front of temple

18 36 | Izcalli Xiuhtecuhtli and Cihuacoatl, paper ornaments, repeats

from 23L
(this page and opposite page) 5.5. Festival of Ochpaniztli, as a harvest festival featuring the corn goddess rather than Toci. Codex Borbonicus
29–30. Source: Bibliothèque de l’Assemblée Nationale.
bringing children and other offerings to the rain god Tlaloc
in his temple, the Mist House (figure 5.4). Other festi-
vals are reinterpreted to stress rain and agriculture; they
might include an image that usually identifies the festival
in other sources, but their focus is on rain and corn (e.g.,
Hueytecuilhuitl and Teotleco). Some of these agricultural
festivals are the most elaborately presented. The harvest
festival of Ochpaniztli is particularly emphasized (figure
5.5); it covers two full pages (pp. 29–30) and then continues
62 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
on the following two pages (pp. 31–32) in competition with
the two other veintena festivals that follow there. Whereas
other ethnohistorical sources relate Ochpaniztli to Toci,
the Borbonicus includes her only as a small figure (figure
5.5, lower left of p. 30) and directs its presentation to the
corn goddess Chicomecoatl.
The goddess Cihuacoatl predominates throughout the
festival cycle. She often appears alongside the deity who is
more usually associated with a feast and is often the larger
figure (Izcalli, Toxcatl, Hueytecuilhuitl, Tlaxochimaco, and
Izcalli again: table 5.1). For example, she is the central large
figure who appears at Tlaxochimaco, which in other manu-
scripts features Tezcatlipoca (figure 5.3 left), and her large
presence dominates the smaller figure of Xiuhtecuhtli for
Izcalli (figure 5.7). At the festival specifically dedicated to
her (Tititl), she appears both as a regular-sized figure and
again nearly twice as large as the other assembled gods; in
both instances she is a focus.
The insertion of two major calendrical ceremonies into
the veintena cycle makes the Borbonicus version of the cycle
unique. For the feast of Panquetzaliztli (p. 34), usually dedi-
cated to Huitzilopochtli, the painter includes this god only
once, at the top and in front of a pyramid that has a ban-
ner on top—this being the hieroglyph for Panquetzaliztli
(Banners) (figure 5.6). The rest of the page is given over to
the New Fire Ceremony, when, after all the fires in the land
had been extinguished, a new fire was drilled on the hill
Huixachtlan (now Cerro de las Estrellas) near Iztapalapa
and Culhuacan, carried to a main temple, and from there
carried to more local temples throughout the land and
eventually to homes. The painter signifies the fire drilling
Early Compilations • 63
on Huixachtlan (upper right corner), its descent (via foot-
prints) to the main temple, the community members who
hide in fear in houses and granaries covered by masks (lower
right), and the four priests and seven deity impersonators
who will light their own torches. Cihuacoatl herself does
not appear among the group, but Nicholson (1988b:79–81)
identifies the temple on this page as her temple, Tlillan
(Dark Temple), which would explain her absence: if the
fire were already in her temple at Culhuacan, it would not
be necessary for her to carry it to another location.
5.6. Festival of Panquetzaliztli overlain by the New Fire Ceremony. Codex Borbonicus 34. Source: Bibliothèque de l’Assemblée Nationale.
64 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
The second major calendrical event inserted into the
cycle occurs in conjunction with the festival of Tititl (pp. 35
right–36), which celebrates Cihuacoatl herself and where
her image dominates. Caso (1967:129–140) and Couch
(1985:86–87) after him have persuasively argued that this
festival commemorating the dead also marks the burying
of the bundle of the years of the dead cycle, usually repre-
sented by a cylindrical bundle of fifty-two canes.9 For these
two major calendrical celebrations, Cihuacoatl is the domi-
nating presence, as expected for events in her home city.
5.7. Repeat of festival of Izcalli (featuring Cihuacoatl, left), year 3 Flint, and the continuing year count, running left to right at the top and then
returning right to left at the bottom, ending in 2 Reed. Codex Borbonicus 37. Source: Bibliothèque de l’Assemblée Nationale.

Later in the sixteenth century the images that repre-
sent the veintena festivals would become more codified and
regularized. By mid-century the veintenas would usually be
symbolized either with the image of the deity so celebrated
or with an object specifically associated with it, such as the
flower garlands of Tlaxochimaco. For almost all of its vein-
tenas, the Borbonicus includes an image that refers to the
usual festival, even though it presents its distinct local vari-
ant. Within the Nahuatl realm the celebrations that actually
occurred during each veintena varied depending on locale.
For example, the first veintena is either identified as Xilo-
maniztli (Offering of Xilotes [green corncobs]), Atlcahualo
(Cessation of Waters), Cuauhuitlehua (Raising of Poles),
or Cihuaihuitl (Festival of Women) (Caso 1971:339–343);
sometimes a source will include multiple names.
It is also remarkable that the Borbonicus and Sahagún’s
Primeros memoriales (discussed in chapter 7) offer views of
the celebrations themselves. Although the painter provides

Early Compilations • 65
5.8. Protocol for ritual
involving the water
goddess Chalchiuhtlicue.
Codex Fejérváry-Mayer
10. World Museum,
Liverpool.
one or more deities and offerings for all the festivals, for
many he also includes a number of the participants and
their actions and interactions. As Couch (1982) notes, com-
mon people appear often in the Borbonicus festival cycles:
they bring offerings, hold bowls to receive offerings, dance
and are incensed, and observe and hide from the New
Fire Ceremony. The Borbonicus thus shows aspects of the
actual performances that would be viewed by others.
This is one of the features that distinguish this veintena
sequence from the protocols for rituals that are included
in the Preconquest Codices Cospi, Fejérváry-Mayer,
and Laud (figure 5.8). These are recipes for ceremonies,
directed to the practitioners themselves. They specify the
deity, offerings, and sometimes date but do not usually
show an actual performance, unless that performance is
specialized (Boone 2007:157–169). These protocols in the
Preconquest manuscripts are intended to provide informa-
tion that a priest would need for the proper performance
66 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
of the ceremony, including details and quantities of offer-
ings and their arrangement. They omit information that
a priest would already know: for example, the offering of
incense. The Borbonicus painter, in contrast, sketches out
the action—the incensing, the dancing, the processing—
without revealing details of esoteric content. It provides a
view of the ceremony that is exterior to it.
The year count on the last pages of the Borbonicus
undergirds and extends from the veintena cycle (figure 5.7).
It begins at the top left of page 23, with the year 1 Rabbit
marking the festival of Izcalli as the last of that year; this
is the first festival represented in the veintena presentation.
It then reappears at the top of page 34, where the year 2
Reed dates the New Fire Ceremony during the festival of
Panquetzaliztli (figure 5.6). The next year, 3 Flint, then
appears at the top of page 37 to date the final Izcalli festival
to that year (figure 5.7). Thereafter, the years (beginning
with 4 House) proceed as a ribbon running left to right
along the top of pages 37–38 (and the missing pages 39
and 40) and returning right to left along the bottom of
the pages, to end back on page 37 in 2 Reed, another New
Fire year (figure 5.7). These continuous years frame the
otherwise open space of the page, which raises the question
of whether anything was intended to be painted in this
open space. Most other year counts painted as a continuous
band function as the temporal structure of annals histories.
This painter was satisfied with the display of open space in
the veintena sequence, however, so he may simply have con-
tinued this strategy here, using the otherwise blank pages
at the end of the veintena cycle to complete a year count.
Painters and Annotators
The Borbonicus was the work of four or five artists and
four annotators. Three or four artists of the same work-
shop painted the first half, then another single person
painted the second, employing a different figural style and
organizational structure. The artists in both parts used
such traditional pigments as cochineal, Maya blue, and
organic yellows, but the artist of the second part employed
a different color palette and used several organic pigments
that were not used for the first part and have not yet been
recognized in Preconquest codices.10 Despite the differ-
ences between the parts, Fabien Pottier (2017:61–64, per-
sonal communication 2018), who analyzed the materiality
of the codex in detail, found that the amatl sheet was itself
created as a whole.11
The almanac painters worked fully in the Preconquest
style, following the diagrammatic structure of Preconquest
almanacs (figures 2.12, 5.1, 5.2). Their forms are characteris-
tically ideoplastic, colored with flat pigments, and defined
by lines of even width according to the Preconquest canon.
The figural style, line, and use of color are nearly the same
across almost all of the two almanacs, which suggests that
the painters were members of a single workshop. Batalla
Rosado (1993b, 1994) has convincingly identified one
painter for pages 3–10 and another for 11–22, based largely
on his analysis of small differences in the calendrical fig-
ures. The particularly heavy forms and thick frame lines
of the trecena patrons on page 20 might suggest another
painter for these two figures. The thin, stiff outlines and
poorly rendered forms of the two supernaturals (Quetzal-
coatl and Xiuhtecuhtli) that preside over page 22 clearly
point to yet another painter for these figures (but not for
the surrounding calendrical signs). That painter made lib-
eral use of sketch lines and then ignored many of them and
misrepresented Tezcatlipoca’s eponymous smoking mirror
at the god’s temple, which suggests an incomplete under-
standing of the god’s iconography.
A single painter, who worked in a noticeably different
style, completed both the veintena presentations and the
year count in part two (figures 5.3–5.7). Although he also
used flat color and even frame lines in the Preconquest tra-
dition and pictured supernaturals and deity impersonators
heavily encrusted with accouterments, he endowed most
of his human figures with longer, leaner proportions. He
painted common people and novices of the priesthood, who
are simply dressed and barefoot, in a looser, more corporeal
manner, using contour lines to describe plastic form and
to show how cloaks and huipils fold and wrap around the
body (figure 5.3, right side of figure 5.6).12 He also rendered
many of the veintena events as depictions of scenes involv-
ing standing and moving individuals whose bodies do not
evenly fill the page but act out festivals on a largely empty
stage; small figures are dwarfed by great open spaces.
A few instances of European iconography and pictorial
illusionism have led most scholars to accept an early colo-
nial date for this part. For example, Brown (1977:221–222,
1982:172–175) has pointed out that the base of the xocotl
pole for the festival of Xocotlhuetzi (with its stakes) fol-
lows European conventions, and the file of figures arcs
around it in space (figure 5.3). Also, the veintena section
lacks an overarching structure: each festival has its own
internal organization and orientation, often different from
those adjacent to it. This variable arrangement of figures,
their small size relative to the page, and the amount of open
space left around them all stand in sharp contrast to the
density and uniform spacing of Preconquest figures.
Four individuals then added comments in Spanish
to the paintings. One identified the sequence of days
(“first day,” “second day,” etc.) and the sequence of trecenas
(“third month,” “fourth month,” etc.) in the tonalamatl, and
another provided the names of all the day signs (“Deer,”
“Rabbit,” etc.) (figures 2.12, 5.1). Both wrote in a clear
humanistic minuscule and lacked full knowledge of the
calendrical system. The first hand impossibly named the
year signs on page 22 as the twenty-first month, and the
second consistently misnamed several of the day signs:
he called Cipactli (Crocodile) “vejez” (old age), Malinalli
(Grass) “escoba” (broom), Cozcaquauhtli (Vulture) “aura”
(air), and Ollin (Movement) “sol” (sun) (Paso y Troncoso
1979:20–21; Couch 1985:6). The third annotator, writing
in a slightly more cursive style, had a better understanding
Early Compilations • 67
of the tonalamatl, for he articulated a prognostication for
each trecena: “Those born under this sign will be . . . ,” with
outcomes that are partially in accord with those recorded
in other sources (Paso y Troncoso 1979:20–23). Some-
time later a fourth individual writing in a cursive hand
added erroneous notes in both parts, but especially in the
veintena section, trying unsuccessfully to make sense of
the images.13
Dating
The principal Borbonicus controversy has been its date:
whether some or all of it was painted before the conquest
or early in the colonial period. Most scholars recognize the
veintena section as influenced by European iconography
and pictorial conventions and consider it early colonial.14
However, the first part of the codex was usually considered
to be Preconquest and to represent the height of the Aztec
painting style until Robertson (1959:86–93) proposed that
some of its features reveal European influence. Robert-
son (1959:89–90) advanced several reasons: the two most
cogent are considered here.
Robertson noted that the painters of the tonalamatl
carefully ruled, with a very light gray line, the small cells
of the days and their influences that surround the trecena
panels, proposing that the painters intended to define
blank spaces for the inclusion of glosses (figures 2.12, 5.1).
Indeed glosses were added to identify the day signs and
coefficients, although none were added to identify the Day
Lords and Volatiles. Caso (1967:106) countered Robert-
son’s position by noting that the annotators were ignorant
of the calendar and only filled in some of the blank spaces:
if the painters had left space for annotations, why were
the first annotators so ignorant and their annotations so
incomplete? Paso y Troncoso (1979:2–22; see also Couch
1985:3) had earlier noted that the paintings predate the
glosses by some time, for they suffered damage from wear
and humidity before the first glosses were added. This fur-
ther undercuts Robertson’s argument. To my mind, the
blank spaces remain a conundrum but do not in themselves
prove a postconquest date.
Robertson (1959:90) also pointed to a hillside in
the lower left corner of the panel of trecena 6, which he
described as “a curved wash rather than an outlined place
form” (figure 5.2). Caso (1967:107) agreed that this hillside
was postconquest but proposed that it was added in the
colonial period. This seems improbable to me, since other
similar “amendments” were not made and the coloring of
68 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
the hill is consistent with the rest of the almanac. Although
this undulating form of the hill is not bordered by an out-
line, an undulating sketch line partially parallels it within
the field. The Tonalamatl Aubin includes a similar hill in
its sixth trecena panel, where the hill is outlined and closer
to the bell shape of a Preconquest hill sign.15 Although it is
hard to prove decisively whether the Borbonicus almanacs
are Preconquest or postconquest, I think that the almanacs
may well have been begun before the conquest because of
their traditional style and format. Even those who see the
codex as an early colonial product consider the first part to
be a close copy by a master painter of a Preconquest codex.
It is a relic of that time.
In contrast, the veintena sequence of the second sec-
tion has the mark of an original composition intended to
inform an external audience and, to my mind, a European
one. It lacks a consistent structure expected in a traditional
manuscript, has undeniably European pictorial features,
and arranges the actors to display each ceremony as if it
were being viewed by an audience outside the practicing
community. It is also doubtful that the elites of Culhuacan
would themselves need an account of the rituals of 1507, a
New Fire year, which would not recur until 1559. Rather,
the veintena section, with its three year-dates, seems to
have been newly created, with the rest of the year count
added for closure. The veintena section portrays the festival
cycle in positive terms, downplaying human sacrifice and
celebrating the abundance of rain and corn and the priority
of Cihuacoatl.16
The Borbonicus thus belongs both to the Preconquest
world, in which it may have begun, and to the early colo-
nial period, when it was completed. If, on one hand, we
consider it originally a Preconquest manuscript, we could
expect that other almanacs would have been added to fill
the last eighteen pages and probably the reverse. But this
did not happen, perhaps because the master painters of the
almanacs were unable to continue. If, on the other hand,
we consider the almanacs to be early colonial in date, if
not in style, the change in topic from part one to part two
might be expected. In any case, the talented painters of the
almanacs did not finish their work, and a less-skilled artist
was left to paint the two central figures on the last divina-
tory page. Another painter in the early colonial period then
filled the blank pages with depictions of the festivals of the
veintena cycle of the momentous year 1507 when a New
Fire Ceremony was held to initiate a new 52-year period
and continued to record the remaining years in this count.
His audience seems not to have been within the indigenous
community but outside it in the Spanish world of those
who wished to understand the native festival cycle that
played out each year and to see how it interfaced with the
52-year cycle. He added the festival part to the divinatory
part in order to create a compendium of ancient ideologies
and practices.
Codex Mendoza
The Codex Mendoza is the only surviving example of a
pictorial compilation that is entirely secular in nature.17
It is a report likely produced in the 1540s or early 1550s
to inform a distant audience in Spain about the history
and extent of the Aztec empire, its economic resources,
and something of the lifeways of its people.18 Religious
matters do not figure in, for this is not an evangelical or a
missionary aid but an account of the nature of the terri-
tory that had recently been brought under Spanish control.
The codex is a tripartite manuscript composed of three
distinct sections: a history of the Aztec rulers and their
conquests from the founding of Tenochtitlan to the com-
ing of the Spaniards, an accounting of tribute received by
Moctezuma from the empire’s provinces, and a record of
the life of typical Aztec men and women from birth to old
age, with an emphasis on virtuous deportment. The three
sections follow one after the other without the benefit of
introductory or concluding material that transitions from
one to another.
The first two sections are grounded in the indigenous
tradition and derive from Preconquest genres: an annals
history and a tribute list. The third, ethnographic section
is a colonial innovation. In all, the paintings carry the essen-
tial information, with Spanish glosses and then explana-
tory texts added to translate the imagery for an audience
not versed in pictography or Aztec culture.
The codex was commissioned by someone well placed
in the colonial hierarchy, if not by Viceroy Antonio de
Mendoza himself, for whom the codex was named. It is
a particularly handsome manuscript, designed to impress
its audience both with the detailed information it contains
and with the vibrant, multifigured, and masterful paintings
that bear this information. These paintings fill most of the
rectos and some versos of seventy-one folio-sized pages;
Spanish glosses written around the individual images iden-
tify almost every figure, conquered town, and item of trib-
ute; and texts written on the opposite, facing pages explain
and sometimes expand on the material that is pictured.
The codex was created by a principal artist perhaps assisted
by others of the same workshop and was annotated by a
single scribe.
Date and History
The date and circumstances of the codex’s production
remain unresolved, for it lacks a title, dedication, comple-
tion date, and internal statement of its patron, painter, and
annotator. In the eighteenth century the historian Fran-
cisco Clavijero identified it as having been commissioned
by Viceroy Mendoza for Charles V.19 Subsequent scholars
equated it more specifically with a pictorial document that
ex-conqueror Jerónimo López recalled having seen being
prepared around 1541 by a master painter—one Francisco
Gualpuyogualcal—on the order of Mendoza to be sent to
Charles V. This attribution has more recently been chal-
lenged as apocryphal, however (Nicholson 1992; Gómez-
Tejada 2012, n.d.a). López described the manuscript he
saw as an account of the lands of the Aztec empire and the
lords who ruled from the foundation of Tenochtitlan to
the coming of the Spaniards, events of the Spanish con-
quest, and the tribute that Moctezuma received from the
provinces and towns of the realm; he said it was bound
in parchment (Nicholson 1992:1–2). The Mendoza lacks
events of the conquest, contains a third section that López
does not mention, and was probably unbound when it
went to Europe (Barker-Benfield 1999, n.d.).
Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés reported that
Mendoza was arranging to have a book made that describes
the “provinces, towns, and fruits of the land, and the laws
and the customs, and origins of the people” (Nicholson
1992:2). Mendoza himself spoke of preparing a “relation of
the things of this land” and having at least one additional
copy made (Nicholson 1992:2). None of these manuscripts
can be securely identified as the Codex Mendoza, and we
should recognize that multiple manuscripts that overlap
in coverage with the codex were made and circulated.
A pictorial document very similar to parts one and two
(the history and tribute list) of the Codex Mendoza was
in Spain in the sixteenth century, for several of its figures
were reproduced in vignettes on the title pages to Antonio
de Herrera y Tordesillas’s Historia general de los hechos de
los castellanos of 1601–1615.
The Codex Mendoza’s commentator explained on the
last page that he was finalizing the codex quickly so that it
could be sent on the “fleet” (71v). According to a later owner,
Early Compilations • 69
it never arrived in Spain. The first known postproduction
owner was André Thevet, later the royal cosmographer to
Henri II of France, who signed his name and wrote the
year 1553 on two pages.20 The Codex Mendoza passed
from Thevet to Richard Hakluyt (ca. 1587), who took it
to England, and then to Samuel Purchase, who published
woodcuts of most of its paintings and an English transla-
tion of the text in Hakluytus Posthumus: Or, Purchase His
Pilgrimages (1625). John Selden acquired it from Purchase’s
son and in 1659 gave it to the Bodleian Library, where it
resides today.21
Content
The first two parts of the codex deriving from the indig-
enous tradition were created together: they were painted
on the same paper and share a gathering. The third part
was composed separately in its own gathering using differ-
ent paper, with a blank folio preceding it (Ruwet 1992:19).22
However, all three parts seem to have been created at about
the same time, because the same artists and commentator
worked on all parts, the commentator complained that he
only had ten days to complete the annotations, and the last
folio in the manuscript employs the same paper as the first
two parts. So the painted versions of parts one and two
were created as a conjoined piece, to which the painted
part three was soon appended; then all were annotated
with glosses that name the images and were explained with
textual commentary.
Jorge Gómez Tejada (2012) has proposed that the three
sections form a cohesive rhetorical whole that argues, in
the spirit of Bishop Bartolomé de las Casas, for the cour-
age, rationality, and virtue of the Aztec rulers, their well-
regulated economy, and the virtue of their people managed
by just law.23 The pictorial and alphabetic texts together
point in this direction but do not make this explicit. Like
other early colonial compilations that followed, the codex
presents sets of facts and describes details of Aztec culture
but does not extrapolate from these to advance a larger
argument.
Rulers and Conquests
The first part (1r–17r), the annals history, lists the sequent
Aztec rulers, the years of their reigns, and the towns they
conquered. It opens with a textual and pictorial descrip-
tion of the founding of Tenochtitlan (1r–2r) (figure 5.9).
The text begins on folio 1r with the simple statement
“Here begins the history of the city of Mexico” (Berdan
70 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
and Anawalt 1992, 4:7) and continues on 1v to describe
the founding with reference to elements in the painting
on 2r. The text in the lower half of folio 1v briefly explains
the Aztec year count and New Fire Ceremony in the year
2 Reed, making reference to a pictorial strip of thirteen
years that runs across the width of the page. Glosses in
red ink above the strip name the years in Nahuatl, and
glosses below the strip name them in Spanish. The Span-
ish version is correct, but, surprisingly, the Nahuatl glosses
misnumber the years, jumping from seven to nine and con-
tinuing to fourteen, which is a calendrical impossibility in
central Mexico.
The painted history begins in earnest with a full-page
display on folio 2r. This well-known painting presents the
founding of Tenochtitlan and, below, two early Mexica
conquests. The composition is centered on the city’s place
sign (a nopal cactus on a stone), on which a great eagle
is perched with lifted wings; the combination forms the
symbol for the founding. The shield-and-spears convention
for war, just below the place sign, signals the conquests that
will follow. Reeds and sedges designate the island city as a
swampy place, cut through diagonally by blue canals and
framed by the blue of the lake. The temple at the top is
probably an early temple to Huitzilopochtli, and the skull
rack notes that the practice of human sacrifice is estab-
lished. Seated around the place sign and facing inward are
the ten captains who led the migration to that location,
including Tenoch (just to the left of the place sign), who
alone has a reed mat and speech scroll that signify his
leadership. All the men are named glyphically. Below, the
Mexica conquests of Culhuacan and Tenayuca are signified
by their place signs with burning temples and the taking of
captives (Berdan and Anawalt 1992, 2:3–7; Boone 1992:36,
2012:577–579). A count of fifty-one years, from 2 House to
13 Reed, runs counterclockwise from the top left to frame
the page and itemize the early years between the founding
and the first formal tlatoani.
The glosses name the ten founders and the two con-
quered polities; surprisingly, the commentator, who
claimed to be well versed in Nahuatl, switched the names
of two: Ocelopan ( Jaguar Banner) and Acaçitli (Rabbit
Reed), in the upper left. This error and his earlier mistake
in glossing the strip of thirteen years on 1v suggest that he
may have been following a model or oral voicing of the
images rather than himself interpreting the images and in
these cases did not pay sufficient attention to the images
before him.
5.9. Introductory text and the founding of Tenochtitlan, Codex Mendoza, MS. Arch. Selden. A. 1, fol. 1v–2r. Photo Bodleian Libraries.
The foundation page, with its strip of years, seated
leader, symbol for war, and conquered towns, establishes the
fundamental content that follows. Immediately the codex
continues with sets of pages that pertain to the sequent
rulers of Tenochtitlan, ending with Moctezuma, the last
of the fully Prehispanic sovereigns. In this way, the painter
has segmented Aztec history according to the reigns of the
rulers. For each ruler a vertical strip of year signs down the
left side of the page designates the duration of rule (figure
5.10), beginning with the first full year in office and ending
in the year of death (Boone 1992:51).24 Facing away from
the year strip, the symbol of the ruler is oriented toward
the shield-and-spears sign and the locales he conquered
(signified by the place sign of each location and its burn-
ing temple). All the rulers are clothed in white capes, wear
the royal turquoise diadem, sit on reed thrones, and have a
speech scroll that identifies them as a tlatoani (speaker).
Several of the presentations add other specifics.
Acamapichtli and Chimalpopoca appear twice with details
of their wars (2v, 4v), and the deaths of three important
enemy rulers are pictured.25 With these exceptions, how-
ever, the presentation of rulers and their conquests is quite
formulaic and consistent, with individual images evenly
spaced across the fields. The first three rulers required only
one painted page each. Beginning with Itzcoatl and except-
ing Tizoc’s short rule, however, the many conquests of the
later rulers required that these conquered towns be spread
across two or more pages.
The annotator glossed and named each individual ruler
and conquered town, identified the shield-and-spears
glyph as the symbol for war, and noted the number of years
in each reign (figure 5.10). On the preceding or following
page he then added a descriptive summary. Except for the
longer discourses about the founding of Tenochtitlan (1rv)
and the justness of Moctezuma’s reign that ended with
Cortés (14v–15r), his summaries are as formulaic as the
Early Compilations • 71
5.10. Ruler Ahuitzotl and some of his conquests during his sixteen-year reign (8 Reed through 10 Rabbit), with explanatory summary on the facing
page. Codex Mendoza, MS Arch. Selden. A. 1, fol. 12v–13r. Photo Bodleian Libraries.
paintings: they employ virtually the same language and
include the same kind of information, digressing only if
special aspects of a ruler’s reign were illustrated. The texts
generally proceed as follows:
In the year of [Christian year], years of the before-
mentioned lordship of Mexico, after the death of
[name of previous ruler], [name of new ruler], who
was the [son/uncle/brother of . . . (facts of genealogy)],
succeeded to the before-mentioned lordship, and during
the time of his rule he conquered and took by force of
arms [number of ] towns as are [previously/successively]
represented and named. [The scribe then wrote generally
about the ruler’s virtues and whether he had many chil-
dren and wives, material that is not pictured.] His rule
lasted [number] years at the end of which he died and
passed from this present life. (Boone 1992:37)
72 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
In yet another surprising lapse, the scribe initially mis-
dated the first years of the rulers’ reigns in the Christian
calendar; he then returned and corrected these (some he
corrected twice) and added a short note at the end of these
texts to the effect that “those dates that are crossed out
should not be considered,” usually restating the correct and
final number. Still, all but two of these are one year before
the first year pictured; for example, the first painted year of
Itzcoatl’s rule is 1 Flint (1428), but the commentator settled
on the date of 1427 (13 Reed). Here again the commentator
was not following the actual painting.
This first section is an annals history in which each year
is named, and the year count is segmented to fit the reign
lengths of the rulers. Its content is much less varied than
most annals histories, for it covers only the ruler, years
ruled, and conquests. In this way it is very much a record
of victory that tracks the expansion of the empire.
 As might be expected for the last of the Mexica rulers,
the presentation of Moctezuma II’s reign is anomalous.
His year count ends with 13 Rabbit, two years before he
died, which suggests that the Preconquest original of this
annals account may have dated to that year. The com-
mentator then drew in three more years—1 Reed, 2 Flint,
and 3 House—and added short notes that 2 Flint was the
death of Moctezuma and 3 House was the “pacification and
conquest of New Spain.” His summary of Moctezuma’s
reign on the previous pages recounts the ruler’s virtues and
comments on the tribute he received, the tax collectors
and stewards that he set up in towns across the realm, and
the laws he established. This text anticipates and refers in
general terms to the tribute list that will follow.
Tribute
The second and longest part of the codex is a 39-folio trib-
ute list (17v–55r). It opens with a brief report of tribute
5.11. Tribute from the province of Xoconoxco, Codex Mendoza. MS. Arch. Selden. A. 1, fol. 46v–47r. Photo Bodleian Libraries.
in personal service and the titles of governors assigned to
distant garrisons (17v–18r) then continues with listings of
goods provided by Tlatelolco and thirty-eight provinces.
Tlatelolco’s tribute to Tenochtitlan is presented first (18v–
19r), probably because it was so politically important, and
it is reported in greater detail.26
Thereafter the tribute list follows a consistent template
(figure 5.11). It organizes tribute according to provinces,
each on its own page (with a few exceptions). It lists the
towns of the province along the left side of the page, begin-
ning with the head town at the top; when the towns are
many, they continue left to right along the bottom edge.27
The items of tribute are evenly spaced to fill the rest of the
page. Almost all are goods, ranging from precious materi-
als (e.g., feathers, jade, turquoise, and gold) to basic food
supplies (e.g., bins of beans and corn); Tepeacac alone also
contributed war captives for sacrifice (42r). The listings
begin at the top of the page with the two most requested
Early Compilations • 73
items: cloaks (received from all but two provinces) and
warrior costumes (received from all but eight) (Berdan
1992:65n1, 2). Quantities are specified by banners (20),
feathers (400), and copal bags (8,000). For example, the
rich province of Xoconoxco in Guatemala sent two strings
of jade beads; 800 bunches each of blue, green, red, yellow,
and quetzal feathers; 160 blue cotinga pelts; two gold lip
plugs; 40 jaguar pelts; 200 bales of cacao; 800 gourd ves-
sels for drinking chocolate; and two bars of liquid amber
(figure 5.11).
The tribute list structurally duplicates the format of the
annals. The vertical column of place signs on the left of the
page parallels the vertical strip of the annals’ year dates:
they both compose the entity to which the other informa-
tion on the page is assigned. The items of tribute are then
like the towns conquered in being items assigned to that
province or ruler: they both pertain to the entity defined
by the vertical column. Part two thus provides a geographic
rendering of the wealth and extent of the empire that par-
allels the temporal rendering of the empire provided by the
annals conquest list.
As in part one, the annotator glossed the images with
the name of each town, item of tribute, and quantity. On
a facing page he summarized the kinds and quantities of
goods pictured but did not repeat all the towns’ names.
His texts regarding the first provinces add information not
pictured, especially that Mexico had installed officials to
govern these towns. But the painted tribute list is long and
repetitive, so he soon reduced his summaries to a simple
repetition of the tribute items and an indication of the fre-
quency of payment. In this section he did pay attention to
the paintings, for on a few occasions he added details to the
images that the painter had omitted.28
Ethnography of Well-Regulated Lives
Whereas parts one and two derive ultimately from Pre­
conquest histories and tribute lists and therefore keep
largely to the traditional Preconquest structure and
painting style, part three (56v–71r) is a new and unique
construction without known antecedents (Robertson
1959:105; Calnek 1992:81).29 Its fifteen folios track the life
of typical Aztec males and females of the upper commoner
(artisan, not peasant) class from birth to old age, with topi-
cal detours that justify imperial conquests and expansion,
highlight the judicial system, and set virtuous work in
opposition to personal vices. Its emphasis on the luxury
crafts as respectable occupations reflects both its painter’s
74 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
position and the prevalence of crafts practitioners in the
capital (Calnek 1992:82, 85, 87–91). This ethnography pro-
ceeds as a narrative whose central theme is the work ethic
and moral fiber of the Aztec people and the justness of the
state (Gómez Tejada 2012:298). The emphasis throughout
is on the virtuous tasks at each stage in life and the need to
avoid idleness. It opens with the birth of a child (56v–57r)
and closes with an elderly couple enjoying themselves at
age seventy after lives well-lived (70v–71r).
The painter tells this extended story in discrete episodes
that proceed sequentially in loose registers that read from
top to bottom, with the paintings on the recto pages and
the accompanying texts on the facing versos. Generally
these episodes are arranged in registers, four to a page, but
this varies according to the distinctiveness and importance
of the content. The expanded treatment of the major life
events of birth, marriage, and old age occupy pages of only
two registers (57r, 61r, 71r), and Moctezuma’s palace fills
its own page (69r). Glosses identify each figure, image, and
action, which the written commentary summarizes on the
facing verso.
The first episodic set (57r) records the birth of a child,
its washing and naming ceremony, and the parents’ com-
mitment of the boy child to one of two lifeways: the elite
and priestly calmecac or the secular/warrior-based telpoch-
calli (figure 5.12). These are represented by separate scenes.
In the upper left, the mother sits before and speaks to her
newborn in its cradle. Dotted lines link the cradle to four
circular designs immediately above that here signify the
four days until the washing ceremony and then continue
to connect with this ceremony on the right, where the mid-
wife holds the child above a basin.30 Other dotted lines link
the child to his/her future occupations. For the boy (above
the basin), they are the shield and spears of warriors and
the implements of luxury crafts (lapidary, featherworker,
manuscript painter, and goldsmith). For the girl (below
the basin), they are the broom and weaving implements
of her future life in the home. On the right three small
boys cry out the infant’s name. A third scene unfolds below,
where the parents commit the boy child (still in his cradle)
either to the head priest (upper) or to the master of youths
(lower). This page effectively sets up the life stages that
will follow.
The account then traces the children’s development year
by year in registers from the age of three to fifteen (fig-
ure 5.13). Although the painter only arranged the figures
in loose registers, the scribe further defined them with

horizontal lines (Gómez Tejada 2012:212, n.d.b). Within
each year, the presentation bifurcates according to gender
in order to distinguish the tasks and challenges of boys and
girls: the boy appears with his father on the left, and the
girl with her mother on the right. For each year, the painter
uses round blue circles to state the number of years and
5.12. Initial unit of part three
that presents the birth and
naming of the child (above)
and the parents’ presentation of
the boy child to either the head
priest or the master of the youths
(below). Codex Mendoza, MS.
Arch. Selden. A. 1, fol. 57r.
Photo Bodleian Libraries.
pictures full or partial tortillas to indicate the children’s
rations. Speech scrolls, gestures, and objects explain how
the parents instruct and admonish their children. Punish-
ments are featured at the ages of nine through twelve and
advanced training at ages thirteen and fourteen (58v–60r)
(figure 5.13).
Early Compilations • 75
5.13. Punishments and activities of male and female children of ages eleven through fourteen. Codex Mendoza, MS Arch. Selden. A. 1, fol. 59v–60r.
Photo Bodleian Libraries.
Events of age fifteen fill a page (60v–61r), but again the
presentation is divided by gender (Berdan and Anawalt
1992, 2:166–167; Calnek 1992:87, 161) (figure 5.14). In the
upper half of the page, the seated father (on the left) com-
mits the young men either to the calmecac (upper right) or
to the telpochcalli (lower right). For women the culmination
is marriage, presented in the lower half of the page. Here
the painter shows the bride being carried at night to the
marriage mat, where she sits with her new husband, their
clothing tied together. Below are pictured elements of the
feast that follows and, on the sides, the old men and women
whose formal speeches advise the new couple in their mar-
riage. This ends the fundamental developmental history of
Aztec men and women. The year-by-year presentation may
76 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
well have been inspired by annals histories, which likewise
proceed year by year.
Thereafter the painter concentrates on male activities,
continuing to organize the material into registers. He first
tracks male advancement through the priestly and war-
rior ranks, alternating the priestly duties with the warrior
ones (62r–64r). A two-folio detour then recounts how the
Mexica are drawn into war by a rebellious chief, whose
people eventually sue for peace (65v–67r). The final top-
ics are good government and correct comportment. The
painter focuses on the justice system by showing first how
complainants bring their cases before judges in the pres-
ence of lords (68r), how they take their appeals to higher
judges in the royal palace, and ultimately how Moctezuma
 5.14. Life choices at age
fifteen: for males, entrance
into the calmecac or
telpochcalli (top); for
females, marriage (below).
Codex Mendoza. MS Arch.
Selden. A. 1, fol. 61r. Photo
Bodleian Libraries.

himself is the final judge (69r). The painting of litigants at
Moctezuma’s palace is exceptional, for it is the only paint-
ing of part three that commands a full page: it employs
European pictorial techniques, and its folio was added into
the codex as an insert, probably replacing an earlier sheet
(figure 5.15).31 The commentator’s text expands beyond the
content of the painting by recounting the good government
that Moctezuma established in Mexico.
The following page (70r) focuses more directly on the
moral fiber of the Aztec people by contrasting virtuous labor
with idle vices (figure 5.16). At the top, the father advises
his son to serve the lords well, perhaps as a messenger;

Early Compilations • 77

below in the left quadrant, other fathers teach their sons
the luxury crafts: to be a carpenter, lapidary, manuscript
painter, metalworker, and featherworker. Along the right
side, figures engage in the six vices of idle vagabondage, ball
playing, gambling, thievery, gossip, and drunkenness. Cen-
ter left, a majordomo in charge of public works chastises
the wayward pasts of two crying youths and orders them
78 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
5.15. Judicial appeals in the
palace of Moctezuma, with the
ruler as the ultimate judge at the
top. Codex Mendoza, MS Arch.
Selden. A. 1, fol. 69r. Photo
Bodleian Libraries.
to work for public projects. Here the painter positions
the respectability of honest labor in contrast to personal
misconduct. The final page (71r) brings this theme to its
logical conclusion by contrasting the execution of young
drunkards and the stoning deaths of thieves and adulterers
(at the top) with the carefree lives of the virtuous man and
woman who have reached the advanced age of 70 (Calnek

1992:83). The overarching theme of part three is the virtue
and strong work ethic of the Aztec people and the justness
of their government.
The structure of part three differs considerably from
those of the first two parts, for, as Robertson (1959:101) has
noted, this section has no unifying devices such as the reign
lengths of the rulers (in part one) and the lists of towns
5.16. Honorable labor as a
messenger (top left) or artisan
(lower left) contrasted to personal
vices (right). Codex Mendoza,
MS Arch. Selden. A. 1, fol. 70r.
Photo Bodleian Libraries.
in each province (in part two). The painter employed the
loose register as an organizational strategy, which the com-
mentator then clarified by adding dividing lines to separate
the materials more fully. Robertson (1959:99–100) pro-
posed that the painter was organizing the material accord-
ing to a horizontal tira (roll). Calnek (1992:82–84, 160–161)
reconstructed such a hypothetical tira. He noted that the
Early Compilations • 79
artist was “obliged to adopt or devise a format suitable for
the presentation of a completely nontraditional corpus of
information,” so the artist consciously or unconsciously
adopted “a narrative structure typical of certain kinds of
Preconquest historical texts . . . to the radically distinct
requirements of self-appraisal and self-representation to
an alien cultural group” (Calnek 1992:91).
Painter
Most scholars have attributed the paintings to a single very
accomplished artist who may have been working with oth-
ers in a workshop.32 Whether or not he was the “master
painter” that López identified as Francisco Gualpuyogual-
cal, he was clearly a master of Preconquest pictography who
was also cognizant of European illusionistic techniques.
A coherence of line, form, and palette links all three parts,
despite the European pictorial features of part three. The
painter also treated the pages in the same way throughout.
As in Preconquest manuscripts, he arranged the picto-
rial material to occupy the full extent of the page with-
out the kind of margins that are left around text blocks
in European prose books. Margins only appear at the top
and left side of the textual summaries; thus, the painter
maintained the indigenous presentational manner, leaving
the commentator to follow European expectations (fig-
ures 5.10, 5.11). Usually the codex arranges material across
the interior fold of a two-page spread, which again reflects
the native graphic preference (Boone 2007:66–67). When
the painted unit must occupy more than a page, as in the
case of rulers with many conquests or large provinces with
much tribute, it is almost always arranged to span the
verso-recto spread. When a single painted page suffices, the
summarizing texts are written on the facing page opposite
the painting.
The painter determined the structure and detailed con-
tent of the three sections. For the history of imperial lords
and their conquests, he followed a prototype that looked
back to a Preconquest annals history. Since this section of
the codex begins with the founding of Tenochtitlan and
originally stopped two years before Moctezuma’s death,
this Preconquest source may have been a manuscript
prepared in the later years of Moctezuma’s reign (Boone
1992:37). The tribute list also depends ultimately on a Pre-
conquest version (Borah and Cook 1963; Berdan 1992:56–
64). For part three the painter drew loosely on Preconquest
narrative structures such as the annals and the tira (Calnek
1992:82–84). The paintings of parts one and two adhere to
80 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
traditional canons of pictography, being populated by flat,
ideoplastic forms that signify on a neutral ground without
depth. Only occasionally did the painter employ a slightly
more illusionistic style (Howe 1992:27–31).33
The painting style is quite different and more fully colo-
nial in part three (Howe 1992:32). Lacking a model for the
presentation, the painter innovated with European picto-
rial features. He introduced new, taller figural proportions,
shading to define three-dimensional form, lines to describe
the folds of clothing, one-point perspective for Moctezu-
ma’s palace (69r), and a contour line that breaks, thins, and
thickens as it defines form (Robertson 1959:66–67, 106)
(figures 5.12–5.16). The painter also organized many figures
into scenes, wherein one individual interacts with another
in a shared time and location in what is essentially experi-
ential space.
An example is the comparison of the sign for the ruler
Ahuitzotl in part one and the representation of a father
and his son in part three (figure 5.17). The first is not a
depiction of the physicality of the ruler, whereas the father
and his son are. Ahuitzotl’s status and occupation as ruler
are conveyed by the figure’s seated posture on a reed mat,
the pointed turquoise diadem on his head, and the small
speech scroll to the right of his mouth, which signifies his
title of tlatoani (speaker). We identify this figure as Ahui­
tzotl because of the name sign attached to his head. Just to
the right, the shield-and-spears symbol for war marks the
presentation as a message of victory, but the ruler is not
pictured actually interacting with this symbol. This is not
a likeness of Ahuitzotl but a sign marking his identity. In
contrast, the father and his son in part three are rendered
as physical beings. The father is pictured as a male body
sitting on a low mat with a cloak wrapped loosely about
his limbs and torso, its folds emphasized; his speech scroll
is the action of his instructions to his son, who lies in tears
on the damp earth as punishment. Both these latter fig-
ures are corporeal beings rather than signs. They are linked
together in a scenic space that belongs only to them, to
which are assigned the blue disks representing the son’s
twelve years and the one and a half tortillas that he receives
at each meal.
The painting of Moctezuma’s palace on folio 69r stands
out for its conspicuous use of linear perspective and
Moctezuma’s three-quarter pose (Howe 1992:29–30) (fig-
ure 5.15). Here the three-story palace is articulated with
converging orthogonals to describe its receding depth.
Although Moctezuma is canonically seated on his mat
5.17. Symbol for the ruler Ahuitzotl with the sign of war in part one (left) compared with the mimetic representation of a corporeal father punishing
his crying son, who spends the night on the damp earth. Codex Mendoza, MS Arch. Selden. A. 1, fol. 13r, 60r. Photo Bodleian Libraries.
with appropriate blue crown and cloak, the painter turned
the ruler’s face to confront the viewer and rotated his torso
and lower legs awkwardly toward the front. He also gave
fullness to the ruler’s dark beard. This painting is on a sheet
of paper that differs from the others in the codex, so it has
been suggested that the painting was inserted to replace an
earlier, less successful one.34
Commentator
The annotations and commentaries are likewise by a single
individual, who was well versed in Nahuatl; he may have
also been assisted by intermediary experts in pictography
who voiced and explained the paintings to him.35 His coda
on the final page of the manuscript (71v) apologizes for
the rough style of the interpretation of the images. Refer-
ring to himself in the third person as the interpreter, he
claims facility in Nahuatl and complains that he was given
the painted version to annotate only ten days before the
departure of the fleet and that “he interpreted it carelessly
because the Indians came to agreement late.”36 This refer-
ence to “the Indians” implies that he himself was European
and also suggests that native voices helped him interpret
the paintings. He explains the legalistic tone of some of
the written notes by saying that because of the rush “it was
interpreted according to legal conventions” (Berdan and
Anawalt 1992, 4:148).
Throughout the manuscript, the scribe took pains to
label every painted image, even when such labeling was
repetitious. His summaries on the facing pages generally
repeat what is painted and glossed. In part one, however,
his commentary exceeds the painted content to elaborate
on the founding of Tenochtitlan, to provide information
about the virtues, wives, and children of the Aztec rul-
ers, and to speak more fully about Moctezuma’s rule. His
emphasis on Moctezuma in part one and again with Moc­
tezuma’s palace in part three is justified, given the ruler’s
importance for the project. In the tribute list of part two,
the scribe reiterated all tribute items and quantities and,
for the early provinces, explained the Mexican overseers.
Because of the topical complexity of the third part and
its lack of repetition, his annotations and summaries take
more responsibility than do those in parts one and two.
Here the commentator glossed all the objects and figures,
as he did in the other parts, but used his commentaries to
explain the actions and sometimes the motivations of the
figures in order for them to be understood. These sum-
maries on the facing pages do more than repeat the painted
and glossed images; they flesh out the account and bring
coherence to the paintings.
According to Gómez Tejada (2012:129–130, n.d.b), who
has studied the handwriting in detail, the writing was likely
accomplished over nine days. The commentator returned
to various parts from time to time to correct mistakes,
especially in part one, where he initially misdated the start
of the rulers’ reigns. A few other mistakes remained uncor-
rected, and some are quite surprising for a commentator
well versed in Nahuatl and presumably somewhat familiar
with pictography. These include his Nahuatl misnumber-
ing of several years to reach the impossible coefficient of
fourteen (although his Spanish labels were correct) (1v)
and switching the names of two of the founders (2r); these
suggest he was copying a source and not actually looking
Early Compilations • 81
at the painted figures. In the tribute section, however, he
amended some of the paintings to add missing quantities
for tribute items (19r, 22r, 24v) and a missing cord to one
of the feather ornaments (49r). This also can be explained
by the likelihood that he was copying a source.
The final coda (71v) clearly indicates that the Codex
Mendoza was not a singular effort but a group project.
The painter controlled the composition and content (Cal-
nek 1992:82, 91), and the commentator made it possible for
a Spanish reader to understand them. The goal of both
was to present Aztec culture in the most favorable light.
Wherever possible, both painter and annotator stressed
the good abilities and virtues of the Mexica rulers, war-
riors, and people as well as the geographic breadth and
great riches of an empire, characterized by hard-working,
skilled people governed by just rules. It is surprising that
the scribe did not add an overarching introduction to the
work as a whole or an introduction to any of its three parts.
Another scribe later added short headings (e.g., “the second
part of the historia”: 18v) to differentiate the three parts.37
Otherwise they are distinguished only by their different
contents and presentational structures.
Sources and Cognates
The Codex Mendoza belongs within a cluster of painted
and written texts, some extant but others lost, that were
circulating or being painted in the 1540s and 1550s. The
painted version of part one is related to the Leyenda de los
soles text and to title page vignettes in Antonio de Herrera’s
Historia. The painted version of the tribute roll is affiliated
with both the Matrícula de Tributos and a text of 1554.
Although there is no known cognate for the painted ver-
sion of part three, which is unique, some sentences of its
text commentary and the text commentary of part one are
related to Gerónimo de Mendieta’s Historia. Because of
the Mendieta connection, some scholars have also linked
the codex to Andrés de Olmos and specifically to his lost
Suma. However, since the Codex Mendoza left on the fleet
shortly after it was completed, it is not likely to have been
the source for the others. These other manuscripts and the
Mendoza must derive from another version or versions.
The Leyenda de los soles, a Nahuatl text derived from
a lost pictorial source, records Aztec cosmological and
secular history, beginning with the four previous ages and
continuing through to the Mexica imperial conquests.38
Although it survives only in a seventeenth-century copy,
it has internal dates of 1558 and 1561 (Velázquez 1975:xxi,
82 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
119; Bierhorst 1992b:162n85). The part of the Leyenda that
records the founding of Tenochtitlan and the conquests of
the Mexica rulers contains the same detailed information
as in the painted version of Mendoza part one, without
elaboration (Boone 1992:38–39). It is phrased like a sim-
plified reading of the Mendoza paintings. For example,
for the rule of Chimalpopoca it states: “Here reigned the
son of Huitzilihuitl, his name [was] Chimalpopoca; he
reigned ten years. Chalco. Tequixquiac. 20 years. 4 Rab-
bit. Here are his conquests. Chimalpopoca conquered two
towns.” For all the rulers it states their name, genealogical
relationship to previous rulers, duration of their reign,
beginning year of the reign in the Aztec count, and the
towns they conquered, giving the same dates and reign
lengths as in the Mendoza paintings but sequencing the
conquests differently. The Leyenda does not mention
some figures in the Mendoza that embellish the basic
conquest list, so these probably were not in the Leyenda’s
pictorial source.39 Nor does the Leyenda agree with the
Mendoza commentaries, which give different reign dates
and describe characteristics of the rulers (e.g., their valor,
number of wives, and governing acumen). Other slight
inconsistencies (and the lack of time) indicate that the
Leyenda could not have been derived from the Mendoza
itself before it was annotated, so there must have been
another source document.
This painted manuscript may have been the one that
Herrera’s engraver used for a vignette on the title page for
the Descripción de las Indias issued with Herrera’s Historia
(Nicholson 1992:2–4; Boone 1992:39–41). Although some
of these vignettes were derived from a lost manuscript
of the Magliabechiano Group, one shows Acamapichtli
seated facing the shield-and-spears symbol of war and with
the place signs of his four conquests, as on Mendoza fol. 2v.
An eagle in a vignette on the title page for Herrera’s Década
segunda may derive from the prototype’s foundation scene.
Warrior costumes in other vignettes suggest that this lost
pictorial may have also contained a tribute roll featuring
warrior costumes, as do the Mendoza part two and the
Matrícula.40
A connection between part one of the Codex Mendoza
and Sahagún’s Manuscript of Tlatelolco (a draft for parts
of the Florentine Codex) has also been proposed ( Jimé-
nez Moreno 1938:xlvii, n88; Gómez de Orozco 1941:50–51)
because of perceived similarities in the lengths of the
reigns of rulers. Sahagún noted in the manuscript that he
obtained updated information on the reign lengths from a
relación “given by the Tenochcas to Juan González” (Boone
1992:42). This led Gómez de Orozco to propose González
as the commentator of the Mendoza. However, Sahagún’s
updated reign lengths agree with those in the Mendoza for
only three of the nine rulers (Boone 1992:42), which makes
the González/Sahagún connection less likely.
The tribute roll of the Mendoza is very close to both
the pictorial Matrícula de Tributos and a 1554 text, the
Información sobre los tributos que los indios pagaban a Moc­
tezuma, that was prepared that year for Charles V (Scholes
and Adams 1957).41 Most scholars consider the Matrícula
to be a Preconquest document dating from the last years of
Moctezuma’s reign, and several have argued that it was the
source for the Mendoza tribute list.42 However, a nearly
identical painted tribute list also existed at about this time;
it was the source used by the writer of the Información, who
referred to it as a “libro de pinturas” (Scholes and Adams
1957:61). Some have proposed that the Mendoza was also
derived from this lost pictorial, for the Mendoza contains
data not currently in the Matrícula, lacks some of its data,
and varies in the quantities of some items (Berdan 1976,
1992:56–63, 158–159). The evidence is not decisive, for some
of this variety may have arisen from the copying process
and later losses. What is clear is that the Mendoza trib-
ute paintings and probably the annotations were copied
from a preexisting pictorial. Several painted tribute rolls
were circulating or being prepared at the same time as the
Codex Mendoza. The lost “libro de pinturas” or another
pictorial with tribute information may have been one of
the manuscripts that Herrera’s printer used for his title
page vignettes.
The paintings of part three have no known counter-
parts, but some of its commentary relating to Moctezuma’s
judiciary (68v) and the commentary of part one reappear
in chapters 34–36, book 2, of Gerónimo de Mendieta’s
Historia eclesiástica indiana of 1596 (Gibson and Glass
1975:341; Boone 1992:38; Gómez Tejada 2012:181–200,
n.d.a). These chapters cover the founding and lords of
Tenochtitlan with their conquests, through but not beyond
Moctezuma. Mendieta’s text replicates the Mendoza com-
mentary, including errors and reign dates that also appear
in the final Mendoza texts (but not the paintings), and uses
some identical phrasings (Boone 1992:38, 51–53; Gómez
Tejada 2012:181–200). Mendieta did not have access to the
Mendoza itself, so he used either a quickly made transcript
or a manuscript with virtually the same commentary that
stayed in Mexico.43
Mendieta claimed that his Preconquest information
came from Motolinía and Olmos. Motolinía’s writings do
not overlap appreciably with the Mendoza, so Olmos’s lost
works are implicated here.44 Thevet may have believed that
Olmos was the Mendoza’s author. In his “Grand Insulaire”
(ca. 1586–1588) he claimed to own two Mexican picto-
rial manuscripts that have been securely identified as the
Codex Mendoza and the painted source for the Histoyre
du Mechique, which, he said, were “written by hand by a
monk who lived there around thirty-four years, exercis-
ing the charge of a bishop of that country” (Nicholson
1992:5–6). Here Thevet may have conflated Bishop Juan
de Zumárraga (in Mexico twenty years) and Olmos (in
Mexico forty-three years).45 Working from other lines
of evidence, Edouard de Jonghe (1905:2–3) and Georges
Baudot (1995:205–208) have also identified Olmos as the
author of the Histoyre prototype. Jorge Gómez Tejada
(2012:181–200) has argued that Olmos was the source for
the Codex Mendoza commentary as well.
Thus, in all likelihood, the Codex Mendoza is a fresh
copy of one or two colonial manuscripts that presented the
Mexica annals history and the tribute roll in virtually the
same way. The painted conquest history derives ultimately
from a Preconquest annals that ended during the last years
of Moctezuma’s rule, but the Mendoza version was surely
copied from a colonial copy of this older source that was
also used for the Leyenda. The written commentary for
the history was also taken from an earlier source cognate
with a section of Mendieta’s Historia. The painted tribute
list (part two) was copied either from the Matrícula or
from another document, such as the prototype for the 1554
Información. There is no identifiable source for the painted
content of part three, but the written commentary pertain-
ing to Moctezuma and his judicial system was derived from
another manuscript, probably the same source used for the
commentary of part one.
Although the Mendoza painter was a master of indig-
enous pictography and the scribe claimed to be well versed
in Nahuatl, both worked from preexisting sources. The
rush to send the Codex Mendoza on the fleet and its
overwhelmingly pictorial format were probably factors
that explain its lack of introductory and concluding texts,
epistles to the reader, and a formal title page. Like so many
other early colonial ethnographies, it provides information
unencumbered by overt editorializing. Its clear goal, how-
ever, was to present the Aztec people as morally upright,
hard working, and subject to an advanced legal system and
Early Compilations • 83
to present the imperial rulers as valiant warriors and hon-
orable and just rulers.
Early Compilations
The Codex Borbonicus and Codex Mendoza represent
distinct stands in the fabric of early colonial ethnogra-
phies. The first is solely concerned with religious ideology
and ritual practices and was likely prepared to remain in
Mexico, where it could inform those who would combat
idolatry. The second eschews these topics altogether, with
the exception of brief depictions of rituals that accompany
life events, such as naming and marriage, and such ordi-
nary priestly activities as incensing. Instead, the Mendoza
focuses on the military and economic success of the empire
and the virtue of its rulers and people. It was made for
and sent immediately to readers in Europe. Although the
two manuscripts separate religion from history, many of
those manuscripts that come later will embrace some
of both. The Codex Telleriano-Remensis and its copy, the
Codex Ríos, will reproduce a pictorial tonalamatl as well as
various types of painted histories. The Historias of Durán
and Sahagún will also include these topics among others;
Sahagún’s especially will also expand the coverage of Aztec
social life in many different directions.
The Borbonicus and Mendoza are just the two survivors
of what must have been a considerable corpus of picto-
rial compilations that were being passed around, copied,
and created anew in the first half of the sixteenth century.
Although the Borbonicus has no known cognates,46 the
Codex Mendoza belongs to an extended family of pictori-
als, almost all of which have been lost. This family includes
the Matrícula de Tributos, the source of the 1554 Infor-
mación, a pictorial used by Herrera in Spain, one that was
copied into the Leyenda de los soles, and manuscripts per-
haps by Olmos used by Mendieta. Oviedo tells of Viceroy
Mendoza commissioning manuscripts in multiple copies
meant for Spain and also to be kept in Mexico.
Some other early pictorial compilations of Preconquest
ideology are preserved only in alphabetic transcriptions and
translations that remain structurally close to their painted
sources. The Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas, for
example, was derived from a diverse collection of pictorial
material that was gathered and put together between 1530
and 1537, probably by Andrés de Olmos.47 Lacking a rhe-
torical structure that binds the materials together, it is a set
of unconnected sections pertaining to different topics. Its
84 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
sources included painted cosmologies and cosmographies,
cartographic migration histories, annals of imperial Mexico
and other polities, and probably a divinatory manuscript,
among others. The prototype of the Histoyre du Mechique,
also attributed to Olmos and dating between 1535 and 1543,
is another diverse collection of materials from different
pictorial sources.48 These include migration histories as
well as several cosmographies and mythic stories involv-
ing different polities. Thevet owned the painted compi-
lation from which he made his French translation. The
Anales de Cuauhtitlan and the Leyenda de los soles likewise
unite cosmogonies, cosmographies, and annals histories
and were clearly derived at least partially from pictorial
sources. They trace the continuous story of Cuauhtitlan
and Mexico from the first creation to the conquest. It is not
clear whether they each represent compilations of different
pictorial genres or whether they are translations of a kind
of historical genre that begins with the first creation and
continues to contemporary times. Their parts, however, do
reflect pictorial origins.
One manuscript from this period that stands out
from the other early ethnographies is the Relación de
Michoacán, commissioned by Viceroy Mendoza and dat-
ing 1539–1541.49 A local Franciscan friar, now identified
as Jerónimo de Alcalá, researched, organized, and wrote
the text and then employed several artists to add illus-
trations. He gave his octavo-sized book of 139 pages the
descriptive title “Relaçión de las çeremonias y rrictos y
poblaçion y gobernaçion de los yndios de la provinçia de
Mechuacán” (Afanador-Pujol 2015:2). Although it treats
both ideological and secular topics, it is fundamentally
different from the Borbonicus, Mendoza, and other pic-
torial ethnographies considered here because it is a tex-
tual report, in the nature of an informe, that responded
specifically to Mendoza’s request for information on the
customs of the area in order to help him govern it more
efficiently. The literary genre it follows is European rather
than indigenous. Its original three parts—describing reli-
gious ceremonies, Preconquest history, and ethnographic
practices and postconquest history—derived from oral
accounts rather than painted books. Alcalá interviewed
nobles and elders to build his text, but there is no evidence
that he relied on pictorial prototypes, of which none are
yet known from Michoacán. The Relación’s pictorial com-
ponent was added at the very end, when Alcalá had sev-
eral artists create small paintings to illustrate the finished
text. These complement the written word and sometimes
help explain features that were not so clearly stated in the
text, but they are not foundational to the book’s content.
Although the paintings sometimes argue positions and
often clarify situations, as Angélica Jimena Afanador-
Pujol (2015) has demonstrated, Alcalá included them in
order to enhance the look and presentational value of the
work considerably.
The European nature of the Relación de Michoacán, as a
text augmented with illustrations, helps point up the dis-
tinctive features of the early colonial pictorial compilations
of central Mexico. These are manuscripts grounded in
painted images that derive from Preconquest pictographic
codices. They bring together but do not unite separate sets
of information derived from different indigenous literary
genres. Their images retain much of the Preconquest fig-
ural canon and diagrammatic structure, such that those
literate in pictography and Aztec culture could read them.
Written texts then follow the images as explanations
intended to inform their nonindigenous audience about
the painted content.
Early Compilations • 85
Chapter 6
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias
Codices Telleriano-Remensis and Ríos and the Magliabechiano Group
T
he friars’ intense interest in indig-
enous ideology and religious practice is borne
out by a cluster of ethnographic compila-
tions that were completed between ca. 1553
and 1565. Some have their roots much earlier, and most
are descendants of manuals created by the missionaries as
working documents, which have not survived. Although
fairly cohesive as a set, they represent two distinct families:
the Codices Telleriano-Remensis and Ríos (also known
as Vaticanus A/Vaticanus 3738) are related as source
(Telleriano-Remensis) and revised and enhanced copy
(Ríos), and the Codices Magliabechiano and Tudela are
the principal extant members of a larger group of cognate
manuscripts known as the Magliabechiano Group. I clas-
sify them together here because of their shared features,
which situate them at a middle distance between the indig-
enous pictographic canons and glossed paintings of the
earlier Borbonicus and Mendoza and the more European
Historias of Durán and Sahagún. The mid-century codi-
ces are remarkable for their focus on religious ideology,
their continued dependence on the primacy of the image,
and their relatively objective presentation of indigenous
thought and behavior.
All the manuscripts contain a set of shared topics—the
eighteen veintena celebrations held every year, the 260-day
ritual/divinatory calendar, and the year count or annals—
but then diverge from there. The Telleriano-Remensis and
Ríos feature a full tonalamatl organized according to the
trecenas as in the Codex Borbonicus. The Tudela has a
tonalamatl organized differently, but the Magliabechiano
86
has only an abbreviated section on the twenty day signs.
The Magliabechiano and Tudela enhance this core material
with records of other feasts, rituals, and religious accou-
terments, limiting their content to the realm of religion.
The Telleriano-Remensis and Ríos, however, ignore other
religious practices outside their veintena and trecena pre-
sentations—although the Ríos inserts a section on sacri-
fice—and add a full annals history instead of a simple year
count, one that tracks Aztec history from the beginning of
the migration to the decades after the conquest. The four
manuscripts come closest together in their coverage of the
veintenas, although the images and interpretations of the
two groups differ.
The Telleriano-Remensis stands out from the others
because it is a working palimpsest that preserves something
of the means by which the friars and their indigenous assis-
tants came to understand Preconquest culture. Painted by
several artists, it was annotated over and over again by dif-
ferent writers who strove for thoroughness and accuracy
and occasionally augmented, changed, and excised others’
comments. This manuscript allows us to see the interpre-
tive process at work. In contrast, the other manuscripts
derive from such drafts; they smooth and elide informa-
tion to fix the content for an external audience. The Tudela
creators added extra images to those of its source and gave
them all new written commentaries, which were edited a
bit, but its final configuration was directed to a European
audience. Both the Magliabechiano and Ríos were created
as clean copies for nonindigenous readers.
All the manuscripts continue the tradition of indigenous
pictographic books. Although they are physically com-
posed of leaves of European paper brought together and
bound in gatherings in the European tradition, they retain
the primacy of the image and use it to establish the manu-
script’s content. The artists executed the figures first, and
only then did the scribes add glosses and texts. The painters
clearly anticipated this written commentary, for they left
space for annotations, either on the page with the images
or on the opposite or following pages. The painters also
adjusted the size and placement of the figures to accom-
modate and take advantage of the distinctive rectangular
shape of the European paper. But they retained as much
as possible the structure of the ancient literary genres. The
Telleriano-Remensis and Ríos especially preserve the for-
mat of tonalamatls and annals histories. Also, the painters
worked largely in the Preconquest pictographic tradition,
although their figures have a new corporeality, and several
experimented with modeling and perspective. In these
ways, the codices display their Preconquest origins but
look to a European presentational mode.
The third shared feature is their neutrality about
Aztec religion and history. They aim to record indigenous
knowledge via annotated paintings unfiltered by external
arguments and overt editorializing. The intentions and
biases of their creators generally remain in the back-
ground. Gods may be demons and devils and some are
compared to biblical personae in the Telleriano-Remensis
and Ríos, but they contain no explicit condemnation of
idolatry. Instead the annotations are ostensibly objective
interpretations, factual in tone if not always accurate. The
manuscripts lack explanatory prologues or epistles to the
reader that would place the documents in a larger con-
text. Only the Magliabechiano has a surviving title page,
which does refer to superstitions and “malos ritos,” but the
subsequent content is rarely conceptualized in the texts as
particularly evil.
The manuscripts generally lack headings and introduc-
tions to define their different sections. In the Telleriano-
Remensis and Ríos, the change in format signals the
change in content from the veintenas to the tonalamatl and
to the annals. The Magliabechiano and Tudela distinguish
the day count, year count, and ritual mantles by format,
but their presentations of the feasts, rites, and pulque
gods simply flow one after another. These manuscripts
offer their audience a series of indigenous-inspired images
identified and explained by annotations.
Codex Telleriano-Remensis
The Codex Telleriano-Remensis continues the documen-
tary trajectory realized in the Borbonicus. Like the earlier
screenfold, it is a compilation of distinct parts related to
the three principal calendars. Dating to the mid-sixteenth
century, it contains a veintena cycle (figure 6.1), a tonalamatl
(figure 6.2), and a count of years further elaborated as an
annals history (figures 6.3–6.7).1 Images painted in the
native tradition continue to carry the foundational infor-
mation, which several writers explain and interpret with
short glosses and longer comments written in Spanish.
Even more than the Borbonicus, the Codex Telleriano-
Remensis reveals how colonial thinkers, who were then
working some three decades after the conquest, tried to
come to terms with the pictographic images and pry them
open as access points into Preconquest religion, calendrics,
and history. Layers of written reflection on the images, what
Quiñones Keber (1995a:111) has described as “discursive
layering,” reveal how the friars approached the business of
interpreting and translating pictography. This is not a clean
copy or a polished accounting of Aztec culture intended for
a distant readership in Europe, but a working document:
a set of pictographic images annotated over time for the
mendicants in central Mexico. In this way it is a mission-
ary manual whose first purpose was to instruct the friars
and their assistants in the Preconquest supernaturals and
practices that they so hoped to extinguish.
Like so many other early Mexican codices, the Codex
Telleriano-Remensis bears the name of a former owner:
Charles-Maurice Le Tellier, archbishop of Reims. It was
part of his extensive collection that was transferred in 1700
to the library now known as the Bibliothèque Nationale
de France.2
The codex was clearly a group project advanced and
altered over some years. The three sections of paintings
seem to have been created separately and then joined
together, for they have different layouts, are missing one
or more pages at the beginning of each section, and have
one or more blank pages at the end (Quiñones Keber
(1995a:122–123). The veintena section also employs a dif-
ferent paper and has a slightly larger format than others,
and it was painted by a single artist who did not contribute
to the other parts.3 Losses have also occurred. Now con-
sisting of fifty folios, the codex once had at least thirteen
additional folios, which were lost after the 1560s when its
paintings were copied and its texts redacted to create the
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 87

Codex Ríos; fortunately, versions of these missing images
and texts survive in the Codex Ríos.4 It is clear, however,
that the Codex Telleriano-Remensis was designed from
the beginning and throughout to contain paintings that
would later be annotated and explained in some detail, for
its images all inhabit only the top half of the pages, which
purposefully apportions much of the page for the explana-
tory notes the compiler expected.
88 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
6.1. Veintena festival of
Panquetzaliztli, featuring the
image of Huitzilopochtli. Codex
Telleriano-Remensis 5r. Bibliothèque
Nationale de France.
Painters and Commentators
The identities of the original painters and the compiler
are unknown, but the Dominican lay brother Pedro de los
Ríos (died 1564/1565) has been identified as the author
of the final and most extensive commentaries (Quiñones
Keber 1995a:131; Anders and Jansen 1996b:24). Those
who have investigated the provenience most thoroughly
generally agree that the paintings were finished around
1553–1555 and that some of the annotations were added
during this initial phase, which likely took place in Mexico
City (Quiñones Keber 1995a:131–132; Anders and Jansen
1996b:28). Later, Ríos possessed the manuscript when he
was assigned to the Dominican convent in Puebla, where he
finished annotating the codex in 1562/1563.5 The individual
sections of the codex derive from prototypes that may have
belonged to different geographical traditions. Within the
annals section, Quiñones Keber (1995a:127–128) has sug-
gested a Pueblan origin for the migration account and a
Tlatelolcan affiliation for the imperial account.
The various parts of the codex seem to have been painted
principally by four artists, distributed generally according
to content. Differences in line quality, figural style, and
color palette indicate to me that one artist was responsible
for the veintena cycle (1r–6v) (figure 6.1), a second painted
the tonalamatl (8r–24r) (figure 6.2) and most of the annals
history (29r and thereafter) (figures 6.4–6.7), a third
painted the first part of the annals history dedicated to
the migration (25r–28v) (figure 6.3), and a fourth painted
only the year signs, but not the other figures, on folio 29.6
They worked largely in the native pictorial tradition but
employed longer, leaner body proportions and endowed
the figures with a greater naturalism. These elements mark
their work as colonial.
Four major (and two minor) commentators, whose
interests and knowledge of native religion differed, then
added explanatory notes (Quiñones Keber 1995a:125–127,
326–327n24). Quiñones Keber identified Hand 1 and
Hand 5 as bilingual indigenous men who contributed foun-
dational information. Hand 1 named the veintenas, wrote
the basic information on the tonalamatl, and described the
postmigration annals events up to and including 39r (the
dedication of the Templo Mayor in 1487); from there Hand
5 took up the painted historical events to 1549 (the death of
Zumárraga and the last event painted, 47r) and the years
to 1555 (39v–48r). Hand 2 was the primary annotator of
the veintenas and the one who first dated the veintena festi-
vals; he also explained some of the prognostications in the
tonalamatl. Comments by these three represent the first
period of annotation, which Quiñones Keber (1995a:131–
132) suggests occurred when the manuscript was in Mexico
City.7 Then Ríos (Hand 3) added longer commentaries
to all the sections and extended the annals to 1562. Often
he repeated information provided by the earlier writers,
but he also corrected what he saw as their errors. His role
was interpretive as well as descriptive, for especially in the
tonalamatl section he actively sought analogies with indig-
enous and Christian entities and practices.
Content
Veintenas
The veintena cycle differs considerably from that in the
Borbonicus: it does not pictorially describe the ceremo-
nies themselves but represents each festival with a figure
that usually refers to the supernatural most closely associ-
ated with the events (figure 6.1, table 6.1). George Kubler
and Charles Gibson (1951:39) characterized such figures
as “theomorphic illustrations,” implying that they are not
of the gods themselves but of their human impersonators,
a point on which Quiñones Keber (1995a:136) has agreed.
We can think of them also as veintena “logos” (Nicholson
1988a:243) or “emblems of the ceremonies” (Quiñones
Keber 1995a:121), because they reference the festivals rather
than portray them. In a similar manner, single figure logos
or emblems signify many of the veintenas in the codices
of the Magliabechiano Group, discussed below. The first
annotator named each festival; the second assigned it a
date in the Julian calendar and usually described it briefly.
Then Ríos added notes and comments: he crossed out and
changed the feast dates at least once, named and described
the supernatural, repeated some of what had already been
written, corrected others and himself on various points,
and built a discourse about either the festival or the image
(Quiñones Keber 1995a:138–152). The annotations are rela-
tively short and often digress from the festival, so they con-
tribute relatively little to our understanding of the festivals
themselves. The first six veintenas, which occupied the rec-
tos and versos of now-lost folios, are lacking,8 so the series
begins here with the seventh veintena, Tecuilhuitontli.9
The layout is striking. Each page is devoted to a single
veintena, signified by a single image placed at the top of the
page. When it was first painted, the image commanded
an extravagant amount of paper, where it waited for the
annotators’ words and discussions to complete and draw
out its meaning. The image was the foundation for the unit
of information and the point from which the discursive
text sprang, but neither it nor the glosses could inform
adequately without the other. Indeed, Quiñones Keber’s
description of these images as “emblems of the ceremonies”
is telling, for they do have something of the nature of the
emblems that were so fashionable in Europe at the time,
as discussed in chapter 2. Like the emblems made famous
by Andrea Alciati’s Emblemata (1531), which arrived early
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 89
Table 6.1. The veintena section in the Codex Telleriano-Remensis, fols. 1r–6v

Order Gloss and text Painting Date

7 Tecuilhuitontli, feast of all the lords, Huixtocihuatl, goddess of salt June 29?/24a
minor feast

8 Hueytecuilhuitl, great feast of Standing male in lordly dress July ( )b 14

the lords, when Mexicans evicted
Spaniards from Mexico City

9 Miccailhuitlc [Miccailhuitontli], Corpse bundle with face and costuming Aug ( ) 3

feast of all the dead of Mictlantecuhtli

10 Hueymiccailhuitl, great feast of the Corpse bundle with face and costuming Aug 27?/23
dead, end of Cortés’s war with Mexico of Mictlantecuhtli

11 Ochpaniztli, cleaning, to Toci or Tlazolteotl Sept ( ) 12

Tlazolteotl

12 Pachtontli, waters are left behind, Tezcatlipoca Sept 26/Oct 2

to Tezcatlipoca and others

13 Hueypachtli, of humiliation, Tlaloc bust in mountain with water Oct 16?/22

celebrated all the gods

14 Quecholli, feast of the descent Mixcoatl Nov 4?/11

of Mictlantecuhtli, to Mixcoatl
or Camaxtli, Cortés’s first entry
into Mexico

15 Panquetzaliztli, raising of banners, to Huitzilopochtli Nov 24/Dec 1

Tezcatlipoca, also Huitzilopochtli

16 Atemoztli, descent of waters Tlaloc bust with curl of water Dec 11?/20

17 Tititl, feast of Mixcoatl, to Mixcoatl/ Female with weaving batten Jan 4?/10
Xochiquetzal

18 Izcalli, vigor or ability, feast of fire, Xiuhtecuhtli Jan 24?/30

rejuvenation

Nemontemi Feb 29

a Final dates by Ríos.

b Original number is crossed out and illegible.
c Name as in gloss.
6.2. Trecena 5, beginning on the day 1 Reed and featuring Chalchiuhtlicue as principal patron (left), and the insignia of Tlazolteotl (right). Codex
Telleriano-Remensis 11v–12r. Bibliothèque Nationale de France.
in Mexico, they feature an image that fixes an abstraction
in concrete, visual terms, accompanied by a title and a rela-
tively short discursive text, which together are designed to
elicit the reader’s reflection. There is no Preconquest visual
prototype for this kind of veintena presentation.
Tonalamatl
The second part, devoted to the tonalamatl, looks back to
the ancient literary tradition and reflects its Preconquest
prototype well (figure 6.2). As with the veintena artist, this
painter was well trained in indigenous pictography and
knew religious iconography and calendrics. His trecena
presentations are simpler than those in the Borbonicus,
but they keep to the traditional format. The thirteen days
and their supernatural affiliates (here the nine Lords of
the Night) frame the patrons of the period. Although the
artist has spread the presentation over facing verso-recto
pages and has omitted the framing line around the main
panel, he retains the L-shaped format of the Preconquest
structure. He has stripped away all the subsidiary augural
images in the main panels to present only the principal
patron and a secondary entity and has omitted the Day
Lords and Volatiles. This is an indigenous-style tonalamatl
like that in the Borbonicus, but simplified and placed on
the page to receive commentary.
Despite its relative visual clarity, the tonalamatl in the
Telleriano-Remensis has been difficult for modern schol-
ars to use. Four folios are now missing: those before the
folios now numbered 8, 14, 15, and 18.10 If each trecena were
on a single page, as are the veintenas, this would not be a
problem, but the trecenas are spread across facing verso-
rectos. This means that trecenas 1, 8, 10, and 14 are missing
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 91
the material that was on the left/verso side of the presenta-
tion, while trecenas 7, 9, and 13 are missing the material that
was on the right/recto side. Additionally, when the original
manuscript was rebound after conservation in the 1960s
(Quiñones Keber 1995a:121), the new binding switched
folio 13 with folio 19 (the page numbers look very similar),
which has further confused the pairing of the left and right
sides of trecenas 7, 8, 15, and 16. Although Quiñones Keber’s
commentary takes note of the missing pages and corrects
the switched folios, the facsimile included in the publica-
tion unfortunately does not.
The annotators of the tonalamatl do not so much trans-
late the images and the prognostication as comment on
different aspects (figure 6.2). Hand 1 names the principal
patron and describes his or her main attributes in a few
lines; he also assigns the first trecenas to the earth, sky, or
underworld (adding “Tierra,” “Cielo,” or “Infierno” in the
top left corner of the trecena presentations) but gives up
after trecena 6 (12v). Hand 2 provides information on the
prognostication of those born during that period or on
specific days. Then Ríos (Hand 3) corrects, explains the
names of the gods and their attributes more fully, and adds
commentary. All draw analogies between Mesoamerican
and Christian ideology. For example, Hand 1 describes
Tonacatecuhtli as the lord, creator of all (8r), and Hand 2
likens the eating of the tzoalli loaf during the feast of Pan-
quetzaliztli to communion (5r) and Tamoanchan to the
terrestrial Paradise (19r; see Quiñones Keber 1995a: 256,
258, 266).
Ríos’s commentaries show him seeking to clarify the
complexity of indigenous religion by drawing parallels
between native and Christian conceptions and practices
even more than the others. Reflecting on the biblical flood,
he characterizes the gods in a dozen trecenas as having
come before the flood or having survived the flood.11 For
Ríos, the flood seems to have marked a turning point in
sacrificial practices, from human sacrifices before to more
benign forms like bloodletting later.
Ríos reveals a bias against females when he characterizes
many of the female supernaturals as evil sinners or bringers
of calamity. This occurs once in the veintena section, with
the festival of Ochpaniztli dedicated to Toci/Tlazolteotl,
but especially in the tonalamatl. He equates several with
Eve when she sinned: Xochiquetzal, Tlazolteotl, and Itzpa-
palotl in comments on Ochpaniztli (3r), Ixnextli in trecena
4 (11r), Itzpapalotl in trecena 15 (18v–19r), and Xochiquetzal
in trecena 19 (22v–23r), noting that this sin manifested itself
92 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
in cutting a rose or roses (trecenas 4, 15 [11r, 18v–19r]).12
For him, Tlazolteotl/Ixcuina caused everything evil (tre-
cena 4 [11r]).
Most of the male supernaturals escape negative char-
acterization, with a few exceptions: Huehuecoyotl, the
god of feasting opposite Ixnextli (trecena 4), is described
as a mischief maker and equated to Adam; the blinding
eye-wraps of Itztlacoliuhqui and his position opposite two
adulterers who are being stoned to death (trecena 12 [16v])
also elicits an analogy with Adam after he sinned in Para-
dise, and Tezcatlipoca’s position opposite Xochiquetzal
(trecena 19 [23r]) transforms him in Ríos’s gloss into the
devil who tempted Eve/Xochiquetzal. The creator gods
Tonacatecuhtli and Tonacacihuatl occupy a special place,
however; the annotators do their best to present them as
omnipotent supernaturals above the fray and foibles of the
others. For the first trecena, pertaining to these gods, Hand
1 writes down a series of titles (“god, lord, creator, ruler
of all”) that establish a general parallel with the Christian
god, and Ríos adds that no sacrifice was made to them
(8r). Later he says that Tonacatecuhtli and Tonacacihuatl
cast out the gods (including Itzpapalotl) who transgressed
by cutting roses (trecena 15 [18v–19r]), clearly paralleling
the Christian Expulsion from Paradise. Ríos treats other
supernaturals more neutrally, but he brings in Christian
analogies when he can.
Ríos also adds the letters “b/v,”“m,” or “i” for bueno, malo,
or indiferente (malum, bonum, indiferens) toward the edges
of the page beside the Night Lords and their days to indi-
cate the properties of these days. This system falls in the
tradition of medieval almanacs that specified the effects
of lunar and zodiacal forces on the medical practices of
bloodletting and purging, a tradition imported into New
Spain and commonly found in the popular Reportorios de
los tiempos (Spitler 2005:78–86; Diel 2018:62–68). Ríos
was clearly familiar with both this European tradition and
the indigenous auguries for the Lords of the Night, for he
assigns the Night Lords positive, negative, or neutral influ-
ences that are reflected pictographically in the Preconquest
Codex Borgia (p. 14) and Codex Fejérváry-Mayer (pp.
2–4) (Boone 2007:97–99).13 Here we have an example of
indigenous knowledge that once resided in pictographic
expression now being conveyed by means of alphabetic
texts employed according to a European medieval conven-
tion. The analogy between the Night Lords and the moon
and zodiac as nighttime phenomena is a natural one for
Ríos to have made.
Annals
Like the tonalamatl, the annals history that follows (25r–
49r) conforms generally to indigenous traditions, as we
understand them (Boone 2000:197–237) (figures 6.3–6.7).
It treats Aztec history from the beginning of the migration,
past the founding of Tenochtitlan, its imperial growth, and
the Spanish conquest, to 1549, when the last event is pic-
torially recorded, although the painted years continue to
1555. Ríos himself then extended the annals to 1562, and
another commentator, Hand 6, added two pages of notes
(49v–50r) that date other events to specific years, in an
annalistic style but not in chronological order.14
This pictorial history seems to have been physically
assembled from two parts: the migration story and the
post foundation story, which are distinguished by differ-
ent formats and by different artists. One artist painted
the migratory part of the annals (25r–28v, figure 6.3),15
6.3. Migration history, during which the migrants defeat the local defenders of different places, with the god-bearer figure at the top right. Codex
Telleriano-Remensis 26v–27r. Bibliothèque Nationale de France.
and the artist of the tonalamatl painted the rest (29r–49v,
figures 6.4–6.7), with another artist responsible only for
the year signs on 29rv. Hand 1, who wrote the founda-
tional information for the tonalamatl, was responsible
for annotating the history; he did so through 39r, when
Hand 5, another indigenous writer, took up the project;
Ríos added only a few comments himself. Someone,
and it is unclear who, correlated the native year signs
with the Julian calendar throughout, and someone else
changed them. The written commentaries in the history
are relatively straightforward, factual, and free of the
kind of digressive interpretation and Christian analogy
that characterize the veintena and tonalamatl sections.
The annotators expressed clearly the essential message
of most of the painted images—the facts of time, place,
protagonist, and event—and explicated them with help
from the elders, to whom they sometimes refer. Some
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 93
6.4. Annals history: the preimperial lords of Tenochtitlan. Codex Telleriano-Remensis 30v–31r. Bibliothèque Nationale de France.
place signs and individuals remain unnamed and some
events unremarked, however.
The migration history (25r–28v) merges an annals his-
tory with a cartographic history (figure 6.3). It features
a ribbon of year signs—uniquely painted yellow in red
frames—running left to right along the lower half of the
page (originally ten to a page), with the action pictured
in the upper half but totally unconnected to the year
signs below.16 Interspersed with thirty-six place signs,
the migrants are suitably equipped with rustic capes and
bows and arrows. They hunt game at the beginning of the
migration but soon concentrate on the conquest of white-
clad locals (who are pictured pierced through with their
arrows). Lines of footprints aim the action in many dif-
ferent directions, so the actual chronology of the migra-
tion is unclear. A distinctive man carrying weapons and
a burden (like a god-bearer, who would be expected in
94 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
the migration) was added at the top of the last four pages,
possibly to move the story along (figure 6.3, top right).
Robertson (1959:109–110) proposed that the pictographic
account here reflected an annals sequence overlaid on a car-
tographic tira, which he reconstructed in general outline.
The merging of these two forms created what Robertson
recognized as an “unresolved competition” between the
cartographic and annals forms of history. This competi-
tion likely made it difficult for the annotator to explain the
action, as Hand 1 only names the place signs but does not
otherwise comment.
The beginning and end of this migration history are lost.
The first page, which would have preceded 25r, featured the
seven caves of Chicomoztoc with the seven emerging eth-
nic groups being called forth by Huitzilopochtli, who faces
them on 25r.17 The last page, which would have followed
28, recorded the final approach to Chapultepec in the valley
6.5. Annals history: events from the death of Itzcoatl (13 Reed) to the great famine (1 Rabbit). Codex Telleriano-Remensis 31v–32r. Bibliothèque
Nationale de France.
of Mexico.18 Copies of these are preserved in the Codex
Ríos, as described below.
Thereafter the format and painting style of the annals
change. The work of the migration painter ends, and that
of the tonalamatl painter begins. The year signs no longer
run along the lower half of the page but wrap around the
events as a U or L shape. In figure 6.4, for example, the
years 6 Reed to 9 Reed frame the death (corpse bundle) of
Huitzilihuitl and the accession of Chimalpopoca pictured
above him; then the years 10 Flint to 12 Reed frame Chi-
malpopoca’s death, the Tepanec war, and the accession of
Itzcoatl below.19 With the death of Itzcoatl and the seating
of Moctezuma I on 31v, the years stabilize as a sequence
across the top of the page. Events are only attached to
some; for example, there is a seven-year hiatus after Moct-
ezuma’s accession until a devastating snowstorm in 7 Reed
and another hiatus until the great famine in 1 Rabbit
(figure 6.5).20 The tonalamatl painter initially clustered the
years tightly, but he soon spread them out two to four to
a page and maintained this spacing thereafter, recording
events for most (figures 6.6–6.7). Throughout, the years
are also painted more traditionally with frames, year signs,
and numbers in blue against a red background.
Again, folios are missing: two before 29, one before 41,
and two more before 44 (we can recover their content from
the copies in the Codex Ríos).21 Together with the miss-
ing Chicomoztoc page, these represent some of the most
important events in Aztec history. The first two (before 29)
finished the migratory story by recounting the expulsion
of the Aztecs from Chapultepec and their servitude under
Culhuacan and then began the imperial annals with the
founding of Tenochtitlan and the seating of Acamapich-
tli as its first ruler. The folio before 41 recounted a series
of Ahuitzotl’s major conquests toward the south and the
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 95
6.6. Annals history: the civil war of 1473 (7 House). Codex Telleriano-Remensis 36v. Bibliothèque Nationale de France.
opening of the Acuecuexco aqueduct, which soon flooded
Mexico-Tenochtitlan. Most crucially, the two lost folios
before 44 recorded the arrival of Cortés, the conquest of
Mexico-Tenochtitlan, the death of Cuauhtemoc, and the
arrival of the Franciscans in 1524, among other significant
events. It is striking that these major events in Tenochca
history are all missing. The dedication of the Templo Mayor
in 1486 (39r) is the only comparable great event that is still
preserved. I doubt that these other pages were purposefully
expunged, because the Templo Mayor dedication (with its
recounting of massive sacrifices) was not. Rather, I suspect
that these folios pictured events of such importance that
they could have been removed for further copying and then
never found their way back into the manuscript.22
The affiliations of the Telleriano-Remensis annals his-
tory are not yet fully resolved. Although Huitzilopochtli’s
presence at the start of the migration points to a Mexica
source, Quiñones Keber (1995a:202–203) identified most
of the place signs on the route as being located in Puebla-
Tlaxcala and therefore suggested a Pueblan perspective for
this part. This is also borne out by features of the Chico-
moztoc presentation preserved in the Ríos, as discussed
below. Certainly this migratory presentation that merges
cartographic and annals genres and employs the distinc-
tively painted year signs (figure 6.3) derives from a separate
source than the rest of the history; it seems also to have
been painted as a distinct document. When the tonala-
matl painter took over (on 29r) to complete the migration,
however, the focus clearly became Tenochtitlan, its found-
ing, and the usual events that led up to it. The Telleriano-
Remensis history thereafter remains largely grounded in
Tenochtitlan, but it is one of the few annals histories that
also brings in information from several polities. In its early
postfoundation years it includes all the Texcocan and Tla-
telolcan rulers as well as the Mexica ones. As Quiñones
Keber (1995a:198) has pointed out, its presentation of the
civil war of 1473 against Tlatelolco shows the Tlatelolcan
ruler Moquihuix defending his temple against the Mexica
rather than his ignoble defeat (as depicted in the Codex
Mendoza) (figure 6.6). This suggested to her a Tlatelolcan
perspective. Although the concerns of Tenochtitlan domi-
nate throughout, the annals history looks beyond the usual
tight focus on a single polity.
The annals history moves seamlessly from the Prehis-
panic past into the colonial near present. No rupture marks
the end of one era and the beginning of another; instead
the history shows a gradual process of cultural merging
and adjustment. It continues to concentrate on those in
charge, who now include the conquerors, viceroys, admin-
istrators, and religious figures, in addition to indigenous
rulers (figure 6.7). In the six-year period 1 Flint to 6 House
(1532–1537) the annalist notes (left to right) the arrival of
Bishop Juan de Zumárraga (1 Flint) and Viceroy Antonio
de Mendoza on horseback (3 Rabbit), the passing of staffs
of authority, earthquakes (2 House and 6 House), the death
of an unidentified ruler (4 Reed), the seating of two rulers
in Tenochtitlan (5 Flint), the hanging of a Christian Afri-
can man (after an uprising), and several sightings of smok-
ing planets. The painter retains the traditional convention
for the deaths and accessions of indigenous rulers and for
non-Spanish events, such as earthquakes and other natu-
ral phenomena, but he expands the pictographic repertory
to include the arrival and departure of Europeans, local
punishments, the Mixton war where Aztecs and Spaniards
fought side by side, and deaths from epidemics. Europeans
acquire name glyphs and often are conventionally signi-
fied on horseback or seated on hip-chairs as signs of their
authority and are pictorially flattened on the page. They
are thus embraced by and become subject to the indig-
enous pictographic system. But the painter’s renderings
of Europeans are looser and more plastic, characterized
by longer and leaner bodies than those of the indigenous
people. With religious leaders, such as Juan de Zumárraga,
the painter introduces the European practice of modeling
in light and shadow to define the volumes of their habits
(figure 6.7, left).
The three sections of the Codex Telleriano-Remensis—
the veintenas, tonalamatl, and annals—express different
relationships with the ideology, history, and pictographic
expressions of the Preconquest period. The tonalamatl
remains the most conservative, for it retains the traditional
format, only here simplified and spread across two facing
pages (reflecting the Preconquest dictate that pictographic
units can span only the interior fold of facing pages). The
principal concession to its colonial context is that the
painter located the images toward the top of the page to
allow room for extensive commentary. The trecena patrons
have longer bodies, looser forms, and sketchier lines that
are found in the Preconquest style of the Borbonicus, but
they retain the essentially ideoplastic nature of traditional
pictography and occupy its empty ground.
In contrast, the veintena section has the flavor of a
colonial construct, because each festival is signified by one
anthropomorphic figure that, emblemlike, grounds the
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 97
written explanation of the festival and its supernatural. Its
figures, like those in the tonalamatl, retain the ideoplasticity
and dense accretion of visual attributes that are hallmarks
of Preconquest pictography, but they are marked by less
precision of line and form. Five retain the pinwheel pose,
which positions one bent leg forward and one down, with
both arms outstretched in front, the hands holding accou-
terments (figure 6.1); this is the pose characteristic of most
trecena patrons in the tonalamatl. The three females deviate
from this only in the disposition of their legs, which more
closely approaches standing (figure 6.2). The use of this
distinctive pose strongly suggests to me that these veintena
figures were derived from trecena patrons or other super-
naturals so posed in the divinatory almanacs (e.g., male
Day Lords in the Borbonicus) or—if a veintena cycle had
indeed been painted before the conquest—then from simi-
larly posed figures there.
The historical section clearly looks back to indigenous
6.7. Annals history: postconquest events of 1532–1537 (1 Flint–6 House). Codex Telleriano-Remensis 44v–45r. Bibliothèque Nationale de France.
98 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
traditions, but it also reveals itself to be a colonial product
in several ways. In the migration account, the artist took
a traditional cartographic presentation that would have
spanned a long strip of paper or hide and segmented it
onto individual pages. This not only broke up the story but
also obscured the left-right flow the story needs. In order
to keep the flow going, he added a god-bearer at the top
of several pages. Toward the bottom of the page, the addi-
tion of the strip of years—so unconnected to the action
above—seems to make no chronological sense. However,
it does indicate that the migration took a long time and
that the history—from Chicomoztoc through the con-
quest—was unbroken. An independent migration and an
unbroken history of direct rule were claims that polities
tried to make when they sought cabecera status (Gibson
1964:44; Schroeder 1991:123–124; Smith and Parmenter
1991:20, 32; Lockhart 1992:15–16), so the year count does
serve an important function.
 The postmigration account keeps to tradition in iden-
tifying events largely by flat signs and tying them to the
years with a line, but it spreads out the years, eventually set-
tling on two or three per page, which is probably a colonial
adaptation. The painter also signifies events with greater
narrative figuration than is seen in other annals, which
usually employ a single glyph for an event. Where in other
annals a conquest is rendered by a burning temple (Codex
Mendoza) or the shield-spears glyph for war/conquest
next to the place signs (Codices Mexicanus and Aubin),
the artist here often pictures two individuals in combat
(figure 6.6). The postconquest history then opens up to
new protagonists and events related to them. The painter
still renders indigenous people and events by conventional
signs but is freer with the Europeans (figure 6.7). He brings
Europeans into the pictographic system and assigns them
name signs, but he treats them with more flexibility; they
are less ideoplastic and more corporeal than the others.
The Telleriano-Remensis is one of only two primary
working documents created as part of the evangelical and
ethnographic enterprise of the sixteenth century to have
survived until now: the Primeros memoriales is the other
(chapter 7). Its paintings show multiple artists retaining
old forms and creating new content relevant to a mid-
sixteenth-century reality. The inclusion of the veintena
cycle, the divinatory cycle, and an annals history suggests a
special interest on the part of the original patron in indig-
enous calendars and the meanings attached to units of
time. The manuscript’s many annotators then worked with
and around the images to draw out meaning as they could,
returning to the manuscript time and again to update their
notes. Together the artists and annotators give insight into
the process by which traditional pictography was called
upon both to recapture ancient knowledge and to retain
its documentary agency some decades after the conquest.
Codex Ríos
The Codex Ríos moves closer to the distant European audi-
ence it was created to serve. Unlike the Codex Telleriano-
Remensis, this mid-century compilation was not intended
to be viewed, amended, and used in New Spain but was
specifically created to be sent to Europe in order to inform
an educated reader (in this case an Italian probably living
in Rome and connected to the Vatican) about the ideology,
calendars, and cultural practices of Preconquest Mexico. Its
texts are in Italian, with a smattering of Latin, apparently
written by individuals who spoke Spanish.23 Painted
between 1558 and 1563 and annotated fairly soon there-
after (Anders and Jansen 1996b:27), the manuscript was
received in the Vatican by 1565 or 1566.24 Its texts attribute
the project to the Dominican friar Pedro de los Ríos, who
owned and extensively annotated the Codex Telleriano-
Remensis. It has since remained in the Vatican and is often
called by its document number, Codice Vaticano Latino
3738, or Codex Vaticanus A by Mesoamericanists, to dis-
tinguish it from the Preconquest divinatory manuscript
that is Vaticano Latino 3773 or Vaticanus B.25
Much of its content is derived from the Codex
Telleriano-Remensis, whose paintings were copied and
whose glosses were redacted and streamlined. But the Ríos
has a broader and more encyclopedic purview than the
Telleriano-Remensis, for it reaches out beyond the three
calendars (the veintenas, tonalpohualli, and year count/
annals) to embrace a wider range of ideological and cultural
practices. Like Sahagún’s Florentine Codex, it aligns with
some of the features in the medieval encyclopedic tradition.
It opens with an account of Aztec cosmology and sacred
history, as a type of Genesis. After the calendars but before
the annals history, it includes a section on indigenous ritual
practice and regional dress. These two additional sections
were derived from other manuscripts of different genres,
which have not survived (Anders and Jansen 1996b:27).
A situation that has complicated understanding of the
Codex Ríos is that sometime before 1900 some of its folios
were misordered: the manuscript was bound and then
paginated with this incorrect order. The otherwise super-
lative ADEVA facsimile of 1979 preserves this order, but
other editions have rearranged the folios and renumbered
them accordingly (Ehrle 1900; Corona Núñez 1964–1967;
Anders and Jansen 1996b).26 I use the “corrected” page
numbers of the Anders and Jansen (1996b) edition.
The codex continues to participate in the indigenous
tradition insofar as its paintings largely reflect the indig-
enous canon of flat ideoplastic forms on a neutral ground.
Like the Codex Telleriano-Remensis and native-style
documents before it, its paintings are also structured and
purposefully located so as to span the verso-recto spread of
open facing pages, which reflects the Preconquest tradition
of organizing content to span an interior fold but not an
exterior one. Only the inserted section of miscellaneous
customs (54r–61v) begins on a recto. Moreover, the paint-
ings still dominate the pages, and the texts and shorter
glosses were written expressly to explain these paintings
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 99
and to extract and elaborate from them the author’s under-
standings about Aztec ideology and culture. But even more
than the Codex Telleriano-Remensis, it is conceptually and
physically a book in the European tradition, containing
some 100 oversize folios of European paper.27 The artists
followed its source in locating the paintings in the upper
part of the pages, leaving space below for commentary.
The text identifies Ríos as the manuscript’s compiler.
He could not himself have painted the images, for as
Reina (1925:213) and Anders and Jansen (1996b:23) have
pointed out, the rustic quality of Ríos’s calligraphy, seen
throughout the Codex Telleriano-Remensis, makes this
impossible. Although the paintings have the imprecision
and blurring of forms that mark them as rather hurried
copies, they are characterized by detail and a very fine line
and are by and large iconographically correct. Anders and
Jansen (1996b:23) assert that the style and iconographic
knowledge point to an indigenous painter. The paintings’
stylistic consistency suggests that one artist, perhaps with
others working in a nearly identical style, was responsible
for all of the manuscript, except the section on customs
(Ehrle 1900:17–18), discussed more fully below.
Neither was it Ríos who annotated the paintings, for his
jagged penmanship is nowhere to be found; the passages
that mention him as the compiler of the paintings speak of
him in the third person (Anders and Jansen 1996b:18). The
principal annotator is likely a Dominican colleague who,
like Ríos, was familiar with customs in Mexico, Cholula,
and Oaxaca. The section on customs is a separate addition
to the codex, however, for it occupies a discrete gathering
of folios with blank folios at the end (54–65; Ehrle 1900:22;
Anders and Jansen 1996b:391). It was painted and anno-
tated by someone who did not work on the other parts
of the codex.
Content
In its topical coverage and arrangement, the Codex Ríos
looks forward to Sahagún’s Florentine Codex in that it
begins with supernatural concerns and ends with a secular
history that carries the reader up to the contemporary era.
The Codex Ríos thus has a kind of narrative continuity
that the Borbonicus and Telleriano-Remensis lack, as it
moves in four major sections: from cosmic structure and
supernatural creation to the three calendrical systems, cus-
toms of different sorts, and finally the annals account of
human events through the years, ending near the time of
the manuscript’s fabrication.
100 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
Origins
The codex begins, without any surviving title page or pre-
amble of any kind, with a pictorial description of the struc-
ture of the cosmos: the layering of the heavens and under-
worlds (1v–2r) (figure 6.8), immediately followed by the
underworld gods (2v–3r), and the lactating tree that feeds
infants who have perished (3v). The commentator explains
that these three are the respective destinations of deceased
warriors (heavens), ordinary humans (underworld), and
infants (milk tree). The Ríos is the only surviving manu-
script to picture a vertical structure of the world, so its
presentation has been crucial for modern thought about
the nature of the Mesoamerican cosmos, with thirteen
heavenly layers and nine underworld layers. Several early
colonial alphabetic documents mention a series of nine,
twelve, or thirteen heavens, with the Lord/Lady of Dual-
ity or Sustenance above or at the top, and/or nine places
of the dead.28 The situation is far from clear, however: the
Ríos painter does not actually picture thirteen heavens and
nine underworld levels, and the commentator mentions
only nine heavens and ignores layering.29 Indeed, Ana
Guadalupe Díaz Álvarez (2009) and Jesper Nielsen and
Toke Sellner Reunert (2009, 2015) have argued that the
layered nature of the heavens and underworlds in the Ríos
reflects the Aristotelian tradition and Dante Alighieri’s
layered hell as models. Alfredo López Austin (2016:23–
39) has since taken up the issue to affirm an indigenous
multilayered cosmos.
A cosmology then recounts the four previous ages (or
“suns”) of creation (4v–7v) (figure 6.9). These ages are
also described in several alphabetic accounts and symbol-
ized by their date signs on a number of Aztec Sun Stones
(Quiñones Keber 1996), but the Ríos paintings are the only
ones to illustrate the features of the ages, their gods, and
their destruction.30 For each age, its painting represents
the principal deity, the duration of the age, the means by
which the world was destroyed, the day of destruction, the
fate of humans, and, for three, the food they ate. The com-
mentary explains the images and fleshes out other details,
many of which agree with descriptions in several other
written sources.31 There is general accord on the charac-
teristics of the three ages destroyed by water, wind, and
a rain of fire, but the sources differ about the fourth age
and their sequence. The Ríos uniquely ends with an age
presided over by Xochiquetzal, which the commentator
explains was destroyed by famine because of the vices of
the people of Tollan.
6.8. Layers of the cosmos, with Ometecuhtli in the highest level on the left and the underworld levels below the earth (gray rectangle) on the right.
Codex Ríos 1v–2r. © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.
The commentator’s discourse about this age soon turns
to Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl as a segue to the next topic,
which is the character of Quetzalcoatl and his rule at Tula
(7v–10v; Quiñones Keber 1987b). The Toltec story cul-
minates with the construction of the massive pyramid at
Tula Cholula (10v). Here the Ríos again pictorially pre­
sents the outlines of stories that are recorded alphabetically
in several other sources but is somewhat of an anomalous
variant.32
It is hard to judge the extent to which this opening sec-
tion depends on one or more pictorial prototypes that are
within or closer to the Preconquest tradition. The painted
figure of the Lord of Duality/Sustenance at the top of the
heavens (figure 6.8 left) is identical to his representation as
the supernatural patron of the first trecena in the following
tonalamatl (figure 6.10 left) and could well be descended
from its prototype; both images include, as a name glyph,
the turquoise diadem that signifies lord, here embellished
with maize cobs, a glyph unique to the Codices Telleriano-
Remensis and Ríos. The descending gods of the four ages
are posed like those in the tonalamatls, with outstretched
arms and legs in a pinwheel (Quiñones Keber 1996:200).
The painted episodes of Toltec history combine conven-
tional pictographic elements (e.g., temples, place signs,
deity accouterments) with human figures that stand or
move in a fairly naturalistic way. The pictorial presenta-
tion and the figure types themselves are rather distant from
other native-style images. This raises the possibility that it
was derived from oral tradition rather than from a specific
pictorial prototype.
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 101
6.9. First age of 4 Water, destroyed by a flood brought by Chalchiuhtlicue, who descends from above; humans turned to fish, and
giants lived then. Codex Ríos 4v. © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.
6.10. Trecena 1, beginning with 1 Crocodile, and featuring the male and female creator gods Tonacatecuhtli (left) and Tonacacihuatl (right), with a symbol
of sexual union between them. The left page is missing in the Telleriano-Remensis. Codex Ríos 13v–14r [12v, 27r]. © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

Tonalamatl and Veintenas Both pictorial calendars—the tonalamatl and the

The second and third sections of the Ríos, which occupy
nearly half of the manuscript, concern the calendrical sys-
tems. They begin with a two-page (12rv) text that describes,
in a somewhat confused manner, the mechanisms of the
interlocking calendrical system: the 260-day, 365-day, and
52-year cycles. The commentator identifies the twenty day
signs following not the standard sequence but a sequence
derived from misreading a special purpose almanac of the
kind found in the Borgia Group manuscripts, which sug-
gests a Pueblan, Tlaxcalan, Oaxacan connection.33 Next
is presented the pictorial tonalpohualli (13v–33r) (figure
6.10), followed by a table correlating the years and days
of a 52-year period running from 1558 forward to 1609
(34v–36v), a table that is not known from other sources.
The veintenas follow (figure 6.11, table 6.2).
veintena series—were copied from the Codex Telleriano-
Remensis, so their paintings add nothing new and indeed
misrepresent some details. But these calendars are complete
in the Codex Ríos, so they preserve vestiges of fourteen
images that have been lost in their source.34 For example,
the verso side of the first trecena (figure 6.10), featuring
Tonacatecuhtli, is missing in the Telleriano-Remensis.
In these calendars the commentator transformed the
discursive layering of the Telleriano-Remensis’s multiple
annotations into a single smooth explication. For the tonal-
pohualli, he largely follows the Telleriano-Remensis in
naming the gods and day signs and identifying the good,
bad, and indifferent fates governed by the Lords of the
Night, but he concentrates on the identity and aspects of
each supernatural and usually includes prognostications

The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 103

 6.11. Veintena of
Atlcahualo, represented by
an embodiment of Tlaloc
backed by a tree rising from
the waters. This page is
missing in the Telleriano-
Remensis. Codex Ríos 42v.
© Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana.

for only one or two days or the whole trecena. His veintena
annotations include the name and date of the festival at the
top, but otherwise simplify from the Telleriano-Remensis
to concentrate on the supernaturals involved, how and why
they are costumed, and how these festivals are celebrated.
He repeats many of the biblical parallels that Ríos added
in the Telleriano-Remensis but often elaborates or makes
these connections more explicit.
Customs
After these calendrical cycles (with their auguries, gods,
and festivals), the compiler of the Ríos inserted a section

104 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography

Table 6.2. The veintena section in the Codex Ríos, fols. 42v–51r

Gloss and text Painting Dates

1 Atlcahualo, beginning of the year Tlaloc bust on bed of water with tree Feb 24 = Mar 16
among Zapotecs,
Mixtecs

2 Tlacaxipehualiztli, named for warriors Xipe Totec Mar 16

killed in war

3 Tozoztontli, to goddess of maize Maize goddess Apr 5

4 Hueytozoztli, to gods of water and maize Maize goddess Apr 25

5 Toxcatl, temples adorned with flowers, Tezcatlipoca, with volutes of incense May 15
incense image of Tezcatlipoca

6 Etzalcualiztli, feast of etzalli, to Tlaloc Tlaloc, with rain June 4

7 Tecuilhuitontli, celebrate the lords Goddess of salt, Huixtocihuatl June 24

8 Hueytecuilhuitl, largest feast of the year Male dressed in lordly attire July 14

9 Miccailhuitla [Miccailhuitontli], feast of Corpse bundle with costume of Aug 3

the dead Mictlantecuhtli

10 Hueymiccailhuitl, great feast of the dead Corpse bundle with costume of Aug 23
Mictlantecuhtli

11 Ochpaniztli, sweeping, feast to the goddess Tlazolteotl Sept 12

Ochpaniztli

12 Pachtontli, coming of ice Xiuhtecuhtli Oct 2

13 Hueypachtli, of reverence or humility, to Tlaloc bust in mountain with water Oct 22

all the gods

14 Quecholli, to four gods of underworld Mixcoatl Nov 11

15 Panquetzaliztli, raising of banners, to Huitzilopochtli Dec 1

Huitzilopochtli; in Chalco to Tezcatlipoca

16 Atemoztli, to the one who discovered earth Tlaloc bust with curl of water Dec 21
after the flood

17 Tititl, women celebrate feast to Mixcoatl Female deity with weaving batten Jan 10

18 Izcalli, vigor or ability, to Xiuhtecuhtli Xiuhtecuhtli Jan 30

a Name as in text.

of miscellaneous customs, a heterogeneous collection of
ideas and practices without a topical thread. Independent
from the Telleriano-Remensis, it occupies its own gather-
ing of paper (fols. 54–65) and was painted and annotated
by individuals other than those who worked on the rest
of the manuscript. Here the compiler brought together
a corporeal diagram of medical auguries, a cluster of five
presentations related to sacrifice and ritual, a set of eight
types of indigenous dress according to region and status,
and a rendering of the three human life stages (54r–61v).
The paintings may all have been copied from prototypes;
the renderings of indigenous dress certainly were, for they
106 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
6.12. Medical augury in the form
of a Zodiac Man. Codex Ríos 54r.
© Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.
retain much of the flat, conventional nature of indigenous
pictography but have imprecise forms and misunderstand
details.
The medical augury (54r) has the form and function of
a European “Zodiac Man,” which connects the signs of the
zodiac to different parts of the human body to aid physi-
cians in treating ailments. In the Codex Ríos the symbols
are the twenty day signs of the Mexican calendar (figure
6.12), linked to the body parts with which they might seem
to have some natural affiliation (e.g., Death [a skull] is tied
to the cranium, Grass [twisted] to the intestines, and Flint
to the teeth).35 The commentator explains that a cure
could be developed according to the day and time the ail-
ment began, noting that this is a European practice “as one
finds in the Repertorios” (Anders and Jansen 1996b:247).
Next are five copiously described paintings associated
with various sacrifices and rituals (figure 6.13). They pre­
sent the practices of heart sacrifice and bloodletting first,
then a volador-style ritual to the Zapotec rain god Cocijo,
followed by the central Mexican custom of cremating the
dead, and finally a tzompantli. The paintings illustrate these
activities clearly but simply, and the annotator adds details
and locates the practices within a Christian worldview.
More cohesive is the subsection that pictures and
describes the dress and accouterments of individuals
according to occupation, ethnicity, and social situation (fig-
ure 6.14). These begin with five warriors of different ranks,
for which the annotator paid particular attention to the
effectiveness of the cotton armor and the features and use
6.13. Practices of sacrifice: heart sacrifice on the left, bloodletting and incensing by priests on the right. Codex Ríos 54v–55r. © Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana.
of several different weapons. Next are presented the dress
of the lords, represented first by Moctezuma’s elaborate
costume and then by the simpler dress of a Zapotec lord,
and the costumes of two elite women from the Huasteca
and from central/southern Mexico (specifically worn by
Mexican, Zapotec, and Mixtec women). Throughout this
small dissertation on costume, the annotator points out,
describes, and gives the indigenous name for elements that
were especially distinctive and thus might be particularly
interesting to the European reader. A costume study simi-
lar to this, but without the commentary, was also included
in the Codex Tudela.36 Such representations of military,
regional, and elite dress appealed to the European fasci-
nation with the varied costumes of different populations
within Europe and beyond, as explained in chapter 3.
The section of customs ends with a representation of
the three stages of human life—youth, maturity, and old
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 107
6.14. Costume of an
Aztec lord, represented by
Moctezuma. Codex Ríos
60r. © Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana.

age—in the Aristotelian tradition (61v).37 For this the Annals

painter pictorially arranged the males with native accou-
terments over an indigenous hill sign. Since this concept
of life as an arc through birth, maturity, and decline was
a feature of medieval encyclopedias (e.g., Bartholomeus
Anglicus), it was likely included here to universalize indig-
enous life within a well-known model.
The fifth and final section of the Ríos is the extensive an-
nals history derived from the Codex Telleriano-Remensis,
which occupies the last thirty folios of the codex (66v–
96v). The paintings keep the format and iconography of
their source and add no new information, but they remain
important because they preserve paintings that have been

108 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography

6.15. Beginning of the annals with the ancestral groups emerging from Chicomoztoc (left) and commencing the migration, invoked by Huitzilopochtli
(right). The Chicomoztoc image is missing from the Codex Telleriano-Remensis. Codex Ríos 66v–67r. © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

lost in the Telleriano-Remensis. For the Preconquest
period, these include the start of the Aztec migration
out of Chicomoztoc (66v), the events leading up to and
including the founding of Tenochtitlan (71–73), and some
of Ahuitzotl’s conquests and the opening of the failed
aqueduct that flooded the capital (85). Also lost are the
conquest of Tenochtitlan by Cortés and the seven crucial
years thereafter (89–90). These are some of the most
significant events in Aztec history.
For the migration beginning (figure 6.15) the painter
arranged Chicomoztoc sideways (bottom to top) on the
page in order to show all seven of the caves and the migrants
within. These men have the long hair, rustic brown clothes,
and bows and arrows of Chichimecs depicted in other
central Mexican migration histories, but this presentation
differs from other renderings in several ways. The men hold
stalks of leafy greens not seen in other central Mexican
histories but very similar to those held by the penitential
priests who emerge from Chicomoztoc in the Selden Roll
from the Coixtlahuaca Valley in southern Puebla (Boone
2000:153); indeed, the Ríos pictures two penitents having
emerged with maguey spines through their flesh. Super-
naturals hold bunches of vegetation when they establish
polities in the Mixtec Codex Vienna, so this may reflect a
southern tradition. The Chicomoztoc event is dated not to
the usual year 1 Flint (as in the Codices Aubin, Boturini,
and Mexicanus) but to 2 Reed, the year of the binding of
the years and beginning of a new 52-year cycle (the smoking
fire drill appears below it). With this dating, the painter of
the original may also have been following a tradition outside
the basin of Mexico, unless he simply decided to begin the
migration account with the beginning of a new cycle.

The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 109

6.16. Spanish conquest of Tenochtitlan, beginning with their arrival in 1 Reed, with symbols of the veintenas in a row below. These pages are missing
in the Codex Telleriano-Remensis. Codex Ríos 89r, 89v. © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

The principal events of the conquest are symbolized as
they develop over the years 1 Reed to 4 Rabbit (figure 6.16).
In 1 Reed, Cortés on his horse with the usual pointed ban-
ner, the cross of Christianity, and a drawn sword confronts
a standing Moctezuma (glyphically named) who holds
forth the gift of a jeweled necklace. Below this the Span-
iards are depicted as they were housed in Tenochtitlan.
Below 2 Flint the Spanish massacre of priests at the Tem-
plo Mayor and other events unfold. The painter represents
the final conquest in 3 House with armed Spaniards fight-
ing indigenous warriors, the mounted Cortés confronting
a richly dressed elite Aztec warrior, the seated Cuauhtemoc
(identified by his descending eagle name sign), and several
other events. The next year, the annalist pictures the Span-
iards residing in Coyoacan, where they established their
first base after the destruction of Tenochtitlan.
Uniquely for an annals history, the artist also painted
symbols for the veintenas in a row below the events of these
four years (table 6.3). They begin, also uniquely, with the
thirteenth veintena of Hueypachtli/Tepeilhuitl, the month
preceding the fourteenth veintena of Quecholli, when
the Spaniards entered Tenochtitlan (Caso 1967:51–54).
The sequence proceeds regularly on folio 87r, but it is dis­
ordered on 87v: three veintenas are repeated and the elev-
enth and twelfth veintenas are omitted. The meaning of this
veintena sequence and presence here has not been resolved.
Commentator
The principal writer, who is otherwise so fulsome in his
comments, has almost nothing to say about this picto-
rial history, however. He only annotates the first episode,
which is the beginning of the migration (figure 6.15), and

110 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography

Table 6.3. The veintena section in the annals of the Codex Ríos, years 1 Reed–4 Rabbit (fols. 89r–89v [87])

Feast identified by glyph Painting

13 Hueypachtli/Tepeilhuitl, feast of the mountains Head of unidentified deity

14 Quecholli, arrow Arrow

15 Panquetzaliztli, raising of banners Banner

16 Atemoztli, water falls Water pouring down steps of pyramid

17 Tititl, shrunk/wrinkled Cihuacoatl head

18 Izcalli, resurrection Xiuhtecuhtli head

1 Xilomaniztli, offering of green corn Tree on water

Atlcahualo, they leave the water

2 Tlacaxipehualiztli, flaying of men Headdress of Xipe Totec

3 Tozoztontli, short watch Bird

4 Hueytozoztli, long watch (Maize?) plants above rubber-spattered paper

5 Toxcatl, dry thing Tezcatlipoca? with garland of white flowers

(or popcorn?)

6 Etzacualiztli, eating etzalli Olla with maize

7 Tecuilhuitontli, small feast of lords 20-day feast sign

8 Hueytecuilhuitl, large feast of lords Larger 20-day feast sign

Change in page (87v)

9 Miccailhuitontli, small feast of the dead White deity head with red nose bar and ties
(Mictlatecuhtli?)

6 Etzalcualiztli, eating etzalli Olla with maize

7 Tecuilhuitontli, small feast of lords 20-day feast sign

8 Hueytecuilhuitl, large feast of lords Larger 20-day feast sign

10 Hueymiccailhuitl, great feast of the dead Corpse bundle

Xocotlhuetzi, xocotl falls

notes that Tenochtitlan was “the place where the city of
Mexico was founded” (73v). On the rest he is silent. His
interest throughout the codex is clearly on religious and
ideological issues rather than a year-by-year history that
would be boring for his readership. Still, it is surprising
that he did not comment on the Spanish conquest and
the early years of evangelization, which represent the time
of enormous political and religious change. The conquest
images also include the sequent symbols of the veintenas, to
which the artist and he had earlier devoted eighteen pages.

The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 111

 Like the annotators of the Codex Telleriano-Remensis,
and especially Ríos himself, the commentators of the
Codex Ríos highlight perceived similarities between beliefs
and practices that they found in Mexico and those that
belong to antiquity and the Judeo-Christian tradition.38
The principal writer follows Ríos’s comments in the Codex
Telleriano-Remensis in drawing biblical parallels, but he
explains them more fully and provides extra details. For
example, while the Telleriano-Remensis identifies Tona-
catecuhtli as the “god, lord, creator, ruler of all” who “made
the world” (8r, Quiñones Keber 1995a:257), the Ríos com-
mentator (13v) draws the reader more deeply into the book
of Genesis by adding that “when it appeared good to him,
[he] breathed and divided the waters of the heaven and
the earth” and that, commencing the Creation, their god
said “quasi fiat lux” (let there be light).39 The commentator
also makes the comparison of Quetzalcoatl to Jesus Christ
unequivocal (14v; Anders and Jansen 1996b:67–69), which
is only alluded to in the Telleriano-Remensis (8v; Quiño-
nes Keber 1995a:258).
The commentator’s remarks on the cosmology and
sacred history are filled with other biblical analogies. He
translates the name of the god Ometeotl (Two God or
god of duality) as “god of threefold dignity” and equates
him with the Trinity (1v).40 He likens the underworld
gods to Lucifer, Satan, and the devil as a fallen angel (2v;
Anders and Jansen 1996b:49). In describing the fourth age/
sun, he recounts how Quetzalcoatl was born of the virgin
Chimalma who conceived via a Christian-style annuncia-
tion from an ambassador of heaven sent by his father (7r;
Anders and Jansen 1996b:69). Although he highlights
these perceived parallels even more than the Telleriano-
Remensis annotators do, he denounces them as delusions
and the work of the devil. Perceived similarities between
Mesoamerican religion and practices described in the Old
Testament lead both commentators to conclude that the
indigenous society was descended from the Hebrews (21v,
55r; Anders and Jansen 1996b:145, 255).
Although the principal annotator admits that he knows
neither Nahuatl nor Otomí and makes errors in Nahuatl
transcription, both annotators and the painters show
familiarity with Oaxacan, and especially Zapotec, customs.
Xipe, described as a Zapotec god (26v), appears as Quet-
zalcoatl’s disciple in the Toltec history (8r, 9r). The Mexi-
can practice of cremating their dead is contrasted to the
Zapotec, Mixtec, and Mixe custom of burying their dead
(46v; Anders and Jansen 1996b:219–221). The inserted
112 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
material on ceremonies and costumes includes the pole
dance to Cocijo the Zapotec rain god (55v) as well as the
dress of a Zapotec lord and Zapotec, Mixtec, and Mexican
women from central/southern Mexico (60v–61r; Anders
and Jansen 1996b:276) and recalls the Zapotec term for
the aged principal at the end of life (61v; Anders and Jansen
1996b:280–281).
Ultimately the principal commentator’s goal was to
explain facets of Mexican religion in terms that an edu-
cated European would understand by relating the Mexican
phenomena to ideas and practices with which his reader
would be familiar. His attention was drawn to theological
issues rather than secular ones. He stressed biblical paral-
lels with indigenous thought and practice even more than
the Telleriano-Remensis and used these to emphasize the
diabolic nature of Aztec gods, who mimicked Christian
practices and thus deceived the people.
The codex was designed specifically for a European audi-
ence. Although its major parts—the tonalamatl, veintena
series, and annals history—were copied from a manuscript
closer to the indigenous tradition and retain the format and
ideographic quality of the earlier paintings, the other sec-
tions were added to broaden the codex’s scope and make a
more holistic presentation of indigenous culture: the cos-
mography, cosmology, and mythic history at the front and
the section on sacrifices, rituals, and costumes inserted after
the veintena cycle. Although the calendars came already lay-
ered with their gods, auguries, and festivals (for the tonala-
matl and veintenas) and the march of Aztec history (for the
annals), the compiler sought an even fuller presentation
that embraced origins, people, and customs. In this way he
looked in the direction of medieval encyclopedias.
As partial source and amended copy, the Telleriano-
Remensis and Ríos form a distinctive group. They share
extensive pictorial content—a veintena presentation, a
tonalamatl, and an annals—and many of the Ríos texts
developed from those in the Telleriano-Remensis. The
tonalamatl and annals maintain the structure of their
Preconquest forms, and the veintena figures that signify
the feasts largely reflect traditional pictographic canons.
Both manuscripts reveal the experience and perspectives
of the Dominican friar Pedro de los Ríos, who was the
last annotator of the Telleriano-Remensis, probably its last
owner, and the patron who commissioned the Codex Ríos.
Because Father Ríos was familiar with southern as well as
central Mexico, both manuscripts contain more informa-
tion on the Zapotecs, Mixtecs, and Pueblans than do other
central Mexican compilations. Even the artist who painted
the migration history in the Telleriano-Remensis drew on
one or more sources from south of the basin of Mexico.
The two codices also share Ríos’s interest is making
the arcane data on Preconquest religion and sacred his-
tory understandable to a nonindigenous audience. This
audience for the Telleriano-Remensis was likely composed
of fellow missionaries as well as himself, for the annota-
tions are like personal notes. In this earlier manuscript
he often drew analogies between Preconquest phenom-
ena and the biblical flood and Genesis. He characterized
native gods as being either before or after the flood, for
example. A fundamental episode in Genesis—when Eve
and Adam were tempted and sinned and were therefore
cast from Paradise—became an analogy that explained
other features of Aztec religion. Ríos clearly saw the native
Mexicans as people who had fallen from grace. His notes
in the Telleriano-Remensis point in this direction; then
the scribe of the Codex Ríos elaborated and made them
even more explicit.
As documents, though, the two are very different. The
Telleriano-Remensis is composed of three distinct sets of
paintings that were brought together and then annotated
by many hands over time. These paintings were close to
the indigenous pictographic tradition and may have been
copied from Preconquest originals; certainly the artist of
the tonalamatl and imperial history was deeply knowledge-
able about the ancient codices. It was a working missionary
document, a set of pictorial and alphabetic notes. Once it
was assembled and its commentary added, Ríos must have
admired it, for he commissioned a luxury copy to be made
using large, medium folio–sized paper. This new manu-
script was also to include new material to flesh out coverage
of indigenous culture: sections on origins and customs,
which were likely pulled from other sources, now lost. The
new codex’s Italian texts smoothed out the sketchy and
contradictory statements of the Telleriano-Remensis.
The Magliabechiano Group: Codex
Magliabechiano and Codex Tudela
The extraordinary group of closely related cultural stud-
ies commonly called the Magliabechiano Group reveals
something of the rich climate of ethnographic recording
in the early colonial period. The earliest efforts, which
have since perished, served as models for a wide range of
other examples. The group is composed of nine surviving
pictorial and textual accounts that date from the sixteenth
to the eighteenth centuries, all ultimately derived in part
from a common lost prototype, but each with data added
from other sources. This prototype was created in the
first decades after the conquest, certainly by 1553 (a date
mentioned in one of the cognates), and included paintings
by indigenous artists and annotations in Spanish pertain-
ing to six themes, probably sequenced as follows (Boone
1983:140–146):
1. 18 veintenas, plus two movable feasts (20 units)
2. Pulque gods, feasting gods, and various other gods
(18 units)
3. Rituals and deities pertaining to healing, methods of
sacrifice, mortuary practices, and a diverse array of
other topics (23 units)
4. Year count: a pictorial listing of all 52 years
5. Day count: the twenty day signs and their augural
forces
6. Mantles used in festivals (36 items)
Covering as it did Aztec calendrics, festivals, rituals, and
images of supernaturals, this original manuscript was a
major record of Aztec ideology and ritual practice. In the
sixteenth century friars and historians who sought knowl-
edge about Aztec culture considered it so important that
they copied it and its copies over and over. The two most
complete members of the group to survive are the Codex
Magliabechiano and the Codex Tudela, which are also
the only surviving ones whose paintings were executed by
indigenous artists working in the native tradition. They are
the focus of this section, although their situation within
the larger group needs to be understood first.
In untangling the relationships within this group of
cognates, the complexities of which have not been fully
resolved, it can be useful to divide the manuscripts into
primary members (derived from one or more missing
documents) and secondary members (copies of existing
manuscripts).
Primary Members
Libro de Figuras
The Libro de Figuras is a lost pictorial from the early to
mid-sixteenth century whose paintings and texts were
copied from the prototype; it contained all sections in the
prototype, plus ceremonial cloaks of Xochimilco. Antonio
de Herrera y Tordesillas mentions a “libro de figuras” as a
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 113
source for his Historia general (1601–1615) (Medina 1913–
1920, 2:530–531), and the bibliographer Andrés González
de Barcia (1737: col. 601) described what is thought to be
the same manuscript in more detail:41
Libro, en las Figuras de los Indios de Nueva España, que
contiene sus Fiestas, Dias, i modo de celebrarlas: Del
Año, i Siglo Mexicano, i los Nombres de los Dioses, i
de las señales qua los Indios de Xochimilco, hechaban à
Indios en las espaldas, con muchas Pinturas de los Idolos,
i otras cosas de Nueva-España, M.S. Original, està en la
Libreria de Don Miguez Nuñez de Rojas, i su copia en la
de Barcia, 4. Explicado en Castellano.
It was likely the source for several members of the group,
including vignettes on two of Herrera’s title pages (Boone
1983:50–52, 134–138). The copy that González de Barcia
mentioned having in his own library may well be the Fiestas
de los indios (described below).
Codex Magliabechiano
The Codex Magliabechiano, discussed more fully below, is
the best known of the group and the manuscript for which
the group has been named. First published in 1903 follow-
ing its discovery in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Flor-
ence (CL. XII. 3 [B. R. 232]), it is widely available in several
editions (Codex Magliabechiano 1903, 1904; Anders 1970;
Boone 1983; Anders and Jansen 1996a). As a clean copy of
the Libro de Figuras or a similar lost manuscript, it con-
tains all the sections of the prototype/Figuras, except the
Xochimilcan cloaks, and adds nine other cloaks and four
pages at the back picturing various gods, rites, and ritual
items not seen in other manuscripts.
Codex Tudela
Created in the 1550s, the Codex Tudela is a fundamental
member of the group, brought to light only in 1945 and
housed since 1946 in the Museo de América (Inv. 70400).
Most of its paintings are closely related to others of the
group, but its texts are distinct in themselves and consti-
tute what is in effect a separate document.42 Its paintings
cover all sections of the prototype but replace the count
of twenty days with a full tonalamatl of 260 days and
include an augural deerskin almanac and additional mate-
rial on marriage. An independent section on the regional
costumes of Mesoamerica was added at the front of the
manuscript ca. 1554. The first facsimile with commentary
114 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
(Tudela de la Orden 1980) has been superseded by Batalla
Rosado (2002a). The manuscript Costumbres, fiestas, ente­
rramientos (described below) is a sixteenth-century copy of
most of the Tudela texts.
Francisco Cervantes de Salazar, Crónica de
la Nueva España, Book 1, Chapters 19–31
Between 1558 and 1566 Francisco Cervantes de Salazar,
who had been named chronicler of New Spain by the Mex-
ican Ayuntamiento, wrote a Crónica of the conquest and
sent it to Spain in support of his unsuccessful petition to
be named royal chronicler (Magallón 1914:xi–xiii; Boone
1983:97). His account focuses principally and at some
length on the conquest of New Spain and outlying areas,
relying especially on Francisco López de Gómora’s Histo-
ria, published just a few years before. Book 1, however, sets
the stage for the history by briefly describing the environ-
ment, people, and customs of Mexico. Chapters 19–31 are
devoted to Aztec festivals, rituals, pulque gods and other
gods, and mortuary rites, drawing their content from texts
of a lost Magliabechiano Group manuscript (the prototype
or the Libro de Figuras). The day-count that Cervantes de
Salazar partially describes was organized similarly to one
in the Codex Tudela, but the Crónica lists different gods
and has auguries not in the Tudela’s texts.43 Cervantes de
Salazar amended the ritual and ideological material found
in his sources, elaborating on some aspects and cutting
short others that did not interest him. He closed his dis-
cussion of ritual life by noting that the gods and rituals
were many and various and that the intent of his Crónica
was to explain the conquest of New Spain. Housed in the
Biblioteca Nacional of Madrid (MS 2011), its published
text has been edited by Manuel Magallón (1914, 1971) and
Francisco del Paso y Troncoso (1914–1936).
Codex Ixtlilxochitl, Part One
The Codex Ixtlilxochitl, now in the Bibliothèque Natio-
nale de France (Mexicain 65–71), is a collection of three
unrelated manuscripts that have been bound together
at least since the eighteenth century. The eleven folios of
part one contain annotated illustrations of most of the
veintenas, two representations of Quetzalcoatl, and two
mortuary rituals, all copied ca. 1600 from a lost Maglia-
bechiano Group document (the prototype, the Libro de
Figuras, or an early copy of these). Part two has paint-
ings and texts that are drafts or versions of Juan Bautista
Pomar’s Relación de Texcoco (ca. 1582), and part three is an
unillustrated description of the Mexican 365-day calendar
similar to the Spanish presentation of the veintenas in book
2 of Sahagún’s Florentine Codex. Although some of the
feasts in part one are additionally labeled with their Otomí
and Huastec names (Durand-Forest 1976:15–16; Doesburg
1996:87–88), its paintings and texts are otherwise deriva-
tive copies. The texts preserve those in their source well,
but the paintings are poorly rendered with misunderstood
iconographic elements and indistinct details. The codex
has been known and studied since the late nineteenth
century; photographic facsimile editions were edited by
Jacqueline Durand-Forest (1976) and Geert Bastiaan van
Doesburg (1996).
Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas,
Historia general, Title Page Vignettes
When the royal chronicler Antonio de Herrera y Tordesi­
llas published the first volumes of his wide-ranging Histo-
ria general de los hechos de los castellanos en las Islas i Tierra
Firme del Mar Oceano in 1601, images of Aztec deities and
rites extracted from the Libro de Figuras were reproduced
on the title pages of the Descripción de las Indias Occi-
dentales and Década segunda (Anders 1970:25–29; Boone
1983:47–53). Herrera described a “libro de figuras de colo-
res de indios é fechos despañoles con . . . [sic]” (book of
colored figures of Indians with deeds of Spaniards, with
. . .) as among the many sources he used for the Historia
(Medina 1913–1920, 2:530–531). Several other of the images
seem to have come from a pictorial related to the Codex
Mendoza, discussed in chapter 5 (Nicholson 1992:2–4).
Fiestas de los indios
This primarily textual manuscript now in the library of
the Palacio Real de Madrid (No. 1764) may have been
González de Barcia’s copy of the Libro de Figuras, which
he mentioned in his 1737 bibliography. Created in the late
seventeenth or early eighteenth century, it reproduces
most of the written portions of the Libro de Figuras but
also includes pictorial sketches for some of the year signs,
ritual cloaks, and Xochimilcan cloaks. Although late and
incomplete, Fiestas is important in reconstructing the
Libro de Figuras and thus the prototype of the group
and accessing the texts of these early manuscripts. It was
analyzed and partially published by Boone (1983:53–64)
and Riese (1986). Batalla Rosado (2008) published a full
transcription.
Secondary Members
Costumbres
The sixteenth-century textual manuscript titled Costum-
bres, fiestas, enterramientos y diversas formas de proceder
de los indios de Nueva España, also sometimes called the
Codex Cabezón,44 is a copy of most of the texts in the
Codex Tudela, excluding the tonalamatl. It is now bound
as folios 331–387 in a volume of unrelated documents in
the library of the Escorial (K.III.8) and was published by
Gómez de Orozco (1945). Its importance lies in its preser-
vation of the labels for nine paintings of regional dress that
are now missing from the Codex Tudela (discussed below).
Codex Veytia
Titled Modos que tenían los indios para celebrar sus fiestas,
this is the historian Mariano Veytia’s copy of the three
parts of the Codex Ixtlilxochitl, including the paintings
and texts of Ixtlilxochitl part one, along with a few other
documents. It amplifies the paintings of part two with an
illustration of Huitzilopochtli, which was very probably
copied from this deity’s image representing the veintena of
Panquetzaliztli in part one of the Veytia.45 Conserved in
the Library of the Palacio Real de Madrid (No. 2851), the
photographic facsimile with commentary was edited by
José Alcina Franch (1986).
The three scholars who have studied the group in
detail—Boone (1983), Riese (1986), and Batalla Rosado
(2002a)—have developed slightly different and rather intri-
cate genealogical models to explain the relationship of these
manuscripts to each other. Without dissecting the details
of each argument, it can be said that all agree on features of
a basic model: that the group had a common pictorial pro-
totype, that the paintings in the lost Libro de Figuras were
copied from this prototype, and that Fiestas de los indios,
although late and largely textual, is an important copy of
this lost Libro de Figuras. There is a consensus that the text
commentaries in the Tudela are specific to that codex and
represent an independent account, although the pictorial
content in the Codex Tudela is related to other primary
members in the group. Boone (1983) and Riese (1986) pro-
posed that all the surviving documents were copied from
the Libro de Figuras, from a now-lost other copy of it, or
directly from the prototype, whereas Batalla Rosado argued
(especially 2002a, 2010b) that the indigenous-style paint-
ings in the Tudela are themselves the pictorial prototype.
As discussed below, the iconographic and stylistic evidence
does not seem to support his hypothesis.
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 115
 The surviving sixteenth-century members of this group
exemplify a range of practices in reproducing pictorial eth-
nographies, either wholly to create new copies or partially
to select useful items for specific projects. At one end of the
spectrum is the Codex Magliabechiano, whose paintings
and texts come close to replicating its source. The Codex
Tudela reproduces almost all the images in its source but
adds new pictorial material and a new commentary. In the
middle of the spectrum is part one of the Codex Ixtlilxo-
chitl, a version of a prototypal fragment or a fragment itself,
with paintings poorly rendered. At the other end of the
spectrum are documents that extract items selectively:
Herrera y Tordesillas’s Historia and Cervantes de Salazar’s
Crónica. The late Fiestas de los indios represents yet another
kind of copy, made as an antiquarian enterprise to preserve
material in an ancient manuscript.
Codex Magliabechiano
Titled “Libro de la vida que los indios antiguamente hazían
y supersticiones y malos ritos que tenían y guardauan”
(Book of the life of the ancient Indians and the supersti-
tions and evil rites they had and observed), the Codex
Magliabechiano is a clean copy of the paintings and texts
of the Libro de Figuras or the group prototype. As such,
it exemplifies the overall features of these lost manuscripts
better than any other surviving document.46 Extending
for ninety-two folios, it was prepared as a single project
probably over weeks, not years, for the paper, paintings,
and annotations are consistent throughout. The Maglia-
bechiano is relatively free of the textual layering over time
that distinguishes the Codex Telleriano-Remensis and has
not been amplified with much additional material not in its
source, as was the Codex Ríos. With images that are well-
defined iconographically and carefully written annotations,
the Magliabechiano has a pictorial and textual clarity that
exceeds others in the group.
Its date can be estimated at around the middle of the
sixteenth century. It is hard to locate the codex more pre-
cisely in time, because it has few internal indicators and the
paper is fairly common for the sixteenth century.47 The two
artists responsible for the paintings were very familiar with
indigenous iconography and pictographic conventions; one
was deeply trained in the native tradition, which might
point to an early date, but the other experimented with
linear perspective and other conventions of pictorial illu-
sionism, which might point to a later time. That the two
116 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
come together in the same manuscript shows how much
stylistic fluidity there was at the time, when traditional
painters were learning new techniques and newly trained
painters were bridging the two traditions. Now held by the
Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale of Florence, the codex was
formerly in the collection of the highly regarded scholar
and bibliophile Antonio da Marco Magliabechiano (1633–
1714), librarian of Cosimo III de Medici. Its early history
is unknown (Boone 1983:8–11).
Content
The paintings determined the order in which the mate-
rial was presented. They preserve the content of the basic
sections in the prototype but reorder them. Whereas the
prototype began with the veintenas and ended with the
mantles, the Magliabechiano begins with the mantles; it
also shuffles some of the gods and rituals, which form a
miscellaneous collection in any case. The sections are
as follows:48
Mantles, 2v–8v
Count of twenty days, 11r–13v
Count of 52 years, 14v–28r
Eighteen veintenas and two movable feasts, 28v–48r
Pulque gods, feasting gods, and various other gods,
48v–64r, 74v–76r
Rituals and deities pertaining to healing, methods of
sacrifice, mortuary practices, and a diverse array of
other topics, 64v–88r
Gods and ritual objects not in other members of the
group, 89r–92r
It is clear that the mantles, day count, year count, and
veintenas plus two movable feasts were conceptualized as
units, and that the pulque gods form a cluster. The mantles
and two calendrical sections also have distinctive formats.
Within the miscellaneous rituals, attention is paid to heal-
ing rituals, the diversity of mortuary practices depending
on the status of the deceased, and the variety of sacrificial
practices.
The set of ritual mantles that opens the codex is unique
to this group of ethnographic documents (figure 6.17).
Although Sahagún and others describe some vestments
worn during rituals, only the Magliabechiano Group
pictures a set of cloaks like this. The Magliabechiano has
forty-five rectangular designs, four to a page on eleven
pages with one fully occupying another. The annotator
6.17. Ritual mantles. Codex Magliabechiano 3r, BNC Banco Rari 232. By permission of the Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali/Biblioteca
Nazionale Centrale, Florence.
explains that these “are the cloaks or garments that the
Indians used in the festivals” (2v) and identifies each one,
some in both Nahuatl and Spanish. The designs repre-
sent different kinds of patterns (e.g., the scrolled step-fret
called the xicalcoliuhqui, drops of rubber, and jaguar spots),
accouterments of the gods (such as nose ornaments, lip
plugs, and pectorals such as Quetzalcoatl’s sliced conch
shell and Tezcatlipoca’s circular ring), and symbolic refer-
ents (including the spider for Mictlantecuhtli and the bar-
rel cactus for Mixcoatl). At the end the painter added nine
simplified designs not in his source, most of which extract
one or two elements from the previous cloaks.
Following two blank folios, the twenty day signs with
their coefficients 1–13 are painted four to a page, begin-
ning with 1 Flint (11r–13r) (figure 6.18). A short explana-
tory text at the end (13v) says simply that these are the
twenty days of each feast and that people are named for
their birthday sign in the source. As with the mantles, the
annotator provides the days’ Nahuatl terms and usually
the Spanish translation, adding a short description if the
image might be unfamiliar to the readers: for example, “Ce
tecpatl which is one flint stone as a figure of a blade with
which they sacrificed” (11r). He provides a prognostication
only for one: Death (12r). The year count then follows as
a pictorial repetition of all fifty-two years, introduced by a
general description of the count’s workings and followed by
a concluding statement to the effect that those who lived a
full cycle were old and retired (14v–28r).
These uncomplicated calendrical presentations are fol-
lowed by the eighteen veintenas (figures 6.19–21; table 6.4),
with two movable feasts attached at the end. Most of their
paintings represent the deity to whom the feast was dedi-
cated, often holding one or more accouterments relevant
to the ceremony (figure 6.20). But seven picture aspects of
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 117
6.18. Day names 5 Wind (Ehecatl), 6 House, 7 Lizard, and 8 Serpent. Codex Magliabechiano 11v, BNC Banco Rari 232. By permission of the
Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali/Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence.
the festival activities: for example, the gladiatorial combat
during Tlacaxipehualiztli (figure 6.19) and the climbing of
the xocotl pole for Xocotlhuetzi (figure 6.21).49 This mix
of single deity figures and displays of individuals engaged
in activities, which also characterizes the Tudela’s cog-
nate presentation, puts the Magliabechiano manuscripts
somewhere between the Telleriano-Remensis, which pic-
tures only the deities, and the Borbonicus, which focuses
on the activities. Especially in these images, the principal
Magliabechiano painter introduced graphic devices and
techniques that imparted greater three-dimensionality to
the figures. The movable feasts celebrated on the days 7
Flower and 1 Flower are attached at the end of the veintena
section, although it is not clear why these are here and why
these two tonalpohualli days are recognized and not others.
The veintena annotations have a formulaic quality; they
begin with “This feast the Indians call [Nahuatl name],
which is to say [Spanish translation],” identify the deity to
118 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
whom the feast is dedicated, and describe the activities (fig-
ures 6.19, 6.20). The first fifteen end with the unnecessary
statement “the figure is the following” (Boone 1983:187).
Although the other cognate manuscripts have this feast
name and its date in the Julian calendar written in glosses
next to the images, the Magliabechiano annotator only
includes three of these glosses (figure 6.19; table 6.4).50
What is striking about the Codex Magliabechiano as
well as its cognates is that several times the annotator first
names one feast and then declares that others call it by a
different name; he provides that name and in three cases
then describes only this alternative feast, which is the feast
that the painter actually pictured. This happens with the
painted images of Tlaxochimaco (36v–37r), Xocotlhuetzi
(37v–38r), and Teotleco (38v–39r), which the annotator
first named Miccailhuitontli, Hueymiccailhuitl, and Huey-
pachtli. For Tozoztontli (30v–31r) and Etzalcualiztli (33v–
34r), one deity is pictured, but another is named in the text.
Table 6.4. The veintena section in the Codex Magliabechiano, fols. 28v–46r

Text Painting Dates

1 Xilomanaliztli, he with xilotes in his hand Figure holding Tlaloc head
and xilotl
Others call it Atlcahualo, because fishers stop fishing

2 Tlacaxipehualiztli, flay me and eat me Gladiatorial sacrifice Mar 21,

San Benito

3 Tozoztlia [Tozoztontli], celebrated Chalchiuhtlicue Maize goddess holding maize stalk Apr 10

4 Hueytozoztli, offering toctli (immature corn) to Centeotl Huipil with unformed maize
and three vessels of food

5 Toxcatl, to Tezcatlipoca Tezcatlipoca

6 Etzalcualiztli, meal of etzalli, to Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc

friend of Tlaloc

7 Tecuilhuitl [Tecuilhuitontli] Carrying parrot-helmeted male

on litter of corn

8 Hueytecuilhuitl to goddess of salt Huixtocihuatl, sacrifice Xilonen

of a woman named Xilonen

9 Miccailhuitl [Miccailhuitontli], feast of the dead, to Tezcatlipoca surrounded by circle

Titlacahuan/Tezcatlipoca of flowers
Others call it Tlaxochimaco because they surround
the god with flowers

10 Hueymiccailhuitl, great feast; others call it Xocotlhuetzi Xocotl pole with Otomí figure
because the [xocotl] pole is raised, to Huehueteotl on top

11 Ochpaniztli, sweeping, to Toci Toci

12 Pachtli [Pachtontli], Spanish moss, to Tezcatlipoca Roasting

Teotleco, ascending to god

13 Hueypachtli, great grass [Spanish moss], to Xochiquetzal Xochiquetzal and drinking

At same time as Pilahuana, drunkenness of children

14 Quecholli, arrow, to Mixcoatl Mixcoatl

15 Panquetzaliztli, because a blue banner is put on Huitzilopochtli

Huitzilopochtli’s head

16 Atemoztli, falling water, to Tlaloc Tlaloc

17 Tititl, to Cihuacoatl, celebrated feast of the dead Cihuacoatl

18 Izcalli, to Xiuhtecuhtli Xiuhtecuhtli Feb 4,

San Gilbert

a Name as in text.
6.19. Veintena of Tlacaxipehualiztli. Codex Magliabechiano 29v–30r, BNC Banco Rari 232. By permission of the Ministero per i Beni e le Attività
Culturali/Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence.

6.20. Veintena of Atemoztli. Codex Magliabechiano 43v–44r, BNC Banco Rari 232. By permission of the Ministero per i Beni e le Attività
Culturali/Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence.

Other ethnographic records also feature alternate names
and activities for these feasts (Boone 1983:183), but they do
not picture one feast and then textually describe another.
The painted representations for these celebrations in the
Magliabechiano and cognates must represent one tradition,
which the annotator eventually explains, after first naming
the feasts according to a different tradition (table 6.4).
Following the three sets of calendrical presentations,
the manuscript shifts attention to some of the individual
deities who were not pictured with the veintenas and other
kinds of rituals not linked to the calendar. The section
on deities (48v–64r) principally focuses on gods of pul-
que, the native beer brewed from maguey sap, and related
deities. Fourteen pulque gods are pictured in the codex,
one to a page, all costumed in a similar manner and accom-
panied by a name-sign that specifies their identity; one
is also accompanied by a monkey impersonator (figure
6.22).51 Most cluster together on the eighteen folios imme-
diately following the veintena section, with two paintings
of Quetzalcoatl and one of Macuilxochitl overseeing the
game of patolli incorporated within the set. This set of dei-
ties is a distant reflection of the European studies of pagan
gods (discussed in chapter 3), for the painters pictorially
describe the gods’ visual attributes and the scribe names
them and occasionally notes their realms and activities.
The pulque god collection in this codex, and indeed in the

120 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography

6.21. Painting of the veintena of Xocotlhuetzi. Codex Magliabechiano 38r, BNC Banco Rari 232. By permission of the Ministero per i Beni e le
Attività Culturali/Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence.

6.22. Pulque god Tlaltecayoua accompanied by a monkey impersonator. Codex Magliabechiano 55r, BNC Banco Rari 232. By permission of the
Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali/Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence.
6.23. Funerary rite for a merchant. Codex Magliabechiano 68r, BNC Banco Rari 232. By permission of the Ministero per i Beni e le Attività
Culturali/Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence.
Magliabechiano Group as a whole, is extraordinary within
the ethnohistorical record. Sahagún (1950–1982, bk. 1:51)
is the only other source to count so many pulque gods:
he succinctly names thirteen but describes only one. The
Magliabechiano may reflect the friars’ particular interest in
these gods of drunkenness.
The pulque gods give way to a rich assortment of ritu-
als, practices, and supernaturals, most of which seem not
to be in a strict order. Indeed the prototype ordered many
differently, as reflected in the Codex Tudela. These include
mortuary rites, healing ceremonies, and different kinds of
offerings. There are four mortuary rituals—two of a lord,
one of a merchant surrounded by his riches (figure 6.23),
and one of a youth—preceded by a male figure identified as
Mictlantecuhtli and an introductory text about the nature
of the indigenous underworld; the memorial to the dead
called Tititl (as in the veintena section) is also elaborated.
Healing rites include medical divination and the use of the
122 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
sweat bath. Nine ceremonies describe different kinds of
offerings made to the gods. These include heart sacrifice
(figure 6.24) and the offering of hearts (figure 6.25), can-
nibalism, bloodletting, offerings of paper and incense, fire
sacrifice, dancing and music, and pulque drinking. Several
of these ceremonies feature versions of a demonic figure
with a skull face, clawed hands and feet, and curly “night”
hair decorated with banners of sacrifice (labeled Mictlan-
tecuhtli [72v, 78v]) who oversee the ceremonies or receive
offerings (figure 6.25). Curiously, the painter omitted the
punishment of adulterers, which was in his source. About
half of the paintings are annotated, but the principal scribe
fell silent after 78v, so the later paintings are consequently
not well understood.
The last four folios of the Magliabechiano (89r–92r)
contain paintings of nine supernaturals along with ritual
items (figure 6.26).52 These figures were added from an
unknown source, independently of the prototype. Perhaps
6.24. Heart sacrifice. Codex Magliabechiano 70r, BNC Banco Rari 232. By permission of the Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali/Biblioteca
Nazionale Centrale, Florence.

6.25. Priests offering blood to a Mictlantecuhtli-like figure. Codex Magliabechiano 87v–88r, BNC Banco Rari 232. By permission of the Ministero
per i Beni e le Attività Culturali/Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence.
6.26. Four supernaturals, from top left: Tlaloc, Quetzalcoatl, Huitzilopochtli/Quetzalcoatl?, and Xiuhtecuhtli. Codex Magliabechiano, fol. 89r, BNC
Banco Rari 232. By permission of the Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali/Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence.
they are veintena patrons from another cycle that was
both fragmentary and disordered; although most can
be identified with known deities, their collection here is
not understood.
Painters
The two painters were both knowledgeable of Aztec reli-
gious iconography and the conventions of Mexican pic-
tography. They probably began copying their prototype
at the same time: the more traditional artist, whom I have
called Artist A, painted the beginnings of the first and
sixth gatherings, whereas the second, more European-
ized painter, whom I have called Artist B, began the other
seven gatherings and finished those begun by Artist A.53
Artist A’s work features a clear, unvarying line and precise
coloring typical of the Preconquest tradition, with careful
consideration of iconographic and conventional details.
124 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
For example, among the cloaks, two xicalcoliuhqui designs
(3r) are particularly meticulous and intricately embellished
with well-spaced feather-and-disk motifs (figure 6.17), and
in another cloak (5r) the design of red and black lines is
precisely rendered as three rows of twenty. These contrast
with the irregular treatment of these designs in the Codex
Tudela.54 His pulque gods usually have costume minutiae
and the nails of the fingers and toes carefully delineated.
His precision and line suggest that he was trained in the
native tradition.
Although Artist B worked in a looser manner, he was
also cognizant of Aztec iconographic conventions and
was able to recognize symbolic imagery and represent
complex forms correctly. For example, he fully understood
and painted the complexities of the face and buccal mask
of Quetzalcoatl/Ehecatl (7v, 11v, 78r) (figure 6.18) more
accurately than did the Tudela painter (42r, 49r, 88r, 98v).
He also embellished some forms in a way the Tudela and
proto­type seem not to have done. For example, he consis-
tently augmented the calendrical sign Flint with a fanged
face, as do the Codices Borbonicus and Borgia, and con-
sistently rendered hearts with the expected curl-bump-curl
motif at the atrial end.55
Artist B’s line and coloring are less carefully controlled,
however; his forms are looser, and the secondary figures
in his compositions are more corporeal and naturalistic
than in the Preconquest formal canon. He tended to add
extra secondary figures to compositions involving regular
people, such as four additional observers of the heart sacri-
fice (figure 6.24).56 He also experimented with techniques
of European pictorial illusionism, notably modeling in
light and shadow, delineation of folds and volumes, and
perspective drawing (figures 6.20, 6.21, 6.24, 6.25) (Boone
1983:21–28). His attempts to depict structures in three
dimensions (figure 6.24) show him to be an enthusiastic
but imperfect student of these techniques.57 He added
three-dimensional stools or boxes beneath several dei-
ties and nearly a dozen secondary figures, giving them a
solid object on which to sit (figure 6.20). With the deities,
this transformed a canonical image of a supernatural in
a common pinwheel stance into a tangible being seated
in three-dimensional space. This simple device effectively
reconceptualized the image as a mimetic representation
rather than a conventional statement.
Artist B was familiar with European cultural conven-
tions as well. Two examples stand out. In order to accentu-
ate the licentious nature of a monkey companion to one
of the pulque gods (figure 6.22), he added a hand making
a common European obscene gesture with deep Greco-
Roman roots to the monkey’s shield and drew the hand
with a draped cuff in the European tradition (Boone
1983:26–27). This shows that he was sufficiently versed
in European mannerisms, and familiar enough with the
monkey’s nature in this context, that he could signal it by
using a European gestural code. In the section on cloaks,
he added a fourth design, water, to the last three of the
prototype’s—fire, wind, and a rabbit (7v). Here he must
have recognized the rabbit as a common symbol for earth
and added the fourth design, water, to complete the four
fundamental elements of the Aristotelian tradition: fire,
wind, earth, and water.58
The painters probably set the manuscript’s format. The
quarto-sized leaves that they used were cut to be wider
than they were tall, resulting in an uncommon album-like
presentation.59 This was an innovation in regard to the
prototype, which was a standard quarto-sized manuscript
with pages taller than wide.60 Although the prototype had
paintings on the verso side of folios, with facing texts on the
opposite rectos, the Magliabechiano painters reversed this
by putting their images on the recto sides. This effectively
prioritized the images for a European audience accustomed
to beginning content on the recto side of a folio, but the
scribe preserved the indigenous preference for a two-page
spread by adding his texts on the opposite versos.
Commentators
Two individuals contributed these texts (Boone 1983:28–
30). The principal writer copied all of the texts in the
prototype (through 78v, self-sacrifice before an image of
Mictlantecuhtli) (figures 6.17–20, 6.24).61 A later scribe
then added brief clarifying phrases and glosses to four
pages as well as a longer text explaining the bloodlust of
the demonic cult image being covered with blood (fig-
ure 6.25).62 The principal commentator wrote in a clear
humanistic minuscule, which speaks of someone trained
in that tradition and perhaps even selected for the clarity
of his writing. Since he was copying a prototype, we can-
not assume that he himself was familiar with the content
he was writing, but he followed the explanatory texts in
the prototype fairly well. Occasionally he left out a line or
interchanged texts but corrected these. He tended to omit
the glosses written next to the prototypal images but usu-
ally folded this information into his texts without much
loss of content. For the veintenas, however, he reproduced
three of the glosses naming and dating the feasts—for
Tlacaxipehualiztli (figure 6.19), Tozoztontli (30v–31r), and
Izcalli (45v–46r)—but failed to mention the dates of the
other feasts.
The principal commentator’s annotations for the ritual
cloaks show real deficiencies in this knowledge of religious
iconography and Nahuatl, however. Where his prototype
simply identified each design with its Nahuatl name, the
Magliabechiano commentator helpfully explained that
each was a tilmatl or cloak and then translated the Nahuatl
term into Spanish. For example, for the intricate circular
blue design labeled “tonatiuh” in his source, he wrote “til-
matl o manta tonatiuh o sol” (tilmatl or cloak tonatiuh or
sun) (figure 6.17). But on several occasions he mistran-
scribed the Nahuatl terms, he switched two glosses (Boone
1983:29), and in two cases he totally misunderstood both
the images and the Nahuatl terms.63
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 125
 With these exceptions, he generally followed the
proto­type well, so that his texts explain the calendrical
systems, identify the deities, and describe ceremonies and
rituals accurately. He provides the kind of information
about the images that an outsider might want to know,
including guides to Nahuatl pronunciation. Although the
Magliabechiano annotator might seem to be a member of
a religious order, he refers to the friars in the third person
as if he were somehow apart from this cohort, just as he
was apart from the Nahuatlatos (Nahuatl speakers). Of
course, this could merely be a rhetorical device, especially
because the manuscript was probably intended for a Euro-
pean audience.
Like the Codex Ríos, the Magliabechiano is a fresh copy
of a preexisting pictorial, which was created specifically to
inform non-Nahuatl speakers about the calendars, ritu-
als, and deities of Preconquest central Mexico. The paint-
ings remained foundational to this project, and those in
the Magliabechiano sought to retain all the iconographic
richness of the originals but enhanced with elements of
European pictorial illusionism and occasionally European
cultural references. The written commentary followed its
source closely. The clarity of its prose content and script
suggests that it was a presentation piece for someone
important, probably someone outside the everyday world
of the friar evangelists. Many of the comments point to a
European readership unfamiliar with indigenous central
Mexico. These include references to Nahuatlatos, Indios,
and friars in the third person, explanations of native flora
and fauna, and the description of the Tlahuicas as “plains
of irrigated lands where the sun is hot” (40v). Although the
commentator calls the Aztec gods “demons,” he is objec-
tively neutral in the descriptions of blood rituals, even
the act of heart sacrifice (69v) and the practice of child
sacrifice (30v). The only time he passes negative judgment
is when drunken children “committed abominations and
fornications with one another” (40v), when the “abomi-
nable foulness” of Quetzalcoatl’s masturbation and the
cutting of Xochiquetzal’s genitals led to the creation of
flowers (61v), and when the “abominable thing” of cannibal-
ism was practiced (72v). Unlike the commentators of the
Telleriano-Remensis and Ríos, he refrains from drawing
any analogies with events and people in the Bible. This
neutrality strongly suggests that the author of these texts,
in the prototype and repeated in the Magliabechiano, was
neither a religious zealot horrified by Aztec blood sacrifice
nor a person trying to appease censors by decrying it.
126 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
Codex Tudela
The Codex Tudela follows the Magliabechiano Group
prototype in being a regular quarto-sized manuscript
with pages taller than wide and in sequencing most of its
sections as they likely were in the prototype. However, it
reverses the placement of the images and texts; where the
prototype featured paintings on the verso pages with texts
on the facing rectos, the Tudela’s paintings occupy the rec-
tos, with the texts written below them and continuing onto
the following versos (figure 6.27). This breaks the integrity
of the two-page, verso-recto spread and reflects a European
model. Its paintings generally overlap in content with those
in other manuscripts of the group. Many are considered
to be more faithful renderings of the prototypal images, at
least in terms of style and composition.64 Yet the Tudela
contains extra material not found in other extant manu-
scripts and therefore represents a distinctive, enhanced
compilation. Moreover, its texts are largely independent of
those in the prototype and others of the group and should
be considered a separate source.
The manuscript is now composed of 119 folios, including
several insertions. With 6 folios missing from the added
section at the front of the manuscript, the Tudela’s folios
are numbered to 125. Two artists painted its indigenous-
style images; a third added European-style paintings of
regional dress at the front. One writer was responsible for
the commentary throughout. Since three new sections were
added to the manuscript, and the commentator amended
his texts in some places, the Tudela falls somewhere
between the palimpsest of the Codex Telleriano-Remensis
and the tidy unitary effort of the Magliabechiano. Like
the Codices Telleriano-Remensis and Ríos, it lacks a title
and title page.65
The manuscript’s date is not entirely settled. Scholars
agree that the texts were written around 1553 and 1554 (both
years are referenced in the texts), and it has generally been
assumed that the whole manuscript was created around
the middle of the sixteenth century.66 Batalla Rosado (1999,
2002a:7, 13) proposed that the paintings are much earlier,
ca. 1540, because of what he saw as their indigenous style
and lack of acculturation.67 However, I see some accultura-
tion in the paintings and continue to date the paintings to
the early 1550s, shortly before the texts were added.
The history of the Codex Tudela is more secure. Batalla
Rosado (2001b:138, 2002a:37–43) has convincingly dem-
onstrated that a short dedication to Catalina de Espinosa
was directed to Catalina de Sotomayor, widow of García
6.27. Veintena named Hueymiccailhuitl, showing
images of Xocotlhuetzi. Codex Tudela 20r. Museo
de América, Madrid.
de Espinosa and a first cousin of Cervantes de Salazar.
Cervantes de Salazar sent her a copy of his unfinished
Crónica in 1566. He could have owned and sent her the
Codex Tudela and the Libro de Figuras as well, for she
was a great supporter of the chronicler back in Spain. After
her death, her daughter sold the Crónica to the Council of
Indies in 1597. The Codex Tudela may also have passed to
the council then, perhaps to be sold privately after Juan
Bautista Muñoz died in 1799 to J. Miguez of La Coruña
(whose name is on the cover). Following its discovery in
La Coruña, the Museo de América acquired it in 1946.
Content
The indigenous painters generally followed the sequence of
the prototype but moved the day count to the end. Three
insertions were added later. It contains:
Costume study, 4 folios (insertion)
Veintenas and two movable feasts, 11r–30r
Pulque gods and various other gods, 31r–48r
Rituals and offerings pertaining to healing, methods
of sacrifice, mortuary practices, and a diverse array
of other topics, 49r–77r
Including marriage and punishment for adultery,
74r–75v (insertion)
Count of 52 years, 77v–84v
Mantles, 85v–88v
Tonalamatl, 90r–124r
Including text on 90r–96v (insertion)
Deerskin almanac, 124v–125r
The manuscript now opens with a fragmentary pre-
sentation of regional dress, rendered in a European style,
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 127

which was added at the front of the codex after the rest of
the content had been completed (figure 6.37). As an essen-
tially European presentation (see the discussion below), it
stands out from the indigenous content in the rest of the
manuscript.
The indigenous paintings themselves begin on folio 11r
with the eighteen veintenas and two movable feasts (fig-
ures 6.27, 6.28). Like those in the Magliabechiano, their
paintings generally feature the deity to whom the feast was
dedicated or the principal activity of this festival. Glosses
name and date the veintenas as they are found in the other
128 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
6.28. Veintena of
Tlacaxipehualiztli. Codex Tudela
12r. Museo de América, Madrid.
Magliabechiano Group manuscripts: thus for the sev-
enth through tenth veintenas, the glosses identify Tecuil-
huitontli, Hueyteculhuitl, Miccailhuitontli, and Hueymic-
cailhuitl, although the alternative feast is pictured (table
6.5). The explanatory texts, however, part with the other
texts of the group, for they often speak of different aspects
of the feasts and diverge into other matters (Wilkerson
1974:36; Batalla Rosado 2002a:79–81). In this way the
veintena texts offer information not included in the other
manuscripts in the group.
As in the Magliabechiano, these feasts are immediately
Table 6.5. The veintena section in the Codex Tudela, fols. 11r–28v

Gloss and text Painting Dates

1 Xilomanaliztli, time to plant maize, to Tlaloc Figure painted like Tlaloc holding Tlaloc Mar 1/Feb 1
head and xilotl

2 Tlacaxipehualiztli, sacrifice of war prisoners Gladiatorial sacrifice, with Xipe at top Mar 20/Feb 2/
Feb 21

3 Totzotzintlia [Tozoztontli], honoring Water goddess Apr 10/Mar 13

tezcacohuac tziua pipiltin

4 Hueytozoztli, tall maize, to Quetzalcoatl Goddess with huipil with unformed Apr 30/Apr 2
maize and three vessels of food

5 Toxcatl, to Tezcatlipoca Tezcatlipoca May 20, Apr 11/

Apr 22
Sacrifice in temple of Huitzilopochtli

6 Etzalcualiztli, to Tlaloc Tlaloc June 10/June 9/

May 11/May 12

7 Tecuilhuitzintli [Tecuiltontli] Carrying parrot-helmeted male on June 29/May 29/

litter of corn June 2

8 Hueyteculhuitl, to Chicomecoatl Maize goddess July 9/June 28/

June 21

9 Miccailhuitzintli [Miccailhuitontli], Tezcatlipoca surrounded by circle of Aug 8/July 29/

day of the dead, feast of all the gods, to flowers July 9/July 11
Tlaxochimaco

10 Hueymiccailhuitl, great feast, to Huehueteotl Xocotl pole with Otomí figure on top, male Aug 18/Aug 1
deity at top (identified as Huehueteotl)

11 Ochpanaliztli, sweeping, to Toci Toci, with same male deity as before Sept 7/Aug 21

12 Pachtzintli [Pachtontli], climbing up of gods, Roasting and figure climbing Sept 27/Sept 10
to Teotleco
Feast is Teotleco, arrival of gods

13 Hueypachtli, to Chicomecoatl Xochiquetzal and drinking Oct 17/Sept 30

Lords get drunk

14 Quecholli, to Mixcoatl Mixcoatl Nov 6/Oct 20

15 Panquetzaliztli, to Huitzilopochtli Huitzilopochtli Nov 26/Nov 10

16 Atemoztli, falling water, to Tlaloc Tlaloc Dec 16/Nov 30

17 Tititl, to Our Mother (Toci) Cihuacoatl Jan 5/Dec 20

18 Izcalli, to Yzcoatzahque, which means Xiuhtecuhtli Jan 25/Jan 10

yellow face

a Name as in text.

followed by the pulque gods and the miscellaneous set of
other gods (31r–48r) (figure 6.29). Almost all are identified
by short glosses, but short descriptive texts elaborate on
the first two pulque gods and Quetzalcoatl (31r, 32r, 42r).
Next is the collection of miscellaneous rituals, offerings of
various kinds, and such things as the ball game (49r–77r).
It includes ceremonies pertaining to healing, the treatment
of the postmortem body (figure 6.30), royal inauguration,
130 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
6.29. Pulque god Toltecatl.
Codex Tudela 34r. Museo
de América, Madrid.
dancing, and pulque drinking, as well as other, poorly
understood activities. The offerings emphasize blood sac-
rifice (figure 6.31).
Into this section was inserted a two-folio presentation
of marriage customs, specifically a betrothal and then pun-
ishment for adultery (74–75) (figure 6.32). The insert was
previously thought to form a section on the marriage tra-
ditions of the Yopes of southwestern Mexico, because the
6.30. Funerary rite for
a lord. Codex Tudela
58r. Museo de América,
Madrid.
commentator describes the two paintings as such (Tudela
de la Orden 1980:137–142; see also Wilkerson 1974:41,
43; Boone 1983:72, 78, 87). But as Batalla Rosado (1995,
2002a:336–341) explained, the painting of the marriage
(74r) shows commoners from central Mexico rather than
Yopes: the wife, husband, and parents are all positioned
and costumed as simple Aztecs. The husband has before
him the implements of manual labor—a tumpline, digging
stick, and axe—that an Aztec commoner would use, rather
than the bow and arrow of the Yopes. However, the second
painting (75r), in which the offenders are having their noses
being bitten off, does seem to represent Yopes or another
related people from southwestern Mexico, for the males are
so costumed. It was the commentator who assigned both
images to the Yopes. As Batalla Rosado (1995:79) pointed
out, this suggests that the commentator may not always
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 131

have been describing the images accurately but may have
been developing his own content only tangentially related
to the images.
These three first sections—veintenas, pulque and other
gods, rituals and offerings—share the same format. The
paintings occupy the upper part of the rectos, unless they
are so large as to occupy the whole page, with glosses next
to the figures and descriptive texts, if any, begun below and
continuing onto the verso.
132 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
6.31. Priests offering blood to
a Mictlantecuhtli-like figure.
Codex Tudela 76r. Museo
de América, Madrid.
Thereafter the presentational format changes to a dis-
play spanning the verso-recto spread, beginning with the
year count. All fifty-two years are painted eight to a two-
page spread, with the years running sequentially across
the top and then the bottom (77v–83v). Glosses identify
the years on the first two pages and relate the first four
to the world trees and gods of the tonalamatl presented
later in the manuscript. A text written on the following
page explains the year count and the New Fire Ceremony.68
6.32. Betrothal of central Mexican commoner couple (left) and the punishment for adultery among the Yopes: biting off the nose (right). Codex
Tudela 74r, 75r. Museo de América, Madrid.
The ritual mantles are presented next, six to a page across
the verso-recto spreads (figure 6.33). A short gloss on the
first page identifies the mantles as a group, and brief notes
characterize two of them (86r, 88v), but the mantles are
not otherwise named or identified as they were in the
prototype and are in the Magliabechiano. Although the
prototype had a count of twenty days next in the sequence,
following the year count and before the ritual mantles, the
Tudela moves its day count to the end and presents there
the full 260-day tonalpohualli.
With this move, the Tudela departs from the con-
tent of the prototype. The painted almanac represents a
significant elaboration of the simpler counts of twenty
days found in other Magliabechiano Group manuscripts,
for it pictorially renders the full tonalpohualli (97r–124r)
(figures 6.34, 6.35). It shares features of almanacs known
from both central Mexico and regions to the south (Boone
2007:213). Like the Borbonicus and Telleriano-Remensis,
it depicts all 260 days of the count along with the Lords
of the Night associated with them. It organizes the pic-
torial listing of the days according to trecenas: the days
run across the verso-recto spreads in groups of thirteen,
accompanied by the Night Lords above and, for the first
thirteen, by the augural Volatiles above the lords (figure
6.34). Unlike other surviving central Mexican almanacs,
however, it divides the 260-day count into four distinct
periods of 65 days, called a cocijo by the Zapotecs, who con-
sidered them the principal divisions of the year (Anders
and Jansen 1993:292–293; Boone 2007:147). These 65-day
periods are each associated in the Tudela with one of the
four cardinal directions, the tree of that direction, and
the two governing deities (figure 6.35). Texts and glosses
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 133
identify the figures and day signs and assign other deities
to various sets of days. The glosses are especially dense at
the start of the presentation but fall away after the first 65
days. A prose introduction to the painted tonalamatl was
added somewhat later (90r–96v).
This kind of almanac is found in the codices of the Bor-
gia Group, from the Puebla-Tlaxcala-Mixteca area south
of the valley of Mexico. Notably, the almanac on page 1 of
the Codex Fejérváry-Mayer represents the same division of
the divinatory count according to the four directions, with
a directional tree and two deities and the sequential days
134 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
all noted, although it is differently formatted and its deities
are different (Boone 2007: 114–117). Cervantes de Salazar
(1971, 1:143–144) also describes something similar in his
Crónica. His source seems not to have been the Tudela itself,
however, because he also lists different deities and includes
auguries for the days that the Tudela does not.69
The final surviving page (125r) in the Tudela also pre­
sents an almanac not found in other Magliabechiano
manuscripts (figure 6.36).70 This presentation assigns the
twenty day signs to the various parts of a splayed deer
hide. It is a corporeal almanac similar to those found in the
6.33. Ritual mantles. Codex
Tudela 85v. Museo de América,
Madrid.
(above) 6.34. Thirteen days of the first trecena, with the Lords of the
Night (central row) and Volatiles (upper row). Codex Tudela 98v–99r.
Museo de América, Madrid.

(right) 6.35. Lords and tree of the first group of five trecenas,
Tlaloc (left) and Tonatiuh (right). Codex Tudela 97r. Museo de
América, Madrid.

Codices Borgia (53) and Vaticanus B (96) and described

by Juan de Córdova (1987:203) in his Zapotec grammar
(Anders and Jansen 1993:96; Boone 2007:107–110). As in
these other almanacs, meaning is assigned to the day signs
according to where they are placed on the body. The Tudela
commentator noted the fate of those born on each day sign
according to its location. For example, those at the top of
the head will be knowledgeable, those at the hooves of the
forelegs (which are substitute hands) will be thieves, those
at the hooves of the hind legs will be road travelers, and
those around the thighs and anus will be vicious adulter-
ers. It is hard to say whether these associations reflect a
Preconquest belief or the commentator’s own conclusions
about bodily functions.
The Tudela was modified at least once (Boone 1983:72).71

The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 135


Aspects of its binding reveal that the Magliabechiano-
related paintings and the paintings of the tonalamatl and
deerskin almanac were originally bound together as a man-
uscript. Then the manuscript was disbound and the bifolio
sheet containing the marriage betrothal of central Mexican
commoners and the punishment of adultery among the
Yopes (figure 6.32) was added. At this time, another seven
folios (89–95) were inserted, onto which the commenta-
tor described the painted tonalpohualli that followed on
97r–124r. The European-style paintings of regional dress
136 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
6.36. Deerskin
almanac of twenty
day signs. Codex
Tudela 125r. Museo de
América, Madrid.
seem to have been the last added (figure 6.37) (Batalla
Rosado 2002a:69–78). Then the manuscript was bound
for the last time and paginated. Subsequently six folios
were lost at the front, as explained below.
Artists
Two individuals painted the indigenous-style images.
These men, whom I have called Artist A and Artist B,
were each responsible for individual gatherings: Artist A
created the paintings in gatherings 1, 4, and 6 (figures 6.27,
6.28, 6.30–6.32), while Artist B painted gatherings 2, 3, 5,
and 7 (figures 6.29, 6.33) (Boone 1983:68–74). With the
tonalpohualli, the pattern shifts a bit: it becomes more diffi-
cult to differentiate the work of A, B, and potentially other
artists who may also have contributed. Artist B was largely
responsible for the tonalpohualli (gatherings 7–9), but A
painted five of its folios (111–115) as well as the deerskin
almanac at the end (125r) (figure 6.36).72
Both artists followed canons of Preconquest pictogra-
phy, rendering beings, objects, and symbols conventionally,
using flat forms bounded by black outlines. They treated
supernaturals in a more conservative manner than second-
ary figures, recording the god images in traditional static
poses, with the details of costume delineated. They were
freer in their depiction of secondary figures, who could be
shown gesturing in an animated fashion, moving about,
speaking, crying, climbing, and engaging in other actions,
and they usually outlined these figures with a more cur-
sive contour line. With these secondary figures the artists
therefore created not symbolic statements, as they did
with the deities, but mimetic representations of corporeal
humans engaged in specific activities. Artist B’s line is thin,
hesitant, and often covered over by the color applied on top
of it; his human forms are stiff in the Preconquest fashion,
but some iconographic forms have lost their shape (e.g., the
U-shape of the pulque god nose ornament that has lost its
volutes) (figure 6.29). In contrast, Artist A worked with a
confident, flowing, and usually graceful line that brings the
figures to life (figures 6.27, 6.28, 6.30–6.32).
Occasionally Artist A renders secondary figures with
a three-dimensionality and animacy that clearly reflect
European influence.73 For the feast of Xocotlhuetzi (fig-
ure 6.27), Artist A rendered the cult figures as static and
iconographically rich images with little anatomical delin-
eation, but he treated the men who pull the ropes on either
side of the xocotl pole as corporeal beings (Robertson
1959:128–129). Their hips are angled toward and away from
the viewer, their torsos bend, their arms reach up, and their
hands clearly grasp the roundness of the ropes, which then
dangle down behind their legs. Without ground line, per-
spective, or modeling in light and shadow, the painter has
still created a sense of spatial depth. The same can be said
for his painting of the feast of Teotleco (22r), where he ren-
dered a male climbing up a stepped pyramid from a three-
quarter back view, twisting and reaching through space.
Even more vibrant and lively are the two scenes of
marriage customs: the betrothal and the punishment of
adultery among the Yopes (figure 6.32).74 Although the
painter rendered the bride-to-be (figure 6.32 left) in the tra-
ditional women’s pose (legs tucked under her) and largely
in profile, he turned her upper torso toward the viewer to
show the particular gestures of her arms and hands. He
painted the husband facing her in a three-quarter view and
articulated his anatomical structure well; the clearly over-
lapping limbs bring depth to the figure. On the next page
(figure 6.32 right) the punishment for adultery animates
four males along the bottom of the page in a dynamic and
dramatic moment, when a punisher has just bitten the
nose off the offending man. The painter described their
corporeal forms with elegant contour lines and added
gray shadows to enhance the appearance of volume. The
painter shows the man who holds the adulterer’s feet as
racing across the page, with his hair trailing in the wind
that his movement has created. The painter has fashioned
figures that overlap, lean, reach, and pull; he created not a
static and symbolic statement but a scenic illustration of
specific action in time and space. These effects can only be
the result of exposure to European pictorial illusionism
(Tudela de la Ordén 1980:742).
The Tudela paintings stand out because they have more
blood than any other pictorial source, and it was applied
in two different styles. The painters occasionally rendered
blood in the conventional fashion as fingers of red bor-
dered in black, such as the clumps of red in the cuauhxicalli
vessel that the priests hold as they prepare to pour blood
on a demonic figure (figure 6.31). These painters or another
artist then added copious amounts of extra blood, depicted
as irregular streams, drops, and drips in a European fash-
ion.75 Blood pours down the front of the Tzitzimitl from
its mouth (46r), drips from bloodletters (51r) and spurts
and pours from open chests (51r, 53r, 57r), cascades down
temple pyramids, altars, and cult figures (51r, 53r, 73r, 76r)
(figure 6.31), and spews from severed noses of the Yope
adulterers (figure 6.32). The priests who pour blood over
the top of a demonic cult image (figure 6.31) cover the fig-
ure in a rain of blood. As Cecelia Klein (2016:259–262) has
pointed out, the painters were obviously intending to stress
the bloodiness of some Aztec practices.
Both artists generally understood and were able to
reproduce the iconographic details of supernatural cos-
tumes and other conventions of Mexican pictography.
However, some lapses—in terms of misunderstood or
poorly rendered forms—show that these Tudela paintings
cannot have been the prototype for the others of the group,
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 137
as Batalla Rosado (2002a:119–165; 2010) asserted. A com-
parison of some Tudela images with those in the Magliabe-
chiano and Ixtlilxochitl reveals that in some cases the latter
have more correct details than those in the Tudela.
There are many examples, but a few can suffice. For the
death of a lord, the Tudela (figure 6.30) lacks the small
U-shaped elements that characterize the earth around the
pit in the Magliabechiano (67r) and Ixtlilxochitl (104r).
It arranges the digging sticks backward, with the work-
ing ends pointed away from the pit. For the veintena of
Toxcatl, the Tudela (15r) omits the rectangular nose jewel
beneath Tezcatlipoca’s horizontal nose rod, which the
others have (Magliabechiano 37r, Ixtlilxochitl 96r). The
Tudela painter renders the name/place sign of the pulque
god Colhuacatzincatli with yellow rather than the custom-
ary green earth bumps on the sides of the hill sign (Tudela
38r, Magliabechiano 56r). He also has misrepresented the
name/place sign of the pulque god Toltecatl: what should
be a cluster of tules for Tollan, as in the Magliabechiano
(52r), seems to have been translated, by means of an eye
and anomalous yellow scrolls, into the profile head of a
long-beaked bird (figure 6.29). Among the cloaks, the inte-
rior patterns of the xicalcoliuhqui designs are more pre-
cise in the Magliabechiano (3r) than in the Tudela (85v)
(compare figures 6.17 and 6.33), and the Ehecatl wind
design in the Magliabechiano (7v, similar image in figure
6.18) has the customary segmented band beneath the eye
and a clearly rendered beard, which the Tudela does not
(88r). Since these iconographically more correct or more
detailed paintings in the Magliabechiano and Ixtlilxochitl
cannot logically have been derived, even secondarily, from
the less correctly rendered images in the Tudela, we must
conclude that the Tudela paintings were copied from
another source, just as were those in the Magliabechiano
and Ixtlilxochitl.
Artist A seems to have added deities not in the Maglia-
bechiano and Ixtlilxochitl to four of the veintena presenta-
tions, unless these were already in the prototype but were
omitted by the Libro de Figuras copyist. In the Tudela,
Tlacaxipehualiztli has Xipe above the gladiatorial battle
(figure 6.28), Hueytozoztli (14r) has a corn goddess, and
both Hueymiccailhuitl/Xocotlhuetzi (20r) and Och-
paniztli (21r) have the same seated male deity with a large
quetzal-feathered headdress—labeled Huehueteotl on fol.
20r (figure 6.27 top). This artist also added to the Teotleco
presentation the man climbing the stepped pyramid, who
is rendered in a European-influenced style (22r). Artist A
138 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
was also responsible for three paintings pertaining to
aspects of auto-sacrifice and heart sacrifice (50r, 51r, 52r)
that in the Magliabechiano are represented by one image
(79r). Batalla Rosado (2002a:273–282) proposed that the
Magliabechiano painter compressed the three Tudela
paintings into one, but the Magliabechiano and Fiestas
(36r) record only one painting, so it may well be that the
Tudela artists expanded the pictorial explanations of sac-
rificial acts into three renderings, each developing a slightly
different aspect.
In addition to the two indigenous-style artists, who
were responsible for the core of the manuscript, a third
artist, who was highly trained in European pictorial illu-
sionism, contributed costume figures that were added at
the beginning of the codex (figure 6.37).76 This set of paint-
ings depicts the regional dress of several different culture
groups. The paintings do not significantly postdate the rest
of the codex, for their paper is roughly contemporaneous
with that in the rest of the manuscript, and the same com-
mentator glossed these pictures as well; moreover, these
pages were factored in when the entire manuscript was
paginated. These paintings are remarkable for their natu-
ralism and pictorial illusionism. They have usually been
attributed to a European, but since indigenous artists were
also becoming masters of European painting techniques
and goals (as seen in the murals at Acolman), the paintings
could well have been created by such an indigenous painter.
The section once contained ten folios; six have since been
lost, but not before their glosses had been recorded in the
Costumbres. When complete, this section once pictured the
costumes of men and women of seven different ethnici-
ties and regions of Mesoamerica: Mexicans, Guatemalans,
Ta­rascans, Yopes, Veracruzanos, Huastecs, and Chi-
chimecs. What have survived are the paintings of Mexica
men and women of high status, a Guatemalan man, a Tar-
ascan woman, and a Yope man.
This costume painter was a master of the techniques of
pictorial illusionism, including the contour line, modeling
in light and shadow, and other perspectival techniques to
impart depth and volume. The figures’ carefully rendered
clothing, lifelike positioning, subtle gestures, and held
objects resemble images drawn from life and in this way
differ greatly from the indigenous pictography of the rest
of the manuscript. The painter has taken great care to rep-
resent distinctive aspects of different regional costumes,
in male and female versions, which aligns them well with
the goals and the canons of presentation of Renaissance
6.37. Dress of Mexica women. Codex Tudela 2v–3r. Museo de América, Madrid.
costume books. As explained in chapter 3, such books were
typologies of costume for European observers who viewed
peoples’ dress as a means by which to know and understand
a culture (Boone 2017). Representing such a typology, the
Tudela paintings were not likely to have been targeted to
mendicants proselytizing in New Spain, who would have
gained little benefit from knowledge of regional dress;
instead, they were probably added to the codex when it
was decided that the manuscript would be sent to Europe.
The paintings have a counterpart in the costume section
of the Codex Ríos, but the Tudela set, when complete, was
more systematic.77
Scribe
The commentator did not work in a single seating but
returned to the manuscript several times to add and
change information.78 Usually he identified individual
figures and compositions with short glosses next to the
figures and added longer explanations below or around
the figures, continuing onto the verso side (e.g., figure
6.27). His texts are usually quite different from those of
other Magliabechiano manuscripts and tend to be much
longer.79 Although he named the veintenas as they are in
the other manuscripts, his explanatory texts often speak of
different aspects of the feasts and digress to explain other
facets of Aztec society and customs (Wilkerson 1974:36;
Batalla Rosado 2002a:79–81). For example, his text associ-
ated with the funerary rite of a great lord (55r) describes
the death of Moctezuma (55v). His text that pertains to
the image of priests pouring copious amounts of blood
over a demonic cult image (figure 6.31) devolves into a
discussion of polygamy among the priesthood and how
many wives Moctezuma had (76v–77r; Batalla Rosado
2002a:81–82, 424–425). Following the pictorial listing
of the fifty-two years of the year count, he added a long
explanation that touched on the New Fire Ceremony and
the coming of the Spaniards to Mexico (83v–84r; Batalla
Rodaso 2002a:425–426). His texts therefore go beyond
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 139
those in the Magliabechiano to offer insights into other
areas of Aztec life.
Many of the commentator’s explanations demonstrate
a good knowledge of religious beliefs and customs and
suggest that he himself was fairly well versed in these sub-
jects. Other texts and glosses, however, show that he was
sometimes mistaken or confused. For example, on a few
occasions he used the name of an alternative veintena feast
as the name of the god so honored: thus, he named the
ninth feast as Miccailhuitontli but identified the god of
the feast as Tlaxochimaco, which is the veintena’s alternate
name (Boone 1983:81–84). These kinds of misunderstand-
ings suggest that he copied or derived at least some of his
commentaries from other sources.
Calendrical correlations posed a conundrum for many
early ethnographers of Mexico, including the Tudela
writer. In his introduction to the veintena cycle, he first
incorrectly said that there were twenty feasts of twenty
days each, although he later corrected this to read eighteen
feasts. When he dated the feasts according to the Julian cal-
endar, these dates were not always twenty days apart. Like
the commentator of the Telleriano-Remensis, the Tudela
scribe was concerned about assigning firm dates to these
festival periods and getting the dates right; to this end,
he initially glossed the images with one set of dates but
then returned from time to time to adjust them (table 6.5).
He redated them all at least once and some several times:
Etzalcualiztli was redated three times (Boone 1983:81–85).
Year dates were a problem as well. In describing the 52-year
cycle and the New Fire Ceremony, the commentator incor-
rectly wrote that the new cycle began in 1519, the year
Cortés arrived; later he mistakenly glossed the image of
the year 8 House as “1554,” although the actual year fell in
1565 (Boone 1983:85). Although the glosses and texts of the
Tudela contain much that reflects real understanding of
Aztec religion, society, and customs, they are problematic
at times and not always to be trusted.
In sum, the Codex Tudela was an ethnographic project
advanced over time by two painters (with a third coming
in at the end) and a single commentator, probably at the
behest of a single patron. It may once have had a reader-
ship among the mendicants and administrators in Mexico,
but in its final form, with the European-style costume sec-
tion added, it was clearly intended for a European audi-
ence, as were the Codices Ríos and Magliabechiano. The
indigenous-style paintings are deeply informative of Aztec
ideology, iconography, and practice across a broad topical
140 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
spectrum. Its commentator seems at once knowledgeable
about the Aztec past and at other times mistaken (Boone
1983:80–85; Batalla Rosado 2002a:84), which reflects
the fact that knowledge of the Aztec past was becoming
increasingly fragmented by the middle of the sixteenth
century. He, like the Magliabechiano scribe, avoided the
biblical analogies that characterize Father Ríos’s contri-
butions to the Telleriano-Remensis as well as the Codex
Ríos. The Tudela commentator also avoided offering his
personal opinions about the material that he described,
and it is unclear whether or not he was a member of a
religious order (Batalla Rosado 2002a:394–395).
The Codices Tudela and Magliabechiano, as slightly
differing representatives of an earlier ethnographic effort,
reflect a broad interest in Aztec customs and ritual practice
that goes beyond the Telleriano-Remensis’s comparatively
limited focus on the veintenas, tonalpohualli, and annals
history. These Magliabechiano Group manuscripts are
the only largely pictorial sources that have survived that
cover a range of funerary rituals, the initiation of a lord,
healing practices (including divination and the use of the
sweat bath), a wide variety of sacrificial practices (heart,
auto-sacrifice, incense and other vegetal substances such
as tobacco and rubber), and other kinds of devotional acts.
They also are the only ones to picture and identify over
forty ritual cloaks and over a dozen individual pulque gods.
The ethnographic information in them remains grounded
in the image, which the annotations and texts accompany.
Many of the paintings in the section of miscellaneous rites
and practices are not well understood because they lack
these explanatory texts and are not directly paralleled in
other codices.
As painters who were reproducing figural images from a
preexisting pictorial codex, the Magliabechiano and Tudela
artists were responsible for the images on individual gath-
erings. This required a well-organized collaborative effort:
the artists understood exactly where their copying of the
source should begin and end. Either they worked sequen-
tially from an intact manuscript—one artist copying into
his gathering before turning the source over to the next
artist for his gathering—or they worked contemporane-
ously side by side from a disbound manuscript. In any case,
the artists also sometimes made copying mistakes, added
and subtracted details, and editorialized (e.g., the extra
blood in the Tudela). The paintings in the Magliabechiano
and Tudela thus occasionally differ in their iconographic
details, and each also contains figures and elements not in
the other. This indicates that their artists also felt free to
enhance the prototypal images and were skilled enough in
Aztec religious iconography and pictorial conventions to
do so. New sections in the Tudela were also added to com-
plement the material copied from the source document.
Books of Paintings with Their Texts
Although the mid-century manuscripts are each unique
and the two families quite independent, they share distinc-
tive features that set them apart from the first pictorial
compilations and the later Historias. They manifest their
dependence from Preconquest pictographic tradition by
preserving the figuration and in some cases the structure
of ancient manuscript genres, although now adapted to the
leaves of European bindings. Their images remain prior
and foundational to the texts that exist to describe them
and expand their content. Although some texts drift from
the paintings to explain different aspects of Aztec culture,
their principal responsibility was to respond to the cues
of the images and so direct their focus on the phenomena
pictured. In this way they are quite distinct from European
expository productions, where the texts have priority and
the images follow as “illustrations.”
In several sections the paintings preserve the orga-
nizational structure of their Preconquest sources. The
Telleriano-Remensis and Ríos retain the traditional
arrangement and composition of the trecena almanacs,
such as the Codex Borbonicus and Tonalamatl Aubin, but
simplify them and spread them across the verso-recto of
facing pages. These manuscripts also run the annals as a
linear ribbon across the width of the pages, following the
pattern of indigenous annals like the Tira de Tepechpan
and Codex Mexicanus. The Codex Tudela and Codex
Magliabechiano both retain something of the native tradi-
tion of presenting content across interior folds, but they do
so in different ways. Their prototype positioned its major
paintings on the versos with the written commentary on
the facing recto (Boone 1983:141–146). The Magliabe­
chiano reversed this but retained the verso-recto unit. The
painter of the Tudela honored the interior folds by dis-
playing the year signs, mantles, and day signs across facing
pages, beginning on the versos. Like the Magliabechiano
painter, he placed his major images on the rectos, probably
expecting that commentary would be added on the versos,
but the scribe broke with this tradition by beginning his
explanations around and beneath the images, to continue
onto the following versos. So, while the Tudela painter
may have tried to retain the indigenous disposition, the
scribe followed the European norm. These mid-century
manuscripts differentially maintained some of the most
important features of the indigenous literary canon but
adjusted to accommodate the requirements of the new
material support.
This relative closeness to the indigenous tradition
also comes through in the imagery itself, which preserves
indigenous iconographic conventions even though almost
all the paintings are copies. All the painters, save Maglia-
bechiano Artist A and Tudela Artist B, embraced some
aspects of European illusionism: they painted figures as
generally longer, more corporeal, and less ideoplastic than
the ancient canon, and some modeled forms in light and
dark and experimented with perspective. And although
some painters occasionally misunderstood the forms
they reproduced—especially the principal painter of the
Codex Ríos—most render faithfully the principal visual
attributes of the supernaturals, human participants, and
objects and environments related to them. The painters
of the Telleriano-Remensis, Magliabechiano, and Tudela
were clearly familiar with Preconquest pictography and
iconography. Because of the overall veracity of their
images, these three documents are fundamental records for
understanding indigenous iconography. Although the Ríos
images are more debased, this manuscript is important
because it preserves significant paintings that have been
lost in the Telleriano-Remensis and has additional sections
that cover new material.
These manuscripts are also especially powerful because
their written commentaries usually identify the figures
and describe the phenomena associated with them. The
texts give richness and context to the paintings. However,
not every painting was annotated. Discounting the rep-
etitious year count, the Magliabechiano scribes ignored
eleven paintings, and the Tudela scribe ignored eight (in
addition to most of the mantles). Consequently, our under-
standing of these images has remained poor. The paintings
left unannotated in both manuscripts may have been un­
annotated in their source, which suggests that knowledge
of some rituals and religious entities had already been lost.
The commentator of the Ríos annotated almost nothing of
the annals; he was either uninterested in Aztec history or
thought his reader would be.
Like Preconquest books, the four manuscripts lack the
kind of rhetorical and graphic framing that was common
The Mid-Century Encyclopedias • 141
in sixteenth-century European books. The manuscripts
lack prologues, tables of content, and epistles to the reader
that might have mediated between the indigenous con-
tent and its audience. Except for the Magliabechiano, they
also lack title pages. Moreover, they lack chapter headings,
introductions, and conclusions of any length. Sometimes
the text of the first trecena or veintena will refer to the set
as a whole, but the sections generally just follow one after
the other, as they did in Preconquest painted books, such
as the Mixtec genealogical histories and the divinatory
manuscripts of the Borgia Group. In the Magliabechiano
and Tudela it is difficult even to bracket the feasts, gods,
rituals, and various other phenomena into specific sections.
The creators of these four manuscripts may have expected
that the reader would recognize the changes in content
and thus not require elaborate introductory and framing
devices, but this feature also likely reflects the manuscripts’
origin from ethnographic notes.
Like notes, the texts themselves aim for factual descrip-
tion rather than argumentation. They identify and charac-
terize the supernaturals, ceremonies, and customs but do
not editorialize about the dangers of continued idolatry,
which Durán and Sahagún will later do. These compila-
tions have no cautionary statements directed clearly from
the writer to the reader. Rather, the texts are neutral and
academic in tone.
The Telleriano-Remensis stands out for its multiple
artists and commentators. It was passed around and
worked on over time by many individuals: artists and
commentators. It thus represents the kind of work-
ing manuscript that the friar ethnographers designed
to guide them in their endeavors. The Tudela was also
amended over time with several inserts and adjusted dates
142 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
for the veintenas, but it was much less reworked than the
Telleriano-Remensis. The Tudela and the Magliabechiano
and Ríos were ultimately directed to inform nonlocals
about Aztec culture.
All the manuscripts have at their core some manifesta-
tion of the structure of and phenomena associated with
the three principal calendrical cycles: the 260-day calendar,
the veintenas, and the year count. Although the Magliabe-
chiano shrinks the 260-day divinatory cycle to the twenty
day signs, the others manifest it as a full tonalamatl. In
the Telleriano-Remensis and Ríos it is organized into the
twenty trecenas like the Codex Borbonicus; in the Tudela
it is organized according to sets of four trecenas (sixty-five
days), called a cocijo by the Zapotecs. The Magliabechiano
and Tudela simply list the fifty-two years of the year count,
whereas the Telleriano-Remensis and Ríos include a fuller
annals history. All signify the veintenas by means of a single
image of the patron deity or, in the Magliabechiano and
Tudela, occasionally by a rendering of an aspect of the
festival. These visual presentations distill the veintena cer-
emonies to their patron or a single activity. In this they have
something of the character of European emblems, which
present concepts via a triad of image, title, and short text
(Quiñones Keber 1995a:135–139). There is no Preconquest
visual source for veintena presentations like these, although
a glyph possibly symbolizing the veintena of Panquetzaliz-
tli has survived on a stone “year bundle,” and simple glyphs
identify the veintenas in a number of colonial manuscripts,
including the Ríos (figure 6.16) (Nicholson 2002:66). The
variety by which they are signified in the early colonial
period suggests that their figural rendering may represent
the friars’ attempts to concretize the veintenas and align
them more fully with European months.
Chapter 7
Durán and Sahagún
Cumulative Expositions of the Late Sixteenth Century
T
he projects of the Dominican Diego
Durán and the Franciscan Bernardino de
Sahagún are a culmination of the ethno-
graphic efforts of the sixteenth century. The
friars began to collect information on Preconquest indig-
enous culture in the 1540s and 1550s when the mendicant
enterprise was still strong and when the mid-century ency-
clopedias were being put together. They completed their
final manuscripts in the 1570s and 1580s, when the Pre­
conquest past was an increasingly distant memory. Both
were widely recognized as experts in Nahuatl and deeply
knowledgeable about indigenous culture. They likely were
aware of the efforts of other friars, such as those who
sponsored the mid-century encyclopedias, even if they
may not have been directly aware of the manuscripts that
have now survived. Their shared goals, as they articulate
them in their final compilations, were to bring knowledge
of indigenous ideology and religious practice to their fellow
mendicants in order to help them combat idolatry and,
secondarily, to preserve knowledge of the achievements of
Aztec society and culture. Sahagún’s project additionally
strove to preserve the Nahuatl language.
Durán’s Historia and Sahagún’s Historia general (Floren­
tine Codex) attend to a broader range of indigenous ideol-
ogy and cultural practice than prior studies had attempted.
Whereas the mid-century encyclopedias focus on feasts
and other ritual practices, discussing the gods collaterally,
Durán and Sahagún both treat the Aztec pantheon as a
distinct enterprise. Durán’s Historia has three separate
treatises devoted, respectively, to the gods and rites, the
calendar, and Aztec history from Chicomoztoc to the
Spanish conquest (a detailed diplomatic history that par-
allels the temporal coverage of the earlier annals histories).
Sahagún’s Florentine Codex, however, is a fuller encyclo-
pedia in the European tradition, composed of twelve books
that cumulatively focus on ideology (gods, ceremonies,
sacred and rhetorical expressions, and calendrical divina-
tion), social norms and expectations, and natural history; it
lacks an Aztec history (other than the events and conquests
for each ruler in the book on rulers) but uniquely adds
a conquest history. Both works have sections that derive
noticeably from Preconquest literary and epistemological
traditions, but they belong more fully than previous picto-
rial compilations to the European world of cultural and
encyclopedic compendia.
Both final manuscripts are also structured more like
European documentary genres, for they organize the
material into specific and named sections—whether called
treatises (Durán) or books (Sahagún)—that are organized
internally into numbered chapters and paragraphs. They
share folio-sized page dimensions and the two-column for-
mat typical of scientific texts and some histories and Bibles.
They also shift the emphasis from the image, which loses
much of its expository mandate, to the text, which now
comes forcefully to drive the discourse.
In fact, these late-century compilations are character-
ized by a profound change in the relationship of the image
to the text. Whereas the mid-century encyclopedias offered
paintings and explanatory texts in somewhat equally bal-
anced pairs (the texts expounding on the preexisting
143
images), with Durán and Sahagún the texts expand dra-
matically to assume most of the information-bearing load;
they come to dominate the discourse. The paintings shrink
in size, frequency, and importance, becoming punctuating
visual elements rather than full partners with the texts. The
paintings still retain agency, however, for they highlight
aspects of the text, often offer information not fully con-
veyed in the text, and cue the astute viewer to the cultural
assumptions of the creators (painters and scribes) and the
kinds of unspoken equivalencies they make.
Durán’s and Sahagún’s final efforts also share the dis-
tinction of having been created by individuals whose names
and identities are known. This means that we are able to
understand the manuscripts within the spiritual, intellec-
tual, and social context of their authors, whose larger proj-
ects are known and whose points of view come through.
Both friars directed enterprises that relied on indigenous
participants, some of whom they mention. Durán speaks
of both indigenous and Spanish informants and cites vari-
ous individuals who provided him with information, but
he does not identify any by name. The research and writing
of his Historia seem to have been largely unitary efforts;
he refers to no assistants or helpers. In contrast, Sahagún
is clear about having employed a large team of collabora-
tors, including elders from several towns, students from the
Colegio de Santa Cruz, a number of scribes, and dozens of
artists; he names several but clearly had many more infor-
mants and assistants. Both friars used the prologues to
their treatises and books to convey their own perspectives
and goals.
Although Sahagún’s ethnographic project began earlier
than did Durán’s, and the Florentine Codex was finished
before Durán’s Historia, Sahagún’s document sits more
comfortably alongside the European expository tradition,
despite its Nahuatl discourse. The Florentine Codex also
stands apart from all the other sixteenth-century compila-
tions for its broad coverage, its length, and the number and
variety of its paintings, which make it an extremely rich and
complex document, which can only be synthesized briefly
here. Durán’s Historia, although fully in Spanish, remains
closer to the indigenous literary tradition in its focus and
coverage and is therefore treated first in this chapter.
Diego Durán’s Historia
Durán’s chronicle, known as the “Historia de las Indias de
Nueva España y Islas de Tierra Firme,” is one of the most
144 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
detailed accounts we have of Aztec supernaturals, rituals,
and imperial history.1 It is the culmination of decades of
close observation, questioning, and research into the reli-
gious life of the Aztecs as it was exercised both before the
conquest and in the years following, as indigenous religious
thought and practice persisted under the veneer of Chris-
tianity. It also preserves, in Spanish translation, a Nahuatl
account of the rise and expansion of the Aztec empire, an
account derived ultimately from indigenous memories
and stories. The surviving manuscript is a large folio-sized
codex of 344 leaves covered with two columns of clearly
written text and 118 painted illustrations (figure 7.1).2
As José Fernando Ramírez (Durán 1867–1880, 1:x–xi)
noted, it is not an autograph of Durán but represents a
clean copy probably intended for publication. It is now in
the Biblioteca Nacional España, having entered the royal
library before 1637.3
Although Durán (ca. 1537–1588) was born in Spain, he
grew up in central Mexico, where he saw at first hand the
profound changes confronting the native population.4 He
may have learned Nahuatl as a boy in Texcoco before his
family moved to Mexico City. After he joined the Domini-
can order as a young man, he continued a constant involve-
ment with the indigenous population and its cultural heri-
tage, working in several different monasteries in the basin
of Mexico and Morelos. Much in the Historia reflects his
personal experiences, but his knowledge of Aztec culture
and history also came from oral histories, explanations of
pictorial manuscripts, and native experiences as recalled
by elders. Durán’s deep understanding of indigenous cul-
ture—such that two fellow Dominicans referred to him as
a native of Mexico—is manifest throughout the Historia.
As Ignacio Bernal remarked, “The profound knowledge
of the mind of ancient Mexico shown by Durán is not
to be found even in Sahagún” (Durán 1964:xxix–xxx).
The Dominican historian Agustín Dávila Padilla in 1596
characterized Durán’s study the “finest account ever writ-
ten in this field” (1955:653; León-Portilla 1971:v). Durán’s
purpose in writing the chronicle was threefold: to celebrate
the social and cultural accomplishments of the Aztecs, to
document their religion and devotional practices as an aid
in the extirpation of idolatry, and to exhort his mendicant
colleagues to rekindle the evangelical fervor that marked
the early years of the Christianizing mission.
Like other ethnographies from the sixteenth century,
Durán’s Historia brings together different documentary
threads. It is composed of three separate treatises, which
7.1. Frontispiece and first page of Diego Durán’s Historia de las Indias: (left) Mexicans before their migration, (right) first page of the History
illustrating Chicomoztoc, 1v–2r. Property of Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid.

were originally compiled at different times, drew from
different sources, and reflect different manuscript genres.
None are separately titled, but they have generally been
identified as:
1. The history of the Aztecs from Chicomoztoc through
the conquest, hereafter History, 78 chapters, fols.
1–221r, 62 illustrations
2. The book of the gods and rites, hereafter Gods and
Rites, 23 chapters, fols. 226r–316r, 35 illustrations
3. The ancient calendar, hereafter Calendar, 22 chapters,
fols. 316v–344, 21 illustrations
Internal evidence dates the Gods and Rites to 1574–1576,
making it the first compilation, and texts in the Calendar
and History state that they were completed in 1578 and
1581, respectively (Horcasitas and Heyden 1971:41; Durán
1971:383, 1994:563). These dates reflect the earlier com-
pilations of these works from which the present copy in
Madrid was made.5 This temporal sequence establishes
the Gods and Rites as the foundational work, to which the
Calendar and then the History were added.
Content
The History has usually been studied separately from
the two religious-calendrical treatises because they pur-
sue different goals and take different perspectives on the
Aztec past.6 The History’s goal was to extol the virtues and
greatness of the Mexica as an imperial people and to track
their rise and fall. In contrast, the Gods and Rites and the
Calendar together explain religious practices and beliefs as
an aid to combating idolatry. They are essentially separate

Durán and Sahagún • 145

documents that were simply brought together in the Histo- Table 7.1. Chapter contents of Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise
ria manuscript. The Gods and Rites and the Calendar were
composed earlier, so I take up their content first. Introduction
1. Topiltzin and History at Tula
Gods and Rites 2. Huitzilopochtli
The Gods and Rites lacks a title, but an introduction/
3. Manner of Sacrifice
prologue that was later added at the front explains that
it is an account of the main gods and the rites and cer- 4. Tezcatlipoca
emonies performed. Its twenty-three chapters (table 7.1) 5. Temple of Tezcatlipoca
treat a dozen major deities, include several separate feasts, 6. Quetzalcoatl
and close with a description of the marketplace and ritual-
ized activities such as dance and the ball game. The deities 7. Camaxtli
are six males (in sequence: Huitzilopochtli, Tezcatlipoca, 8. Tlaloc
Quetzalcoatl, Camaxtli, Tlaloc, and Xipe Totec) followed 9. Xipe Totec and Feast of Tlacaxipehualiztli
by six females (Cihuacoatl, Chicomecoatl, Toci, Xochi-
10. Feast of the Sun (Nauhi Ollin)
quetzal, Iztaccihuatl, and Chalchiuhtlicue). This descrip-
tive listing begins naturally enough with Huitzilopochtli 11. Feasts of the Knights of the Sun
and the other two most important male supernaturals, 12. Feast of Xocotlhuetzi
which suggests that the sequence is hierarchical. However,
13. Cihuacoatl
the precedence of Iztaccihuatl (the snow-capped mountain
rendered as a seated woman) and the volcano Popocatepetl 14. Chicomecoatl
before Chalchiuhtlicue (goddess of rivers and springs) is 15. Toci
more difficult to explain this way. It may be that one topic 16. Xochiquetzal
organically led to another in Durán’s mind.
17. Iztaccihuatl
Durán begins his chapters with descriptions of the gods
but uses them as points of departure for discourses on 18. Volcano Popocatepetl and Other Mountains
other aspects of religion. Ultimately, his texts concentrate 19. Chalchiuhtlicue
less on the gods themselves than on the ceremonies, rites,
20. Marketplace and Slaves
and practices associated with them. These are recorded
at length and in detail, with many digressions on mat- 21. Dance
ters that he considered relevant. For example, the chapter 22. Games
pertaining to Huitzilopochtli (ch. 2; figure 7.2) provides 23. Ball Game
the opportunity to describe his feasts, the appearances
of his different cult images, the nature of his temple, the
youths and maidens who served there, and the skull rack. them to have been personified by Aztec supernaturals
This segues into the next chapter (ch. 3), which describes (Tlaltecuhtli, Xiuhtecuhtli, and Ehecatl), before focusing
methods of blood sacrifice before returning again to the on the fourth element: water or Chalchiuhtlicue proper.
ceremonies of Huitzilopochtli’s feast. The two chapters on Here he was clearly applying the European conception of
Tezcatlipoca (chs. 4, 5) describe his cult image, temple, and the four essential elements of the Aztec situation. Durán’s
ceremonies, but they also include an extensive explanation tendency toward digression makes his text an exceptionally
of the nature and responsibilities of priests and the rites rich source for understanding Aztec religious practice.
associated with death, marriage, and the bloodletting of About half of the chapters mention and describe the
newborn children. Durán’s discussion of Chalchiuhtlicue veintena feasts associated with particular deities (table 7.2,
(ch. 19) includes her feasts, the general Aztec reverence for figures 7.3, 7.7). Their inclusion is unsystematic, however,
springs and rivers, the sweat bath, and bathing practices. for only twelve of the twenty veintena feasts are included in
He begins her chapter, however, by briefly identifying three the Gods and Rites. The Gregorian dates that he assigns to
of the four elements of earth, fire, and air, as he considered these feasts differ from those in the Calendar that follows.

146 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography

7.2. Huitzilopochtli. Diego Durán, Gods and Rites, ch. 2, Historia, 231r. Property of Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid.
Table 7.2. The veintena section in Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise

Text Description Dates Ch.

1 [Xilomaniztli, Atlcahualo,
Cuauhuitlehua]a

2 Tlacaxipehualiztli Tlacaxipehualiztli, first feast of year Mar 20 9

3 [Tozoztontli] Eating of tzoalli (sacred dough) Apr 10 3

4 Hueytozoztli Feast of Tlaloc at time of Hueytozoztli Apr 29 8

5 Toxcatl Feast of Toxcatl to Tezcatlipoca May 19 4

6 Etzalcualiztli Thanks to Chalchiuhtlicue No date 19

7 [Tecuilhuitontli] Feast to goddess of salt Huixtocihuatl: see rites No date

described under feast of Tlaloc

8 Hueytecuilhuitl Feast of Cihuacoatl, feast of Hueytecuilhuitl July 18 13

9 [Miccailhuitontli, Tlaxochimaco]

10 Hueymiccailhuitl Feast of god Xocotl, also Hueymiccailhuitl Aug 27 12

11 Ochpaniztli Feast of Chicomecoatl or Chalchiuhcihuatl, Sept 15 Sept 16 14, 15

Feast of Toci, Sept 16, also called Ochpaniztli

12 Pachtontli Feast of Xochihuitl to Xochiquetzal, her feast called Oct 6 16

Pachtontli, and arrival of Huitzilopochtli

13 Hueypachtli Hueypachtli Oct 26 16, 18

Tepeilhuitl Tepeilhuitl, in Aug, unable to verify date

14 Quecholli Feast of Camaxtli Nov 15 7

15 [Panquetzaliztli] [Huitzilopochtli]

16 [Atemoztli] [Tlaloc]

17 [Tititl] [Cihuacoatl/Ilamatecuhtli]

18 [Izcalli, resurrection] Feast of Quetzalcoatl Feb 3 6

Ceremony of realization or fulfillment

a [ ] not named.

The first chapter in the Gods and Rites concerns
Topiltzin and the distant Toltec past. Here Durán alludes
to but does not fully explain the stories about Topiltzin’s
rule at Tula, his persecution by forces of Tezcatlipoca, and
his departure to the east; Durán also notes Topiltzin’s
prophecy that strangers will later arrive to destroy Toltec
descendants. But the emphasis of the chapter is on
7.3. Feast of Xocotlhuetzi.
Diego Durán, Gods and Rites,
ch. 12, Historia, 276r. Property
of Biblioteca Nacional de
España, Madrid.
characterizing Topiltzin as a devout, chaste, and abstinent
holy man, whose disciples built churches and altars and
evangelized widely. Here Durán proposes Topiltzin as the
apostle St. Thomas, who was known to proselytize in dis-
tant lands.
This opening chapter replaces a former historical pre-
lude of four chapters that once introduced the account of
Durán and Sahagún • 149
the Gods and Rites. These former chapters recorded the
origin of the Aztecs in the seven caves of Chicomoztoc,
their migration, the founding of Tenochtitlan, and the
extraordinary tribute that the Tepanecs demanded of the
Aztecs early in their history.7 Couch (1987:65–74) has
proposed that Durán omitted these chapters when he
found an anonymous Nahuatl history and used it to relate
a much more extensive history. The illustrations for these
four omitted chapters were then repurposed in the Gods
and Rites.

Calendar
The following treatise, the Calendar, recounts the indig-
enous cycles that Durán identified as the years, months,
and weeks. He opens with an explanation of the 52-year
cycle, including a calendar wheel that organizes the years
according to the cardinal directions, and points out the
similarity of this cycle and the Jewish jubilee of fifty years.
Next he explains the twenty day signs and then the thir-
teen day coefficients, interweaving this with a summary
of calendrical divination—including the auguries associ-
ated with the different years, day signs, and coefficients
and how lives and events were shaped by the portents of
these units of time. Here he laments how the indigenous
population continued to employ calendrical divination in
the decades following the coming of Catholicism, as when 7.4. Second veintena: Tlacaxipehualiztli. Diego Durán, Calendar,
a town selected a particular saint as its patron because that Historia, 327r. Property of Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid.

saint’s birthday corresponded to an indigenous ceremony

or an ancient deity (Durán 1971:409–410). He describes
the twenty veintenas and closes with an explanation of the
five remaining, useless days of the 365-day cycle.
Each of the twenty veintenas is introduced by a diagram
that unites a simple scene with the pictorial listing of the
twenty days (figures 7.4, 7.8, 7.9). Durán’s text then names
the monthly feasts and any variant or co-occurring feasts,
usually provides the Gregorian date of the principal feasts,
and explains the ceremonies that were conducted (table
7.3). For almost all he recounts several ritual activities per
month, including any special foods eaten, offerings prof-
fered, and activities pursued. His texts stand out, because
they emphasize aspects of the festivals that the painted
scenes do not and often identify different principal cer-
emonies than those named and described in other veintena
calendars.
Throughout his descriptions of the gods, ceremonies,
and festivals, Durán maintains a restrained, neutral tone.
He may occasionally label a rite as diabolical, but he also
characterizes temples as being magnificently built and
often refers to the fine artistry and craftsmanship of reli-
gious accouterments. He describes the gods and festivals
but does not editorialize on them very much. Even in the
introductory prologue to the Gods and Rites, where he
might be expected to declaim idolatrous practices, he char-
acterizes the Aztecs only as wretched in their ignorance of
Christianity and in need of instruction.
History
Durán was free to expand on the glories of the Aztec past
in the History. It tracks the Mexica from their origins, to
their rise and imperial greatness, and through the Span-
ish conquest and the death of Cuauhtemoc, the last of
the Mexica emperors. Michael Milne (1984:57, 99–101,
382–384) has described it as the first global approach to
Mexica history: it is a story complete and final in itself, told
from one point of view, and directed to an external audi-
ence of Spanish speakers. Whereas annals histories, as in

150 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography

Table 7.3. The veintena section in Durán’s Calendar

Text Painting Dates

1 Xiutzitzquilo, taking year/bouquet in Seated man with branch in one hand Mar 1
one’s hand
(text refers to the painting) 1 Crocodile
Cuahuitlehua, when trees begin to rise
Atlmotzacuaya, shutting off of water
Xilomaniztli, offering of green corn

2 Tlacaxipehualiztli, flaying of men Xipe Totec (top cut off ) (derived from 266v) Mar 21

3 Tozoztontli, small perforation Seated man holding flowers with panache below. Apr 10
Glyph of bird pierced by bone

4 Hueytozoztli, great perforation Seated man holding cornstalk. Glyph of bird Apr 30
pierced by bone
Gloss says Ochpaniztli to Toci
Feast of Tlaloc

5 Toxcatl, dry thing Temple and houses with bottom half of a god May 20
similar to Huitzilopochtli (on 231r) with legs
Toxcanetotiliztli, dance of Toxcatl

6 Etzalcualiztli, eating corn and beans, Tlaloc (similar to Magliabechiano 34r) [ June 9]a
does not mention Tlaloc

7 Tecuilhuitontli, small feast of lords Seated man with flowers in hand and panache June 29
below (same as Tozoztontli)
Tlaxochimaco, distribution of flowers

8 Hueytecuilhuitl, large feast of lords Seated man with corn in hand. Glyph for lord, [ July 19]
feast disk, hand with maize cake, bunch of greens
Also Xilonen sacrifice
(mentioned in text)

9 Miccailhuitontli, small feast of the dead Men pulling xocotl beam. Glyph of corpse bundle Aug 8
with banner
Xocotl pole is prepared

10 [Hueymiccailhuitl], great feast of the dead Xocotl pole with bird (derived from 276r), man Aug 28
climbing. Glyph of corpse bundle with banner
Xocotlhuetzi, xocotl falls

11 Ochpaniztli, day of sweeping Scaffold with Toci effigy and with warriors on sides Sept 17

12 Pachtontli, small moss Standing woman with red patches of bloodletting [Oct 7]
on arms and legs. Glyph of moss
Coming of Huitzilopochtli [i.e., Teotleco
arrival of gods]

13 Hueypachtil, great moss Serpent (similar to the serpent in Magliabechiano [Oct 27]
and Tudela). Glyph of moss
Coailhuitl, feast for all the land) Tepeilhuitl
on Oct 29
Tepeilhuitl, feast of the mountains

14 Quecholli, flying spear Camaxtli [Mixcoatl] with deer Nov 16

Table 7.3. The veintena section in Durán’s Calendar (continued)
15 Panquetzaliztli, raising of banners, to
Huitzilopochtli
16 Atemoztli, water falls, descent of
Huitzilopochtli
17 Tititl, to stretch, to Camaxtli
18 Izcalli, growth
Xilomaniztli, tender corn
Cuahuitlehua, trees bud
and to mountains Tlaloc and Matlalcueye
Nemontemi, useless days [Durán
erroneously identifies the Rain/Tlaloc
glyph, which signifies Mt. Tlaloc, as a
dominical symbol to add a leap day]
a Dates in brackets are reconstructed.
the Codex Telleriano-Remensis, record sequent events by
year and lack a finish (events simply stop being recorded),
Durán’s History has a narrative structure that carries the
Mexica in an arc from their origins to their defeat. Durán
may well have taken Livy’s History of Rome—with its
combination of myth, hearsay, and authorial presence—
as a general model for this type of historical presentation
(Milne 1984:226, 250–251).
Durán divided the Mexica story into three principal
parts. The first chapters recount the early history of the
Mexica. Chapters 1–5 track the Aztecs from their origins
at Chicomoztoc (merging with Aztlan, figure 7.1) and
follow their migration to Chapultepec and finally to the
founding of Tenochtitlan (figure 7.5). Chapters 6, 7, and
8 are dedicated to the first three rulers: Acamapichtli,
Huitzilihuitl, and Chimalpopoca, respectively. These early
chapters form a prelude to the imperial history that fol-
lows. Thereafter Durán devotes multiple chapters to the
subsequent rulers, stressing especially the conquests, build-
ing programs, and dedications of sculptures and temples
with sacrifices (chs. 9–68). Throughout, he assumes the
Mexica perspective, characterizing them as reasonable and
152 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
Seated adults eating. Glyph of seated man with [Dec]
banner
Two seated men and a woman hold large green/ Dec 26,
yellow ovals (food, plant?). Glyph of child (water) St. Stephen
descending
Seated man, child, and woman eating sour bread. Jan 15
Glyph of two children pulling at each other
Upper illustration: Seated man and woman boiling Jan [Feb]
and eating amaranth leaves. Glyph of seated man 23 last day
with cornstalk of month,
[begins
Lower illustration: Mt. Tlaloc flanked by two
Feb 4]
victims speared. Glyph of tree
Pertains to lower scene of Izcalli [Feb 4]
just in their expansion and the rulers generally as wise and
accomplished. But as the History progresses, Durán points
out excesses and transgressions that will justify the divine
punishment that is to come in the form of the conquest
(Milne 1984:308–317, 327–373; Peperstraete 2007:21, 593).
Late in Moctezuma II’s reign, Durán introduces omens
foretelling the conquest (ch. 61). Once the Spanish ships
arrive on the Gulf Coast (ch. 69), the story enters its third
part and turns to the relationship between the Mexica and
the Spanish and the defeat of the former; it closes with the
execution of Cuauhtemoc (ch. 78).8
The written History is detailed storytelling, filled with
innumerable small actions, speeches, and individuals’
thoughts. For example, Durán (1994:69–70) only briefly
explains the death of Chimalpopoca, but he does so by
noting in detail how the nobles went in the morning to
greet their king and found him dead. A great clamor then
rose throughout the city, and an official tried to control
them by means of a speech (“quoted” fully). The reader is
next led to understand the feelings of the people and the
beginnings of a plot of revenge. Consistently throughout
the History, Durán articulates the conversations of the
7.5. Founding of Tenochtitlan. Diego Durán, History, ch. 5, Historia, 14v. Property of Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid.
rulers, their advisors, and their foes. Many chapters, which
Milne (1984:204–217) has called “war chapters,” follow a
formulaic template that includes the rationale for conquest,
speeches and mental preparation, the organization of war-
riors, rousing speeches before the battle, the battle itself,
the slaughter of defeated citizens, the request for mercy,
and finally the setting of tribute. For each ruler, Durán
begins with his selection and inauguration and ends with
his death.
A notable feature of the History is the importance given
to Tlacaelel as the principal advisor to the Mexica kings.
Durán (1994:73–83) introduces him in chapter 9, when the
youthful Tlacaelel first urges Itzcoatl to liberate Tenochti­
tlan from the Tepanecs of Azcapotzalco (Colston 1973:160–
176). Thereafter, until his death, Tlacaelel features as an
omnipresent military leader, shaper of foreign policy, and
craftsman of Tenochtitlan’s imperial grandeur by means of
temples and monuments (Colston 1973:40, 58–59, 157–159;
Milne 1984:223–224, 228). Durán positions him as the cen-
tral figure of the written History, although he appears in
only one of the illustrations (Colston 1973:58).
Durán drew on a number of pictorial and textual sources
for the History (Garibay 1967, 1:xxvii–xxx), but none was
more important than a now-lost Nahuatl history, which he
cited often as the “historia” or “historia mexicana.” It also
championed Tlacaelel and can be considered the source
for Durán’s perspective on the man and for his account
of the Mexica imperial story. Indeed, Durán positions
his own History as a translation of the Nahuatl history
and cites it often (Colston 1973:560), especially when he
Durán and Sahagún • 153
seeks to validate a fact (e.g., name, date, event, or number),
but not for the many speeches or descriptions of ritual
and customs, for which it was unnecessary to bring in an
authoritative source (Milne 1984:70). Durán began to draw
on it at least by chapter 9 when Tlacaelel is introduced
and continued to use it until the arrival of the Spaniards.9
Alvarado Tezozomoc also used this Nahuatl history, or a
cognate, for his own Historia mexicana, as explained below.
The first chapters that recount the origins, the migra-
tion, and the founding of Tenochtitlan look back to ear-
lier pictorial records of the migration history (figure 7.1).
Durán’s account generally parallels those in the Codex
Boturini and Mapa Sigüenza, for example, including
the stay at Chapultepec. Both Durán (1994:114) and the
Codex Boturini (21) recount the distinctive episode when
the Mexica, having defeated Xochimilco, cut the ears off
their captives and gathered them in great bundles (Colston
1973:124). Durán affirms that he had both heard the story
and seen it in a painted manuscript. He also recalled
seeing a painted migration history at Santiago de Tlate-
lolco (Durán 1994:22). Even when he began to draw on
the Nahuatl text history, he segmented Mexica history
according to the reigns of the rulers and emphasized their
conquests, as does the Codex Mendoza. His treatment of
each ruler from inauguration to death also parallels annals
histories that track events in Mexica history this way (e.g.,
Codex Telleriano-Remensis). Durán, however, adds detail
and configures the data into an epic narrative, for his stated
goal is to highlight the great deeds of the Mexica lords just
as Spanish literature celebrates El Cid, Bernardo del Car-
pio, and others (Colston 1973:171–172; Durán 1994:202).
Another model and authority, the Old Testament,
shapes the History, however. Durán is explicit in compar-
ing the Mexica with Jews and Hebrews as the descendants
of lost tribes of Israel (Colston 1973:145–155; Peper­straete
2007:21–22, 594). He does this throughout the History, but
especially in the first chapter, where he specifically argues
this position, citing Old Testament books and chapters
that parallel features of Mexica history. Later in the History
he continues to draw comparisons with particular episodes
described in the Old Testament (e.g., Durán 1994:73–74),
but more often these parallels are left unstated. Milne
(1984:83–94, 384–391) has extensively noted these paral-
lels to show persuasively that Durán firmly viewed Mexican
history as a memory and reflection of biblical scriptures of
the Old Testament. In this way, Itzcoatl is reminiscent of
King David, for example, and the youthful Ahuitzotl is like
154 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
the biblical Joash, who was equally protected by his uncle as
a young ruler (Milne 1984:203, 261, 292–296). Durán does
not acknowledge these analogues, Milne (1984:261) argues,
which allows the readers to recognize them on their own
and makes the parallels much more convincing. Indepen-
dently, Couch (1987:336–341) came to a similar conclusion
about Durán’s reliance on pictorial tropes found in illus-
trated Old Testament Bibles, discussed more fully below.
Both make it clear that Durán looked to the Old Testament
as a model for history and a source of templates for indi-
vidual episodes.
The Compilation
As a copy of earlier works, the Madrid manuscript was
assembled in stages, with the Gods and Rites and the
Calendar seemingly copied first. They form a unit, for
they occupy a discrete set of gatherings and were once
paginated separately from the History, and the Calendar
follows the Gods and Rites without interruption (Boone
1988:50; Vargas Montes 2018:36–37). The Gods and Rites
also mentions that the Calendar will follow as the second
part,10 and some of its figural images were repeated in
the Calendar. Moreover, both were copied from an ear-
lier, quarto-sized manuscript that contained virtually the
same content (Couch 1987:59–74, 435–439; Boone 1988).
Dávila Padilla (1955:653; Horcastias and Heyden in Durán
1971:xvii) may have been referring to this manuscript or to
its quarto-sized prototype when he said that Durán had
written two books, one a history and one concerning indig-
enous culture (“antiquallas de los Indios”).11
When it was determined that a new folio-sized copy
of the Gods and Rites and the Calendar should be made,
the principal scribe of the Madrid manuscript copied the
text from the quarto-sized prototype into two columns,
leaving space for illustrations to be added. The illustra-
tions in this smaller prototype were cut from their pages
and pasted into the final folio-sized copy (figures 7.2–7.4,
7.6–7.9).12
The text of the History was copied separately and
apparently later or certainly with knowledge of the Gods
and Rites. It occupies its own set of gatherings, and a pas-
sage mentions that a certain ceremony will be explained in
the second treatise that follows (Colston 1973:16; Durán
1994:408). The principal scribe began the History, and the
second one finished it, both leaving space for the images
that would be added later. The History’s text ends in the
middle of a gathering, leaving several blank pages (fols.
221v–226v) that provide a break between it and the reli-
gious and calendrical treatises that follow. The History’s
illustrations were painted directly in the manuscript (fig-
ures 7.1, 7.5, 7.10–7.12), and some include figures derived
from those in the Gods and Rites and the Calendar.
When the History was joined to the Gods and Rites
and the Calendar, a four-page introduction to the religious
treatise was added on two of the folios left blank after the
conclusion of the History (fols. 226r–227v). A large paint-
ing of the founding of Tenochtitlan was later pasted on
227v below the final sentences. The full manuscript was
paginated 1–343, seemingly complete. However, one last
change was made: a folio containing a full-page painting
of Chichimecs, by an artist whose work is not seen else-
where in the manuscript, was added at the front of the
manuscript (figure 7.1). Then the entire manuscript was
repaginated 1 through 344.
The final product was a lavish large-scale manuscript,
copiously illustrated, and likely intended for publication.
Durán himself said of his religious treatise that “once my
book is published, no one will be able to feign ignorance”
about the continued practice of native idolatry (Durán
1971:296; Horcasitas and Heyden 1971:41). In preparation
for this supposed destiny, an editor went through the man-
uscript copy correcting errors, clarifying passages, and cen-
soring unfavorable comments about the Spaniards; he also
effaced Durán’s name from the work, rendering it anony-
mous (Couch 1987:39–44, 1989:125; Heyden 1994:xxxiii–
xxxiv). The title page was also removed at some time. The
manuscript’s present title was gleaned from the title of the
first chapter: “Capítulo primero, de dónde se sospecha que
son los indios de estas Indias e Islas y Tierra Firme del Mar
Oceano” (see figure 7.1, fol. 2r), probably when the manu-
script was inventoried in the royal library in 1637 (Couch
1987:44, 46; Peperstraete 2007:24).
Scribes and the Text Copy
Ramírez (1867:x–xi) early established that Durán himself
did not write the existing Historia manuscript, for the texts
include many errors in Nahuatl orthography that Durán
would not have made. Simple mistakes such as the rep-
etition of words or phrases reveal the work of copyists.13
Two principal scribes seem to have contributed to the final
project, in addition to the person who wrote the texts pre-
served on the paste-over illustrations, which came from the
earlier manuscript. One scribe was responsible for most of
the texts: all of the religious and calendrical treatises (fols.
228r–344v) and the first part of the history (chs. 1–55, fols.
1–165r, into the reign of Moctezuma I). What appears to
be another hand, characterized by narrow angular letters
and some differences in letter formation, wrote the rest
of the history (chs. 56–78, fols. 165v–221r) as well as the
introduction to the religious and calendrical treatises (fols.
226r–227v).
The scribes clearly planned that the work would be
illustrated, for they left space spanning the width of the
pages for illustrations to be added before the chapters.
They treated the History differently from the religious
and calendrical treatises, however. In the History they
never refer to the illustrations. Sixteen of the seventy-eight
chapters were never intended to be illustrated, because
the scribes left no extra space.14 Before another chapter
(ch. 70), the second scribe left space for a painting that
should have pictured Moctezuma’s instruction to a court
painter to reproduce the likeness of the Spaniards (of the
Juan de Grijalva expedition) who had been spotted on the
Gulf Coast. No illustration was added, however; instead,
the principal scribe added a sentence that this first coming
of the Spaniards was kept secret, out of fear, until Cortés
arrived (Durán 1994:502). It is not known why these seven­
teen chapters were unillustrated, as they do not share a
common denominator that I can discover. In the Gods and
Rites and the Calendar, the scribe always left space for the
illustrations; he often referred to them and occasionally
noted their placement.15 In a few instances he left insuf-
ficient space, apparently misjudging the size of the illustra-
tions that were to be pasted in, for the pasted images cover
part of his words (figures 7.4, 7.6).16 This problem did not
arise in the History, of course, for the painting size could
be adjusted to the available space.
A third hand was the final editor who corrected simple
errors, clarified prose, and recast passages in the conquest
history to be more favorable to the Spanish: for example,
he crossed out the account of the Spaniards’ abuse of
palace women and recharacterized Cortés’s murder of
Cuauhtemoc as having been justified.17 He was likely the
one who effaced Durán’s name (Couch 1987:40; Heyden
1994:xxxiii–xxxiv). Couch (1987:41) proposed that he
was probably Baltasar Dorantes de Carranza, a viceregal
official and author whose “relation of merits and services”
manuscript (ca. 1600–1604) included historical material
from Durán’s History. As a procurator for descendants of
the conquerors, Dorantes de Carranza would have wanted
such men cast in a good light (Couch 1987:44).
Durán and Sahagún • 155
Artists and the Paintings
The effort to illuminate the manuscript involved eleven
artists, three of whom were responsible for the great major-
ity of the illustrations.18 Almost all of the paintings in the
Gods and Rites and the Calendar were by a single person
whose work was sufficiently valued to be cut out of the
earlier manuscript and reused in this one. Two other artists
painted most of the illustrations in the History. Eight oth-
ers either contributed directly to the manuscript or painted
images that were added to it.
The paintings in the Gods and Rites are the closest to
156 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
the indigenous tradition but are also European in many
respects. The artist (Artist J) who painted all but the
first six was clearly familiar with the visual attributes of
the Aztec gods, rendered the figures with iconographic
fidelity, and retained many indigenous canons (e.g., faces
in profile, conventionally drawn structures, and Aztec
women’s pose). About half the paintings are of deities, who
appear as autonomous entities on what would have been
a neutral ground without depth, as in the mid-century
encyclopedias (figure 7.6). However, he also followed
European conventions skillfully. He rendered human
7.6. Quetzalcoatl/Ehecatl. Diego
Durán, Gods and Rites, ch. 6,
Historia, 251v. Property of Biblioteca
Nacional de España, Madrid.
7.7. Feast of
Tlacaxipehualiztli.
Diego Durán, Gods and
Rites, ch. 9, Historia,
266r. Property of
Biblioteca Nacional de
España, Madrid.
forms as naturalistically proportioned and fully corporeal,
modeled in light and dark, with bodies often turned to
a three-quarter view and posed according to their roles
(figures 7.3, 7.6). In an attempt to transform the neutral
ground of indigenous pictography into three-dimensional
space, he surrounded the figures with an impressionistic,
atmospheric landscape that creates a deep pictorial space
between the figures closer to the picture plane and a distant
and vague horizon (Couch 1989). Robertson (1968:347)
noted that this juxtaposition of distant landscape and
close figures creates the “space of a stage.” The landscape
locates the figures in the open air but does not otherwise
specify place.
Several of Artist J’s paintings in particular show the ten-
sion between the competing indigenous and European sys-
tems. For example, those pertaining to Xipe Totec and Toci
locate the standing deity in the upper half of the painting
and picture figures engaged in combat below; apparently
not wanting the deity to float in space, the artist painted
as part of the background landscape a tall hill on which
the upper figure could theoretically stand, but he kept the
figure the size of the others, which pulled it impossibly for-
ward from the background hill (chs. 9, 15; 266r, 286r, figure
7.7). Later, in representing a dance, he painted corporeal
figures but arranged them counterclockwise in a circle with
feet toward the center, following the indigenous tradition.
Five of the first paintings in the Gods and Rites are
collages whose principal images were embellished with
pieces cut from paintings that illustrated the four omitted
chapters that once provided historical background for the
Gods and Rites.19 For example, to the right of the image of
Huitzilopochtli, several of the small fragments pertain to
Durán and Sahagún • 157

7.8. Fourth veintena, Hueytozoztli, mistakenly labeled Ochpaniztli.
Diego Durán, Calendar, Historia, 329r. Property of Biblioteca Nacional
de España, Madrid.
tributes of food plants as well as flora and fauna of the lake
paid to Azcapotzalco (figure 7.2). A painting of the found-
ing of Tenochtitlan that also belonged to this earlier group
was kept whole and pasted in at the end of the prologue to
the Gods and Rites (227v). Another assembly is the Tem-
plo Mayor and the tzompantli (ch. 2, 232v), put together
from two paintings joined side by side. All these fragments,
executed by two artists (Artists H and I) whose work is not
seen elsewhere, came from the earlier draft to which Durán
(1994:296) referred. Couch (1987:62) proposed that these
illustrations were modified in order to extend them to the
full width of the page, as is the pattern in the History.
The Calendar paintings are distinctly formatted in the
manner of some Catholic liturgical calendars included
in baptismal manuals, graduals, or breviaries (Couch
1987:332–334). For each of the veintenas, the artist painted
a relevant deity or activity in a rectangular panel and
arranged the twenty days of that month in two vertical
158 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
columns, allowing space between for the textual heading
for that month (figures 7.4, 7.8–7.9).
Because these diagrams were cut from a smaller manu-
script, they did not fit the new page well: some were
pasted horizontally, and some heavily cropped when the
manuscript was trimmed. The images in the panels usually
offer a very simplified indication of the ritual (table 7.3).
Almost half feature seated men and women holding types
of vegetation (e.g., branches, flowers, cornstalks) or eating
(figure 7.8). Only six feature gods and priestly rituals, and
all of these six repeat figures from the Gods and Rites;
for example, Tlacaxipehualiztli in the Calendar repeats
the Xipe Totec figure from the festival in the Gods and
Rites (compare figures 7.4 and 7.7), and Xocotlhuetzi in
the Calendar repeats the same scene in the Gods and Rites
(compare figures 7.9 and 7.3).20 In considering why this is
so, I propose that Durán’s artist did not have at hand an
established source for the veintena images and so reused
what he could of the earlier paintings in the Gods and
Rites. For those others with no visual equivalent, he cre-
ated simplified, almost generic, figures seated or standing
with relevant attributes.
The painter also added a small glyphic image or scene in
the upper corner of many of these veintena panels, enclosed
in clouds (figures 7.8, 7.9). Their inclusion and placement
imitate the appearance of zodiac signs in clouds on the
calendar pages of a Catholic gradual (Couch 1987:334),
for here again the painter was drawing inspiration from
Catholic liturgical publications. These small glyphs and
scenes often refer to alternative festivals: for example, in
the panel for Xocotlhuetzi, the scene of the xocotl pole is
accompanied by a corpse bundle that signifies the alterna-
tive festival of Hueymiccailhuitl (Great Feast of the Dead)
(figure 7.9). In other cases they reflect a supposed transla-
tion of the feast name: for example, a bird pierced by a bone
for Hueytozoztli, which Durán translated as “great perfora-
tion” (figure 7.8). It is often these inserted glyphic refer-
ences, and not the primary scenes, that reappear in other
calendars cognate with Durán (e.g., the Tovar Calendar).
A pictorial consistency runs through the Gods and
Rites and the Calendar, for they were painted by the same
artist and derived from the same source. The illustrations
in the History are more varied, however, and were prob-
ably newly created for this manuscript, rather than being
copied from an illustrated prototype. They were painted
directly on the pages in spaces left for them after the text
was written, and the text does not refer to them at all.

Variations between the compositions among the different
history artists suggest that they solved narrative challenges
in their own ways. Additionally, six of the paintings repeat
compositions and figures from the Gods and Rites.21
The paintings serve as visual headings for their chapters,
but they follow the text in outline form only and other-
wise present their own narrative. For example, although the
History text puts great emphasis on the contributions and
importance of Tlacaelel, only one of its sixty-two paintings
includes him, when he participates with the ruler in the
sacrifice of prisoners from Coixtlahuaca to dedicate a new
sun stone (ch. 23, 70r).22 The visualization of Tenochti­
tlan’s founding (figure 7.5), a crucial event in Aztec history,
7.9. Tenth veintena,
Xocotlhuetzi, rotated
from the horizontal.
Diego Durán, Calendar,
Historia, 336r. Property
of Biblioteca Nacional de
España, Madrid.
also varies from the text, for the painting shows a snake in
the eagle’s mouth, while the text mentions a bird (Couch
1987:70–71; Durán 1994:44). Many other History paint-
ings illustrate one aspect of the chapters’ content but not
necessarily the primary one. If the paintings were created to
illustrate the History chapters, they might be expected to
do so more closely, but they offer a different view of Mexica
history, one that is rhetorically closer to the indigenous
historiographical tradition.
Except for the last eighteen that illustrate portents and
events of the Spanish conquest, most of the paintings have
indigenous features. The first eight, which pertain to the
migration, reflect images in other migration histories, such
Durán and Sahagún • 159
7.10. Itzcoatl participating in the conquest of Coyoacan. Diego Durán, History, ch. 10, Historia, 29r. Property of Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid.

7.11. Accession of Tizoc following the death of Axayacatl. Diego Durán, History, ch. 39, Historia, 111r. Property of Biblioteca Nacional de España Madrid.
7.12. Moctezuma distributing provisions during the great famine of 1 Rabbit. Diego Durán, History, ch. 30, Historia, 89v. Property of Biblioteca
Nacional de España, Madrid.
as the seven caves of Chicomoztoc, ancestors seated inside
the caves, and migrants in Chichimec garb (compare figure
7.1 to figures 6.3, 6.15).23 Most of the other paintings repre-
sent battles and the accession of the Mexica rulers (figures
7.10, 7.11) and in this way reflect the kind of visual narrative
found in annals histories that represent the rulers and their
conquests but little else, such as in part one of the Codex
Mendoza (figure 5.10). Place signs and name signs continue
to be used. The Mexica and Texcocan rulers are consis-
tently identified by their name signs (figures 7.10–7.12).
Other leaders, who usually appear in subservient roles, are
distinguished by their place signs. Place signs also name the
many allied and enemy polities. These signs may be ren-
dered three dimensionally and have some native elements
oddly rendered, but the elements still read conventionally.
The Preconquest statement of royal accession continues
strongly in the History, where the crowned ruler appears
seated on the throne, wearing the canonical royal blue robe
and blue crown (figure 7.11). Unless rulers are doing battle
or are otherwise actively engaged in an action, they almost
always appear on their thrones (figure 7.12). The accession
of Tizoc is especially telling (figure 7.11), for the enthroned
corpse bundle of his predecessor Axayacatl is placed just
behind him, paralleling the pictographic convention of a
ruler’s accession being immediately preceded by his prede-
cessor’s death, as seen in the annals histories (e.g., figures
6.4, 6.5).24
The first painter to illustrate the History proper, Art-
ist A, executed the twenty-seven paintings for chapters 1
through 41, carrying the Aztecs from Chicomoztoc through
the accession of Ahuitzotl. Four other artists then each
painted only one to five scenes, which suggested to Couch
Durán and Sahagún • 161
(1987:306) that the patron tried these artists as replace-
ments for Artist A but found them wanting. Then the other
major painter (Artist F) took over the project to execute
the twenty-three paintings from chapters 53 through 76;
a final painter (Artist G) illustrated the last two chapters
(chs. 77 and 78). These paintings in the History share the
same basic format, for they all span the width of the page
and many are embellished with decorated borders.
As the first artist, Artist A set the standard for the other
illustrations. His works are a synthesis of native conven-
tions and the kind of imagery found in European print
illustrations (Couch 1987:303–305). In battle and other
scenes involving numbers of people, he created great depth
by using the kind of impressionistic landscape elements
found in the Gods and Rites and locating individuals
within that space by putting them toward the top of the
picture plane and adjusting their size accordingly (figure
7.10, Couch 1987:212–217). He often massed armies in tight
clumps to the sides of the paintings.
Artist A also established the distinctive convention for
rendering the interior of the royal palace, which was fol-
lowed by the other painters (Couch 1987:293, 246–247).
He created such spaces by employing one or more elabo-
rately ornamented columns, a tile floor, and a parapet
beyond which stretched a landscape vista (figure 7.11). The
throne was the high-backed woven seat of the native con-
vention, but it was often raised on a platform and backed
by a wall, and the reed fabric could be transformed into a
great decorative scroll. The artists who followed continued
this format for the throne scenes.
A striking feature that adds to the European effect of
the History paintings is the addition of complex frames
around some two dozen of the scenes (Couch 1987:202–
203, 209–212). Some frames have repeating patterns of
step-frets, loops, or scrolls (figures 7.5, 7.11), while others
employ more elaborate garlands, strapwork, acanthus-
like leaf forms, and swags rendered with dramatic three
dimensionality. Six frames are elaborate ovals (figure 7.12).
As Robertson (1968:346) noted, these frames “feature the
vocabulary of form reminiscent of German and Nether-
landish design books.” Alexandra Ellison (n.d.) identified
the sources in pattern books that feature cartouche frames
by Hans Vredeman de Vries (1527–1607), one of the major
Netherlandish print designers of the sixteenth century (fig-
ure 7.13; Heuer 2009:1–2, 34, 198–199). These books were
very popular in Europe and made their way to Mexico and
other American cities, where they influenced the design of
162 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
7.13. Strapwork cartouche, ca. 1573, print published by Antonio Lafréry
after Hans Vredeman de Vries. © Victoria and Albert Museum,
London, No. 16831.
structural and ornamental elements such as choir stalls,
cartouches, and frames (Kubler and Soria 1959:171, 176,
177, 187, 371n20, 372n28). Beside several of the paintings,
the artists also added decorative figures appropriate to the
scenes: for example, warriors on pedestals beside the battle
with Coyoacan (figure 7.10).25
There does not seem to be a consistent pattern to this
framing and embellishing practice, except that accessions
in particular were elaborately framed, especially those of
the imperial rulers beginning with Itzcoatl. The most elab-
orate frames were likely intended to glorify the illustrations
being presented within them; none of the illustrations that
picture the portents or Spanish conquest have decorated
frames. The decorative frames employ many classical
motifs, so they also helped to cast Aztec history in terms
of a celebrated Greco-Roman past.
Couch (1987:336–341) has proposed that the paintings
and illustrated format of the History were influenced by
illustrated Bibles in Latin, especially those printed in Lyons
in the late 1560s to the 1580s. Such Bibles circulated widely
and were imported to Mexico: the Nahuatl painter Juan
Gerson copied their images on the choir ceiling at Tla-
manalco, for example. These Bibles were printed in two
columns, and the Old Testament sections were embel-
lished with paintings at the headings of the chapters, char-
acteristics that reappear in the History. The Old Testament
illustrations also feature the same kind of protagonists—
emperors, princes, and councilors—and the settings are
palaces and battlefields. The painters could well have used
the Bibles as a set of templates from which specific com-
positions—such as throne scenes and battles—could be
chosen. Couch proposed that this parallel was intentional,
in order to reinforce Durán’s assertion that the Aztecs were
descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel.
Milne’s evidence from the pictorial images supports his
assertion, based on textual analysis, that the Old Testa-
ment was a major rhetorical model for Durán in crafting
his History. Durán’s goal was to cast the Mexica in the
most favorable light possible as valiant and principled
people who dwelled in the pagan past because they had
not yet been exposed to Christianity. It was thus reason-
able of him to look to the scriptures of the Old Testa-
ment in characterizing the individual actors and episodes
of Mexica history and to take inspiration from the Old
Testament illustrations in published Bibles that were cir-
culating at the time.
The full-page illustration added at the front of the
manuscript also supports Durán’s larger goal (figure 7.1).
Painted by an artist (Artist L) whose work is not seen else-
where in the manuscript, it pictures a Chichimec couple in
a cave with two Chichimec hunters below and was consid-
ered so important to the final document that it was added
after the manuscript was essentially finished, an action that
required the work to be entirely repaginated. It reinforces
the Aztecs’ humble but valiant origins and compares them
to other pagans familiar to Europeans. The texts added
to the image note that the Aztecs were descended from
the Chichimecs, a valiant people, just as “we” (the scribe’s
people) were descended from the Goths and the Romans
from the Trojans.26 It is also a well-composed painted
scene of the kind that might make a fitting frontispiece,
with charming features like birds and rabbits. Considering
that the final Historia manuscript was intended for publi-
cation, the final editor may well have additionally added
this handsome painting as an entrée into the work.
The Durán Group
Like so many other early colonial compilations, the His-
toria does not stand alone but is embraced within a fam-
ily of several manuscripts. Durán drew on many sources,
some of which he mentions but are otherwise unknown
(Garibay 1967, 1:xxvii–xxxvii; Colston 1973:48–50, 55–72).
In the Gods and Rites and the Calendar he refers to a num-
ber of pictorial manuscripts he had seen. For the History
he cites a relation of Azcapotzalco, a relation of Coyoacan,
a history of Texcoco, and a Mexican history. His own
manuscript then became the basis for other chronicles and
compilations.
One unnamed source for some of Durán’s informa-
tion on the Calendar may have been the prototype of the
Magliabechiano Group or another lost version (Boone
1983:154–159). In his Calendar Durán gives the same dates
for the veintena feasts as does the Magliabechiano proto-
type. It is the only manuscript outside the Magliabechiano
Group to do so and is also one of the few that mentions the
same feast names. Durán could not have used the Codex
Tudela or Magliabechiano for these dates, because the
Tudela’s dates had been changed by the time Durán’s Histo-
ria was compiled and the Magliabechiano only dates a few
feasts. Moreover, several of Durán’s illustrations are strik-
ingly similar to those in the Magliabechiano Group (com-
pare figures 7.3 and 6.21; 7.7 and 6.28).27 We can perhaps
see some of Durán’s admiration for the Marquesado in
the many pulque gods from that area that are painted and
named in the Magliabechiano and Tudela. A document of
this group may well have come into Durán’s possession.
Durán derived almost his entire historical treatise from
a lost Nahuatl history, which Robert Barlow (1945a:69–75)
termed the Crónica X. Barlow first postulated its exis-
tence to explain similarities between Durán’s History and
Alvarado Tezozomoc’s Crónica mexicana. This lost manu-
script or a cognate was a major source for the two as well
as for passages in Alvarado Tezozomoc’s Crónica mexi­cayotl
and perhaps others.28 Written by an indigenous or mestizo
author (Colston 1973:57, 65, 176), it was a detailed diplo-
matic history of the Aztec empire that emphasized the
important role of Tlacaelel as the Cihuacoatl (principal
advisor to Mexica rulers), a perspective that both Durán
and Alvarado Tezozomoc adopted.
Opinions differ about whether the Crónica X was illus-
trated and thus whether the Durán illustrations could have
been copied from it. Of those who have studied the matter,
Couch (1987) opined that the Crónica X was probably not
illustrated, and Peperstraete (2007:113–135) proposed that
it was. She noted that a few illustrations in Durán’s His-
tory contain details mentioned by Alvarado Tezozomoc
but not by Durán and proposed that they were copied from
Crónica X.29 An illustrated prototype might also account
for the groups of chapters in Durán that were not intended
to be illustrated (if they were not illustrated in the source,
no space would have been left for them in Durán’s His-
tory). But other paintings in Durán’s History diverge from
the texts of both Durán and Alvarado Tezozomoc, and
Durán and Sahagún • 163
some were derived in part from Durán’s Gods and Rites.
Thus it may be that Durán’s artists were reflecting on the
text in the Nahuatl source manuscript at the same time
that Durán or his scribes were copying it.
Durán’s manuscript itself became a source for other
chroniclers. An unknown fellow friar used it as the basis
for the anonymous Codex Ramírez. This codex and
Durán’s Historia then came into the hands of the Jesuit
Juan de Tovar, a cousin of Durán. Tovar copied the Codex
Ramírez for his own relation (Lafaye 1970, 1972a:21*–22*);
although he did not use Durán’s text, he did draw directly
from Durán’s illustrations for some of his own (Couch
1987:79, 351).
The Codex Ramírez follows Durán’s Historia in its over-
all content and structure: it is divided into a history, a study
of the Gods and Rites, and a brief explanation of the cal-
endar, although it is a much shorter text.30 Its author con-
densed and edited Durán’s text but added other informa-
tion. Some passages he abridged or copied verbatim from
the Historia, but he also drew on other sources within the
Crónica X tradition and included information based on
his own personal study and knowledge (Couch 1987:100,
118–123). The twenty-eight uncolored pen and ink draw-
ings that are interspersed in the text all derive from those
in Durán’s manuscript but simplify the figures. The text
of the Codex Ramírez shows that its author had ties with
the native community, knew some Nahuatl, and was prob-
ably a mendicant (Couch 1987:134–136). He was apparently
writing for an educated European audience unfamiliar
with indigenous Mexico, for he added etymologies and
definitions for even the most common Nahuatl names.
He excluded Durán’s first History chapter that identifies
the Aztecs as descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel and
omitted Durán’s many asides and condensed the speeches;
he also assigned different dates for the founding of Tenoch-
titlan and the reigns of the Mexica rulers, reversing the
reigns of Axayacatl and Tizoc (Couch 1987:117–124). Even
more than Durán, he highlighted the importance of Tla-
caelel in Aztec history.
Juan de Tovar drew on both Durán’s Historia and the
Codex Ramírez for his own relation of Aztec history, ritu-
als, and deities, ca. 1583.31 As Tovar recalled in a 1586 letter
to his Jesuit superior José de Acosta, Tovar had earlier been
commissioned by Viceroy Martín Enríquez to compose a
historical account (ca. 1572–1578) for the Spanish king.32
Once finished, he turned this document over to a colleague
to have illustrated copies made for him and the king, but
164 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
Tovar never received the promised copy and was unable to
recover his history. Tovar then wrote a second relation for
Acosta, the text of which he based on the Codex Ramírez.
Known as the Tovar Manuscript and titled “Relación del
origen de los yndios que habitan en esta Nueva España
según sus historias,” this second relation is an autograph
version embellished with thirty-two colored illustrations,
clustered together as a set of plates.33 Although Tovar cop-
ied the text of the Codex Ramírez, he relied more directly
on Durán’s Historia for some of its illustrations; for these,
the artist consciously made the illustrations appear more
native by flattening the figures and rendered them in color
to create a rich visual complement to the text, worthy of
presentation to Acosta (Couch 1987:32, 41, 150–151, 349–
380, 388). Couch (1987:382) observed that the artist used
the Codex Ramírez to select the images but used Durán
for the color.
Bound with the Tovar Manuscript is the Tovar Calen-
dar (Kubler and Gibson 1951). It is a separate document (ca.
1585), painted by a different artist and extensively glossed
by Tovar (Kubler and Gibson 1951:9), which was probably
meant to substitute for the brief calendrical treatment in
the Codex Ramírez. It uses a number of the secondary
glyphic images found in Durán’s Calendar as signifiers for
the veintenas (e.g., the bird with bone for Tozoztontli and
Hueytozoztli).
Tovar did not publish his second relation but gave it
to Acosta, who used it for several chapters of his Historia
natural y moral de las Indias, published in 1590.34 Thus,
although Durán’s Historia was not published until the late
nineteenth century, its copies were copied, and some of
its content was made available at the end of the sixteenth
century via Acosta.
The Codex Ramírez and Tovar’s Relación excised
some of Durán’s more controversial positions. The Codex
Ramírez omitted Durán’s first chapter in the History that
identified the Aztecs as Jews; this may have been, as Lafaye
(1972b:29–31) proposed, in response to Philip II’s cédula of
1577 that ordered the confiscation of Sahagún’s works, for
the terms of this cédula were similar to those of inquisition
edicts of 1551 and 1559 that ordered the prohibition and
destruction of Jewish documents. The Codex Ramírez also
recast Quetzalcoatl not as St. Thomas but more gener-
ally as a holy figure and a Christian missionary (Couch
1987:139–143). Although Tovar had in his possession both
Durán’s Historia and the Codex Ramírez, he chose the lat-
ter version in the copy he made for Acosta. Acosta firmly
refuted Durán’s ideas about a previous evangelization and
the identification of the Aztecs as descendants of the Lost
Tribes of Israel.
Durán’s Goals
Durán’s ethnographic project evolved over the years, from
his first gathering of information to the final compilation
of his work in the Madrid manuscript. We do not know
the details of Durán’s process, as we do somewhat with
Sahagún, but he refers to his fluency in Nahuatl, recogni-
tion of images in pictorial manuscripts (even though his
understanding was imperfect), interrogation of the elders,
and experiences as a missionary in the field. Most of his
time was spent in and around the basin of Mexico, includ-
ing the convent of Santo Domingo in Mexico City. As
he recorded this knowledge, the purpose of his writings
also changed.
Durán’s early efforts were to collect information on the
Aztec gods, ceremonies, religious customs, and calendar.
This knowledge he articulated in the treatises on the Gods
and Rites and the Calendar. There were undoubtedly earlier
drafts—he mentioned that he had been accused of being
too succinct by a colleague who had clearly read an earlier
writing (Durán 1971:140). The penultimate draft took the
form of a quarto-sized manuscript that was cannibalized to
create the existing Gods and Rites and Calendar. The text
of this penultimate draft was copied onto folio-sized paper,
and the paintings were cut out and pasted into this final
version in spaces left for them by the scribe. Sometimes the
scribe failed to allocate sufficient space, as in the Calendar,
where the veintena diagrams were too tall for the page (and
were cut off ) or had to be fit sideways. But the content
of the penultimate draft remained the same in the final
version, except for the first four chapters, which were a
historical prelude to Durán’s analysis of gods, ceremonies,
beliefs, and time reckoning.
The Gods and Rites and the Calendar, like those trea-
tises from which they were created, were missionary docu-
ments, oriented to Durán’s fellow mendicants working in
New Spain and perhaps others in training (Horcasitas
and Heyden 1971:42). Durán’s descriptions of indigenous
beliefs and rituals are straightforward and clear and very
detailed, without much expression of horror or anguish
over sacrificial practices. This was a practical guide to indig-
enous ideology and practice and not a persistent critique
of them. His “sole intention,” he states at the close of the
Calendar, was “to give advice to my fellow men and to our
priests regarding the necessity of destroying the heathen
customs which they will encounter constantly, once they
receive my warning. My desire is that no heathen way be
concealed, hidden, because the wound will grow rot, and
fester, with our feigned ignorance” (Durán 1971:470). In
this way his religious and calendrical treatises retain the
pedagogical goals of the mid-century compilations.
The Gods and Rites and the Calendar, even in the final
version, were created as an autonomous document, occu-
pying a set of signatures of paper that begin with the first
chapter of the Gods and Rites. Durán opens the treatise
optimistically with an account of Topiltzin of Tula as a
much-revered holy man: venerable, devout, and chaste.
In Durán’s mind, Topiltzin’s great deeds, wondrous acts,
and widespread preaching equated him with the apostle
St. Thomas, who was said to have preached in India.
Durán was not alone in thinking that Christ’s command
to the apostles to preach throughout the world would
extend to the Americas, but by beginning his religious
treatise with Topiltzin he anchored Mexico firmly to the
apostolic missions.
Durán’s “Epistle to the Gentle Reader” that connects the
Gods and Rites to the Calendar then links his missionary
experience with Old World precedents. Here Durán (1971:
383–387) extends a track from Adam and Eve’s breaking of
God’s commandments, the Exodus from Egypt, and the
Roman quest for worldly glory, to arrive at the apostles,
whose rewards for their sufferings will be Christ’s love.
Invoking St. Paul’s difficulties in converting the Galatians,
Durán celebrates the work of his colleagues in trying to
cleanse the land of idolatry. Although bloodletting, human
sacrifice, and cannibalism have ended, he notes that “a scent
of superstition has remained” (Durán 1971:386). He was
therefore “encouraged to produce this work, moved only
by the zeal of informing and illuminating our ministers so
that their task may not be in vain.” Durán’s tone, however,
is not one of despair; it is a note of skepticism about the
purity of indigenous Catholicism, a warning to his col-
leagues, and an invitation for them to learn from his study.
Once Durán encountered the now-lost Nahuatl his-
tory, his focus and emphasis changed. He wrote his own
History for an external Spanish-speaking audience, not for
his mendicant colleagues, for whom Mexica history would
be of little use. His goal was to extol the great deeds of the
Mexica in terms that resonated with the history recorded
in the Old Testament and thereby to equate the Mexica
with ancient pre-Christian peoples. His readership would
Durán and Sahagún • 165
recognize this. His first chapter, therefore, identifies the
Mexica with the Hebrews and sets them up as one of the
Lost Tribes of Israel. The succeeding chapters then con-
tinue to draw Old Testament analogies, until the conquest
closes out the pre-Christian past. Durán claimed simply to
have translated his Nahuatl source document; although he
did bring in information from other sources, the underlying
research for the History was not his own. His personality
does not infuse the History as it does the Gods and Rites.
When Durán decided to join the History to the Gods
and Rites and the Calendar, his goal must have been to
publish a complete treatment of the history and culture of
the Aztecs, again to an external audience. The History was
copied on folio-sized paper, generally matching that of the
Gods and Rites and Calendar. Some folios of the History
remained blank at the end, so Durán added a four-page
untitled prologue before the Gods and Rites.
The tone of this prologue shows a real shift in Durán’s
thinking. He has become more negative, more gloomy
about the prospects of a Mexican Christianity, and now
characterizes the ancient gods and ceremonies, previously
described neutrally, as heathen, false, and counterfeit. He
describes the treatise that follows as an “account of the
ancient idolatries and false religion with which the devil
was worshipped until the Holy Gospel was brought to
this land” (Durán 1971:51). Durán no longer characterizes
the indigenous people as pre-Christian but now as broken
in spirit, fearful, like wild animals being hunted, disloyal,
ignorant, and blind: “their spirit has been so hurt, so crip-
pled, that they live in fear” (Durán 1971:53). He himself is
profoundly dispirited about the effects of the missionary
effort. He notes that celebrations are imbued with idolatry:
“All these things are concealed from us, kept as a tightly
guarded secret. The task of discovering and making them
known is overwhelming. He who attempts [to do so] will
soon discover this, and of a thousand other customs [he
will be lucky if he discovers] one half. . . . The Indians will
make mockery of the Faith, and the minister will remain
in the dark” (Durán 1971:55).
Durán’s pessimism about his life’s work came at the time
when the missionary enterprise of the mendicants was in
decline. The mendicants were being replaced by the secular
clergy (Heyden 1994:xxxi), and the strides thought to have
been made by the early evangelizers seemed to have stalled
or regressed. This was also a time when ethnographic writ-
ings about the indigenous people had been suppressed
and were still viewed by some with suspicion. Sahagún’s
166 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
manuscripts were confiscated in 1570 to be returned to
him in 1575 (Dibble 1982a:14). Durán (1971:411) intended
to publish his Historia and may have expected it to reach
a royal audience, as Sahagún did for his own encyclopedia
(Florentine Codex).
When the final manuscript was being prepared for
publication (Vargas Montes 2016:67–69), an editor went
through it one last time. He corrected mistakes and
smoothed passages as a copy editor, but he also altered
the content. He removed or softened some of Durán’s
negative comments about the Spaniards and Cortés and
crossed out Durán’s name from the document. Far from
being published, Durán’s Historia lay in obscurity until the
nineteenth century.
Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales
and Florentine Codex
Bernardino de Sahagún (1499–1590) is by far the best
known of the early colonial ethnographers, whose works
are most extensively studied and employed today. In con-
trast to the single extant Historia of Durán, over a dozen
manuscripts of Sahagún’s ethnographic project have sur-
vived.35 The project is generally referred to as the “Historia
general de las cosas de Nueva España,” and I refer to it
as the Historia general when considering the project as a
whole, including earlier drafts. The two most important
manuscripts that have survived are the Primeros memoriales
and the Florentine Codex, which combine figural images
with texts in Nahuatl and Spanish and are the focus
here. Together they provide a broad window into Aztec
culture and thought that has shaped the way the Aztecs
are understood today. They are also sufficiently distinct
to be considered as separate documents: relatively little of
the Primeros memoriales information was carried over into
the Florentine Codex (Nicholson 1973:217). The scholarly
literature on Sahagún is understandably copious. Much
is known about his life, as presented in several extensive
biographies.36
Sahagún’s Life and Research Methods
Trained in the humanist atmosphere of the University of
Salamanca, Sahagún sailed to New Spain in 1529 among a
cohort of twenty young Franciscans who were brought by
Fray Antonio de Ciudad Rodrigo to reinforce the efforts
of the first cohort of twelve Franciscans in Mexico. Ciudad
Rodrigo, one of these twelve, would remain a supporter
of Sahagún throughout his life. Fortuitously, the fleet
also carried the group of Nahua nobles (including a son
of Moctezuma Xocoyotzin) who had come to Spain with
Hernando Cortés the year before for an audience with
Charles V and were returning home.37 These powerful
Nahua elites had surely learned some Spanish either in
Mexico or in Spain by this time, and Sahagún may well
have begun his Nahuatl training en route even before he
reached Mexico. He soon was widely recognized as a mas-
ter of the language, equal to Alonso de Molina, whose 1555
vocabulary Sahagún examined and approved for publica-
tion (Anderson 1982:33; León-Portilla 2002:196, 198).38
Sahagún ministered in the towns of Tlalmanalco,
Xochimilco, Huejotzinco, and Tepepulco, but he resided
for most of his life in the New Spanish capital at the Fran-
ciscan establishments in Tlatelolco and Mexico City. For
nearly twenty years he was a master teacher at the Col-
lege of Santa Cruz in Tlatelolco (1536–1540, 1545–1558,
1563–1565).39 At the college he found both eager pupils
and venerated men knowledgeable about the richness and
depth of native culture. It became a fertile environment for
Sahagún’s research into the Nahuatl language and Aztec
culture. Several of his students, whom he referred to as the
trilinguals because of their mastery of Nahuatl, Spanish,
and Latin, became close research collaborators. Sahagún
speaks also of aged principals, wise in the ways of their
ancestors, who amplified his studies and vetted his drafts.
Sahagún had begun his ethnographic research by
1547 when he recorded a set of huehuetlatolli (rhetorical
orations of the “ancient word”). Around 1553–1555 he
assembled native testimonies from leading elders, eye­
witnesses, and knowledgeable people about the conquest.
This account would reappear in revision as the last book
of his Florentine Codex and again in a 1585 document.40
His anthropological study accelerated when the provincial
of the Franciscan chapter in New Spain, Fray Francisco
de Toral, ordered Sahagún to record in Nahuatl “what-
ever it seemed to me to be of use for the doctrine, culture,
and preservation of Christianity among these natives of
New Spain and for the aid of the ministers who catechize
them,” a charge that led, according to Sahagún, to “twelve
books on the divine or, better said, idolatrous, human,
and natural things of this New Spain” (León-Portilla
2002:132–133). This project resulted in the Historia general
de las cosas de Nueva España.
Sahagún advanced the work purposefully when, in 1558
or early 1559, he moved to the town of Tepepulco, formerly
a polity of consequence along the road from Mexico-
Tenochtitlan to Veracruz, where the Franciscan Andrés de
Olmos had initiated the construction of a large church and
monastery in 1528 or 1529. Before the conquest, Tepepulco
had been a tribute collection point with a specialized mar-
ket and a sizable population as well as a religious center
with a large and impressive temple of Huitzilopochtli.
These factors would have made it attractive as an early site
of evangelization, which began there in 1526 or 1527, as one
of the first in the initial campaign. Motolinía reports how
easily the people learned the basics of the catechism in 1527
and burned their cult images.41
With the commission to gather information on indig-
enous customs and understandings, Sahagún recalls that
he first “made an outline or summary in Spanish of all the
topics to be considered” (Sahagún 1982:53) and took this
outline with him to Tepepulco.42
I assembled all the leaders with the lord of the village,
Don Diego de Mendoza, an old man of great distinction
and talent, very expert in all things courtly, military, gov-
ernmental, and even idolatrous. Having assembled them,
I presented that which I intended to do and requested
that they afford me capable and experienced persons
with whom I could confer and who would know how to
give me the information regarding that which I should
ask of them. . . . [T]hey assigned me as many as ten or
twelve leading elders. They told me I could communicate
with them, and they would give me answers to all that
I should ask them. As many as four Latinists, whom I
had taught grammar a few years earlier in the College of
Santa Cruz in Tlatilulco, were also there.
With these leaders and grammarians, who were also
leaders, I conferred many days, close to two years, follow-
ing the sequence of the outlines which I had prepared.
They gave me all the matters we discussed in pictures,
for that was the writing they employed in ancient times.
And the grammarians [Sahagún’s trilingual assistants]
explained them in their language, writing the explanation
at the bottom of the painting. I still have these originals.
(Sahagún 1982:53–54; see also León-Portilla 2002:138,
142–144)
Although all the original paintings brought to Sahagún
in Tepepulco have since been lost, some of the resulting
material that Sahagún gathered there is thought to have
survived as the Primeros memoriales.
Durán and Sahagún • 167
 When Sahagún returned to Santiago Tlatelolco in 1561,
he brought all his research materials and writings and
continued his work with a different cohort of informants,
assigned by the governor.
[They] assigned me as many as eight to ten leaders,
selected from among all, very capable in their language
and in their ancient customs. Cloistered in the College
with them and with four or five students of the College,
all trilingual, for a year or more, all I brought written
from Tepepulco was amended, explained and expanded.
. . . Of all the students of the College it was Martín Jaco-
bita, then rector of the College, a native of the district of
Tlatilulco, who worked most in this scrutiny or examina-
tion. (Sahagún 1982:54)
When Sahagún then moved to San Francisco de
México (1565), he revised his writings again over a three-
year period and divided them into twelve books, which
were all put in final form in a clean hand. . . . The Mexi-
cans amended and added many things to the twelve books
when they made a clear copy. Thus the first sieve through
which my works were sifted was the people of Tepepulco;
the second, the people of Tlatilulco; the third, the people
of Mexico. And in all these scrutinies there were gram-
marians from the College. (Sahagún 1982:55)
He specifically names Antonio Valeriano as “the principal
and wisest one” as well as Alonso Vegerano, Martín Jaco-
bita, and Pedro de San Buenaventura, as well as the scribes
Diego de Grado, Bonifacio Maximiliano, and Mateo Se­
verino (Sahagún 1982:54–55).
The surviving collection of these drafts, known as
the Códices Matritenses, is now divided between two
Madrid libraries: the Real Academia de la Historia and the
Bi­blioteca del Real Palacio. Francisco del Paso y Troncoso
(Sahagún 1905–1907) sorted through the disarray of folios
to identify distinct documents or drafts, a classification
that has endured. The earliest composition, the Primeros
memoriales, is partially pictorial and is accepted as having
stemmed from the work at Tepepulco. Others in this col-
lection are purely textual, principally in Nahuatl with some
Spanish. These were composed in Tlatelolco and Mexico
City and are clearly drafts that consciously anticipate and
establish the content and format of the final Historia gen-
eral, for their texts are very close to those in the Florentine
168 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
Codex.43 A completed Nahuatl text of these twelve books,
now lost, was finished in 1569 (Dibble 1982a:14).
Other drafts followed (Nicolau d’Olwer and Cline
1973:193–195; Dibble 1982a:14–15). Sahagún sent a Span-
ish summary, “Breve compendio de los rytos e ydolatricos
que los yndios desta Nueve España usavan en el tiempo de
su infidelidad,” dated December 1570, to Pope Pius V with
a request for financial support for his project; it survives in
the Vatican archives. The final bilingual version, prepared
in 1575–1577 and carried to Spain in 1580 by his patron
Rodrigo de Sequera, survives as the Florentine Codex.
Primeros memoriales
The materials known as the Primeros memoriales occupy
eighty-eight folio-sized folios that are now divided
between the libraries of the Real Biblioteca and the Real
Academia de Historia in Madrid.44 Paso y Troncoso
(Sahagún 1905–1907) recognized them as distinctive from
other draft materials in the Códices Matritenses, ordered
them according to their headings and content, and assigned
them to Sahagún’s work in Tepepulco in 1558–1560. The
indigenous year 2 Reed (1559) and the Christian year 1560
are both referenced in the manuscript as the “present” time,
presumably the time of the manuscript’s creation.45 The
Primeros memoriales does not represent a finished work
but a set of drafts that record knowledge of the divine and
human world. However, the style and clarity of most of the
scripts, the precision of the paintings, and their consistent
organization indicate that they are not actually the “first
drafts” or original notes that Sahagún and his assistants
compiled in Tepepulco; most are largely clean if incomplete
versions of such notes. Headings, usually in red, order the
material into four chapters of forty-nine “paragraphs.” Each
chapter occupies its own sets of gatherings, which indicates
that the chapters were composed as units and then assem-
bled.46 They share the consistency of a two-column format.
Graphically, the Primeros memoriales is a rich mix of
paintings glossed and sometimes accompanied by longer
explanatory texts, texts that are illustrated by only a few
paintings, and texts without any illustrations (Baird 1993:21,
32–33). Images occupy the right column of slightly over half
of the pages. The texts claim the left column and occasion-
ally also the right. These texts take the form of simple lists
of names and items (in the left column), lists of terms (in
the left column) with explanations of these terms (in the
right column), and prose explanations (in both columns).
The headings and texts are in Nahuatl throughout. When
the content is not governed by the illustrations, it is carried
by the itemization of names and terms and occasionally
by longer text passages. Sahagún later added, in his shaky
hand, Spanish notes that aligned some of the topics to the
final sections of the Historia general.
Content
The information in the Primeros memoriales proceeds from
the divine to the human, structured into chapters and their
paragraphs. In this way it predicts, even as early as 1560, the
basic organizational structure of Sahagún’s final product
(León-Portilla 2002:138). The four chapters of the Primeros
7.14. First three veintenas:
Cuauhuitlehua, Tlacaxipehualiztli,
and Tozoztontli. Bernardino de
Sahagún, Primeros memoriales,
ch. 1, paragraph 2. Real Biblioteca
MS 3280, fol. 250r. © Patrimonio
Nacional.
memoriales respectively cover gods and religious practice,
celestial phenomena and calendars, rulership, and human
concerns. A fifth chapter concerning natural history may
have also existed but is now lost (Nicholson 1973:208,
1997:12; León-Portilla 2002:139).
Chapter 1 contains fundamental data on rites, gods,
and religious practice. It concentrates its paintings in the
first several paragraphs. Lacking the first of its fourteen
paragraphs (and thus its title), it now begins with para-
graph 2, which has paintings and written descriptions of
the veintena festivals and two movable feasts, a singular
presentation of these festivals as practiced outside Mexico-
Tenochtitlan itself (figure 7.14; table 7.4). These veintena
Durán and Sahagún • 169
Table 7.4. The veintena section in Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, Real Biblioteca MS 3280, fols. 250r–253r

Name and translation in text Text description Dates

1 Cuauhuitlehua, raising of the pole To Tlaloc, beginning of the count. Children Feb 1
carried to sacrifice on mountain

Nemontemi

2 Tlacaxipehualiztli, laying of men Sacrifice and flaying of dancers Feb 26

3 Tozoztontli, small vigil Also “offering of the flowers.” Flowers and roasted Mar 18
snakes offered and hiding of skins

4 Hueytozoztli, great vigil Also “taking of the god of maize.” Offerings to Apr 7
Chicomecoatl

5 Toxcatl Figures of Tezcatlipoca and Yacatecuhtli are Apr 27

fashioned

6 Etzalcualiztli, eating of etzalli To Tlaloc, meal of maize and beans May 17

7 Tecuilhuitontli, small festival of the lords Impersonator of Huixtocihuatl (goddess of June 6

salt) died

8 Hueytecuilhuitl, great festival of the lords Impersonators of Xilonen and Cihuacoatl died June 26

9 Miccailhuitontli, small festival of the dead When xocotl pole arrives and is set up, and flowers July 16
are offered to it

10 Hueymiccailhuitl, great festival of the dead Otontecuhtli figure on top of pole is cut down Aug 5
Called Xocotlhuetzi, xocotl falls

11 Ochpaniztli, sweeping Impersonator of Teteoinnan died, and man

dressed in her thigh-skin mask

12 Teotleco, the gods arrive Old men waited for the gods’ footprints Sept 14

13 Tepeilhuitl, festival of the mountains Gods of mountains and Tlaloc; little mountain Oct 4
figures are made

14 Quecholli, roseate spoonbill To Mixcoatl Oct 24

15 Panquetzaliztli, raising of banners Figure of Huitzilopochtli fashioned Nov 13

16 Atemoztli, descent of the water Tepictoton fashioned Dec 3

17 Tititl, stretching The dancing of the gods; Ilamatecuhtli’s leap Dec 23

18 Izcalli, growth Eating of tamales, children stretched, impersonator Jan 21

of Ixcozauhqui (Xiuhtecuhtli) died
7.15. Variety of offerings. Bernardino de Sahagún, Primeros
memoriales, ch. 1, paragraph 3. Real Biblioteca MS 3280, fol. 254v.
© Patrimonio Nacional.
images are also remarkable because they record the festivals
themselves, as does the Codex Borbonicus, rather than the
veintena patrons or symbols, as do the mid-century ency-
clopedias. The figural representations of the veintenas often
differ from the accompanying written descriptions, so the
two should be considered distinct records.47 Paragraph 3
then identifies and describes forty different kinds of offer-
ings and ritual practices, with illustrations of the first eigh-
teen (figure 7.15). Paragraph 4 pictures in detail the array
of thirty-six gods and five Tepictoton (molded spirits) with
glosses that name them and the items of their costume (fig-
ure 7.16; table 7.5). The other significant painted element in
chapter 1 is the representation of a ritual precinct in para-
graph 7. It features the twin temples of Huitzilopochtli and
Tlaloc and has usually been used to help understand and
reconstruct the ritual precinct of Tenochtitlan. But since
Tepepulco also had a large Huitzilopochtli temple, it may
well represent Tepepulco’s own precinct (Nicholson 2003).
7.16. The array of the deities; Huitzilopochtli (upper right), Paynal
(upper left), and Tezcatlipoca, with their costume elements itemized.
Bernardino de Sahagún, Primeros memoriales, ch. 1, paragraph 5. Real
Biblioteca MS 3280, fol. 261r. © Patrimonio Nacional.
These first paragraphs are heavily pictorial, but those
that follow are fully text-based. These other paragraphs
pertain to priests (their names and tasks), temples (their
names and furnishings, along with the painting of a ritual
precinct just mentioned), ritual objects, daily rites, the
realms/functions of the gods, and supplications and vows.
The chapter closes with the lyrics of twenty sacred hymns,
most accompanied by explanatory notes (paragraph 14,
table 7.6). The expository richness of chapter 1—with
images of the veintenas, gods, and ritual precinct as well as
the detailed lists and descriptions and the twenty sacred
songs—has made it a much-used source for understanding
Aztec religiosity.
Chapter 2 “tells of the things pertaining to the heav-
ens and the things pertaining to the underworld” in seven
paragraphs. The first two represent and describe heavenly
bodies and climactic phenomena (rain, wind, frost, etc.).
The next presents the 52-year count, picturing and naming
Durán and Sahagún • 171
Table 7.5. Supernaturals pictured in Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, chapter 1, paragraph 4, The Array of the Gods, Real Biblioteca MS 3280,
fols. 261r–267r

God Location God Location

1. Huitzilopochtli 261r 28. Macuiltochtli 265v

2. Paynal 29. Macuilxochitl

3. Tezcatlipoca 30. Tezcacoac Ayopechtli

4. Quetzalcoatl 261v 31. Tlacochcalco Yaotl 266r

5. Totochtin 32. Cihuapipiltin

6. Tlaloc 33. Xochipilli

7. Chicomecoatl 262r 34. Chantico 266v

8. Otontecuhtli 35. Chalmecacihuatl

9. Yacatecuhtli 36. Omacatl

10. Atlahuaa Chalchalmeca 262v 37. Tepictoton 267r

11. Ixcozauhqui (costumed as Xiuhtecuhtli) a “Atlahua” crossed out.

b Tlazolteotl is not named in this list.
12. Ixtlilton

13. Xipe Anahuatlitec 263r

14. Teteoinnan (costumed as Tlazolteotl)b

15. Opochtli

16. Yauhqueme 263v

17. Chalchiuhtlicue

18. Xilonen

19. Tzapotlantenan (Mother of Tzapotlan) 264r

20. Cihuacoatl, Quilaztli

21. Huixtocihuatl (goddess of Huitxtotin)

22. Iztac Cihuatl Coatlicue 264v

23. Amimitl (hunting arrow)

24. Tomiyauhtecuhtli (Maize Tassel Lord)

25. Atlahua 265r

26. Napatecuhtli

27. Totoltecatl
Table 7.6. Hymns in Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, chapter 1, each of the fifty-two years, followed by a short description
paragraph 15, Real Biblioteca MS 3280, fols. 273v–281v of the New Fire Ceremony. The day count follows: again all
the day signs are depicted and named. The days are orga-
Number of Explanation nized according to the trecenas, the fundamental template
stanzas in in right
God left column column for divinatory almanacs, beginning, for unknown reasons,
with the fourteenth trecena of 1 Dog. Spaces between the
1. Huitzilopochtli 6 yes trecenas allow for text explanations of the fates of those
2. Yaotl of 7 born in that trecena. The subsequent paragraphs are prose
Huitznahuac accounts. A discussion of omens and dreams continues the
divinatory thread. Paragraphs 6 and 7 focus on Mictlan
3. Tlaloc 10 yes and the underworld, describe the funeral rites of a ruler,
and end with an account of a Tlatelolcan noblewoman’s
4. Teteoinnan 4 yes death and journey through the underworld, which breaks
5. Chimalpanecatl 2 yes off mid-sentence due to the loss of the following page.
and Tlaltecahua Chapter 3 concerns rulership in seventeen paragraphs.
It opens with descriptive and pictorial listings of the rul-
6. Ixcozauhqui 6 yes ers of Mexico, Texcoco, and Huexotla (a major city-state
just south of Texcoco) from the beginning of those lord-
7. Mimixcoa 6 yes ships, past the coming of the Spaniards, through to con-
8. Xochipilli 6 yes temporary times (figures 7.17, 7.18). This is one of the most
conservative sections of the Primeros memoriales, in that
9. Xochiquetzal 2 yes the rulers’ images hew closely to the canons of indigenous
pictography and the accompanying texts identify the rul-
10. Amimitl 4 only first
ers and give their reign lengths and the major conquests
stanza
or events during their reigns in a manner very similar to
11. Otontecuhtli 6 what is found in the annals histories. The chapter parallels
several aspects of chapter 1 on the rites and gods: just as
12. Ayopechtli 4 yes all the elements of the god’s array are identified in chap-
ter 1, glosses here give the Nahuatl terms for all the rulers’
13. Cihuacoatl 8 yes
visual attributes, from the name sign and headdress to the
14. Every eight years 12 seat or throne.
when water tamales As the chapter continues, it becomes a mixture of lists
are eaten and expository prose descriptions. It also parallels, in part,
the structure of chapter 1 in that it treats the rulers’ aides
15. Xipe, the night 4 yes or ministers, responsibilities, activities, food and drink,
drinker adornment, palaces, and palace furnishings (paras. 2–10).
The content then expands to encompass a greater miscel-
16. Chicomecoatl 2
lany, including the names by which bad men and women
17. Totochtin, 4 yes (principally sorcerers) are known, the raising of youths
Tezcatzoncatl and maidens, conquest and tribute and materials that are
the prerogatives of the rulers, judges’ admonitions to the
18. Atlahua 6 yes people (as a type of huehuetlatolli: Sullivan 1974:90, 101;
Sahagún 1997:229), and how rulers became angry or com-
19. Macuilxochitl 5 yes
passionate. Most of these are simple lists of the Nahuatl
20. Yacatecuhtli 4 yes terms, although the admonitions and rulers’ reactions are
expressed in prose.
Note: Sahagún crossed out the original “14” in the title and changed it to “15.” Chapter 4 tells of things relating to humankind in

Durán and Sahagún • 173

7.17. Rulers of Mexico, from Acamapichtli to Moctezuma I. Bernardino
de Sahagún, Primeros memoriales, ch. 3, paragraph 1. Real Academia
de la Historia MS 9-5524, fol. 51r.
eleven paragraphs. Most paragraphs are composed of short
word lists (sometimes with short explanations) that item-
ize and identify such things as lineage terms, terms and
names related to males and females, terms for illustrious
people, parts of the body, and diseases and cures. Two para-
graphs, expressed in prose form, concern ways that nobles
and commoners greet and quarrel with one another. Here
also are lists (with explanations) of military insignia and
accouterments for rulers and for warriors and the pictorial
representation of sixty-seven different warriors’ costumes
(body suits, standards, and shields).
Although many of the topics treated in the Primeros
memoriales reappear in the Florentine Codex, only a small
portion of the detailed content does (Nicholson 1973).
Parts of eight of the fourteen paragraphs in chapter 1 were
reproduced in the appendices of book 2 of the Floren-
tine Codex; these concern the priesthood and offerings,
174 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
7.18. First rulers of Texcoco, following the last two rulers of Mexico.
Bernardino de Sahagún, Primeros memoriales, ch. 3, paragraph 1. Real
Academia de la Historia MS 9-5524, fol. 52r.
devotions, and ceremonies of various kinds (other than the
veintenas) as well as the sacred songs. Most of the images of
the gods in chapter 1 reappear in simplified and European-
ized form in the Florentine Codex.48 The images of the
lords in chapter 3 carry over into book 8 of the Florentine
Codex, as do the relevant texts for the lords of Texcoco and
Huexotla (but not for Mexico). Most of the content of the
Primeros memoriales, however, is not carried over into the
final version, which more closely follows material thought
to have been acquired in Tlatelolco (Nicholson 1973:208).
The Primeros memoriales therefore stands as a significant,
largely independent study by Sahagún and his assistants.
Paintings and Artists
The images in the Primeros memoriales are concentrated in
fourteen of its forty-nine paragraphs. Especially image-rich
are those recording the veintenas, offerings, and array of
gods in chapter 1 (paras. 2, 3, 5; figures 7.14–7.16); the list-
ings of celestial bodies and phenomena, the year count, and
the day count in chapter 2 (paras. 1–4); the lists of rulers
of Mexico, Texcoco, and Huexotla in chapter 3 (para. 1;
figures 7.17, 7.18); and the warriors’ costumes in chapter 4.
The first paragraphs of each chapter, therefore, tend to be
significantly pictorial, after which the subsequent content
is principally textual. The exception is chapter 4, which is
a series of explained terms related to humankind, with sev-
enteen pages of warrior costumes inserted in the middle.
Six artists contributed these images, differentially
designated as Artists A to F by Baird (1993:137–155) and
Quiñones Keber (1997:33–37).49 Five worked in tandem
on the veintenas, offerings, gods, and priests in chapter 1,
and the two principal ones also painted chapters 2 and 3.
The sixth was solely responsible for the warriors’ costumes
in chapter 4.
In half of the pictorial paragraphs the paintings were
the first substantive marks placed on the page.50 They dic-
tated the content and provided the presentational structure
for the costume of the gods (ch. 1, para. 5; figure 7.16), the
celestial bodies and climactic phenomena and the day and
year counts (ch. 2, paras. 1–4), and the warriors’ costumes
(ch. 4). In this way they align with the mid-century ency-
clopedias, where images also drive the information and
written explanations follow. The paintings of the veintena
celebrations (ch. 1, para. 2; figure 7.14) seem also to have pre-
ceded the texts, although their contents often differ.51 The
artists clearly understood that glosses and/or texts would
be added. For example, as Baird (1983:157–158, 1988a:221,
1993:34) explained, the painter of the gods’ attire initially
planned four gods to a page and painted Huitzilopochtli
and Paynal side by side before he decided that three to a
page would fit better (figure 7.16); the scribe then had to add
a hand pointing to Huitzilopochtli’s image to specify that
the gloss pertained to him and not to Paynal. The painter
of the 260 day signs intentionally broke the columns of days
after every thirteen in order to allow room for a written
description of the trecena prognostication (ch. 2, para. 4).
However, the relation between the images and the texts
in the Primeros memoriales is complex, varying from para-
graph to paragraph. The Nahuatl terms often determined
the content. This is the case where the different kinds of
offerings and sacrifices are recorded (ch. 1, para. 3; figure
7.15) (Baird 1983:158, 1993:34–35). Here the terms for these
offerings were first listed down the left column over seven
pages, generally six to a page. The images were then evenly
spaced as a vertical series down the right column of the
first three pages only. On the first page (fol. 254v) the scribe
clustered the terms too tightly toward the upper half of
the page, making it impossible to accommodate images of
sufficient size opposite them. When the painter added the
images, he had to ignore the spacing of the terms, and the
two became misaligned. When explanatory texts were then
added around the images, the scribe had to add directional
lines in order to link the images and explanations in the
right column to the correct terms on the left.
The priority of the texts is also apparent in the record
of the rulers of Mexico, Texcoco, and Huexotla (ch. 3,
para. 1; figures 7.17, 7.18) (Baird 1993:35). Here the lines of
declarative texts that name the rulers and give their reign
lengths, conquests, and any notable events proceed evenly
down the left column, with no space left between rulers.
The ruler images are spaced down the right column oppo-
site the beginning of each ruler’s text, insofar that that was
possible. The painter made his first three images in the
Mexican list too large and had to squeeze in Axayacatl and
Moctezuma I next to each other in order to fit them on the
page with their respective texts (figure 7.17). Thereafter, the
painters took more care to align the images with the texts.
This meant that the lengthy texts pertaining to the great
rulers Nezahualcoyotl and Nezahualpilli in the Texcocan
list required a gap between the images of Nezahualcoyotl
and Nezahualpilli and an even wider gap between the lat-
ter and Cacama on the next page (figure 7.18). The prose
declarations in the left column had priority in these king
lists, followed by the images in the right column, and then
the smaller glosses next to the images.
The images throughout the manuscript generally
adhere to the canons of Mexican pictography—including
two-dimensionality, ideoplasticity, and conventionality—
but show a relaxing of the disciplined Preconquest form
that is characteristic of early colonial manuscripts.52
The most conservative images are the ruler lists, the
day signs, and the year signs, which clearly derive from
well-known and oft-repeated Preconquest prototypes and
retain the character of symbolic statements. The rulers
are enthroned, accoutered with appropriate signifying
elements, and accompanied by their name signs accord-
ing to the Preconquest tradition. The day signs and year
signs also remain conventional, although, extraordinarily,
the year signs are not enclosed in rectangular frames,
while the day signs are. Elsewhere, the human figure has
become longer and more attenuated, and the iconographic
Durán and Sahagún • 175
elements less distinct. The costumes and accouterments example: oaths, dreams, auguries, the actions of sorcerers,
of the gods and ritual participants are occasionally mis­ the raising of youths, and admonitions to the people.
understood (e.g., Xipe Totec on 236r). The representa- Much of the manuscript is an assemblage of terms,
tions of the veintena festivals are compositionally complex sometimes accompanied by their explanations, organized
but maintain the spatial two-dimensionality of the native into topics.53 Some two-dozen paragraphs are simply lists
pictographic tradition (figure 7.14). of words related to a topic, and most are spaced so closely
Only a very few European stylistic features and motifs that no explanation was probably expected. For example,
have been introduced (Baird 1988a:212–220). Shading, paragraphs 6 and 7 of chapter 1 are a list of items used in
cross-hatching, fold lines, and foreshortening add a hint temples (sacrificial stone, altar, knives, copal, etc.) and a list
of three-dimensionality to less than twenty figures and of temple structures (268rv), unaccompanied by explana-
forms (e.g., skulls on the skull rack, sleeves of the warrior tions. In several instances the tight column of words did
costumes). European motifs appear in only a half-dozen eventually invite explanation, so the comments had to be
instances; these include, notably, the face of a man in the squeezed into the horizontal plane next to them (figure
moon and clouds rendered in the medieval convention. By 7.20); clarifying lines could then be drawn to link the term
and large the paintings are free of European pictorial con- to its explanation. This is the case with the military insignia
ventions and elements. of rulers and captains (ch. 4, para. 8, 68r) and the afflic-
tions of the body, with the treatments added opposite them
Texts and Scribes (ch. 4, para. 9, 69rv).
The written components of the Primeros memoriales have
been differentially translated and studied according to
what they say, but little attention has been paid to how
they say it. There have been no paleographic or stylistic
analyses of the different hands or assessments of their
relative contributions, as there have been for the paint-
ings. It is clear, however, that a half-dozen or so different
scribes participated in the project and that they usually
contributed to multiple chapters. Most wrote in a very
clear humanistic script. The Nahuatl terms that carry so
much of the content are especially clear and generally in
a larger format than the explanations (figures 7.15, 7.19).
Sometimes the same scribe seems to have contributed
both the terms and their descriptions (e.g., figure 7.15), but
in other instances different scribes added the explanations
(e.g., figure 7.19).
Thirty-five paragraphs, occupying nearly half of the
manuscript, are fully textual. For most of these the con-
tent and structure are established by the terms written in
the left column, and any explanations almost always then
follow in the right column (figure 7.19). Even some of the
pictorially enhanced passages follow the lead of the terms
in the left column, as, for example, in the series of offer-
ings and ritual practices and the ruler lists discussed above
(figures 7.15, 7.17, 7.18). The verses of the sacred songs in
chapter 1 (para. 14) are written solely in the left column,
with explanatory commentary on the right. Some fourteen 7.19. Duties of the priests of different gods. Bernardino de Sahagún,
paragraphs, however, are prose passages that describe cul- Primeros memoriales, ch. 1, paragraph 4. Real Biblioteca MS 3280,
tural understandings that are not so naturally itemized; for fol. 258v. © Patrimonio Nacional.

176 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography


Sahagún spoke of his Historia general as his Calepino,
referring to Ambrogio Calepino, whose widely used Latin
dictionary included the meanings, nuances, and metaphors
associated with individual words (León-Portilla 2002:135).
The Primeros memoriales is the first surviving example of
Sahagún’s desire to preserve the semantic range of Nahuatl
cultural expression. Its format reflects its documentary ori-
gins in lists of images and words.
Sahagún’s approach in the Primeros memoriales was
to compile sets of pictographic images and the Nahuatl
terms related to specific topics. The images for the years,
days, and rulers were derived from common Preconquest
7.20. Itemization and explanation
of weapons and military costumes of
the rulers and captains. Bernardino
de Sahagún, Primeros memoriales,
ch. 4, paragraph 8. Real Academia de
la Historia MS 9-5524, fol. 68r.
manuscript genres: year counts, day counts, and annals
histories. The paintings of the veintenas, gods, and warrior
costumes may also have been derived, directly or indirectly,
from individual images in other indigenous genres, unless
they were derived from oral accounts and descriptions.
The warrior costumes resonate with warrior costumes in
the Matrícula de Tributos and Codex Mendoza. Some of
the individual gods may have come from figures in ritual-
divinatory codices, but others are not normally included
as divinatory patrons. They, like the veintenas—which also
have no surviving Preconquest prototypes—may have
derived from remembered accounts.
Durán and Sahagún • 177
7.21. Format of Florentine Codex, book 3, 1:204v–205r. Describing and picturing the birth and worship of Huitzilopochtli. Biblioteca Medicea
Laurenziana, MS 218–220, Florence. Courtesy of the Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali.
Florentine Codex
Sahagún’s masterpiece is a monumental, multigraphic work
that combines Nahuatl texts, loose Spanish translations of
most of these texts, and painted images that reflect but often
go beyond the texts (figure 7.21). These three content-bearing
systems effectively constitute three coordinated discourses
( Johansson 2002; Terraciano 2010, 2019). Occupying three
volumes totaling 1,223 numbered folios (Rao 2011:28), its
coverage is vastly greater than in the Primeros memoriales,
and it is more consistently illustrated throughout. It shares
with the earlier draft a two-column format. Nahuatl texts
consistently occupy the right column; they were written
first and establish the content, with a few exceptions. The
Spanish translations and paintings were then added in the
left column to coordinate with the Nahuatl. Introductions
in Spanish to these Nahuatl texts and translations appear
as prologues and notes to the reader.54
178 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
Sahagún organized his great work as twelve books,
sequenced generally according to topic, from the divine
to mundane. This roughly follows the order of the chap-
ters in the Primeros memoriales but with a much-expanded
content (table 7.7). Many of these topics were addressed in
some way in the Primeros memoriales, except for books 6, 9,
11, and 12, which have no precedent there. Books 6 and 12
derive from material that Sahagún collected even earlier.
Physical Properties, Date, and Early History
The surviving manuscript now occupies three folio-sized
volumes in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana of Flor-
ence (Mediceo Palatino 218–220).55 Lacking a title page,
it is usually known as the Historia general de las cosas de
Nueva España, a title garnered from early copies and pub-
lications that pertains to Sahagún’s overall intellectual
project. The particular extant manuscript in Florence is
Table 7.7. Contents of the books of Sahagún’s Florentine Codex
1. The Gods
2. The Ceremonies
3. The Origin of the Gods
4. The Soothsayers
5. The Omens
6. Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy
7. The Sun, Moon, and Stars and the Binding of the Years
8. Kings and Lords
9. The Merchants
10. The People
11. Earthly Things
12. The Conquest
usually titled simply the Florentine Codex, which distin-
guishes it from other text versions of the Historia general.
The first five books, which treat supernatural matters, are
gathered in volume 1 (353 folios). Books 6–9, on rhetoric
and moral philosophy, celestial phenomena, and rulers and
merchants, are now together in volume 2 (375 folios). The
last three books, which cover human virtues and vices and
human occupations, natural history, and the Spanish con-
quest, are collected in volume 3 (495 folios).
Sahagún originally conceptualized book 6 on rhetoric
and moral philosophy (220 folios) as a volume unto itself.
He prefaced the book with a Latin dedication to Rodrigo
de Sequera, saying that this book was the greatest of all
the twelve.56 Perhaps he meant to distinguish this celebra-
tion of Nahuatl intellectualism and morality, which origi-
nated in material that he collected as early as 1547, from
the more negative, suspect, or mundane aspects of Aztec
culture described in the other books. He referred to the
Historia general as having four volumes. When the codex
was rebound once it reached Spain, however, book 6 was
included with books 7–9 in what is presently volume 2.
This has the effect of equalizing the thickness of the vol-
umes to a certain extent.
Each of the twelve books was originally prepared as
its own entity, with its own pagination.57 These pagina-
tions, written in the upper right corner of the folio rectos,
enumerate the content chapters and appendices of each
book but do not include the short prologues in Spanish
and the tables of contents (chapter titles) later added at the
front of each book. The process of creating the Florentine
Codex can be partially and very generally summarized as
follows. The folios were lined for two columns, and the
Nahuatl texts were written in the right column. The Span-
ish texts, and then the illustrations, were added in the left
column, along with ornamental motifs between units of
text; this completed the content of each book.58 The books
were paginated separately. Next the prologues and tables
of contents, plus the deity images of book 1, were added on
then-unnumbered pages at the front of the books: their
texts were written across the full width of these pages.59 In
Sahagún’s time, the books were gathered in four volumes
and taken to Spain. When they were rebound into the
current three volumes, all the folios in each volume were
consecutively repaginated in the lower right corner, a pagi-
nation that is the one employed here. Many scholars use
the separate book paginations, but this effectively ignores
the prologues.
Since the codex was created over a period of time, it has
been hard to assign it to a single date. We do know that it
represents the culmination of Sahagún’s work principally
from ca. 1555 to 1577, but parts were drafted even earlier.
The huehuetlatolli of book 6 were first recorded in 1547, and
the conquest history of book 12 was first written in 1553–
1555. The final compilation that is the Florentine Codex
came together in the late 1570s in the Franciscan monas-
tery in Tlatelolco. The Spanish translations and the pro-
logues and interpolations date to 1576–1577, for Sahagún
(1982:84, 91, 94) refers several times in his prologues to
1576 as the year of their composition. Almost all the paint-
ings postdate the Spanish translations, because spaces were
left for them. In a 1578 letter to Philip II, Sahagún states
that he had completed the work, which he described as
being divided into twelve books in four volumes, and had
given it to Rodrigo de Sequera, commissary general of
the Franciscan order, to transmit to Spain (León-Portilla
2002:218–219).60 The two watermarks found throughout
the volumes—the pilgrim and the heart and cross—are
consistent with the manuscript’s date in the late 1570s
(Dibble 1982b; Rao 2011:28–29).
The early history of the Florentine Codex after it left
Mexico can now be traced with some probability, thanks
to the investigations of Detlef Heikamp (1972:19–21) and
recently Ida Giovanni Rao (2011) and Lia Markey (2011,
2016:93–117).61 After Sahagún had turned over the codex,
Sequera took it with him when he returned to Spain
Durán and Sahagún • 179
Table 7.8. Chapters and the gods in Sahagún’s Florentine Codex, book 1: content according to Nahuatl text (N) and Spanish text (S)

God Name Realm Feast Costume

1. Huitzilopochtli NS NS N

2. Paynal NS NS S N

3. Tezcatlipoca NS NS S bk 2a

4. Tlaloc N N S bk 2 N

5. Quetzalcoatl NS NS S bk 2 NS

6. Cihuacoatl NS NS NS

7. Chicomecoatl NS NS NS

8. Teteoinnan and Tocib NS NS NS NS

9. Tzapotlantenan (Mother of Tzapotlan)c NS NS N N

10. Cihuapipiltin NS NS NS NS

11. Chalchiuhtlicue NS NS NS bk 2 NS

12. Tlazolteotl NS NSd

13. Lesser gods, beginning with Xiuhtecuhtli NS NS NS NS

14. Macuilxochitl NS NS NS NS

15. Omacatl (2 Reed), god of feasting NS NS NS NS

16. Ixtlilton and Tlaltetecuin (Earth Stomper) NS NS NS N

17. Opochtli (Left), aspect of Tlaloc NS NS NS NS

18. Xipe Totec NS NS NS NS

19. Yacatecuhtli (Lord of the Vanguard) NS NS NS NS

20. Napatecuhtli (Lord of the Four Directions), one of NS NS NS NS

the Tlalocs

21. Tepictoton (Little Molded Ones) NS NS NS NS

22. Tezcatzoncatl (one of 400 rabbits) NS NS NS

a Spanish text refers readers to feast in book 2.

b Patron of physicians and midwives.
c Source of turpentine used in healing of pustules and other ailments.
d Long explanation of confession in both Nahuatl and Spanish.
from Mexico in 1580 (Dibble 1982a:15). Sequera ordered a
copy made of the Spanish text (the Tolosa manuscript) in
Madrid, and the codex was rebound in three volumes. Fer-
dinando di Medici, then a cardinal in Rome, next acquired
the codex, perhaps as a gift from Sequera himself: Ferdi-
nando was known to have an interest in the Americas and
held the title of protector of the Franciscan minor Obser-
vants (Markey 2011:204–205). When Ferdinando became
grand duke of Tuscany in 1587 and returned to Florence,
the codex came as part of his possessions.62 The next year
the painter Ludovico Buti copied figures from the Flo-
rentine Codex on a ceiling fresco in the Uffizi (Heikamp
1972:19–20). The manuscript remained relatively unstudied
in the Laurentian Library until the late nineteenth century
(Dibble 1982a:16–17), when its inclusion in a bibliographic
essay drew the attention of Francisco del Paso y Troncoso.

Content
The codex follows the thematic structure of a medieval
encyclopedia that classifies phenomena hierarchically: first,
the divine; second, those relative to humankind; and last,
the natural world. This structure becomes even clearer
with the recognition that book 6 (Rhetoric) and book 12
(Conquest) were originally developed apart from the rest
of the project, as García Quintana and López Austin
(Sahagún 1989b, 1:20) noted. One of Sahagún’s models
may have been the popular encyclopedia of Bartholomeus
Anglicus (Robertson 1959:69–72, 1966), but he was surely
also familiar with other widely known encyclopedias, such
as Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis historia and Isidore of Seville’s
Etymologiae, which were predecessors and themselves
models for Bartholomeus, as discussed more fully below
(Garibay 1971, 2:66–71; Anderson 1982:34).
The first five books form a cohesive body pertaining
to the supernatural. Sahagún characterized them as the
“weapons . . . to meet with [the devil]” who waits for the
opportunity to regain “the domination he has held” over
the people (Sahagún 1982:59). These books all have appen-
dices with supplementary material often derived from the
Primeros memoriales, whereas the other books do not.
Book 1, Gods: The texts describe their principal and
variant names, their relation (if any) to other deities, their
realms and influences, the rituals for them, and their physi-
cal attributes, clothing, and accouterments (table 7.8). The
Nahuatl focuses more on the deities’ costume elements,
itemizing them in detail, as did the Primeros memoriales.
The Spanish texts are slightly longer, for they cover the gods’
7.22. First presentation of the veintenas, cued to the dominical days.
Florentine Codex, book 2, 1:11r–57r. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana,
MS 218–220, Florence.
associations, realms, and ceremonies more fully, but they
ignore the costume elements and accouterments for several
of the gods, including Huitzilopochtli, Tezcatlipoca, and
Tlaloc. Six pages (three folios) of deity images, picturing
twenty-one gods and five Tepictoton, were appended at the
front, probably when the prologue was added. An appen-
dix refutes the idolatry just described, first with the Latin
text of chapters 13–16 of the Book of Wisdom, followed by
a confutation in Spanish that names, briefly describes, and
decries the twenty-one gods explained earlier. The Latin
and Spanish were set down first in the appendix, and the
Nahuatl then added to parallel them (Dibble 1982a:20;
Sahagún 1950–1982: bk. 1:55, 1979, 1:fols. 37r–53v).63
Book 2, Ceremonies: this book offers two separate treat-
ments of the veintena festivals. The first (chs. 1–19) is in
Spanish only and arranged on the page in a single central
column with the days coordinated with their domini-
cal letters (figure 7.22, table 7.9); Spanish descriptions of

Durán and Sahagún • 181

Table 7.9. The veintena section in Sahagún’s Florentine Codex, book 2, chapters 1–19: text in Spanish with dominical letters

Name Description Dates

1 Called Atlcahualo by the Mexicans To Tlaloc, sacrifice of children on mountain tops, Feb 2
and slaying of many captives
Called Cuauhitlehua by others

2 Tlacaxipehualiztli To Xipe Totec Feb 22a

3 Tozoztontli Feast to Tlaloc, sacrifice of children on mountains Mar 14

4 Hueytozoztli Feast to Centeotl, god of maize Apr 3

5 Toxcatl To Tezcatlipoca Apr 23

6 Etzalcualiztli Meal of maize and beans, to Tlaloc May 13

7 Tecuilhuitontli To goddess of salt Huixtocihuatl, also great June 2

drunkenness

8 Hueytecuilhuitl To Xilonen June 22

9 Tlaxochimaco To Huitzilopochtli July 12

10 Xocotlhuetzi To fire god Xiuhtecuhtli Aug 1

11 Ochpaniztli To Teteoinnan or Toci Aug 21

12 Teotleco Mark of footprint means arrival of gods Sept 10

13 Tepeilhuitl Gods of mountains, make mountain images Sept 30

14 Quecholli Mixcoatl Oct 20

15 Panquetzaliztli Huitzilopochtli Nov 9

16 Atemoztli Tlalocs, images of mountains Nov 29

17 Tititl Ilamatecuhtli/Tonan Dec 19

18 Izcalli Xiuhtecuhtli Feb 8

Nemontemi Barren days Jan 28–31

a Dates reconstructed according to dominical and Roman calendar framing text.

sixteen movable feasts follow (most linked to the trecenas).
Chapters 20–37 contain a second, more detailed set of
descriptions of the veintenas (table 7.10). It is followed by
an appendix drawn partially from material presented in
chapters 1 and 2 of the Primeros memoriales: structures of
the ritual precinct, offerings and rituals, priests, and twenty
sacred songs. Sahagún (1950–1982, bk. 2:221) characterized
these songs as “occult and the work of the devil” and left
them untranslated.
Book 3, Origins of the Gods: Although it opens with
the birth of Huitzilopochtli (figure 7.21), it is principally
devoted to the story of Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl at Tula.
An appendix drawn from earlier material in the Primeros
memoriales (ch. 2) describes funerary customs and the
afterworlds to which the dead go, followed by an account
of the raising of youths in the calmecac.
Book 4, Soothsayers: Sahagún titled this book “judicial
astrology or the art of indigenous divination,” to establish

182 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography

Table 7.10. The veintena section in Sahagún’s Florentine Codex, book 2, chapters 20–37, in Nahuatl with Spanish translation

Name Description
1 Atlcahualo or Quauitleua To Tlaloc, sacrifice of children on mountaintops and
slaying of many captives

2 Tlacaxipehualiztli To Xipe Totec

3 Continuation of description of To Xipe Totec

Tlacaxipehualiztli (Tozoztontli omitted)

4 Hueytozoztli Feast to Centeotl, god of maize, and Chicomecoatl

5 Toxcatl To Tezcatlipoca

6 Etzalcualiztli Meal of maize and beans, Tlaloc

7 Tecuilhuitontli Goddess of salt Huixtocihuatl, also great drunkenness

8 Hueytecuilhuitl Xilonen

9 Tlaxochimaco To Huitzilopochtli

10 Xocotlhuetzi To fire god Xiuhtecuhtli

11 Ochpaniztli Teteoinnan or Toci

12 Teotleco Mark of footprint means arrival of gods

13 Tepeilhuitl Gods of mountains, make mountain images

14 Quecholli Mixcoatl

15 Panquetzaliztli Huitzilopochtli

16 Atemoztli Tlalocs, images of mountains

17 Tititl Ilamatecuhtli

18 Izcalli Xiuhtecuhtli

Nemontemi Dedicated to no god

it as the Mexican equivalent of European astral astrology.
The texts describe the tonalpohualli and the fates associ-
ated with the trecenas and with many of the days therein,
including rituals performed, accompanied by a table of the
260 days. The appendix, in Spanish, explains and justifies
the three calendrical counts (260-day, 365-day, and 52-year)
and offers another table of the 260 days.
Book 5, Omens: This book treats auguries and prognos-
tications given by the actions of birds, other animals, and
apparitions. The appendix describes superstitions regard-
ing the activities of everyday life.
Book 6, Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy: The sec-
ond longest of the books (215 folios), it contains prayers,
exhortations, discourses, and metaphoric speeches of the
kind known as huehuetlatolli, which Sahagún had begun to
compile as early as 1547. These include speeches by and to
the ruler, admonitions to children, and discourses on preg-
nancy and childbirth; the last three chapters are devoted to

Durán and Sahagún • 183

7.23. Goldworking. Florentine Codex,
book 9, 2:361r. Biblioteca, Medicea
Laurenziana, MS 218–220, Florence.
Courtesy of the Ministero per i Beni e
le Attività Culturali.
adages, riddles, and figures of speech. Parts parallel chap-
ter 2 of the Primeros memoriales.
Book 7, Sun, Moon, and Stars and the Binding of the
Years: This is the shortest of the books (twenty-two folios),
which describes celestial phenomena, the 52-year cycle, and
the New Fire Ceremony.64 Some materials parallel those in
chapter 2 of Primeros memoriales.
Book 8, Kings and Lords: Here the texts name the
sequent rulers of Mexico, Tlatelolco, Texcoco, and
Huexotla to 1560, presenting their conquests and major
events during their reigns. The rulers of Texcoco and
184 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
Huexotla derive from the Primeros memoriales (ch. 3), but
the Tlatelolcan rulers were compiled later in the process,
and the Mexican rulers are here assigned more conquests.
The book also includes omens foretelling the coming of
the Spaniards and descriptions of the accouterments, diet,
palaces, and responsibilities of rulers, generally following
but expanding material in Primeros memoriales chapter 3.65
Book 9, Merchants: This is a full treatment of mer-
chants, their economy, organization, and ceremonies as
well as the artisans of luxury crafts (figure 7.23). Because
the processes of working in precious metals, precious
stones, and feathers were said to be easily observable and
irrelevant to the faith, no Spanish translation was provided.
This left considerable space in the left column for paintings
illustrating these techniques.66
Book 10, The People: The book has the descriptive title
“in which are told the different virtues and vices which
were of the body and of the soul, whosoever practiced
them” (Sahagún 1950–1982, bk. 10:1); it treats humankind.
The miscellany notes lineage terms and explains the good
and bad qualities of different kinds of people: individuals
according to family affinity, nobles, valiant men, and others
according to their occupations (chs. 1–26). Chapter 27 is a
long Nahuatl itemization of the parts of the human body
and their qualities from internal organs to excreta; these
Nahuatl terms were not translated, so the Spanish column
was partially filled with descriptions of humans according
to their character and occupations after the conquest, as
the previous chapters had done for humans before the con-
quest. Chapter 28 identifies ailments and their treatments,
and chapter 29 describes over a dozen ethnic groups from
the ancestral Toltecs and Chichimecs to the Mexica, along
with the legends associated with them.
Book 11, Earthly Things: This heavily illustrated natural
history is the longest of the books (254 folios). It describes
fauna (four-footed animals, birds, fishes, aquatic animals,
serpents, and insects), then flora (trees and other plants),
and then nonliving things (stones, metals, and qualities of
the earth and water). It ends with human constructions
and foods (such as maize and chia).
Book 12, The Conquest: This is a revised version of
the conquest history that Sahagún compiled in 1553–1555,
tracing events from the omens and first arrival of the
Spaniards to the final surrender, from the Tlatelolcan
point of view (López Austin 1974:147). The account ends
not on an honorable or grand note with the victory of
Cortés or the fateful surrender of Cuauhtemoc, but with
a shabby dispute over missing gold, which the Spaniards
sought to reclaim.
Scribes and Texts
The codex involved Sahagún’s careful coordination of seven
scribes and nearly two dozen artists, some who may have
had dual roles as both writers and painters. In the pro-
logue to book 2 (Ceremonies) Sahagún names the four
trilingual collegians who most assisted in his ethnographic
project ( Jacobita, San Buenaventura, Valeriano, and Vege­
rano), as well as the three scribes (Grado, Maximiliano,
and Severino), but he refers to them with respect to his
work at Tepepulco and the drafts of the Historia general
that preceded the Florentine Codex. Unfortunately, it has
not yet been possible to identify any of the Florentine
scribes by name.
Marina Garone Gravier (2011:185–188) identified seven
individual hands, two being the principal amanuenses of
the Nahuatl texts throughout, to which others also con-
tributed; one was the principal writer of the Spanish.67
Two were trilingual, for they also penned the Latin that
appears in books 1 and 6. All were well versed in the stan-
dard calligraphic forms, were well aware of European
graphic conventions, and may have used Venetian and
Lyonese print sources of the kind that would have been in
the Colegio de Santa Cruz library as models (Garone Gra-
vier 2011:196). The handwriting in the codex is remarkably
clear. According to Rao (2011:30) the ductus (characteris-
tics) of the script “is the crystallization of a type of writing
from the first quarter of the sixteenth century”; this seems
natural, given that the first indigenous students began to
write shortly thereafter, using earlier models. Sahagún
himself signed the work at the end of the apologia of book
4 (Soothsayers, 328r), and his shaky hand is noticed in two
brief comments (2:234r, 3:72v; Rao 2011:29).
The Spanish translations almost always depend upon
and are spaced to align with the sections of Nahuatl.
Sometimes the Spanish writer had to compress his script
or shorten his translation in order to allow space for illus-
trations, which were intended from the onset. The Spanish
was markedly compressed in books 11 and 12 (Earthly Mat-
ters and Conquest), which are particularly well illustrated.
The Spanish descriptions of the conquest tend to be half
as long as the Nahuatl (or less). For example, the Nahuatl
version of the entrance of the Spaniards into Tenochti­
tlan (ch. 15: Sahagún 1979, 3:fols. 428v–430v) offers many
descriptive versions of the Spaniards, the horses, and the
dogs, which the Spanish text omits:
And four horse[men] came ahead; they came first, they
came leading the others; they led the others. They went
continually turning about; they went turning about
repeatedly. They went facing the people. They went
looking hither and thither; they came scanning every
side, they went looking everywhere among the groups of
houses, they came examining things; they went looking
up at the roof terraces.
Likewise their dogs: their dogs came ahead. They came
Durán and Sahagún • 185
 sniffing at things. Each one came panting; each one came
continually panting. (Sahagún 1950–1982, bk. 12:39)
In contrast, the Spanish version merely says that the Span-
iards came in order in squadrons, some on horseback, with
the dogs in front (Sahagún 1989b, 2:832).
The scribes occasionally disregarded the general prior-
ity of the Nahuatl and dependency of the Spanish. In a
few instances the expected Spanish translation was never
added (Dibble 1982a:20): the Nahuatl information was
thought either diabolical (hymns of bk. 2) or unnecessary
(craft production of bk. 9 and body parts of bk. 10). In the
appendix to book 1 the Latin and Spanish refutations were
written first, with the Nahuatl then added as a complement
(Dibble 1982a:20; Sahagún 1950–1982: bk. 1:55, 1979, 1:fols.
37r–53v). All the prologues and the tables of contents are
written in Spanish only and cover the width of the page,
as does the first presentation of the veintenas and movable
feasts at the beginning of book 2 (Ceremonies) (figure 7.22;
Dibble 1982a:21). Despite these variants, however, the fun-
damental approach of the Florentine texts was to establish
the content in Nahuatl and then to translate it into Spanish
for the European or European-influenced readership.
It is hard to know in every case whose voice is behind
the texts. Their content and format had been largely
established in earlier drafts on which Sahagún and his col-
leagues collaborated for many years. Sahagún held editorial
control as the architect and coordinator of the project. He
was surely the author of the prologues, notes to the reader,
and apologia. His Nahuatl colleagues, however, provided
the detailed knowledge behind the Nahuatl texts and par-
ticipated in the translations with him, so we should expect
to hear their voices behind much of the Nahuatl.
Painters and Images
The pictorialization of the codex was the last step and
was clearly a complex undertaking. None of the surviv-
ing earlier drafts except the Primeros memoriales contained
images, but this final version was to be well illustrated, a
task that involved nearly two dozen artists. Together they
created about 1,850 substantive paintings and over 600
ornamental designs.68 Although books 1–3 and 5 contain
relatively few images, the others are copiously illustrated.
The illustrations were generally based on the Nahuatl
texts, often picturing an aspect of the text and sometimes
exceeding it (Dibble 1963:57).
With some exceptions, the images were inserted in the
186 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
left column in spaces left available by the Spanish trans-
lation.69 Where the translation was greatly condensed
or not added at all, large sections of the page were avail-
able, so the paintings could multiply or expand to fill the
space. For example, in the sections of book 9 (Merchants)
where the techniques of fine metalworking, lapidary, and
feather­working were not translated, the artists filled several
pages of columns with detailed and instructive renderings
of the processes (figure 7.23; Sahagún 1979, 2:358r–361v,
363v–364v, 369v–375r). The considerable space proved to
be more of a challenge in book 12 (Conquest), so in several
cases the artist found it more expedient to enlarge very
simplified images to fill the space (e.g., 3:443v, 446r).
In other books the Spanish and Nahuatl were so closely
aligned that very little room remained for illustrations.
This is especially true in the first half of book 10 (People)
and book 11 (Earthly Things), where very small images had
to be crowded between the sections of text; when there was
slightly more space on the Nahuatl side, the small figures
were sometimes put there. The space available dictated the
size of the painting, even within a single segment of a chap-
ter, which is why the second ruler of Mexico (Huitzilihuitl)
is painted about half the size of his predecessor Acamapi-
chtli in book 8 (Lords) (figure 7.24; 2:251r). Book 1 (Gods)
allowed no space for representations of the gods, so three
folios picturing them were appended at the front.
Clearly, not everything could be or should be pictori-
alized. Only four of the sacred hymns were illustrated,
although ample space was available; perhaps Sahagún and
his colleagues felt that hymns too heretical to translate were
also too heretical (and perhaps too difficult) to picture. The
illustrations in book 12 (Conquest) end after chapter 36,
although space was left for them; this may have been due
to fatigue, the crush of a pending deadline, or the death of
the last painter during the epidemic (Sahagún 1979, 3:fols.
477–494; Martínez 1982:41; Peterson 1988:277). The many
egregious copyists’ errors late in the manuscript also sug-
gest that the work was being finalized in haste (Nicolau
d’Olwer and Cline 1973:198).
From the beginning the document was intended to be
pictorially lavish. The artists and perhaps also the scribes
inserted slightly more than 600 ornamental designs into
shallow spaces between the sections of Spanish translation.
Many of these ornamentals are in black and white, but oth-
ers fit the color palette of the adjacent illustrations (figure
7.25). Garone Gravier (2011:191–195) has distinguished
twenty-six ornamental motifs that compose four general
7.24. First four rulers of Mexico-Tenochtitlan (top to bottom): Acamapichtli, Huitzilihuitl, Chimalpopoca, and Itzcoatl. Florentine Codex,
book 8, 2:251r. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, MS 218–220, Florence. Courtesy of the Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali.
7.25. “Master of Both Traditions”: worship of Quetzalcoatl. Florentine
Codex, book 3, 1:213r. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, MS 218–220,
Florence. Courtesy of the Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali.

types, most being plants and floral bands. Although they

were intended to be decorative and to enhance the overall
visual impact of the document, they may not be entirely
devoid of meaning. Magaloni Kerpel (2019) pointed out
that the exclusive use of floral motifs in book 1 devoted to
the gods may invoke the Preconquest tradition of honoring
the gods with flowery speech. And the more European-
ized designs in book 12 (Conquest) fit the more European
content of this book (Garone Gravier 2011:194). 7.26. “Master of the Complex Skin Tones”: slaying of adulterers on
Magaloni Kerpel (2011b:52–55) and her colleagues, day 4 Wind. Florentine Codex, book 1, 1:273v. Biblioteca Medicea
who studied the original manuscript in detail, have distin- Laurenziana, MS 218–220, Florence. Courtesy of the Ministero per i
guished the work of twenty-two artists. In a preliminary Beni e le Attività Culturali.
report they proposed that four were well-trained masters
who painted some of the most complex and important both Preconquest pictography and Renaissance pictorial
images.70 In their analysis the Master of Both Traditions illusionism (figure 7.25). The Master of the Three-Quarter
(responsible for all of book 7 and many of the images in Profiles (parts of book 6) excelled in creating interior spaces
books 3, 8, 11, and 12) controlled the formal conventions of occupied by small figures represented from a three-quarter

188 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography

angle. The Master of the Long Noses (most of books 6
and 10) is recognized by his distinct noses. The Master of
the Complex Skin Tones (much of book 4) worked with
a fluid, cursive line and hatching to embody figures with
corporeality and took care to endow them with different
skin tones (figure 7.26). Different painters concentrated on
different parts of the three volumes.
The Florentine paintings range in style from largely
pictographic to highly European (Peterson 1988).71 The
paintings closest to the Preconquest pictographic canon
are those in books 8 (Lords) and 9 (Merchants), where
the long tradition of rendering lords and tribute has car-
ried over (figures 7.24, 7.27). They retain ideoplastic two-
dimensionality and what Robertson (1959:61) termed the

7.27. Artist working in the

indigenous pictographic
tradition: lords discuss invasion
of a town and tribute. Florentine
Codex, book 8, 2:283v. Biblioteca
Medicea Laurenziana, MS
218–220, Florence. Courtesy
of the Ministero per i Beni e le
Attività Culturali.

Durán and Sahagún • 189

“scattered attribute space.” The lords are almost uniformly
depicted in the conventional Preconquest manner as flat,
undifferentiated triangular forms in profile, costumed in
the royal turquoise diadem and cloak and seated on a reed
throne (figures 7.24, 7.27). Robertson (1959:176) considered
this style to be an archaism and termed it “Aztec revival,”
but it is more likely to be simply a continuation of the native
tradition. Strong pictographic models for these figures
were available in the form of tribute lists and annals histo-
ries. The traditional image of a ruler remained very stable
through the sixteenth century, as can also be seen in the
continuing annals histories (Boone 2000:197–237, 2019).
The lords retain the Preconquest canon in the Florentine
Codex even when they are juxtaposed with figures that are
rendered as corporeal beings in a three-dimensional space
(e.g., bk. 9, vol. 2:314v; bk. 12, vol. 2:454v).
The painters most influenced by European traditions
were familiar with imported pictorial conventions and
employed Renaissance techniques of perspective and
chiaroscuro with assurance. Their best work is found
especially in the chapters on the luxury crafts of book 9
(Merchants), book 11 (Earthly Things), and the conquest
history of book 12. The painter responsible for picturing
the techniques of goldworking, for example, employed
modeling and linear and atmospheric perspective to create
a deep architectural space for the craftsman with a long
vista beyond (figure 7.23); his human figure is readable as
a fully corporeal being. It was proposed that the letter A
on the column base in the lower right of the central paint-
ing identified the painter as Agustín de la Fuente, whom
the Franciscan chronicler Agustín de Vetancurt named
as one of Sahagún’s artists.72 However, Baird (1987) later
showed that the A is not the artist’s initial but an artifact
of the painter’s source, for he took his classical architec-
tural elements from Sebastiano Serlio’s widely circulated
and highly influential architectural treatise, which itemizes
various architectural elements by letter.
Even some of the most Europeanized painters employed
indigenous conventions from time to time. The conven-
tions most often retained were the common ones, such as
stone, earth, water, footprints for travel, speech scrolls, the
T-elevation for architectural structures, and the woman’s
seated pose. These painters also continued to rely on native
place signs throughout, as, for example, the serpent and
hill that signify Coatepec where Huitzilopochtli was born
(figure 7.21, lower left). Occasionally their illustrations
contain pictographic texts within them. The painter of
190 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
the featherworking techniques inserted glyphs to specify
the characteristics of the materials and process, such as a
spider and ball of cotton to signify the thinness of the back-
ing “just like a cobweb” and an eye and nose to articulate
the backing’s shiny or glossy quality (figure 7.28; Peterson
1988:287–288, 2003:240–243). Noblewomen are accompa-
nied by glyphs that specify their honorary titles in book 10
(ch. 13), information that is lacking in the Nahuatl or Span-
ish texts but is recorded in book 6 (Dibble 1963:57–58;
Peterson 1988:284–287). Evil women have pictographic
signs that mark their character in book 10 (ch. 13).73 Some
precious stones are represented not by mimetic renderings
in book 11 (ch. 8) but by symbols signifying their names
(e.g., a pearl as oyster heart).74 In these and other instances,
the artists were engaging directly with the Nahuatl text
or drawing on traditional knowledge that extends beyond
the adjacent description. Although they painted illu-
sionistic images, they still valued the signifying power of
indigenous symbols.
The knowledge and ability of the Florentine artists
varied greatly. Some, just mentioned, were well versed in
the larger Historia general project and/or retained memory
of Preconquest history, for they painted some elements
that exceed the Nahuatl and Spanish texts but were
recorded elsewhere in the Florentine Codex (Peterson
1988:286–287). Others followed nuances in the Nahuatl,
displaying their linguistic facility. But for some artists the
Pre­conquest world was remote and poorly understood, so
their pictures were often generalized and only followed
along with the texts. They produced images—often ordi-
nary or repetitious—that do little to enhance the written
content beyond filling blank space. Accomplished or not,
the artists were apparently free to work in their own styles,
find their own sources, and develop their images with some
independence.
As several scholars have shown, the artists drew on
many different sources for compositional and figural ele-
ments, including, of course, the fundamental foundation
of ancient pictography and traditional pictorial genres that
undergirds much of the visual presentation. Indigenous
prototypes are noticeably asserted with the rendering of
the rulers and merchants (bks. 8, 9), which drew on annals
histories, ruler lists, and tribute rolls.
European sources were many and diverse, as Baird,
Escalante Gonzalbo, Magaloni Kerpel, Peterson, and
others have shown. Some of the celestial images in
book 7 (such as clouds and winds) look back to medieval

conventions (Robertson 1959:174); flora and fauna in book
11 recall European encyclopedias and herbals (Escalante
Gonzalbo 1999, 2003:175–176); and the poses and aspects
of craftsmen in book 9 likely derive from Jost Amman’s
woodcuts of artisans in the Ständebuch (Peterson
1988:281–284, 2003:229–233). Some architectural ele-
ments were probably derived from fifteenth-century illus-
trated books, including the Peregrinato in Terram Sanctam
(Baird 2003:127–128). A range of scenes reflects biblical
and Christian images (Escalante Gonzalbo 2003:183–191).
The prostitute in book 10 (People) is accoutered like the
queen of Babylon (Peterson 1988:285). Pictures of moth-
ers holding newborns in book 4 (Soothsayers) recall
well-known scenes from the early life of Christ, including
the Nativity, the Baptism, and Christ with the Virgin or
saints (Baird 1988b:18–20, 2003:126; Escalante Gonzalbo
2003:178–180). Even during the account of the conquest,
omens resonate with biblical prophecy. Moctezuma is
visualized in the manner of Christ during his final days
(Magaloni Kerpel 2003). Some of these invocations seem
to have been intentional, motivated by a desire to situate
the indigenous Mexican world as equivalent, or at least
7.28. Featherworking: preparing the surface.
Florentine Codex, book 9, 2:371v. Biblioteca
Medicea Laurenziana, MS 218–220,
Florence. Courtesy of the Ministero per i
Beni e le Attività Culturali.
comparable, to its European counterpart. In this way,
Aztec artisans are like European craftsmen, Aztec moth-
ers are like the Virgin, and the death of Moctezuma could
be subtly equated to the Passion of Christ.
Even color and its lack could carry significance (Maga­
loni Kerpel 2011b; Frassani 2016). The last third of book 11
(Earthly Things) and almost all of book 12 (Conquest)
have only black-and-white images, a phenomenon that is
usually explained by the haste in finishing the manuscript.
Color ends in volume 3 after 330r, where the medical herbs
and minerals are described. Magaloni Kerpel (2011b:51)
suggested that the painters simply ran out of pigments dur-
ing this time (1576) when the Huey Cocoliztli epidemic
was raging and social and economic systems broke down;
to compensate, they employed symbolic elements to signify
color. This is probably not the case in book 6 (Rhetoric),
however, which lacks color throughout. Magaloni Kerpel
(2011b:72–73) proposed that this was itself a rhetorical
device that conveyed the authority of black-and-white
images, as seen in printed Bibles and other European
books, on Sahagún’s book of rhetoric and moral philoso-
phy, which he prized above others.
Durán and Sahagún • 191
 It is likely that the Florentine painters Europeanized
their forms to the extent they did to make them more
accessible and convincing to their intended audience, the
Spanish king, as Baird (2003:134) proposed. Why native
pictographic symbols and glyphs were employed to the
degree they were is harder to explain. We must assume
that at least some of the painters were painting also for
themselves, their indigenous colleagues, and the Franciscan
friars in New Spain, not least Sahagún himself. Indigenous
glyphs, conventions, and pictographic texts allowed them
to reinforce, expand, and complete in their eyes the content
written alphabetically.
Sahagún’s Sources for the Project
Sahagún’s Historia general fits well within the broader ency-
clopedic tradition of early modern Europe, as Ascención
Hernández de León-Portilla (2002) explained. It was one
with deep roots in classical antiquity but developed more
fully in the Middle Ages and expanded even into distinct
genres during the Renaissance. As a well-educated friar,
he would have been familiar with the range of cultural
compilations, from ancient and medieval encyclopedias
to accounts of pagan gods, the histories and customs of
diverse people, and natural histories of various kinds.
Sahagún drew on a broad range of these European sources
to help frame and present the indigenous knowledge that
he sought to preserve.
His most fundamental source, however, was the infor-
mation gathered from the memories and experiences of
the indigenous elites who still remembered the old ways.
Such were the elders of Tepepulco who brought him the
paintings and their knowledge of Preconquest ways in the
late 1550s. Other wise and learned men from Tlatelolco and
Mexico City contributed more information as it pertained
to those great cities, and many others in the central basin
participated as well. Sahagún mentioned by name only a
few of his Nahuatl collaborators and assistants, who with
him collected, sorted, examined, and rewrote the informa-
tion and phrasings multiple times. He speaks of the first
sieve for the data being Tepepulco, the second Tlatelolco,
and the third Mexico (Sahagún 1982:55).
Several indigenous literary genres—in fact, the best-
known ones—also made their way into the Florentine
Codex relatively unchanged, with their structures and
features mostly intact. The esteemed rhetorical speeches
known as the huehuetlatolli that were captured by Sahagún
as early as the 1540s reappear in transcription as book 6
192 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
(Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy). The Aztec tonalamatl or
divinatory codex finds expression in book 4 (Soothsayers)
devoted to such divination. The annals history shaped the
account of the rulers of Mexico, Texcoco, Tlatelolco, and
Huexotla in book 8 (Kings and Lords). Native accounts of
the veintena celebrations and movable feasts (those associ-
ated with the tonalpohualli) reappear in book 2 (Ceremo-
nies). Additional information pulled from these and other
genres permeated all the books.
However, there was no indigenous encyclopedia to
guide Sahagún’s final project. Nor were there native lit-
erary genres devoted to the gods, humanity and occupa-
tions, natural history, or the Spanish conquest. For these
Sahagún looked to literary traditions from medieval and
early modern Europe, which supplied the armature for
several other books and for the Historia general as a whole.
The medieval encyclopedic tradition provided Sahagún
with the basic armature he needed for what he intended to
be a comprehensive record of Aztec culture. In particular,
the popular encyclopedia of Bartholomeus Anglicus, a fel-
low Franciscan, likely served as one model, as Robertson
(1959:169–172, 1966:623–624) argued, although Sahagún
did not follow it strictly. Sahagún was surely also familiar
with earlier compilations on which Bartholomeus’s work
was itself built: for example, the writings of Aristotle and
his student Theophrastus on animals and plants, Pliny the
Elder’s Naturalis historia, and Isidore of Seville Etymolo-
giae (López Austin 1974:120; Hernández de León-Portilla
2002:51–56). None of these served as Sahagún’s exclusive
model, and he mentions no such model; instead they prob-
ably all contributed to his thinking.
For the gods (esp. bks. 1 and 3), Sahagún was influenced
by the classical authors on the nature of Greek and Roman
gods and by the perspectives that St. Augustine expressed
in The City of God (Olivier 2002, 2010, 2016; Laird 2016).
He was probably also acquainted with well-known com-
pilations about the pagan gods, as explained more fully
in chapter 3.75 These include Isidore of Seville’s chapter
on pagan gods that focuses on their names, realms, feasts,
and appearances as well as the thirteenth- and fourteenth-
century accounts by Albricus, the Libellus, Boccaccio, and
Petrarch. Sahagún may also have been familiar with one
or more of the mid-sixteenth-century manuals on the
gods of antiquity by Georg Pictor (1532), Gregorio Giraldi
(1548), Natale Conti (1551), and especially Vincenzo Car-
tari (1556), whose extremely popular 1571 edition was illus-
trated by vivid woodcuts. He surely would have known
Olaus Magnus’s Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus
(1555), which describes and pictures the major gods of the
northern peoples. Magnus, like Sahagún, wrote to explain
a pre-Christian people to his readership, and a copy was
available in the library of the Colegio de Santa Cruz.
Other European genres may have helped shape
Sahagún’s presentation of Aztec customs and practices
more generally. The major works he likely knew were
Flavius Josephus’s Antiquitates Judaicae (compiled cs. 94),
Polydore Vergil’s De inventoribus rerum (1499, 1521), and
Johann Boemus’s Omnium gentium mores, leges, et ritis
(1520), which described cultural institutions and practices
of a range of ancient and contemporary people within and
outside of Europe. Earlier descriptions of the manners
and customs of the Mongol people, which originated in
the thirteenth-century reports by the Franciscans John de
Plano Carpini and William Rubruck, were also circulating.
And Magnus’s study of northern peoples chronicled a diver-
sity of customs such as warfare, the election and actions
of kings, marriage and funerals, and the notable labors of
the people. Theophrastus’s study of human types may also
have helped shape Sahagún’s description of people in book
10 according to their place in society and their occupations.
The parts of book 10 devoted to ailments, cures, and the
human body more likely look to Bartholomeus Anglicus
or a medical writer, such as Andreae Vesalius (Kusukawa
2012), whose set of books on the human body (1543) may
have inspired the simpler illustrations in Sahagún’s work.76
The illustrations of luxury craft production took inspi-
ration from Jost Amman’s prints in Hans Sachs’s Book of
Trades (1568) (Peterson 2003). In the prologue to book 10
Sahagún says that he does not follow the order of other
writers but orders the persons according to rank, crafts and
trades, then ailments and cures (Sahagún 1982:73). By this
statement he acknowledges his debt to multiple authors
rather than a single one; he followed none fully.
Pliny’s Naturalis historia was a logical but general source
for book 11 (Earthly Things), as Garibay (1971, 2:70–72)
noted. But other encyclopedic compendia may have played
a role as well: for example, Bartholomeus Anglicus likewise
described a great range of flora and fauna. Herbals, which
were usually well illustrated, may have encouraged the
illustrations in book 11 to have an objective and expository
character. Escalante Gonzalbo (1999) has also pointed out
close similarities between Sahagún’s treatment of animals
and Johan von Cube’s Hortus sanitatis (1536).77 Sahagún
established his own presentational order, which differs
from Pliny’s and Bartholomeus Anglicus’s, although, like
theirs, it generally moves from the larger mammals to the
insects and begins the flora with trees.
We should recognize that Sahagún was a man who
did not pattern his Historia general after a single source
or two but was in touch with the broad encyclopedic lit-
erature of his day and was also knowledgeable about more
focused studies on individual aspects of culture. He pulled
ideas and ways of structuring information from many
sources but deviated from them all to fit his indigenous
subject better.
Sahagún’s Goals
Sahagún used the prologues to mediate between the indig-
enous content of his trigraphic texts (the Nahuatl, its Span-
ish translation, and the painted images) and the European
audience that would receive them. Throughout, the indig-
enous content is neutral in tone, but his prologues decry
idolatry, rationalize other indigenous practices, and argue
for the utility of his Historia. He articulates two principal
goals for the project: the first is to combat what he sees as
insidious idolatry that lurks behind the veneer of Catholi-
cism in the indigenous community; the second is to estab-
lish the foundation for a comprehensive Nahuatl dictionary.
In the process, he achieves a third goal, not so directly stated
but surely intended: to celebrate the achievements of the
Aztec people that he had come to admire (León-Portilla
2002:133–138). He articulates his positions and reasons
in the prologues and interpolations, especially the general
prologue to book 1, which embraces the project as a whole.
Sahagún opens this introduction by asserting that a phy-
sician cannot heal a patient without knowledge of ailments
and the medicines to cure them. So too, he continues, the
ministers of the Catholic faith cannot stamp out indig-
enous idolatry without understanding its characteristics
and manifestations, whether they are rituals, superstitions,
auguries, abuses, or expressions. His goal therefore was to
reveal and illuminate these idolatrous beliefs and practices.
“To preach against these matters, and even to know if they
exist, it is needful to know how they practiced them in the
times of their idolatry, for, through [our] lack of knowl-
edge of this, they perform many idolatrous things in our
presence without our understanding it” (prologue, bk. 1;
Sahagún 1982:45). For Sahagún, as for Durán, the early
successes of the evangelical mission were behind them, and
the falsehoods of the ancient gods “are not so forgotten
and lost” but continue sometimes even under the cloak of
Durán and Sahagún • 193
Christianity (prologue, bk. 3; Sahagún 1982:59).78 Sahagún
knew also that fluency in Nahuatl was essential to under-
stand ancient conceptions, perspectives, and practices.
The goal of combating idolatry, however, does not
explain the pains that Sahagún took to document such
a range of indigenous knowledge and phenomena or to
express these with such redundancy. The Nahuatl text of
the Florentine Codex is notable for the repetitious nature
of its prose, which consistently offers the reader linguistic
variations for expressing the same or similar statements.
Such is the Nahuatl description of the entrance of the
Spaniards into Tenochtitlan quoted earlier. In the pro-
logue to book 7, Sahagún recognizes that the reader will
be displeased by the repetitive language and explains this
by saying “it is that there are many synonymous terms for
[any] one thing, and a mode of expression or a sentence is
said in many ways. This was done on purpose to know and
record all the vocabulary of each thing and all the modes of
expressing each sentence. And this is not only in this book
but in the whole work” (Sahagún 1982:68).
Sahagún saw his Historia general as a guide to Nahuatl
language and expression, his Calepino, referring to the
Latin dictionary of Ambrogio Calepino who, as Sahagún
stated, “drew the words, their meanings, their equivocals
and metaphors from reading the poets, orators, and other
authors of the Latin language” (Sahagún 1982:50).79 Lack-
ing equivalent sources written in Nahuatl, he said that it
was impossible for him to prepare such a dictionary, but
instead he “laid the groundwork in order that whosoever
may desire can prepare it with ease, for, through my efforts
twelve books have been written in an idiom characteris-
tic and typical of the Mexican language, where are found
therein all the manners of speech and all the words this
language uses” (To the Sincere Reader: Sahagún 1982:50).
Thus, he offered that book 11 (Earthly Things) could be
“held or esteemed as a compendium of the idioms and
words of this Mexican language” (Sahagún 1982:87). Book
12 was intended to provide the indigenous perspective
on the conquest but especially to record the language of
warfare so that the subject could be properly expressed in
Nahuatl (prologue, bk. 12; Sahagún 1982:101). Sahagún’s
search for all relevant expressions gives the Nahuatl text of
the codex its particular redundant flavor.
An equally important but unstated goal was to celebrate
the nobility of indigenous culture and the accomplishments
of the Aztec people. Several times Sahagún took steps to
distance the people and culture from their idolatry, which
194 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
he conceptualized as their “heavy yoke” (prologue, bk. 1;
Sahagún 1982:49). He referred to the Preconquest period
as “the time of their unbelief ” (prologue, bk. 10; Sahagún
1982:74) and characterized Aztec Mexico as “a forest or
a thorny thicket filled with very dense brambles” created
by the devil in which to hide and perform his work (pro-
logue, bk. 3; Sahagún 1982:58). While he saw the Aztecs
as unenlightened and ignorant in the question of religion,
he strove otherwise to situate them in the best possible
light: “the knowledge or wisdom of this people was con-
siderable,” and the first settlers “were perfect philosophers
and astrologers and very skilled in all the crafts” (prologue,
bk. 1; Sahagún 1982:48). Very often Sahagún compared
the Aztecs to pagan ancestors of European culture, such as
the Greeks and Romans, contextualizing them as another
non-Christian people in an attempt to downplay some of
the extremes of their culture (e.g., prologue, bk. 7; Sahagún
1982:67). He likened the Cholulans to the Romans and the
Tlaxcalans to the Carthaginians (prologue, bk. 1; Sahagún
1982:48) and related the rhetoric of the Mexicans to that
of the Greeks, Latins, Spanish, French, and Italians: “the
wise, superior, and effective rhetoricians were held in high
regard” (prologue, bk. 6; Sahagún 1982:65).
It is clear that Sahagún succeeded in his goals. The
Floren­tine Codex is our principal source for understanding
indigenous religiosity, culture, and history and our greatest
corpus of Nahuatl expression.
Like Durán, Sahagún had to contend with his critics—
including his fellow Franciscans—who asserted that all he
had written in the codex “is invention and lies” (prologue,
bk. 6; Sahagún 1982:65).80 In 1570 funding for Sahagún’s
scribe was halted, and his books were seized and dispersed
across the Franciscan monasteries of his province to be
critically examined. Only with Sequera’s arrival in 1575 did
support for Sahagún begin again, and he was able to finish
the codex in 1576–1577. By then the Crown had forbid-
den anyone from writing about indigenous culture. All
manuscript studies on this topic were ordered to be sent
to Spain to be examined by the Council of Indies. Sahagún
remained optimistic that his manuscript would reach and
enlighten Philip II about the Preconquest Aztec world.
The Last of the Pictorial
Encyclopedias
The Historias of Durán and Sahagún that culminated
in the late 1570s and early 1580s have come to dominate
our notions of the ethnographic efforts of the sixteenth
century. Together they are the most extensively consulted
authorities on Aztec culture, conceptualized largely. Durán
concentrated on the Gods and Rites, the Calendar, and
Aztec history with richly descriptive texts and ample illus-
trations. These paintings are especially important because
they often convey information not specifically mentioned
in the texts. Those in his two cultural treatises retain many
basic features of the indigenous tradition. Sahagún’s Flor­
entine Codex is a massive and wide-ranging compilation of
ideological, social, and natural knowledge. It is conceptual-
ized more fully as an encyclopedia of the Aztecs prior to
the conquest, and its combination of Nahuatl, Spanish,
and paintings makes it the most significant window onto
the Aztec world that has survived.
The friars’ goal in the end was to represent Preconquest
indigenous truth, opinion, and experience for an audience
that was largely outside of the indigenous community.
Although Durán and Sahagún may have once intended
a local readership as well, in their final compilations both
are explicit in this. Their prologues especially speak to
a European readership. Considering this audience, their
painters were more fully trained in European canons of
representation than those that preceded them, or at least
their paintings reflect European visual traditions that
were not common in earlier compilations. Their paintings
have also slid into the role of illustrating the topics
explained in the texts rather than conveying information
equally with the text. In this way they function, like
European illustrations, to highlight and punctuate the
alphabetic discourse.
Both authors finished their manuscripts in increasingly
difficult circumstances and under the cloud of censor-
ship. For some years the Crown had been curtailing the
dominance of the mendicant orders to replace them with
the secular clergy. In the 1570s financial support for ethno-
graphic projects like Durán’s and Sahagún’s was halted as
fears arose that these writings were subversive and could
lead to indigenous recidivism. Sahagún’s manuscripts were
taken away in 1570 and returned to him in 1575. But in
1577 a royal decree to Viceroy Martín Enríquez explicitly
prohibited studies and documents about indigenous cul-
ture and ordered that all existing manuscripts, including
those by Durán and Sahagún, be confiscated. Durán espe-
cially was pessimistic about the success of the mendicant
enterprise; Sahagún may also have been but was less vocal
about it. Both shared the hope that their final productions
would be published, but neither saw this happen during his
lifetime: only in the nineteenth century were their works
rediscovered and published. Instead the information they
gathered so carefully and preserved so completely survived
in the late sixteenth-century and early seventeenth-century
writings of others: Sahagún via Juan de Torquemada, and
Durán via José de Acosta.
Durán and Sahagún • 195
Chapter 8
Memories in Figures
T
he pictorial encyclopedias of early
colonial Mexico form a unique corpus. They
are a specialized outgrowth of the European
tradition of gathering, organizing, and record-
ing cultural information on foreign and ancient peoples,
one that was tailored largely to the evangelical needs of
mendicant proselytizers. Moreover, they are highly picto-
rial. Paintings grounded in the indigenous traditions of
pictographic writing and painted books carry much of
their information, especially among the early surviving
examples; indigenous literary genres largely controlled
what kinds of data they included. They thus sit at the
juncture of European desires and Preconquest Mexican
realities about how culture could be categorized and ide-
ologies presented. They arise also from the juxtaposition
of several different graphic systems that occupied the
pages and fields of books and records in sixteenth-century
Mexico, so that they embrace alphabetic writing, pictorial
illusionism, and indigenous pictography. Created collab-
oratively by mendicant friars and indigenous intellectu-
als, painters, and scribes, they reflect back on Preconquest
ideologies and ritual practices that had been largely sup-
pressed. Although their original audience was composed
of fellow mendicants evangelizing in Mexico, most of the
few documents that have survived were sent to Europe for
the readership there. The corpus is topically and pictori-
ally diverse but united in its descendancy from indigenous
painted books and images.
196
Ideology and Practice
Overwhelmingly, the Mexican compilations concern reli-
gious matters, but with history added in some. They largely
address the kinds of information that the mendicant friars
would want to know in order to identify and combat idola-
try. At the core, these are the calendars, the rituals tied to
these calendars and those required for specific occasions,
and, via these topics, the gods worshipped at these times
and on these occasions. But there is variation, of course.
The Telleriano-Remensis, Ríos, and Durán add Aztec his-
tory to the mix, and Durán and Sahagún greatly expand
the core content.
The one topical outlier is the Codex Mendoza. One of
the earliest compilations to have survived (probably dating
to the 1540s), it is more an instrument of governance than
a weapon of conversion. Its three parts focus on royal vic-
tories and imperial expansion, the wealth of taxes and trib-
ute sent to Moctezuma in the imperial capital, and the life
cycle of ordinary Aztec people (distinguishing the different
trajectories of males and females) from birth to old age.
It eschews religion almost entirely. It pictures no gods or
supernaturals and no rituals, except for those two that were
part of quotidian life: the naming of infants and marriage.
Religion appears only in its section on lifeways, where it
records, as one of two male trajectories, how young men
advanced through the priestly ranks. Even in this context,
however, it avoids any representation of temples, blood
sacrifices, and deities. Having been made expressly for
export to Spain, it offers a complimentary picture of Aztec
imperial expansion and wealth and extols the strong moral
fiber of the Aztec people.
In contrast, all the other compilations turn their atten-
tion to those aspects that the Mendoza does not cover: the
ritual and divinatory calendars and their gods and rites.
They all treat in various ways the three calendars and, for
most, the practices associated with them: the divinatory
count of 260 days, the annual cycle of veintena festivals,
and the count of the years. These form a core of knowledge
that was both required by the patrons and available from
the pictographic tradition. Each compilation presented
these slightly differently, with expansions and deletions,
and added other content, but the calendars were clearly on
the minds of the mendicants.
The Codex Borbonicus straddles the Preconquest past
and the colonial present. Its divinatory section is fully
in the Aztec tradition, but painters then appended the
veintena cycle and the year count, yielding a compilation
of distinct genres that would not have occurred prior to
European interest in such things. It covers the divinatory
cycle by means of a fully elaborated tonalamatl arranged in
trecenas and embellished with figures that signify all the
mantic forces, followed by a key to assigning the Lords
of the Night to each year, thereby showing how the divi-
natory cycle extends from year to year. Its added veintena
section pictures in brief the rituals conducted during these
twenty-day periods. It includes the deities so honored but
puts its emphasis on the participants and their activities.
(Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales does likewise.) And the
author of the codex embedded the veintena cycle within
the 52-year count, placing the festivals within the context
of the New Fire year of 1507. The Borbonicus stands apart
from the others because of its materiality, facture, and style:
it features indigenous pictography on a screenfold of amatl
and has very few explanatory glosses, but it presages some
of the compilations that followed.
Its three sections—divinatory calendar, veintena cycle,
and year count—materialize again in the Codex Telleriano-
Remensis, which likewise includes a tonalamatl and the
veintena feasts and fulfills the requirement for a year count
with an annals history. The tonalamatl in the Telleriano-
Remensis is simplified from the one in the Borbonicus but
retains the traditional format. Its veintena section ignores
the ritual activities that distinguish the Borbonicus and
instead represents the festivals by single images of the
patron gods, which stand as emblems for their twenty-day
periods. It follows this with an annals history, copied from
indigenous prototypes, that tracks events of the Aztec past
from Chicomoztoc to the 1550s. The Codex Ríos repeats
this Telleriano-Remensis material (and preserves momen-
tous images that have been lost in its source) but also adds
other aspects of indigenous culture to approach a more
complete coverage: it includes a cosmology, stories of origin
(including the prior ages), a guide for medical bloodletting,
and such other cultural aspects as methods of sacrifice,
warfare, and regional dress. The paintings in these two
manuscripts establish both the content and organization
of the material; the glosses and texts follow as translations
and explanations.
The other mid-century encyclopedias—the cognate
Codices Magliabechiano and Tudela—enhance the core
calendrical material with a more diverse set of rituals and
supernatural actors. They represent the veintenas with
a mix of rituals and gods, occupying a middle ground
between the approaches of the Borbonicus and Telleriano-
Remensis. Although they denote the majority solely by
images of the gods, for seven of the eighteen veintenas they
picture aspects of the rituals. These manuscripts supple-
ment the veintena section with material on ritual cloaks,
funerary rites, other feasts and rituals, pulque gods, medi-
cal practices, methods of sacrifice, and a diversity of other
religious elements (many left unannotated and thus poorly
understood). They account for the 52-year cycle with a
simple pictorial listing of all the years.
The Magliabechiano presents the divinatory calendar
as a perfunctory sequence of the twenty day signs, with
the barest hint of prognosticatory power, but the Tudela
expands it and offers a distinctive treatment that recalls
Mixtec traditions. It elaborates the 260-day cycle as four
sets of five trecenas with their augural forces. Its tonala-
matl sequentially pictures all the days with their Night
Lords and provides the Day Lords and Volatiles for the
first trecena (figure 6.34), knowing that these will simply
repeat without variation in the other trecenas. It also adds
at the end an extra deerskin almanac similar to those in the
Codex Borgia Group (figure 6.36).
All these manuscripts—from the Borbonicus and Men-
doza to the mid-century compilations—are impersonal in
the way they present data and explanation. They retain the
primacy of the pictographic images, which drive both their
content and the organization of this content. Their glosses
serve simply to explain the paintings and develop their
significance more fully, with occasional digressions (e.g.,
Codex Tudela). As translations and interpretations of the
Memories in Figures • 197
images, the texts remain neutral in tone, neither celebrating
nor decrying the practices of the Preconquest past. They
report but do not consciously argue a position.
The historias of Durán and Sahagún break with this pat-
tern, not only because of the primacy of their texts but also
because of the degree to which these texts—especially in
the prologues and epistles to the reader—directly express
the goals and perspectives of their creators (discussed
below). Their paintings have been demoted to the status of
illustrations subordinate to the texts, although many retain
elements of the traditional style. Durán’s three treatises—
Gods and Rites, Calendar, and History—reflect some-
thing of the earlier subject template, in that they treat the
veintenas and the divinatory cycle as well as Aztec history.
His Calendar describes both the veintena rituals and the
divinatory cycle as separate entities. His dynastic history
of the Mexica, from Chicomoztoc through the conquest,
is a Europeanized reconceptualization of Aztec history
(replete with individual aspirations and speeches), as was
formerly outlined succinctly in the annals. His treatise on
the Gods and Rites, however, while covering veintenas and
other rituals, is predicated on the identities of the gods and
organized accordingly. Where the Telleriano-Remensis
and Magliabechiano Group present gods according to their
patronage of the veintenas, Durán embeds the veintena fes-
tivals in his descriptions of the gods, describing their visual
attributes, realms, and rituals.
Sahagún’s Florentine Codex is further in the tradition
of the medieval encyclopedia, despite the large contingent
of indigenous informants, principals, intellectuals, paint-
ers, and scribes who brought it to fruition. It does treat
the veintena cycle and the divinatory calendar as distinct
categories of knowledge (in books 2 and 4), mentions the
year count in a paragraph in book 7, and briefly articulates
the history of Tenochtitlan (and of Tlatelolco, Texcoco,
and Huexotla) according to the reigns of the rulers in the
text of book 8. Beyond this suite of categories, however,
the Florentine Codex diverges from the earlier compila-
tions. Its presentation of the deities organizes them, as did
Durán, according to major and minor ones (although it
orders them differently), and the texts elaborate their visual
attributes, realms, and rituals. The other books extend
coverage across a wide cultural expanse. Sahagún’s project
reaches much further than others to cover cosmogonic his-
tory, astronomy, omens, huehuetlatolli, rulership in general,
merchants and luxury crafts, the qualities and occupa-
tions of the people, natural history, and the conquest of
198 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
Tenochtitlan. Even more so than with Durán’s Historia, the
content and focus of the Florentine Codex are driven by
its extensive texts, written in Nahuatl with partial Spanish
translations. A major goal of the Florentine Codex was to
preserve an extensive corpus of Nahuatl texts to sustain the
language and aid others who wished to learn it.
Many of the topics finalized in the Florentine Codex
had earlier been advanced in the Primeros memoriales. This
set of drafts contains the requisite coverage of the veintenas,
divinatory calendar, and year count. For the veintenas it
illustrates the multiple actors and activities of the monthly
festivals, emphasizing ritual action, as did the Codex Bor-
bonicus earlier. For the tonalamatl, it pictures all the days
subdivided according to the trecenas, but without patron
gods or Night Lords; its interspersed texts likewise ignore
the augural supernaturals and instead indicate the fates
of those born in the trecenas. Its year count pictures the
sequent years followed by a text explanation of the New
Fire Ceremony. In preparation for Sahagún’s final itera-
tion, the Primeros memoriales also depicts the gods, with
glosses that list their visual attributes; it illustrates and
explains methods of sacrifice and celestial phenomena; and
unillustrated textual sections cover rulership and human
concerns. Although created at mid-century, the Primeros
memoriales aligns better with Sahagún’s final product than
with the other mid-century encyclopedias, which belong to
different investigative traditions.
Collecting Customs
These sixteenth-century compilations were predicated on
the larger European interest in other peoples and customs
and on the local, mendicant need to understand idolatry in
order to combat its continued practice. The friars, zealous
and industrious men who came to introduce Catholicism
to the indigenous population, carried a general knowledge
of how their fellow Europeans had explained foreign peo-
ples. They knew well the medieval tradition of the universal
encyclopedia that embraced cosmological, spiritual, and
earthly matters. They were aware that others had reported
on distant cultural practices and beliefs, and they knew
about the humanist tradition of classifying pagan gods.
This general cultural background gave them the confidence
to gather and organize so much detailed cultural informa-
tion in Mexico.
Sahagún would use the medieval encyclopedia, prob-
ably in the iteration by the Franciscan Bartholomeus
Anglicus, as a general template for his own Historia general,
although for specific books he drew on other genres. Pedro
de los Ríos, in creating the Codex Ríos, probably also had a
general encyclopedia in mind when he commissioned this
impressive, oversized presentation for a colleague back in
Italy. He expanded the core data copied from the Codex
Telleriano-Remensis with broader cultural information
such as might be treated in a European compilation,
including layers of the heavens and underworld, a Zodiac
Man for bloodletting, regional dress, and the three ages
of humankind. His pictorial compilation, with Italian
texts, is unequal to Sahagún’s great encyclopedia of the
Nahua world, but it covers a diversity of cultural features
not included in others and thereby aspires to be a more
complete cultural presentation.
The friars may have been thinking about earlier reports
on others’ cultural practices when they set out to make
their own, although there are no explicit connections
with specific works. They likely knew about Carpini’s
and Rubruck’s thirteenth-century reports on the customs
of the Mongolians, via other copies, and very likely were
familiar with Johan Boemus’s popular comparative study
of the customs of people from Africa, Asia, and differ-
ent parts of Europe, which systematically covered a wide
range of cultural features, as well as Olauf Magnus’s more
recent study of Scandinavian pagans. The Mexican com-
pilations never covered the full range of customs: they
all ignored diet, habitation, and transportation and only
sporadically covered other aspects: marriage (Mendoza,
Tudela), funeral rites (Magliabechiano Group), warfare
(Mendoza, Sahagún’s book 12, and obliquely in Durán’s
History), apparel (Tudela, Ríos, and Sahagún [for the
nobles]), law (Mendoza), government (Mendoza, Durán’s
History, and Sahagún’s book 7), and language (Sahagún’s
work, which is consciously itself a thesaurus). A Franciscan
and evangelical strain runs through some of these works:
Bartholomeus, Carpini, and Rubruck (and Bacon, who
used Rubruck) were Franciscans, and Magnus’s study was
intended to help the Catholic reclamation of Sweden.
Most of the Mexican compilations treat the Aztec gods
principally in the context of the calendar. They include
them as patrons of the trecenas of the tonalamatl and as
the supernaturals worshipped in the veintena festivals,
although individual glosses sometimes describe other
aspects (e.g., Telleriano-Remensis, Ríos, Tudela). In addi-
tion to its veintena patrons, the Magliabechiano Group
adds coverage of a few other major gods (e.g., Quetzalcoatl,
Macuilxochitl) and the many pulque gods and includes
others in the context of rituals. But none of these mid-
century encyclopedias treats gods as a special collection or
presents them conceptually as a pantheon. Coming later
in the century, both Durán and Sahagún do so, however.
They present the gods as an ideological category, as in
Albricus and other catalogues of non-Christian gods, and
organize them as major and minor gods and goddesses. For
each, they picture and describe the gods’ realms, qualities,
and physical attributes, the kind of information that was
currently being included in studies of the pagan gods of
antiquity.
Endurance of Native Genres
Although the friars may have looked to European compila-
tions as models for the kinds of cultural information they
sought, what they and their colleagues actually received
depended largely on preexisting indigenous genres of man-
uscript production. For example, they may have sought
information on the gods, but what many received were the
gods embedded in the ritual cycle. The compilers drew
largely on the manuscript traditions of the tribute list, the
annals history, and the divinatory almanac. The earliest
compilers (according to surviving examples) simply copied
them into the new material and format of the European
book. These native genres lingered as very stable pictorial
categories. The friars considered it imperative to record the
veintenas (all but the Mendoza include them), but their
very different treatments of this cycle suggest that no single
manner of representing the monthly feasts existed before
the conquest, not to mention how they aligned with the
Christian calendar and what festivals they featured. Where
Preconquest genres did exist and were incorporated into
the colonial compilations, their figural images tend to be
the most conservative in adhering to the indigenous figural
style. Where there were no established traditions (e.g., the
section on life cycles in the Codex Mendoza), the artists
were freer to innovate.
The tribute list reappears relatively unchanged in the
Codex Mendoza (figure 5.11), where it varies from the
Matrícula de Tributos only in small details in content and
the arrangement and reading order of its parts. The Men-
doza’s European audience was accustomed to reading from
top to bottom and left to right, so the Mendoza painter
listed the towns of each province in a column down the left
side of the page, beginning with the provincial capital at
Memories in Figures • 199
the top, and then arranged the relevant tribute to the right
with the most important goods at the top. This top to bot-
tom orientation would have made more sense to its reader-
ship than the bottom to top orientation of the Matrícula.
Keeping close to the indigenous prototype, however, the
Mendoza’s images remain in the native tradition.
Several varieties of the native annals history also con-
tinued in the colonial compilations. Most preserve the
sequential listing of the year signs as the structural support
for the account, but they divide and arrange the sequences
in different ways. Some maintain the sequence as contigu-
ous years, breaking the count only in order to fit it onto the
paper pages, but some separate the years and spread them
across the width of the page.
In part one of the Mendoza and book 8 of the Floren-
tine Codex, the sequential reigns of the rulers governed
the structure. After opening with a symbolic rendering of
the founding of Tenochtitlan, framed by the count of these
pre-tlatoani years, the Mendoza segments the year count
according to the reigns of the rulers (figure 5.10). It devotes
a new page to each, picturing the ruler and his conquests
but ignoring other events that are otherwise found in Aztec
annals, such as natural and climatic phenomena and the
dedication of major temples. The annals in the Mendoza is
thus a specialized variant that concentrates on the victories
claimed by each ruler and, in so doing, outlines the growing
extent of the Aztec empire. The Florentine Codex also seg-
ments history according to the reigns of the rulers (figure
7.24), but this history is carried by the text, not the images;
the images only picture the sequent rulers as a loose verti-
cal column. It is the text that identifies the duration of the
rule, along with the conquests and major events during
each reign. This is a vestige of an annals history segmented
like the Mendoza according to ruler, from which the year
count has been removed.
The Telleriano-Remensis preserves partial copies of at
least three annals histories. All retain the year count as
their governing structure, but they vary in the way they
arrange the years and how closely they assign events to
these years. For most of the migration story, it pictures the
years contiguously as a vertical ribbon across the width
of the page and arrays the events loosely above. None of
the events are attached to the year count, and they seem
independent of it (figure 6.3). It seems the painter took
these migratory events from a cartographic history and
then aligned them as best he could with a continuously
running year count. The annals structure that was then
200 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
used for the end of the migration and early postfoundation
history (29r–31r) deploys the years as adjacent rectangles
that together frame the events occurring during that time.
Only a few of the events are tied to specific years, however
(figure 6.4). With the seating of Moctezuma, the format
again regularizes, with horizontally adjacent years run-
ning across the top of the pages and specific events (below)
linked to their years by a line (figure 6.5). Thereafter, the
painter spaced the years two to four to a page in order to
accommodate a greater number of events (32v–48r; figures
6.6, 6.7). The scribe continued this tradition for another
two pages (48v–49r). In the Telleriano-Remensis the for-
merly adjoining units of the year count become spread out
across the pages and tightly tied to specific events; the Ríos
copies this format.
The legacy of an annals presentation also surfaces in
Durán’s History. Although it is more in the manner of a
European diplomatic history, which stresses individual
motivation and actions, his painters retained the conven-
tion of representing the Mexica rulers seated in profile on
their thrones in the indigenous manner. For the inaugura-
tion of Tizoc, the painter even reproduced the tradition of
signifying the death of one ruler (Axayacatl’s corpse bun-
dle) and the accession of the next as a single statement (fig-
ure 7.11). The presentations of Preconquest history in the
colonial compilations are among the most conservative in
preserving the indigenous figural traditions, for they draw
on an exceptionally strong and persistent annals tradition.
The divinatory almanac also endured in the colonial
compilations as a stable entity. The Borbonicus preserves
one fully in the indigenous tradition, perhaps even Pre-
conquest in date (figure 5.1), and the Telleriano-Remensis
(and subsequent Ríos) follows it closely. The tonalamatl
in the Telleriano-Remensis maintains the organizational
structure of that in the Borbonicus—with a large area
dominated by the governing supernaturals that is framed
on the top and right side by the day signs, coefficients, and
the Night Lords (figure 6.2). But the Telleriano-Remensis
painter simplified the trecena presentations by omitting the
Day Lords, Volatiles, and almost everything in the prog-
nosticatory panel but the most relevant two deities. He also
spaced the material across a two-page verso-recto spread to
replicate on the European page the kind of broad spatial
plane in the Borbonicus. His figures retain much of the
pinwheel pose that characterizes supernaturals as govern-
ing lords for units of time. The Primeros memoriales also
organizes the days of its tonalpohualli count according to
trecenas, although its single vertical list ignores the ancient
structure and it omits the supernatural patrons. The trecena
gods in the Primeros memoriales have fallen away entirely.
The Codex Tudela preserves the organization, if not the
full spatial arrangement, for a differently formatted tonala-
matl. For each 65-day period it presents the two govern-
ing deities facing each other and posed in the distinctive
pinwheel (figure 6.35), followed by a horizontal listing of
day signs and Night Lords for each trecena across facing
pages; for the first trecena it also adds the thirteen Volatiles
(figure 6.34). Its subsequent deerskin almanac is a varia-
tion of those in the Codex Borgia and Codex Vaticanus B
(figure 6.36).
The distinctive pinwheel pose of the divinatory patrons
also endured in other contexts when the gods were repre-
sented. Many of the gods honored during the veintena fes-
tivals were painted in this pose in the Codex Borbonicus,
Telleriano-Remensis, Magliabechiano, and Tudela. The
bent knee and dangling feet pose of some of the figures in
the section on the gods in the Primeros memoriales may also
look back to this convention.
Stylistic Fluidity
As the manuscript painters became familiar with the
imported European conception of pictorial illusionism,
many of them adopted at least some of the techniques for
achieving this. Their surviving manuscripts evince a general
shift from the signifying figuration of native pictography in
the earliest examples to the European-style representation
of perceived surface in the later ones. The Codex Mendoza
and Codex Borbonicus sit close to the Preconquest past,
whereas the paintings in Durán and Sahagún’s Floren-
tine Codex have moved much closer toward full pictorial
illusionism. This shift was not the result of regular and
consistent change over time, however. Rather it occurred
sporadically and fractionally, depending on several factors,
such as the existence of a close Preconquest prototype,
the nature of the subject matter and the creator’s goals for
it, and the training of the artists. In the absence of clear
Pre-Columbian models, the painters themselves chose
how to represent ideas and entities—whether to call up
Preconquest traditions or take up illusionism. But these
factors did not always govern the artists’ choices. Some-
times when the subject matter might seem to call for a
traditional approach, an artist might decide to employ the
new style. These exceptions show how dominant the new
style eventually became. Each manuscript has its own mix
of styles, with traditional artists sometimes working beside
experimental ones. Most of the manuscripts were painted
by multiple artists with different abilities and preferences,
and some of these artists easily straddled both traditions,
shifting styles in the same manuscript. The Mendoza artist,
for example, employed pictography to record history and
tribute but innovated in the lifeways section. None of the
existing compilations maintains a consistent style.
Preconquest prototypes carried indigenous pictogra-
phy securely into the colonial period. Where prototypes
existed, the painters tended to follow these and produce
more conservative imagery. This is clearly the case in the
Codex Mendoza, where the historical section and the trib-
ute list remain conceptually and stylistically in the Pre­
conquest tradition (figures 5.10, 5.11). The field of each page
remains neutral and void of depth, and the figures within
are two-dimensional and ideoplastic forms aggregated
together as sets. This is also the case in those sections of the
other compilations devoted to the tonalpohualli and annals
histories, where the figures tend to adhere more closely to
ancient indigenous conventions. The Telleriano-Remensis
is a case in point. Although its tonalpohualli gods were
rendered in a looser style than was usual in pictography,
their poses are symbolic, their attributes are still largely
intact, and the figures still occupy a neutral plane (figure
6.2). Among the most conservative images in Sahagún’s
Florentine Codex are those of the rulers in book 8 (figure
7.24), which derived from ancient annals histories.
When the subject matter was inherently symbolic
rather than representational, the images also remained
ideoplastic and two-dimensional. Such are the ritual cloaks
in the Codices Magliabechiano and Tudela (figures 6.17
and 6.33) and the calendrical signs of the day and year
counts in almost all the manuscripts. The exception is
Sahagún’s book 4 on the divinatory calendar, where the
painter rendered several of the day signs as tridimensional
forms within scenic space. For example, he presented the
Deer and Rabbit signs as full-bodied creatures within a
grassy environment (eating the grass or crouching in it)
and rendered Death as a three-dimensional skull and Rain
as weeping clouds.
On occasion Durán’s and Sahagún’s artists consciously
drew on European models when doing so would enhance
the message of their paintings. A few examples illustrate
the pattern. For instance, Durán cast his Aztec history as a
diplomatic history in the Western tradition, and his artists
Memories in Figures • 201
looked to Europe for suitable models. There they found
relevant images in the engravings of Old Testament events
in Bibles that were then circulating widely, which helped
to cast Aztec history in parallel with pre-Christian history
(figure 7.10). They also surrounded many scenes, especially
those involving significant imperial events, with elaborate
baroque frames that added to the grandeur of the images
(figures 7.10, 7.12). The artists who illustrated Sahagún’s
Florentine Codex looked often to Europe. For example,
the painter who illustrated luxury craft production in book
9 replicated the composition of crafts specialists in Jost
Amman’s Book of Trades, implicitly drawing cultural paral-
lels between the two (figure 7.23). The conquest painters
of book 12 shaped Moctezuma’s visual image to align it
with Christ’s. Elsewhere the painters looked to European
encyclopedias and herbals or to scenes of the early life of
Christ. The painted list of gods in the Primeros memoria-
les (figure 7.16) and its derivation in the Florentine Codex
also recall, perhaps unconsciously, the representation of the
pagan gods of antiquity, which the Florentine glosses make
explicit. For these artists, their subject matter pointed them
toward Europe rather than back toward pictography.
Differential training, skill, and interest affected the
nature of the images in other manuscripts as well. The
first painter of the Magliabechiano, for example, worked
fully in the native tradition, with flat, stiff forms precisely
delineated and flatly colored (figure 6.17). Responsible for
images in two of the gatherings, he stopped work sud-
denly with the torso of one of the pulque gods. Painting at
the same time, the second artist then finished this pulque
god and the rest of the manuscript. Although he had full
command of the details of religious iconography, or was
able to reproduce them faithfully, his forms are looser, his
lines less precise, and his figures more corporeal. Although
some of his veintena patrons retain something of the divi-
natory pinwheel pose, they appear as awkwardly crouch-
ing physical beings. He was also interested in European
perspectival projections and took the opportunities to add
three-dimensional boxlike seats under several of the gods
posed in the old pinwheel stance. He sought to render
temples and pyramids in depth by employing perspectival
projections and modeling in light and shadow; although
these experiments were never truly accurate, they do con-
vey depth and demonstrate his interest in the new stylistic
manner (figure 6.24). Occasionally he also clustered sub-
sidiary figures together in scenic compositions; several of
his veintena images are so rendered (figure 6.21).
202 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
The fundamental change in the corpus as a whole was
in the conception of figuration: from flat, ideoplastic marks
that signified in the indigenous tradition (not unlike writ-
ing and other forms of notation) to the idea that drawing
and painting should reproduce the visual perception of
the sky and landscapes, objects, and entities in three-
dimensional space. This change occasioned a shift in the
meaning of both the figure and the field.
Perhaps the first change was to refashion the human
body from carrier of canonical meaning to corporeal form.
This required both three-dimensionality and recognition
of the body’s structure. Artists began to disregard agglu-
tination and move toward depicting actual human flesh
under the attributes, which led to longer and leaner figures
that more closely approximated human anatomy. And they
began to employ a looser, less precise line that suggested
volume rather than simply bounding form. For example,
the painter of the third section of the Codex Mendoza, on
Aztec lifeways, changed his manner of figuration from the
pictography that he employed in parts one and two. He
realized the males and females as corporeal bodies clothed
in the draped fabric of their cloaks and huipils (figures
5.12–5.17). The second painter of the Codex Tudela, who
otherwise retained allegiance to the pictographic tradition,
was quite skilled in rendering the substance of the human
body solely by the curve of his line (figures 6.27, 6.31–6.32).
This was not a consistent process, however, for super-
naturals almost always remained more traditionally ren-
dered. Even within the same presentation, artists felt freer
to render ordinary humans more naturally. For example,
the gods in the veintena section of the Codex Borbonicus
are stiff with the accretion of their visual attributes and
their canonical poses, while the human participants move
through the ritual spaces more freely and naturally (figures
5.3–5.5). The painters of the Codex Magliabechiano and
Tudela likewise rendered ordinary humans more naturally
than the gods (e.g., figures 6.21, 6.25, 6.27, 6.31).
The change in the human figure also required that the
body occupy physical space above an implied ground line.
This occasioned and was enabled by a shift in the notion
of the field of the page. The field ceased to be neutral or
diagrammatic and began to take on pictorial significance
as a representation of the three-dimensional world. This
allowed figures to exist in proximity to each other and
potentially to interact. In the Codex Magliabechiano, for
example, the men and women gathered at the base of the
pyramid during the heart sacrifice (figure 6.24) occupy such
a grounded space. Often the field of a painted page will
hold different projections: pictographic and illusionistic.
The page of the Codex Mendoza that records life-changing
events of youths and maidens at age fifteen employs both
(figure 5.14). At the top, the youths destined for the calme­
cac and the telpochcalli participate in a pictographic display,
as do the married couple and elder advisors at the bottom.
But when the bride’s attendants carry her to the wedding
site, they walk together on a ground.
This new idea of the field encouraged artists to employ
one or more of several tridimensional techniques. One
is the contour line used to describe volume, which the
Tudela painter used effectively to represent the curves of
muscles (figures 6.27, 6.32). Another is the use of shad-
ing to reflect the play of light and shadow across three-
dimensional form. The Magliabechiano painter employed
this technique to describe the volume of a major pyramid
(figure 6.24), the Telleriano-Remensis painter used it to
define the folds of priests’ cassocks in the colonial section
of the annals (figure 6.7), and the painter of the Primeros
memoriales used it only sparingly. The painters of Durán’s
Historia and Sahagún’s Florentine Codex relied on it often
(e.g., figures 7.5, 7.23).
The manuscript painters began to experiment with per-
spective fairly early. The painter of the Borbonicus veintena
section used the technique to represent a file of dancers
around the xocotl pole (figure 5.3). Although he reversed
the images—with the larger ones farther away and the
smaller one closer—his exercise still conveys the three-
dimensional curve of the line of dancers. The Mendoza
painter used one point linear perspective to good effect to
articulate the great volume of Moctezuma’s palace (figure
5.15). The Magliabechiano painter employed it less success-
fully to represent the depth of the temple of heart sacrifice
(figure 6.24) and to create three-dimensional seats for
some of the deities. The Telleriano-Remensis and Tudela
painters did not use it at all. The technique of atmospheric
perspective, where more distant images are less distinct
and often bluer, is not exemplified until the third quarter of
the century. Durán’s artists used it for the landscapes they
painted behind many of their figures (e.g., figures 7.6, 7.7),
as did some of Sahagún’s artists (figure 7.23).
In the early works and the mid-century compilations,
European techniques are uncommon enough to be note-
worthy. The artists were still grounded for the most part
in the Preconquest tradition but were experimenting with
and beginning to adopt some of the new conventions. By
the end of the century, with Durán and Sahagún, many
of the artists were working comfortably, if not always
proficiently, in the new manner. Their use of indigenous
conventions—such as the canonically seated ruler and the
use of pictographic symbols—then becomes noteworthy.
So many of the manuscript paintings draw on both
traditions.
Reaching across Cultures
All the manuscripts were born of close collaborations of
mendicants, their assistants and students, and the larger
indigenous communities. Mendicants and officials may
have commissioned the studies and outlined the desired
content, but indigenous colleagues supplied the data. We
know the names of some of the friars: Olmos, Motolinía,
Ferrer, Ríos, Durán, and Sahagún. But the names of their
indigenous collaborators have almost all been lost, except
for the few that Sahagún acknowledges. Other friars occa-
sionally mentioned specific native sources (identified only
as principals or knowledgeable elders from one place or
another); they usually did so when they wished to affirm
the veracity of a particular account. Almost never did they
name or acknowledge the painters who supplied their
images, whom we now know only as Artist A or B or the
“Master” of some technique. These artists, even more than
those who explained their images with glosses and texts,
remained close to the indigenous pictographic tradition.
Some of the first artists simply repurposed Pre­conquest
genres. The Borbonicus was created entirely by its native
artists; its annotations are later and largely incidental and
often incorrect for the veintenas. All the other manuscripts
were born from an ongoing collaboration between the
commissioning agent (friar, administrator, or both) and
those with personal knowledge of the past, those with
access to Preconquest manuscript genres, painters familiar
with traditional imagery, and the translators and inter-
preters who transferred into words the meaning behind
the paintings: all contributed to the cycle of production.
Although Durán presents his Historia as the result of
his personal study, many others made this possible. And
Sahagún had to organize a great team to carry out his
ambitious project.
Except in the Borbonicus, the paintings reflect the
understanding that texts would accompany them. In
the Mendoza and all the mid-century compilations, the
painters left space to be filled with explanatory texts. On
Memories in Figures • 203
the large folios of the Telleriano-Remensis, for example,
the small images denoting the veintenas commanded vast
amounts of expensive paper—whole folio-sized pages—
where they waited for glosses and texts that would con-
vey their meaning to viewers illiterate in pictography and
ignorant of religious iconography (figure 6.1). In Durán’s
Historia and Sahagún’s Florentine Codex, the texts were
conversely organized to accommodate illustrations that the
writers knew would come.
A gradual shift in tone follows the manuscript genre
as the sixteenth century wore on. The early Codex Men-
doza sketches out a positive picture of Aztec culture,
intended to impress its readership—possibly including
Charles V himself—with the greatness of the empire and
its people, which had been brought under Spanish con-
trol only a few decades before. At mid-century, when the
mendicant enterprise was still politically and spiritually
dominant, the compilations remained fairly neutral in their
descriptions. This suited their original objective to docu-
ment and inform others evangelizing in Mexico about the
details of Aztec religiosity. The final products that have
survived—the Magliabechiano, final Tudela, and Ríos—
emerged as clean copies of earlier studies and were meant
to share knowledge of Aztec ideology and practice with
educated Europeans; they retain the general neutrality of
204 • Descendants of Aztec Pictography
their prototypes. In the 1570s, however, the tone began
to shift. The mendicant enterprise had waned, interest
in documenting Aztec culture had become suspect, and
ethnographic efforts were being suppressed. Durán and
Sahagún finished their final Historias within this climate of
mistrust. Although the descriptive content of their studies
remains neutral, their prologues and epistles to the reader
reflect their personal pessimism about the efficacy of the
evangelical project. Optimistic about the fates of their final
projects, however, they still hoped that their manuscripts
would be published.
To the end, the compilations remained highly pictorial.
At first the images were foundational to all that was writ-
ten; at the end they were prized as complements to the
texts but also necessary as reflections of original indige-
nous knowledge. It was always the indigenous content that
made these compilations so valuable and so treasured, and
the native-style paintings affirmed their connection to the
indigenous pictographic tradition. Even the manuscripts
made as clean copies of earlier drafts were considered true
to indigenous expressions. Viewers were not just reading
a friar’s description but were seeing what purported to be
the original indigenous images. It was this descendancy
from indigenous pictography that gave the manuscripts
their authority.
Notes
Chapter 1. Paintings from
the Past
1. For this study, entitled Descripción le Nueva
España, see Baudot (1995:27–40).
2. Glass (1975b:19–26) is an important review
of the publication history of the Mesoamerican
pictorials; see especially the table on p. 22, which
is employed here.
3. Cartari’s 1626 edition included eight
images (Glass 1975b:22). See Anders and Jansen
(1996b:12–22) for the early history of the Codex
Ríos.
4. The paintings and texts were spread among
the volumes: vol. 1, Telleriano and Mendoza
paintings; vol. 2, Ríos paintings; vol. 5, Spanish
text of Telleriano-Remensis and Mendoza and
Italian text of Ríos; vol. 6, English translations of
these; vol. 7, Spanish text of Sahagún’s Historia.
5. See Cline (1973a) for a complete summary
of publications up to about 1970.
6. These ADEVA facsimiles are, for
Borbonicus, Codex Borbonicus (Nowotny and
Durand-Forest 1974) and Anders et al. (1991);
for Magliabechiano, Anders (1970) and Anders
and Jansen (1996a); for Ríos, ADEVA (1979) and
Anders and Jansen (1996b).
7. This idea was first proposed by Kubler and
Gibson (1951:52) and developed more fully by
Brown (1977, 1982). Nicholson (2002:65–77)
countered by identifying what he believed to be
glyphs for two veintena months on a stone year
bundle and pointing to early colonial glyphs that
signify the months.
Chapter 2. Graphic
Complexity in New Spain
1. See also the discussion in Watts
(1991:419–422).
2. Shapiro (1969:487) notes that the book
“corresponds to nothing in nature or mental
imagery” but exists only to hold marks.
3. Writing has been defined from several
points of view: linguistic (Diringer 1968;
Daniels and Bright 1996), semiological (Raforth
1988:132–140; Harris 1995:6), and material
(Harris 1995:335).
4. See Gelb (1963:14), Hill (1967:93), Ong
(1967, 1982), Tannen (1982), Sampson (1985:26),
Coulmas (1991:176–177, 2003:33), and Olson
(1994:7–8, 65–114, 117–118, 260).
5. Harris (1995:121–123) distinguishes
between the “internal syntagmatics” of written
forms (their relation to each other and to other
graphics [such as illustrations] within the same
graphic space) and the “external syntagmatics”
(their relation to events and forms exterior to
this space: their larger context, which might
be their location in a library or their use in a
specific practice).
6. There is some motivation in Roman
numerals: for example, I, II, and III to signify
one, two, and three.
7. See Gaur (1992:119) and Harris (1995:128–
133) for directionality and face.
8. See also Coulmas (1991:172). Parkes
(1993:40) notes that “the fundamental
conventions of the written medium,” including
word space and punctuation, had been
established by the twelfth century.
9. For the visual recognition of whole words
and sublexical units in reading, see, for example,
Underwood and Batt (1996:30–73), Rey, Ziegler,
and Jacobs (2000), and Nazir and Huckauf
(2008). Saenger (1997:19) discusses the “Bouma
shape.”
10. For the conventions of tridimensional
projects, see, for example, Ivins (1938), Bunim
(1940: especially 3–37, 175–192), White (1957),
Gombrich (1960, 1976: especially 3–18),
Kauffman (1975), Panofsky (1991), and Damisch
(1994).
11. For the “conceptual mode” of ancient art
before the Greeks, see Groenewegen-Frankfort
(1951: especially 7–10, 24, 37), Gombrich
(1960:68, 119–121), and Schäfer (1974).
12. The print previously appeared on the
title page of a 1554 Recognitio summularum
and within a 1556 Constitutiones fratrum
haeremitarum (García Icazbalceta 1981: nos.
21 [20], 27 [26]); it was later reused for other
publications as well.
13. Bunim (1940:5). See also Panofsky
(1991:47–54) on medieval space.
14. For the importance of constructed
memory using graphic elements, see Carruthers
(1990:7).
15. It was not unusual for several diagrams to
be clustered together to form a speculum theologie
(Sandler 1999). Studies of scientific, theological,
and cosmological diagrams include Bober
(1956–1957), Esmeijer (1978), Evans (1980),
Caviness (1983), and Sears (1986).
16. British Museum 1872–6–8–340; it is
a large print, measuring 410 × 287 cm. It is
described in Dodgson (1934–1935, 2: no. 236).
17. Glyphic clusters were also used to present
the fables of Aesop and the tasks of labor that
are forbidden on a Sunday or a feast day.
18. This image is considered the earliest
woodcut of the Mass of St. Gregory. Parshall
et al. (2005:144–147).
19. For the antiquity of the rebus, see Schenck
(1973:11–18) and Goodall (2003:449). For the
rebus on medieval seals, arms, and monuments,
see Goodall (2003). For fifteenth- and sixteenth-
century rebuses, see Schenck (1973) and Céard
and Margolin (1986).
20. Palatino’s Libro nuove d’imparare a scrivere
205
tutte sorte lettere antiche et moderne di tutte
nationi (Rome: Antonio Blado Asolano, 1540)
was reprinted often in the next five decades.
A facsimile of the 1562 reprint is included in
Ogg (1953).
21. My thanks to Jessica Ruse for
deconstructing and translating most of this
rebus.
22. The literature on the Renaissance interest
in hieroglyphs is vast. The early fundamental
work is Giehlow (1915), admirably summarized
by Volkmann (1923). Other essential studies are
Gombrich’s (1948) overview of the neoplatonic
interest in symbolic images; Boas’s edition of
Horapollo’s Hieroglyphica (1950, republished
in 1993 with a foreword by Grafton); Iversen’s
(1961) perspective as an Egyptologist; Wittkower
(1977), focusing on the early Renaissance;
Dempsey (1988), focusing on Florentine
humanists; Daly (1998: 20–25); and most
recently within the context of an Egyptian
renaissance (Curran 2003, 2007: especially
51–164).
23. The English translation is Colonna (1999).
See also Curran (1998, 2007:133–158).
24. Quoted in Boas (1993:25); see also
Valeriano (1976), Boas (1993:15), Grafton (1993:
xix), and Curran (2007:227–234).
25. This first edition featured 98 woodcut
images and was almost immediately reprinted
three times; it was superseded by a second
edition with 111 images and more accomplished
cuts (Paris, 1534). A much-expanded Venetian
edition (1546) added 86 new emblems to the
canon. For the editions of Alciati, see Wittkower
(1977:128), Harthan (1981:104), and Moffitt
(2004:13).
26. In 1576 the Mexico City bookseller
Antonio Alonso imported ten copies of the
Emblemas de Alciata, along with emblem books
by other authors, Valeriano’s great compendium
of hieroglyphic knowledge (Hierogliphica Pierij,
“with figures”), and works by other humanists
interested in symbolic figures, such as Giovanni
Pico della Mirandola (Leonard 1992: 345, 346,
367, 374, 375).
27. For the monument, see Kubler (1948:103,
121, 409, 467), McAndrew (1965:381–386), and
Olton (2010).
28. Francisco Cervantes de Salazar, then
recently named chronicler of New Spain,
described the monument and the memorial
ceremonies at length in a pamphlet, Túmulo
imperial de la gran ciudad de Mexico (1560).
For the details of the ceremony, see García
Icazbalceta (1981:174–180).
29. The pages of existing screenfolds measure
between 17 and 39 cm, and their pages were
whitened with a coating of gesso. For the
measurements of individual codices, see Glass
206 • Notes to Pages 20–37
with Robertson (1975). For the materials of
Preconquest books, see the summary in Boone
(2000: 23–24) and the newer work by specialists
in Mexico, Italy, and France (Laurencich Minelli
1999; Magaloni Kerpel 2006, 2011b; Higgitt and
Miliani 2012; Miliani et al. 2012; Pottier 2017).
30. Human figures carved in relief on Aztec
monuments often have a frontal torso (e.g.,
Stone of Tizoc) and are usually rendered with
a more organically coherent manner (e.g.,
Hackmack Box; interior of Jaguar Cuauhxicalli);
although generalized and abstracted, they are
more corporeal than the human figures painted
in the pictographic books.
31. Several scholars (e.g., Prem 1992; Lacadena
2008; Zender 2008; Whittaker 2009) have
defined “Aztec writing” solely in terms of these
language-yielding signs, which have therefore
been more intensely scrutinized than other
aspects of pictography. See Zender (2008)
for a review of the history of decipherment of
these signs.
Chapter 3. The Encyclopedic
Tradition in Europe
1. The concept of encyclopedias is analyzed
by Ribémont (1995, 1997). See Voorbij (2000)
on their purposes and audience and Albrecht
(2000) and Meier (2004) on their organization.
2. Pliny (1938). For the value of the
Natural History as a source and model in the
Renaissance, see especially Blair (2010:18, 33) and
Murphy (2004:215).
3. For Isidore’s Etymologies, see especially
Hodgen (1964:55–59), Ribémont (1995:69,
1997:49–50), Barney et al. (2006), Isidore
(2006), and Blair (2010:34).
4. These encyclopedias are discussed by
Hodgen (1964:59–77) and Twomey (1988: 184–
199). Of the nine medieval encyclopedias that
Twomey categorizes as “major,” four date from
the early to mid-thirteenth century. These are by
Alexander Neckham, Bartholomeus Anglicus,
Thomas of Cantimpré, and Vincent of Beauvais.
5. For medieval encyclopedias in general,
see especially Twomey (1988), Ribémont (1995,
1997), Fowler (1997), and Voorbij (2000). For
Vincent, see Twomey (1988:198–199), Albrecht
(2000), Voorbij (2000:39–40), and Blair
(2010:41–44).
6. For surviving copies and editions, see
Hodgen (1964:60), Holbrook (1998), and
Voorbij (2000).
7. For Bartholomeus, see Seymour et al.
(1992:12, 15), Voorbij (2000:37–38), and Keen
(2007).
8. Bartholomeus (1975–1988); Seymour et al.
(1992: especially 18); Voorbij (2000).
9. Hodgen (1964:91) has suggested that
the precise data collected by Carpini must
have stemmed from “very definite questions
concerning the customs and major institutions
of his Asiatic hosts,” which she interpreted
to be the result of an “unusually detailed and
well-arranged questionnaire.” Although it is
not known whether such a questionnaire took
physical form, Brown (1977:67–68) and Baird
(1993:17–18) mentioned it as an antecedent
to Sahagún’s questionnaire. The slightly later
Liber diversorum by Marco Polo was less
comprehensive as an ethnography, for it focused
more on the prospects for business and tended
to emphasize the odd and unusual in human
behavior (Hodgen 1964:95–103; Rowe 1965:7).
10. Hodgen (1964:134) noted that Boemus’s
work inspired the collections and cosmographies
of Alessandro Alessandrini, Alessandro Sardi,
Sebastian Franck, Sebastian Muenster, and
André Thevet, among others.
11. Magnus (1555, 1996); the History is
analyzed by Johannesson (1991), Foote (1996),
and Del Puppo (2011:5–13).
12. Gentile Bellini’s studies of Ottoman
regional dress (ca. 1479–1481) became known
in northern Europe through copies by Albrecht
Dürer (Ilg 2004:35; Campbell and Chong 2005:
89–119, pls. 24–30). Raby (1991:79) and Koreny
(2000) discuss Dürer’s copies. In the early
sixteenth century Dürer and Hans Burgkmair
drew the costumes of Africans and Brazilians
(Honour 1975:13–14, 1979:277; Massing
1992; Feest 2007:66; West 2009; Leitch 2010:
especially 36–39, 152–154, 171–173; Rublack
2010:178–179), and a specialized kind of costume
study focused on the Landsknechte, Germanic
mercenary infantrymen renowned both for their
bravery and for their exuberant and complicated
costumes (Hale 1990:42–72; Silver 2009).
Landsknecht images by Dürer, Burgkmair,
Albrecht Altdorfer, and other major artists
circulated in single prints and sets.
13. Digital Library of Scotland, http://www
.nls.uk/collections/rare-books/collections
/breydenbach, accessed May 23, 2016.
14. Analyzed by Hampe (1994), Casado
Soto (2001), and Boone (2017a). Weiditz’s
collection has a broader ethnological reach
than other costume studies, because he also
pictured peoples’ occupations and diversions
(Casado Soto 2001:7–8; Briesemeister 2006;
Satterfield 2007).
15. As discussed by Casado Soto (2001:99,
103ff.), Wilson (2005:116), Briesemeister
(2006:12–13), and Boone (2017a).
16. For costume books, see especially Defert
(1984); Ilg (2004); Jones (2006); Rosenthal and
Jones (2008), which also includes an extensive
bibliography; and Rublack (2010:13, 146–160).
Jones and Stallybrass (2000) cover Renaissance
clothing more generally. For constructions and
representations of the exotic, see Mason (1998).
17. Rosenthal and Jones (2008:43–44 n. 24)
list nearly twenty costume books published
between 1558 and 1610, not including the two
editions of Cesare Vecellio. First on their
list is the Libri della diversità degli habiti de
diverse nationi del mondo, Venice, 1558, by the
Italian engraver Enea Vico, which seems not
to have been printed as a distinct book. His
series of ninety-nine prints of ethnic costume
(Bartsch print nos. 134–232) (Höper 2003)
probably composed the 1558 “book”; Fernando
Bertelli’s 1563 costume book features engravings
after Vico’s drawings. Usually the Recueil is
named as the first (e.g., Deserps 2001; Jones
2006:92). Jones (2006:96) also notes that
the name “Deserps” in the first edition was a
misprint that was corrected to “Desprez” in the
subsequent edition. It is commonly catalogued
as “Deserps,” however.
18. Wilkins (1957:511); Seznec (1972:170–183);
Albricus et al. (1976); Bull (2005:21–22).
Although Bull (2005:21) puts Abricus’s Liber in
the twelfth century, it is usually assigned to the
thirteenth.
19. Translated by Eva Struhal.
20. Often misattributed to Albricus himself
(Bull 2005:22; e.g., Hyginus et al. 1681, 2:301–330),
this was also occasionally illustrated (Wilkins
1957:519–520; Seznec 1972:170, 175–179).
21. Boccaccio (2011); see also Coulter (1923),
Osgood (1956), John Mulryan and Steven Brown
in Conti (2006:xxviii–xxx), and Solomon (2011).
22. Some ninety extant manuscript versions
reproduce the Genealogia all or in part. Seven
printed editions appeared between 1472 and
1498, and several others were issued in the
first decades of the sixteenth century (Seznec
1972:224; Solomon 2011:xi, xii).
23. Giraldi (1548); Cartari (1556, 1571, 2012);
Conti (1568, 2006). Seznec (1972:229–256)
reviews the mid-century manuals.
Chapter 4. The Evangelical
Project and Mendicant
Investigators
1. Leo’s and Adrian’s bulls are reproduced and
explained by Mendieta (1971:188–195).
2. For the Reformation, see especially
Cameron (1991) and MacCulloch (2004).
3. See Elliott (1963:102–103, 137), Lynch
(1981:35, 37, 64–65), and Lovett (1986:25, 28–29,
277).
4. Sylvest (1975:24–25, 33–35); Elliott
(1963:102); Lynch (1981:65–67).
5. Elliott (1963:158–159); Bataillon (1966:
especially 77–78, 172–177, 253–257); Lynch
(1981:70–72); Lovett (1986:288).
6. Lynch (1981:223), Lovett (1986:258); Mills
and Taylor (1998:47).
7. Phelan (1970:14–15, 44–45, 59); Baudot
(1995:81–85); Mills and Taylor (1998:47); Pardo
(2004:2–3).
8. Friar Pedro Melgarejo de Urrea was
with Cortés at the conquest and enriched
himself during those early years; for a short
time afterward, Melgarejo continued to be a
trusted agent for Cortés until a dispute over
funds intended for Cortés’s father severed their
connection. Friar Diego Altamirano, a cousin
of Cortés, arrived in Mexico in 1525, marched
with Cortés to Honduras, and was back in Spain
in 1527. According to Lejarza (1948:92–100),
who follows Díaz del Castillo (1933–1934, 2:32),
both Juan de Tecto and Juan de Aora (who
arrived in 1523 with Pedro de Gante) went on
the Honduran campaign. López (1920); Lejarza
(1948:43–82); Cortés (1986:272, 429, 485, 523,
526); Baudot (1995:73).
9. Cortés (1986:332–334) made his request in
his fourth letter to Charles (October 15, 1524).
10. Leo’s bull was Alias felicis; Adrian’s was
Exponi nobis feciste, generally known as the
Omnimoda. The texts of both were published
in Mendieta (1971:188–193). See also Lejarza
(1948:82–85, 104–106), Ricard (1966:21–22),
Cortés (1986:511), Lovett (1986:278), and Baudot
(1995:251).
11. Elliott (1963:143, 148, 198); Lynch (1981:42,
44); Lovett (1986:25–26, 32).
12. Códice Franciscano (1941:204); Motolinía
(1951:185); García Icazbalceta (1954:90–104);
Mendieta (1971:605–611). See also Lejarza
(1948:82–101), Chávez (1962:21–26, 35, 55, 61,
114, 134–135), Navarro (1970:13–35), and Torre
Villar (1974:3–5, 11–15). At the University of
Louvain, Gante may well have studied under the
future Adrian VI and alongside the humanist
Desiderius Erasmus, who was also at Louvain
between 1502 and 1504 and occasionally after
1517. Vocht (1951–1955, 1:185–186, 287); Huizinga
(1952:55–56, 130–138); Phillips (1965:162).
13. Motolinía (1951: 87); Mendieta (1971:577–
579); Montes Bardo (1998:32–47).
14. Mendieta (1971:565–768 [bks. 5 and 6]) is
the principal source for biographies of the early
Franciscans.
15. Mendieta (1971:187). From France came
Juan Focher, Maturino Gilberti, Marcos de
Niza, and Jacobo de Testera. Mendieta (1971:541,
665, 677–679).
16. Notably Juan Focher, Alonso de Herrera,
and Alonso de la Veracruz. García Icazbalceta
(1954:141–150); Mendieta (1971:641–642,
677–679).
17. Mendieta (1971:187, 197–206, 268, 322–323,
541 [bk. 5 and following]).
18. Juan de Aora and Juan de Tecto died on
Cortés’s campaign to Honduras in 1525 (García
Icazbalceta 1981:93). For Pedro de Gante, see
Chávez (1962), Mendieta (1971:607–611), and
García Icazbalceta (1981:90–104).
19. For the school of San José de los
Naturales, see Códice Franciscano (1941:5–6),
Motolinía (1951:299–300), Mendieta
(1971:407–410, 414, 607–611), and Sahagún
(1982:82–85). Among the modern studies are
Ricard (1966:207–210) and Gómez Canedo
(1982:55–92). See also McAndrew (1965:368–
369), especially for the chapel’s architecture.
Kobayashi (1974:171–407) discusses sixteenth-
century education in New Spain more broadly.
20. Reading left to right, top to bottom, these
are a bellows (?), violin, mold (?), sword, shears,
leather purse (?), trowel, adze, wood vice grip,
compass, cloak, ruler and marker, bucket, and
plumb (?). These images are not Testerian or
catechistic hieroglyphs as Watts (1991:426–427)
and Edgerton (2001:243), probably following
Robertson (1959:53), have said.
21. This has been stressed by Steck (1944:18)
and Ricard (1966:221–225).
22. For the Colegio de Santa Cruz, see
Mendieta (1971:414–418) and Sahagún
(1982:82–84). Among the modern studies, see
Steck (1944), Ricard (1966:218–228), Kobayashi
(1974:292–407), and Baudot (1995:104–115).
23. For the faculty, see Steck (1944:40),
Ricard (1966:220), Mendieta (1971:415, 622), and
Kobayashi (1974:308–313). Baudot (1995:113–
114) includes the outstanding Franciscan
linguists Alonso de Molina and Marturino
Gilberti among the faculty but does not cite his
sources. The Códice Mendieta (Mendieta 1892,
2:254) indicates that Molina was a guardian
of the monastery at Tlatelolco, and Vetancurt
(1971:108) records that Gilberti’s Latin grammar
was used at the college. Mendieta (1971:644–
646, 663–665, 677–680, 689–691, 701–702)
gives summary biographies of Olmos, Sahagún,
Focher, Gaona, and Bustamante.
24. Kobayashi (1974:362–365) identifies
the instructors, according to the Códice de
Tlatelolco and other sources.
25. Mendoza’s words are quoted in Sahagún
(1982:32). Motolinía (1971:413) reports a 60–90
percent mortality rate. For the epidemic, see
Prem (1991:31–34), Acuna-Soto et al. (2000),
and Marr and Kiracofe (2000).
26. Ricard (1966:230). For opposition to
the ordination of the indigenous, see Ricard
(1966:224–235).
27. Zumárraga was writing to Charles V in
1540, quoted in Ricard (1966:225).
28. See Códice Mendieta (Mendieta 1892,
2:250–254, 265–266) for expenditures in
1567–1577.
29. For this epidemic, see Prem (1991:38–42),
Notes to Pages 37–48 • 207
Acuna-Soto et al. (2000), and Marr and
Kiracofe (2000). Its mortality rate was 40–50
percent (Acuna-Soto et al. 2000:733–734; Marr
and Kiracofe 2000:360).
30. Quoted in Karttunen (1995:116–117),
which also describes his governorships.
See Steck (1944:51–59) for the names and
accomplishments of the alumni and other
statements by Bautista (59). Mendieta (1971:416)
says that Valeriano taught at the college before
becoming governor of Mexico; the Códice
Mendieta (Mendieta 1892, 2:250–254, 265–266)
records salary payments to Valeriano as an
instructor at the college in the late 1560s and
1570s. See León-Portilla (2001) especially for
Valeriano’s philological acumen.
31. The inventories of 1572, 1574, and 1582
were published in Códice Mendieta (Mendieta
1892, 2:253–257, 259–261, 267–269) and
discussed by Steck (1944:34–35), Kobayashi
(1974:387–391), Gómez Canedo (1982:173–180),
and Mathes (1982:31–36). Mathes (1982:47–69)
lists the surviving books from the college and
monastery of Santiago Tlatelolco that were
acquired in the nineteenth century by Adolph
Sutro and are now held in the Sutro Library of
the California State Library system, housed at
the University of San Francisco.
32. Mathes (1982:23–28, 32–36) discusses
censorship, the prohibition of specific books,
and the theft of books from the library.
33. Baudot (1995:27–42) explains the
preparations for the Descripción, its content, and
its impact. León-Portilla (1969:20–26) focuses
on the role of Ramírez de Fuenleal. The report
was first published by Antonio de Herrera y
Tordesillas at the beginning of the first volume
of his Historia general in 1601.
34. Quoted in Gómez Tejada (2012:258),
which translates Mendoza’s account of this
report.
35. Valadés (1989:237, 501) describes the
contents of several didactic lienzos. For Testera,
see Mendieta (1971:249–250). Friar Luis Caldera
likewise taught with lienzos in Michoacán
and Jalisco, where he even pushed home the
concept of hell by creating a large fire pit in the
churchyard into which he threw dogs and cats
to demonstrate the terrors awaiting sinners
(Muñoz 1922:417); for Caldera, see also Ricard
(1966:104). For pictographic catechisms, see
Boone et al. (2017); for religious dramas, see
especially Burkhart (1996, 2011) and Sell and
Burkhart (2004–2009).
36. Mendieta (1971:75–76) explains Olmos’s
commission in the prologue to Mendieta’s
book 2 on Preconquest rituals and customs,
which draws largely on the work of Olmos
and Motolinía. This paragraph and the next
paragraph rely on Mendieta’s description.
208 • Notes to Pages 48–68
Baudot (1995:121–245) analyzes Olmos’s career
and works in detail.
37. For example, García Icazbalceta (1886–
1892, 3:xxxiv–xxxvi); León-Portilla (1969:39–
46); Garibay (1971:11–14); Baudot (1995:173–184,
197–208, 216).
38. Wilkerson (1974:50–59) also saw the
presentation of material in the Tudela as being
“structurally similar” to that in the Historia de
los mexicanos por sus pinturas and opined that
the Tudela seemed to be a continuation of the
Historia. Garibay (1953–1954, 2:31) attributed the
Costumbres manuscript, copied from the Codex
Tudela, to Olmos (this was before the Tudela
had been published).
39. See also Steck (1951:20), who describes
the commission. Motolinía (1971:171) himself
says that he had not prepared for or thought of
writing such a work until he was ordered to do
so; he mentions the current year of 1536 in his
Historia (Motolinía 1951:173).
40. For Motolinía’s works, see Steck
(1951:45–70), Ricard (1966), O’Gorman (1971),
and Baudot (1995:249–398), who reconstruct
the lost work.
41. For use of Motolinía’s treatise, see
O’Gorman (1971:xx–li, lx–lxxii) and Baudot
(1995:347, 378–396); for the history of the
conquest, see López (1925), Steck (1951:46–48),
and Baudot (1995:347, 350–354).
42. Couch (1987:27) mentions Ferrer as a
predecessor of Durán and observes that the
pope at the time was Julius III.
43. For Valeriano, see Karttunen (1995),
León-Portilla (2001), and Castañeda de la Paz
(2013:178, 190, 245, 275–279, 461, 467).
Chapter 5. Early Compilations
1. Major studies of the Borbonicus are Paso
y Troncoso (1979, originally published 1898)
and, more recently, Anders et al. (1991). Hamy
(1899) and Nowotny (1974) offer briefer but still
important comments. For particular sections,
see Brown (1977:221–253) and especially Couch
(1985) for the veintenas and Robertson (1959:86–
93) and Boone (2007:88–95) for part one.
2. Jansen and Pérez Jiménez (2017:408) have
suggested nearby Xochimilco.
3. Paso y Troncoso (1979:267–268) was the
first to identify the rain god (Tlaloc) temple
situated on a hill (pp. 24, 25 [figure 5.4], 32,
35) as an Ayauhcalli (Mist House), which was
constructed lakeside or on hilltops. Its roof was
decorated with four vertical blue bands (Couch
1985:52; Nicholson 1988b:82).
4. Paso y Troncoso (1979:30–36), followed by
Anders et al. (1991: 21–23), recounts its history in
Europe.
5. Couch (1985:1–2) and Anders et al. (1991)
divide the content into four sections: two
almanacs, the veintena cycle, and the year count.
6. The divided pages are 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, and 35.
7. The eighteen-page narrative sequence
of the Preconquest Codex Borgia reads
perpendicularly to the rest of the manuscript,
as do parts of the early colonial Selden Roll
and Codex Tulane (both tiras) and some early
colonial lienzos from the Coixtlahuaca Valley
(Boone 2000:145–159, 2007:171, 265–266).
8. Based on the priority of Izcalli here, Paso y
Troncoso (1979:294–296) put Izcalli as the first
feast of the veintena cycle. Caso (1967:41–73,
1971:339–343) considered it the first in the
cycle in Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco. Nicholson
(1988b:86) agreed with Caso that the cycle in
the Borbonicus begins with Izcalli. However,
Anders et al. (1991:41) more correctly, I think,
identify it as the last of the year 1 Rabbit.
9. Caso and Couch identify this year bundle
with the white, paper-wrapped bundle of long
forms at the bottom of the page. Anders et al.
(1991:228–230) do not mention this connection,
neither denying nor adopting Caso’s position.
They describe the bundle simply as sticks and
banners and read the skull-decorated platform
as a tzompantli (skull rack) rather than as the
burial place of the year bundles.
10. Durand-Forest 1974:29–32; Pottier et al.
n.d.; Pottier 2017:133–183; Pottier et al. 2019.
11. As with other screenfold manuscripts,
the folded strip is composed of a series of
overlapping sheets feathered and glued together.
These are imperceptible on the painted side up
to p. 19, after which, beginning with a very crude
overlap on p. 19, the overlaps are more noticeable
(Durand-Forest 1974:28). Durand-Forest notes
that the direction of overlapping also changes:
up to p. 18 the left sheet lies over the right, from
pp. 19 to 32 the right sheet lies over the left, and
thereafter the left sheet lies over the right again.
12. Contour lines define the three-
dimensionality of the bags of the Quecholli
festival (p. 33) particularly well.
13. He added comments to pp. 7, 10, 21, and
22, in addition to most of the veintenas.
14. Those who accept an early colonial
date for the full manuscript include Nowotny
(1974:11), Brown (1977:221–223, 239,
1982:173–175), and Couch (1985:2–6). Caso
(1962, 1967:103–112) argued vigorously for a
Preconquest date for the tonalamatl, which
Batalla Rosado (1993b, 1994) supported.
Nicholson (1988b:77) implied that the codex
is “original.” Anders et al. (1991:27–33) and
Glass (Glass with Robertson 1975:97–98) left
the question open, although Jansen and Pérez
Jiménez (2017:451, 552, 2019:345) have more
recently said that it is probably a colonial copy
of a Preconquest manuscript.
 15. Caso (1967:107) noted its presence and
said it was one of many reasons he thought the
Tonalamatl Aubin was copied from the Codex
Borbonicus part one. This derivation is unlikely:
although both manuscripts contain the same
fully elaborated tonalamatl, the Aubin trecena
panels contain images not in the Borbonicus.
The Aubin manuscript is generally thought
to hail from the Tlaxcala area, whereas the
Borbonicus is very likely from the region of
Culhuacan. Two of Robertson’s other examples
of “European” forms—the calendrical serpents
and the volatile birds—have been effectively
dismissed (Caso 1967:107–111).
16. For example, during the festival of
Hueytozoztli (p. 25) a man carries a small
child toward the Tlaloc temple; other sources
indicate that the child (and many others) will
be sacrificed, but the Borbonicus painter does
not reveal his fate. Instead he pictures the child
being carried for sacrifice very like the child
being carried to be blessed by the Xipe figure
during Tlacaxipehualiztli (p. 24 left).
17. Berdan and Anawalt 1992 (and essays
therein) is the standard scholarly edition.
Other studies include Clark (1938), Robertson
(1959:95–107), Harwood (2002), Batalla Rosado
(2007a, 2007b), Gómez Tejada (2012, n.d.c), and
Bleichmar (2015).
18. Domenici et al. (n.d.) put the manuscript
between the 1530s and 1560s; Gómez Tejada
(2012: especially 318–319, n.d.a) argued for
1547–1552. See also the discussion in Nicholson
(1992).
19. See Nicholson (1992) and Gómez Tejada
(2012:219–266, n.d.a) for the complicated
historiography and attribution of the codex.
Both point out problems with the scenarios that
have been advanced concerning its patronage,
production, and early history; Gómez Tejada
disputes the Mendoza connection, whereas
Nicholson favors it but leaves it open. See also
Boone (1983:36–42) for the Herrera connection.
20. Gómez Tejada (2012:310–311, n.d.a)
has proposed that these year dates may be
retrospective, since Thevet assigned 1553 to
several books and manuscripts that were created
later and one of his signatures is on a flyleaf
whose paper dates to the 1570s. (However, this
signature could have been added later, for it
itself is not dated.)
21. The shelfmark is MS Arch. Selden A. 1.
Codicological and conservation analyses indicate
that the manuscript was once folded unbound
and then bound without a stiff cover and that
a number of folios were singletons prior to the
present binding. Folio 69, picturing the palace
of Moctezuma, is of a different paper than
that of the rest of the manuscript, as discussed
more fully below. The present binding dates
from the middle of the seventeenth century and
encloses in the same volume an unrelated set of
Greek and Roman monetary tables. See Barker-
Benfield (1992, 1999, n.d.) and Ruwet (1992),
summarized in Gómez Tejada (2012:47–51).
22. The first two sections are on paper bearing
a pilgrim watermark; the paper of the third
section bears a watermark of a Latin cross and
pointed shield. Both are common papers used
in New Spain in the sixteenth-century (Ruwet
1992:14; Batalla Rosado 2010a:233–234; Barker-
Benfield n.d.). Folio 69 of the third section has
yet another watermark (Ruwet 1992:14, 16, 17).
23. Harwood (2002) also proposed that part
three was conceived as an integral part of the
whole.
24. Other historical sources sometimes give
different dates, especially for the earlier rulers,
and some were probably rhetorical. For example,
the first ruler Acamapichtli and the first imperial
ruler Itzcoatl have rules that begin on 1 Flint,
a metaphorical date of beginnings (Boone
2000:42).
25. These enemies are Quauhtlatoa of
Tlatelolco (6r), Atonal of Coixtlahuaca (7v),
and Moquihuix of Tlatelolco (10r).
26. An annotator other than the principal
scribe erroneously noted that the first part
ended after 18r and the second part began with
18v. However, 17v and 18r, describing governors
and tribute collectors, clearly belong to the
tribute list rather than the conquest history and
are included in the Matrícula (Clark 1938, 1:55,
58–59; Barlow 1949:126–130; Berdan 1992:55–
56). The Tlatelolco presentation includes the
quantities of goods, the frequency, and who sent
and received them.
27. The large provinces of Acolhuacan
(21v–22r), Quauhnahuac (23rv), and Huaxtepec
(24r–25r) are spread over two pages; three much
smaller ones together occupy folio 40r. The
towns on 42r and 46r are so many that they
continue up the right side of the page.
28. Gómez Tejada (2012:133–134, n.d.b)
points out that quantities of some goods were
changed (24v, 35r), a cord was added to join two
tassels (49r), and banners on 19r and 22r were
added by the scribe.
29. For a fuller description of the content, see
the overview by Calnek (1992) and the page-by-
page commentary by Berdan and Anawalt (1992,
2:143–237), on which this summary is largely
based. Calnek’s (1992:160–161) arrangement of
the scenes along a hypothetical tira clarifies the
structure especially well. Harwood (2002, n.d.)
proposed that Preconquest antecedents for some
scenes can be found in divinatory manuscripts.
30. The same circular glyph is used in the
Codex Telleriano-Remensis to signify twenty
days; it decorates several of the cloaks in
the Codex Magliabechiano (4v, 5v) that are
associated with Macuilxochitl, patron of feasting.
31. It is a different paper than used in the rest
of the manuscript (Barker-Benfield 1992:22, n.d.;
Nicholson 1992:5; Ruwet 1992:14–16; Batalla
Rosado 2010:234).
32. Robertson (1959:96). Howe (1992:26) and
Battalla Rosado (2007b:34) describe him as
aided by assistants within a workshop tradition.
Batalla Rosado (2007a, 2007b) identifies him
as one of the painters of the Matrícula de
Tributos, the one responsible for fols. 6r–10v,
whose paintings are especially similar to their
counterparts in the Codex Mendoza (31r–42r).
He also has suggested that another painter
generated Moctezuma’s palace on 69r (Batalla
Rosado 2010a:246). Gómez Tejada (2012:142,
155–157, n.d.b) assigns slight differences in
the painted forms to two different artists who
were working closely together at the same
time on all sections, whereas I attribute the
more Europeanized style of part three to its
innovative content.
33. For example, the Chalcan man who
destroyed Mexica canoes during Chimalpopoca’s
reign (4v) has the longer, leaner proportions and
corporeality more consistent with the figures in
part three. The large cooking pot that signifies
Ototonilco (8r) has soot on the bottom that
curves to embrace its spherical form. Variations
in the blue-green coloring of hill signs, nopal
cacti, green warrior costumes, and quetzal
feathers throughout parts one and two impart a
subtle three-dimensionality to these forms.
34. Howe (1992:30). Although Batalla Rosado
(2010a:246) has proposed that a different artist
painted this page, the other figures and scenic
groupings on the page match the style of the rest
of part three.
35. Gómez Tejada (2012:133–134, 309, n.d.b)
has proposed that some drawings were added
over the Spanish glosses on 25r, 27r, and 41r,
which suggested to him that the scribe and artist
worked side by side, correcting and completing
the manuscript. I myself do not see the overlays,
and the scribe’s assertion that he had only ten
days to annotate it suggests strongly that it was
already painted.
36. Berdan and Anawalt (1992, 4:1) read this
statement to mean that the interpreter was
someone different than the person who actually
wrote the text. But the script of the statement is
the same as that of the annotator, so he must be
referring to himself as the “interpreter.”
37. This later scribe misidentified the account
of tribute officials on 17v–18r and placed it with
the first part, the annals history, rather than
the tribute section where it belongs (Berdan
1992:55–56).
38. The Leyenda forms part three of the
Notes to Pages 68–82 • 209
Codex Chimalpopoca (39r–43v), a text
once owned by Fernando Alva Ixtlilxochitl
and perhaps copied by him (Velázquez
1975:119). Although it breaks off in the Codex
Chimalpopoca during the reign of Axayacatl,
the content of its missing page is preserved in a
copy made by Manuel León y Gama (Tschohl
1989:247, 252; Bierhorst 1992b:160). Velázquez
(1975:119–129, plates fols. 39–43) is the facsimile
and Spanish translation; Bierhorst (1992a:85–
100) is the transcription, including the text from
the missing page; and Bierhorst (1992b:139–162)
is the English translation.
39. For example, for the reign of
Chimalpopoca (4v) it makes no reference to
Chimalpopoca’s appearance in death, the five
Mexica warriors who were killed, and the
Chalcan man who stoned Mexica canoes.
40. Although Boone (1992:39) noted that the
disembodied warrior costume in the vignette
has no counterpart in the Mendoza, the vignette
image may well be a composite.
41. Although Scholes and Adams (1957),
Robertson (1959:99–100), Reyes García
(1997:21), and Batalla Rosado (2007a, 2007b)
considered the Codex Mendoza to be a copy
of the Matrícula, Borah and Cook (1963),
Mohar (1990), and Berdan (1992:56–63) found
significant differences indicating that these
manuscripts must have been derived from
a now-lost prototype. The principal recent
authority on the Mendoza tribute list, followed
here, is Berdan (1992:55–79; Berdan and
Anawalt 1992, 2:27–141).
42. The debate is briefly summarized in
Berdan (1980:10–11; 1992:56–57), who also
compared the content of the three documents
(Berdan 1992:56–63, 158–159). Batalla Rosado
(2007a, 2007b) proposed that one of the
Matrícula artists painted the Codex Mendoza
some decades later.
43. Gómez Tejada (2012:181–200) argued that
the Mendoza and Mendieta both derived from a
version of Olmos’s Suma.
44. Nicholson (1992:9) said that Mendieta’s
Mendoza-related text “immediately follows a
passage that almost certainly derives from the
lost Olmos Suma.” By this he may have meant
Mendieta’s (1971:148) explanation of Tenoch’s
name and the origin of the name “Mexico,”
which is also treated, but slightly differently, in
the Histoyre du Mechique (Garibay 1979:96).
45. Thevet’s statement has been published
only in English translation (Schlesinger and
Stabler 1986:219). Nicholson (1992:6) read the
statement to mean that the monk was a bishop,
which the phrasing in the manuscript—“la
charge de’Évêque”—supports (Thevet, “Grand
Insulaire,” Bibliothèque Nationale de France
15452:fol. 181v).
210 • Notes to Pages 82–92
46. The Tonalamatl Aubin is similar in
content because it derives from a shared almanac
tradition, but it is otherwise unrelated.
47. The Historia was published in Garibay
(1979:9–14, 23–90) and discussed in Baudot
(1995:195–201).
48. The Histoyre was published in Garibay
(1979:14–16, 91–120) and is discussed in Baudot
(1995:201–208).
49. My discussion of the Relación is
summarized from Afanador-Pujol (2015),
whose study builds on the work of a number of
previous scholars.
Chapter 6. The Mid-Century
Encyclopedias
1. Major studies include Hamy (1899), who
edited the first full facsimile; Paso y Troncoso
(1979:332–359), in a supplement to his study of
the Codex Borbonicus; and Quiñones Keber
(1995a), who edited the photographic facsimile.
I draw principally on Quiñones Keber’s more
detailed commentary and her transcriptions
of the annotations, although I differ on a few
particulars.
2. The call number is Manuscrit Mexicain 385.
3. The paper is Italian. The folios of the first
part were trimmed at the top to match the
height of the other folios, resulting in some
trimming of content (Batalla Rosado 2006:82–
84; Montoro 2010:170).
4. The relationship between the Telleriano-
Remensis and Ríos has been disputed over the
years. Although Paso y Troncoso (1898:349–351,
1979) proposed and Thompson (1941b)
subsequently argued that the Codex Telleriano-
Remensis and the Codex Ríos were derived from
a common prototype, Quiñones Keber (1987a;
1995a:131) successfully countered Thompson’s
evidence to show that the Codex Ríos paintings
had to have been copied from those in the
Codex Telleriano-Remensis and that the Codex
Ríos texts were likewise derived from those
in the Telleriano-Remensis either directly or
via an intermediary draft. Although Batalla
Rosado’s (2006:78) codicological study led him
to conclude that the Codex Ríos was not copied
from the Telleriano-Remensis, his student
Gláucia Cristiani Montoro’s subsequent and
more extensive codicological study has found
otherwise (Montoro 2010:182–183).
5. Robertson (1959:110–111) dated the
paintings to 1549–1550 because the last event
painted is the death of Juan de Zumárraga
and the artist did not include the plague of
1550; this assumes that the artist painted the
next six year-dates in advance, however. Jansen
(1984:76–77; Anders and Jansen 1996b:27–28)
proposed 1555 (the last year painted in the
annals) for the paintings and suggested that
Ríos found the manuscript already in Puebla,
partially annotated by others. Quiñones Keber
(1995a:131–132) proposed 1553–1554 or 1555
for the paintings and that Ríos brought the
manuscript from Mexico City to Puebla when
he was transferred there in 1554. Quiñones
Keber (1995:131–132) and Anders and Jansen
(1996b:23–24, 27) agree that the paintings were
executed in Mexico City and that Ríos finished
the annotations in 1562/1563 when he was in
Puebla. Montoro’s (2010:176–177) study of the
watermarks confirms a possible use sometime
between 1555 and 1565.
6. Since folio 7 was not originally part of the
veintena cycle (Batalla Rosado 2006:76–78), it is
unclear to me who painted the simplified image
on this page. Quiñones Keber (1995a:123–125)
distinguished two artists: Artist A, whom she
saw as responsible for most of the veintena, all
of the tonalamatl, and most of the annals; and
Artist B, responsible for five veintena images
(1r, 1v, 4v, 5r, 6v), the migration section of the
history, and the year signs on 29rv. Batalla
Rosado (2006:73), however, proposed that the
calendrical glyphs of the tonalamatl and annals
were painted by three different artists. Montoro
(2010:168) proposed seven painters in total, four
principal ones and three minor contributors;
she sees the hand of two painters in the veintena
section.
7. Anders and Jansen (1996b:28) suggest that
a Dominican monk may have penned the first
annotations.
8. Copies of these missing veintenas are
preserved on Ríos 42v–44v, 50r–50v.
9. Batalla Rosado (2006:76–78) argued that
the presentation of the Nemontemi (the five
unnamed and useless days) (7r) was lacking in
the original veintena section, because it is on a
folio that belongs to the tonalamatl and the two-
part text on 6v already covers the material, and
that it was then added when the veintena section
was joined to the tonalpohualli.
10. Copies of the paintings and summaries
of the annotations from these missing folios are
preserved in the Codex Ríos 13v, 20, 22, 26.
11. Trecenas 1–5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 16–19 have
references to the flood. Curiously, for trecena
5 featuring the image of the water goddess
Chalchiuhtlicue with water pouring from her,
Hand 1 mentioned the flood, but Ríos crossed
it out.
12. The Ochpaniztli comment instead follows
the biblical tradition of sin by eating the fruit of
a tree.
13. The Borgia was likely painted near Puebla,
where Ríos was working, and the Fejérváry-
Mayer probably farther to the east (Boone
2007:227–229), so these mantic features of the
Night Lords might be relevant to that region
east of the basin of Mexico. Writing a century
later in Mexico City, Jacinto de la Serna recorded
different auguries for the Night Lords (Boone
2007:98).
14. These events include the specific days of
Cortés’s arrival, the conquest of Tenochtitlan,
and notable events between 1541 and 1557, such
as the deaths of significant people like Cortés,
Mendoza, the Peruvian conqueror Francisco
Pizarro, major public works, shipwrecks,
rebellions, and even the extraordinary event
of the mule of the bishop of Michoacán giving
birth to a baby mule with six feet (Quiñones
Keber 1995a:277).
15. Quiñones Keber (1995a:124) identified
this as one of the painters she assigned to the
veintenas, but I find the figural details, line
quality, and color palette sufficiently different to
think that this is a distinct painter.
16. Only seven are on 25r, but the other three
were on the missing page before it.
17. The Chicomoztoc presentation is
preserved on Ríos 66v, where the groups are
represented by identical men and distinguished
only via glosses. Quiñones Keber (1995a:204)
suggested that the Chicomoztoc page in the
Telleriano-Remensis was perhaps already
missing when Ríos annotated the migration,
because he adds to the bottom of 25r the names
of the seven groups who migrated, thereby
summarizing the material on the missing page.
Corroborating evidence is a transfer of orange
ink from the name “vichilupuchtli” on 25r to
24v, which indicates that the two pages faced
each other when the name was added (Boone,
notes from original, October 31, 1975). Quiñones
Keber (1995a:202) pointed out that the
Huitzilopochtli figure is facing away from the
migration. I suggest that this is in order to call
out the groups, as in other migration histories
where the groups are called out (e.g., Mapa
Sigüenza, Historia-Tolteca Chichimeca, Mapa
Cuauhtinchan 2).
18. Its content is preserved on Codex Ríos 71r.
19. This war is represented by warriors named
Maxtla and Tlacateotl, who is mislabeled as an
eclipse.
20. Quiñones Keber (1995a:217) has pointed
out that the seated ruler Nezahualcoyotl (of
Texcoco) is misplaced here; he was born in the
year 1 Rabbit, fifty-two years earlier.
21. These are preserved on Codex Ríos
71v–73v, 85rv, 89–90rv, respectively.
22. Although Quiñones Keber (1995a:123)
suggested that these sheets were end sheets of
the various sections and were thus lost to wear,
the two missing conquest folios would have been
at the center fold of a gathering and Ahuitzotl’s
conquest would have been located well within
one (see the reconstruction of gatherings in
Montoro 2010:183).
23. Anders and Jansen (1996b:30) have noted
the use of Spanish loans both in orthography
and in the use of language.
24. See Anders and Jansen (1996b:11–33) for
its history and provenience.
25. Principal editions are Ehrle (1900), with
the annotations transcribed; Corona Núñez
(1964–1967) with the annotations translated
into Spanish; the 1979 ADEVA facsimile (Codex
Ríos 1979), without commentary; and Anders
and Jansen (1996b), with detailed commentary
and transcriptions and Spanish translations
of the annotations. Kingsborough (1831–1848)
provides both the Italian (5:159–206) and
English translation of almost all the annotations
(6:155–232), and Quiñones Keber (1987b,
1995c, 1996) provides them for fols. 1v–9v, with
discussion. I have drawn principally on the
commentary by Anders and Jansen (1996b).
26. The pagination of Anders and Jansen
(1996b:12, 95) differs from that of Ehrle (1900)
and Corona Núñez (1964–1967) only in locating
the folio numbered 13 after the folio numbered
10, to preserve the integrity of the first painted
trecena. The Anders and Jansen facsimile
also includes the manuscript page numbers
in parentheses. Ehrle (1900:22) and Anders
and Jansen (1996b:391) diagram the physical
arrangement of the folios, with Anders and
Jansen indicating how the misordered folios
were moved.
27. Its folios measure 465 × 295 cm, whereas
the standard folio size (of the Mendoza,
Telleriano-Remensis, Florentine, and Durán’s
Historia) is about 320 × 215 cm.
28. Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas
(Garibay 1979:23); Histoyre du Mechique
(Garibay 1979:102–103); Anales of Cuauhtitlan
(Bierhorst 1992b:30); Sahagún (1950–1982, bk.
10:169); Ponce de Léon (1953:371–372). Sahagún
(1950–1982, bk. 3:41–44) describes four of the
underworld locations pictured in the Ríos.
29. The Ríos painter pictures nine stacked
heavens on 1v and then two more heavens, the
earth, and eight underworld levels on 2r. In
order to reach the desired thirteen heavens and
nine underworlds, it is necessary to count the
area above the top level (containing Ometeotl)
as an extra layer, and on page 2r the earth has to
count as both a heaven and an underworld.
30. For detailed examinations of the ages
of Creation, see Moreno de los Arcos (1967)
and Graulich (1983). Quiñones Keber (1995c,
1996) discusses the ages in the Ríos, provides
an English translation of the commentary, and
illustrates several of the Sun Stones.
31. Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas
(Garibay 1979:27–32); Histoyre du Mechique
(Garibay 1979:103–104); Anales de Cuauhtitlan
(Bierhorst 1992b:30); Leyenda de los soles
(Bierhorst 1992b:142–144).
32. These include the Histoyre du Mechique
(Garibay 1979:112–116), Anales de Cuauhtitlan
(Bierhorst 1992b:28–37), Sahagún (1950–1982,
bk 3:13–38), and Durán (1971:57–69). See
Nicholson (2001) for an extensive discussion
of such accounts. For the story in the Ríos, see
Quiñones Keber (1987b), who also includes an
English translation of the commentary.
33. The text follows the sequence of trecena
patrons from an almanac that cycles the trecenas
sequentially according to the cardinal directions
(e.g., Borgia 49b–53b: Anders and Jansen
1996b:96–103; Boone 2007:121–128, 262n29).
This kind of almanac is not known from other
divinatory manuscripts of the valley of Mexico.
34. Folios 13v, 20, 22, and 26 preserve the left/
verso sides of trecenas 1, 8, 10, and 14 and the
right/recto sides of trecenas 7, 9, and 13. Folios
42v–44v and 45 preserve the first six veintenas.
35. The image is superficially similar to
corporeal almanacs in Preconquest and other
early colonial codices (e.g., Borgia 53a, Vaticanus
B, Tudela 125r), which locate the day signs in a
back and forth order from bottom to top and
assign meaning to the day signs according to
their placement on the body (Boone 2007:78–
80, 107–112). In contrast, the Ríos diagram
arranges the day signs in no sequential order
and uses them to assign meaning to the body
parts. Diel (2018: especially 20–73) explains the
popularity and importance of Repertorios for
medical astrology and calendrical understanding.
36. The second part of the Codex Ixtlilxochitl
related to Juan de Pomár’s Relación de Texcoco
features the costumes of four Texcocan lords.
37. The commentator describes the youth as
taking pleasure in vice and sin and the mature
man as temperate and brave, in the tradition of
Aristotle (Rhetoric, bk. 2, chs. 12–14; Aristotle
2019), but he ventures that in indigenous
Mexico, as opposed to Europe, the elderly still
retain their intellectual vigor and are revered as
guardians and principals of the people.
38. For further analysis of the commentator,
see Quiñones Keber (1995b:234–238) and
Anders and Jansen (1996b:30–33).
39. Translation from Kingsborough (1831–
1848, 6:198–199); see also Anders and Jansen
(1996b:45, 109).
40. Translation from Kingsborough
(1831–1848, 6:156–157); see also Quiñones Keber
1995c:192) and Anders and Jansen (1996b:45).
41. Riese (1986) and Batalla Rosado
(2002a:131) follow Boone (1983:50–52) in
equating Herrera’s “libro de figuras” with Barcia’s
fuller description, although Nicholson (1992:3–
4) raised the possibility that Herrera’s document
Notes to Pages 93–114 • 211
may be a manuscript with some content similar
to the Codex Mendoza.
42. Indeed, Batalla Rosado (1999, 2002a) has
separated the content into an indigenous book
(indigenous-style images), a painted European
book (European-style images), and a written
European book (written commentary).
43. It therefore could not have been copied
from the Codex Tudela, as Batalla Rosado
(2002a:156, 381–382, 2010b:10) proposed.
44. The manuscript was named in honor of
Mariano Gutiérrez Cabezón, the librarian at the
Escorial who first made it known (Tudela de la
Orden 1980:30; Batalla Rosado 2002).
45. For this painting of Huitzilopochtli
in part two the artist copied the veintena
image closely and repeated many of the
same iconographic mistakes, including the
misunderstood serpent ear plug. To create a
standing Huitzilopochtli to parallel the standing
Tlaloc in part two, he added arms, legs, and a
spear. As Alcina Franch (1986:163) notes, there is
no similar representation in any codex.
46. In arguing that the Tudela paintings
were the prototype, Batalla Rosado (2010b:25)
devalued the Magliabechiano as an ethnographic
document by focusing on its “mistakes” and
degenerations vis-à-vis the prototype and
ignoring its improvements. Valuing the Tudela
and Fiestas more highly, he downplayed their
own mistakes and degenerations. Although
some of the Tudela paintings appear to be closer
to those in the original, most of the Tudela’s
texts are different iterations entirely. Fiestas
replicates the texts in the original more closely,
but it lacks the paintings on which these texts
depend, and some of its units are out of order.
47. The annotator refers to lands controlled
by Cortés (49v), which the conqueror was given
in 1529, but this only puts the texts after 1529.
The paper has the hand-and-flower watermark
found on many sixteenth-century documents,
such as the Codex Telleriano-Remensis and
the Codices Matritenses of Sahagún (Anders
1970:18–24) and manuscripts dating from
1532–1545 (Mena 1926) and 1562–1601 (Nuttall
1903:xvii).
48. After the veintenas, the topical sequence
breaks down a bit. Indeed, Anders (1970:33)
divided the material into five topics, Anders and
Jansen (1996a:140) into nine, and Batalla Rosado
(2002a:439–443) into eight for the Codex
Tudela.
49. The others are ritual items for
Hueytozoztli (32r), a procession involving a
maize god carried on a litter for Tecuilhuitontli
(35r), dances before Toci for Ochpaniztli (39r),
sacrifice by burning for Pachtontli/Teotleco
(40), and children drinking for Pilahuana/
Hueypachtli (41r).
212 • Notes to Pages 114–134
50. For Tlacaxipehualiztli (V2, 30r),
Tozoztontli (V3, 31r), and Izcalli (V20, 46r).
51. These include Ixtlilton (63r), whose
missing name glyph is preserved in the Codex
Tudela (44r), Mayahuel on 58r, and the female
Atlacoaya on 75r, who is costumed similarly
to Mayahuel, located among the pulque gods
in the prototype, and identified, like the other
pulque gods, by her name sign; the gloss relates
her to the four hundred rabbits. Not counted
here is the male figure identified by his name
sign (crowned male head with closed eyes) and
in the gloss as Mictlantecuhtli (65r); he has few
features that are known for the lord of Mictlan
but several that are shared by the pulque
gods, including a name sign. With a warrior’s
topknot and a distinctive pattern of face paint
also seen on the merchant god Yacatecuhtli
(Sahagún 1979, 1:12r) and the face paint on
Mayahuel (Borbonicus T8), he seems to merge
iconographic assemblages. The commentator
switched the texts for Papaztac and Tepoztecatl
(48v, 49v), whose figures, like almost all the
pulque gods, are distinguished principally by
their name signs.
52. These are Tlaloc, Quetzalcoatl,
Huitzilopochtli/Quetzalcoatl?, and Xiuhtecuhtli
(89r); Xipe, Xilonen, and Tzitzimitl or generic
demon (90r); Tlaloc and Cihuacoatl (91r); and
Tezcatlipoca, Chalchiuhtlicue, and rubber-
spattered paper offerings, one of maize (92r).
53. Boone (1983:21–28). Artist A was
responsible for the paintings of mantles on 3r–5v
left and the pulque gods on 53r, 54r, 56r, and
most of 57r. Artist A drew and painted most of
the figure on fol. 57r, but Artist B finished the
arms, hands, devices they held, and name sign.
54. The Tudela xicalcoliuhqui designs (85v)
have somewhat imprecise curls; the variously
curved lines and disks are indifferently placed in
the field and do not coalesce into recognizable
motifs; the cloak with red and black lines (87r)
renders the lines more casually and organizes
them in rows of twelve, eleven, and twelve.
55. For hearts, compare Magliabechiano 35r,
47r, 60r, 66r, 70r, and 76r with Tudela 17r, 29r,
48r (with the motif ), 51r, 53r, and 57r.
56. See also the recto of folios 38, 39, 60, 73,
79, 82, 85, and 87.
57. Structures in perspective are on the rectos
of folios 38, 40, 70, 77, 79, and 87.
58. The other eight cloak designs he added
(8rv), which were not in the prototype, are much
simpler, and all but the serpent skin pattern are
single elements that had already appeared in the
set. The water design is thus distinctive.
59. It measures 16 cm tall by 22 cm wide.
60. This explanation of the features of the
prototype is drawn from Boone (1983:139–151).
61. The prototype also had glosses for the
ball game (80r) and pulque feast (85r), which
the Magliabechiano annotator ignored (Boone
1983:214, 215).
62. He added comments to 12r, 14v, 69v,
and 85r.
63. He apparently misread the “tēçacatl” label
for the cloak of step frets on fol. 5v as tocalatl and
translated it to “agua de araña” (spider water),
perhaps as a transposition of “water spider.” He
then identified a diagonally divided design (6v)
probably labeled “nacazminque” (something
divided diagonally) in the source as “nariz
muerta” (dead nose), probably misreading the
original term as either nacazmicque (dead ear) or
yacatmicqui (dead nose) (Nuttall 1903:xviii; Seler
1904:514; Boone 1983:171).
64. This Tudela discussion is generally
founded on the analysis in Boone (1983:65–92),
with some material drawn from Batalla Rosado’s
(2002a) more extensive treatment. Where the
two agreed, only the earlier study is cited, but
where they disagreed, these differences are noted.
65. The sixteenth-century copy of its texts,
the Costumbres manuscript, did not originally
have one either; a separate writer added to
its first page the title “Costumbres, fiestas,
enterramientos y diversas formas de proceder
de los Indios de Nueva España” (Gómez de
Orozco 1945).
66. Boone (1983:87); Riese (1986:159);
Robertson (1959:126); Tudela de la Orden
(1980:50, 210); Wilkerson (1974:66–67).
67. Batalla Rosado (1999:12–31, 2002a:13–15)
also notes that the paper has watermarks—hand
and flower, pilgrim, and Latin cross—that
can be dated as early as the 1530s, but, as he
also admits, these watermarks are found in
manuscripts dating from the 1530s to the 1560s
(including the Magliabechiano and Telleriano-
Remensis), a range that well encompasses the
mid-sixteenth century.
68. Batalla Rosado (2002a:18–20, 2002b:131–
132) organized the content so that the section
on cloaks, followed by the tonalpohualli, was
originally at the front; his reasoning was that
two folios, now lost, may have once preceded
the cloaks at the beginning of gathering seven,
which could have served as guard sheets for the
manuscript. The Costumbres, which is a copy
of the Tudela texts, and the Fiestas both follow
the Tudela’s current sequence, which I have
proposed reflects the order of the prototype
(Boone 1983:143–145).
69. Although Batalla Rosado (2002a:156,
381–382, 2010b:10) proposed that Cervantes de
Salazar copied his day-count material directly
from the Tudela, the chronicler must have been
looking at a different but similarly structured
version.
70. It is introduced by a text on 124v, the only
time the scribe used the verso to describe the
painting on the recto.
71. Batalla Rosado (2002a:16–31) discusses
the organization, modifications, and pagination
in greater depth.
72. Batalla Rosado (2002a: 50–62, 2002b:
152), who compares the paintings in greater
detail, largely agrees with Boone’s (1983:68–71,
76–79) assignment of the paintings to A and B.
However, he proposes an Artist C for the year
count and assigns the cloaks to Artist A.
73. Batalla Rosado (2002a:63) has indicated
that the Tudela paintings are without any
European features.
74. Analyzed by Tudela de la Ordén (1971)
and Batalla Rosado (1995, 2002a:336–341).
75. Batalla Rosado (2002a:264–265, 388, 399)
pointed out the two different styles of blood.
He also proposed that the painters first painted
blood in the traditional conventional manner but
were then required by the commentator to add
more blood in the Western manner. However
most of the Western-style blood is required by
the paintings (e.g., with the heart sacrifice [51r,
53r, 57r] and the blood that the priest on the
ladder pours from the cuauhxicalli [figure 6.31])
and therefore cannot be a later addition.
76. Analyzed by Tudela de la Orden (1960),
Boone (1983:75–79), and Batalla Rosado (1993a).
See Boone 2017b for the paintings within the
context of Renaissance costume studies.
77. Batalla Rosado (1993a:135–141, 2002a:74)
suggested that this section also once contained
paintings of Huitzilopochtli, Tlaloc, and the
Templo Mayor, which must then have been
lost before the Costumbres was copied from it
(because the Costumbres does not record them).
His reasoning was that part two of the Codex
Ixtlilxochitl contains such paintings. However,
Ixtlilxochitl part two lacks a Huitzilopochtli
image (the Veytia version is a fabrication);
moreover, this part is a draft of a fragment of the
later Relación de Texcoco by Juan Bautista Pomar
and is unrelated to the Magliabechiano Group.
The complete surviving version of Pomar’s
Relación mentions eight paintings (Thompson
1941a; Doesburg 1996:17–20).
78. The writer used inks and pens of
different qualities, which allows his efforts to be
sequenced, as explained in Boone (1983:68–71,
79–88) and elaborated in Batalla Rosado
(2002a:88–118).
79. Boone (1983:80n44) notes where the
writings are similar to those in the other
manuscripts of the group.
Chapter 7. Durán and Sahagún
1. Major Spanish editions were edited by
José Fernando Ramírez (Durán 1867–1880,
based on a copy Ramírez commissioned of the
text and illustrations, reprinted in facsimile in
1951, reissued in 1995 with a new introduction
by Rosa Camelo and José Rubén Romero)
and Ángel María Garibay (Durán 1967, based
on a new transcription of the original and
including poorly printed color photographs
of the illustrations). Paloma Vargas Montes
(2018) issued a new Spanish edition of the
Gods and Rites. Major English editions are by
Fernando Horcasitas and Doris Heyden (Durán
1971, the religious and calendrical treatises,
which reprints the Ramírez illustrations in
black and white) and Heyden (Durán 1994,
the historical treatise, which includes black-
and-white photographs from the original),
both based on new transcriptions. All these
editions publish the paintings in one or more
groups of plates, except for the Gods and
Rites by Vargas Montes (2018), which spaces
the illustrations according to their location in
the manuscript. Heyden and Horcasitas also
published an edition of the historical treatise for
the general public (Durán 1964, with only a few
of the illustrations from Ramírez). Significant
other studies are by Stephen Allyn Colston
(1973), who established the relationship of the
Durán Group manuscripts; Michael Milne
(1984), who analyzed the History’s rhetorical
structure and dependences; Christopher Couch
(1987), who was particularly concerned with
the paintings; and Sylvie Peperstraete (2007),
who reconstructed the Crónica X of the group.
Vargas Montes (2016b, 2018: 13–91) has analyzed
the literary and rhetorical aspects of the Gods
and Rites and the interface of painting, glyph,
and narrative text in the larger History (Vargas
Montes 2019).
2. Vargas Montes (2016:65) indicated 117
illustrations and later (2019:117) 119.
3. Couch (1987:44–45); its earlier history is
unknown. The call number is Vit. 26–11.
4. This summary of Durán’s life and works
is principally based on Horcasitas and Heyden
(1971), which is the fullest account to date.
See also Colston (1973:2–12) and Peperstraete
(2007:13–23).
5. The texts are written in a similar hand,
and the same general type of sixteenth-century
paper was used in parts of the three treatises.
See Couch (1987:32–52, 422–430) and
Vargas Montes (2018:27–57) for the physical
properties of the manuscript, including foliation,
gatherings, and watermarks. Vargas Montes
(2016a:68–69, 2018:35–36) also notes the
signatures.
6. Historiographical analyses of the written
History are found in Colston (1973) and Milne
(1984); Couch (1987) interrogates it through the
lens of the illustrations.
7. García Martínez (1966:35) first noticed that
the first four chapters had been omitted; Couch
(1987:65–74) and Peperstraete (2007:32–35)
have reconstructed their content.
8. Durán (1994:545) has Cuauhtemoc
assuming rule upon Moctezuma’s death,
skipping over Cuitlahuac.
9. Colston (1973:103–109); Peperstraete
(2007:578). Peperstraete (2007:571–588)
shows that Durán’s conquest account differs
considerably from Alvarado Tezozomoc’s,
beginning with the arrival of the Spaniards.
10. For example, Durán (1971:262, 315, 319).
11. Vargas Montes (2018:36–37) has proposed
that the History and the Gods and Rites and
Calendar were intended to be published as two
separate volumes.
12. Robertson (1968) first pointed out that
the illustrations in the religious and calendrical
treatises were pasted onto the pages. Couch
(1987:59–78, 431–439) and Boone (1988)
established that the texts written on the backs
of these pasted illustrations parallel those in
the final manuscript. Couch (1987: 59–73) also
noted the exception of those in the first four
chapters, which are collages involving fragments
of the paintings that once illustrated a historical
prelude omitted in the final version.
13. Ramírez’s judgment was confirmed when
Durán’s very different hand was found in an
autograph denouncement against the friar
Andrés de Ubilla (Fernández del Castillo 1925).
Although Garibay (1967, 1:xvi) identified the
hand in the Historia as Durán’s own, and Vargas
Montes (2016a:65, 2018:29–30) concurred,
Couch (1987:38–40) and Peperstraete (2007:25)
agreed with Ramírez. Couch (1987:32, 40) and
Horcasitas and Heyden (1971:xxi) recognized
one principal hand, but Heyden (Durán
1994:xxxiii–xxxiv, 417n1) saw different hands in
the work. Couch (1987:40) and Heyden (Durán
1994:xxxii–xxxiv) pointed out that the text is
full of corrections by another hand (this would
be the third, final hand) who may have been an
editor or censor.
14. Chapters 11, 16, 18–22, 24–29, 37, 42, and 45.
15. For example, fol. 230r, “las figuras de atrás”
(the figures following), and 246r, “como lo verás
pintado en la presente hoja” (as you will see
painted on this sheet).
16. The paintings cover parts of words on fols.
232v, 235r, 251v, 300v, 304r, 327r, 330v, and 338r.
17. Couch (1987:40). Vargas Montes
(2016:69–77) has recovered these censored
passages.
18. I generally agree with Couch’s (1987:295–
315) assessment of the hands of the painters in
the History; he did not assess the paintings in
the Gods and Rites and Calendar. The artists
in the History are A (chs. 1–41 through the
Notes to Pages 135–156 • 213
inauguration of Ahuitzotl, 2r–118v), B (chs.
42, 44 on Templo Mayor, 126v, 131v), C (ch.
46, war against Tehuantepec, 136), D (ch. 47,
sacrificial rites after said war, 138r), E (chs.
48–52, death of Tlacaelel through accession
of Moctezuma, 140v–152r), and F (chs. 53–76,
Moctezuma’s rule, portents, and conquest,
155r–213v). I identify an artist G, as being
responsible for the last two illustrations (chs.
77–78, building of brigantines and conquest
of other provinces, including the death of
Cuauhtemoc, 216v and 219v), which Couch puts
with Artist F. The artists in Gods and Rites
and Calendar (all paste-over illustrations) are
H (added painting of founding, 227v; Templo
Mayor and tzompantli, 232v; caves of 228r
[to the right of Topiltzin] and 230r [between
followers of Topiltzin]; Chichimec migrants
on sides of 235r [youths] and 236r [maidens]);
I (Topiltzin, 228r; followers of Topiltzin, 230r;
Huitzilopochtli and bits of tribute demand,
231r; raft porters, 236r); J (youths and maidens
on 235r and 236r and the rest of paintings in
the Gods and Rites and the Calendar); and K
(full-page painting of Chichimecs, 1v, added
after the manuscript was otherwise complete).
My identifications are based on a study of the
original (November 1975).
19. Couch (1987:60–74, 1989:128, 130–131).
These are in chs. 1–2: Topiltzin (228r), his
followers (230r), Huitzilopochtli (231r), the
youths of his temple (235r), and the maidens
of his temple (236r). The source paintings
illustrated the seven caves, the migration,
and the tribute payment of lake creatures to
Azcapotzalco.
20. The other four are Huitzilopochtli
(veintena 5, Toxcatl, 330v, after ch. 2,
Huitzilopochtli, 231r), Tlaloc (veintena 6,
Etzalcualiztli, 331v, paste-over of Tlaloc for ch. 8,
261r, is missing), Toci on a scaffold (veintena 11,
Ochpaniztli, 337r, after ch. 15, Toci, 286r), and
Camaxtli (veintena 14, Quecholli, 340r, after ch.
7, Camaxtli, 256r).
21. These are the seven caves (ch. 1, 2r; figure
7.1) after the caves in the Gods and Rites (ch. 1,
228r, 230r), the start of the migration (ch. 2, 4v)
after the migrants in the collages around youths
and maidens of Huitzilopochtli (ch. 2, 235r,
236r), the stay at Coatepec (ch. 3, 7v) from the
composition of the foundation scene (including
the two seated men) following the Gods and
Rites prologue (227v), the gladiatorial sacrifice of
the Matlatzinca (ch. 36, 103v) from the Gods and
Rites feast of Tlacaxipehualiztli (ch. 9, 266r), the
musicians during the festivities of Moctezuma’s
coronation (ch. 54, 158v), perhaps from the Gods
and Rites dance (ch. 21, 305r), and the sacrifice
of Tlaxcalans to the goddess Toci (ch. 62, 181r)
from the Gods and Rites Toci (ch. 15, 286r).
214 • Notes to Pages 157–167
22. This painting is also anomalous in that the
Mexican ruler Moctezuma I is identified in the
painting with Axayacatl’s name sign. A similar
switch occurs at ch. 56 (155r), where Moctezuma
II is also named with Axayacatl’s sign. It is not
known why this occurred.
23. For example, Chicomoztoc in the Codex
Mexicanus 22–23, Codex Ríos 66v (figure
6.15), Mapa Cuauhtinchan no. 2, and Historia
Tolteca Chichimeca 16r; ancestors in caves in
the Mapa Tlotzin; and Chichimec garb in Mapa
Quinatzin and Mapa Tlotzin.
24. The convention extends even to Cortés
when he first appears in the History, for he too
is enthroned, robed in finery and wearing a tall,
feathered hat (European equivalents of the royal
robe and crown), and seated on the European
hip chair that signifies European authority
(Boone 2019:99).
25. Others are cherubs with floral garlands
below Huitzilihuitl’s accession (ch. 7, 19v),
satyrs within acanthus scrolls beside Ahuitzotl’s
accession (ch. 41, 118v), hunters blowing conch
shells beside the battles of Xochimilco (ch.
12, 37r) and Tehuantepec (ch. 46, 136r), and
maidens bearing fruit beside Moctezuma for the
chapter that tells of the noble youth who served
him (ch. 53, 155r).
26. The gloss has not been transcribed or
translated in any of the editions, so I include
it here: “demonstración de las quebas donde
avitaban los mexicanos antes de conquistar esta
tierra” and “decienden de los Chichimecos que
es una generacíon valerosa y despues crecian
como nosotros de los godos y los romanos de los
troyanos.” I thank Kris Lane for help with this
transcription.
27. These are notably Tlacaxipehualiztli
(Gods and Rites, ch. 9, 266v and Tudela 12r;
figures 7.7 and 6.28), Xocotlhuetzi (Gods
and Rites, ch. 12, 276r; Magliabechiano
38r; and Tudela 20r; figures 7.3, 6.21, and
6.27), Etzalcualiztli (Calendar 331v and
Magliabechiano 34r), and the priest holding
incense (Gods and Rites, ch. 5, 248v;
Tudela 50r).
28. Glass and Robertson (1975:236–237)
called it the Crónica X Group. I here follow
Couch’s designation, because I focus on Durán’s
Historia and its cognates, some of which
are unconnected to the Crónica X. Lafaye
(1972a:25*) proposed that the Crónica X should
be thought of as a version of Mexica oral history
rather than a specific manuscript. Colston
(1973:59–60) and Couch (1987:58) agreed but
recognized that Durán was drawing from a
specific manuscript version. Peperstraete (2007)
also argued for a single source manuscript,
which she reconstructed. See Colston (1973:52–
58), Couch (1987:349–353, 359–394), and
Peperstraete (2007:47–57) for the relationships
among the various manuscripts.
29. Peperstraete (2007:113–135) reconstructed
the content of these proposed illustrations.
30. A quarto-sized manuscript of 269 folios
in the Museo Nacional de Antropología, Mexico
City (MNA 35–100), it has been published
together with the Crónica mexicana in Alvarado
Tezozomoc and Anonymous (1878:7–149,
reprinted 1975) and published separately in
Códice Ramírez (1979). My explanation is based
largely on Couch’s (1987:79–149) analysis of
the Codex Ramírez and its relation to Durán’s
Historia. The Codex Ramírez volume also
includes two independent fragments: an account
of the reign of Moctezuma Ilhuicamina digested
from Durán and an account of the conquest
from a Texcocan perspective that highlights the
role of don Hernando Cortés Ixtlilxochitl in
the conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan (Couch
1987:97–100).
31. It was published by Lafaye (1972b). Tovar
may have been the one who later conveyed
Durán’s Historia to Dorantes de Carranza
(Couch 1987:41–42).
32. This letter was published in García
Icazbalceta (1881:263–264), Kubler and Gibson
(1951:77–78), and Lafaye (1972b:3–5).
33. It is a quarto-sized manuscript now in the
John Carter Brown Library, Brown University,
Providence, Rhode Island (Codex Ind 2). The
history occupies fols. 1–58; the book of gods and
rites (including an overview of the calendar),
fols. 59–82; and the paintings for these, fols.
85–146. The separate Tovar Calendar follows.
34. These are book 5, chs. 8 and 9; and book 7,
ch. 2.
35. For a basic list of Sahagún’s extant
manuscripts, see Quiñones Keber (1988a).
36. León-Portilla (2002:11–22) summarizes
the literature up to ca. 2000; see also the more
extensive summary up to ca. 1970 in Cline
(1973a). Nicolau d’Olwer and Cline (1973) and
Bustamante García (1990) analyze the Sahagún
corpus. For biographies, see Nicolau d’Olwer
(1952, 1987), Ballesteros Gaibrois (1973), Castro
and Rodríguez Molinero (1986), and León-
Portilla (1987, 2002). I draw principally on León-
Portilla (2002).
37. León-Portilla (2002: 26–29); for the
Nahua nobles in Spain, see Cline (1969) and
Boone (2017a).
38. Sahagún also served as one of the
interpreters for delicate proceedings of Juan
de Zumárraga’s inquisition (1539) (Anderson
1982:33). In 1540 he was composing and writing
sermons in Nahuatl for all the Sundays (León-
Portilla 2002:104–106).
39. Nicolau d’Olwer and Cline (1973:190);
León-Portilla (2002:104).
 40. Nicolau d’Olwer and Cline (1973:192);
Cline (1988); Sahagún (1989a); León-Portilla
(2002:127–128, 180).
41. Kubler (1948, 2:475) assigns the founding
to 1528–1529. For the strategic and economic
importance of Tepepulco before the conquest,
see Hicks (1987:101–102) and Blanton (1993:52,
72, 75, 79). For its formerly large population,
the sizable temple to Huitzilopochtli, and
the founding of the Franciscan establishment
there by Olmos, see the Relación geográfica of
Tepepulco (Acuña 1985–1986, 2:175–176, 180–
181; Motolinía 1951:177; Mendieta 1971:263).
42. López Austin (1974) has reconstructed
this outline.
43. The Nahuatl text of those known as
the Segundos memoriales, Memoriales en tres
columnas, and Memoriales con escolios of ca. 1561–
1565 is largely untranslated. The Memoriales en
castellano of ca. 1569–1571 precedes but is close
to the Spanish text in the final Historia. The
Codices Matritenses were published in facsimile
by Paso y Troncoso (Sahagún 1905–1907); for
explanations of the various manuscripts, see
Nicolau d’Olwer (Nicolau d’Olwer and Cline
1973:190–194), summarized in Dibble (1982a)
and Hernández de León-Portilla (2002:44–49).
For the historiography and physical properties
of the Codices Matritenses, see Hidalgo
Brinquis 2013.
44. These are Real Biblioteca MS 3280 (fols.
250–303) and Real Academia de la Historia MS
9–5524 (fols. 51–87). Facsimile publications are
Sahagún (1905–1907 [color lithographs], 1964,
vol. 2 [small color photo reproductions], and
1997 [full-sized color photo reproductions]). The
Nahuatl of many sections has been translated
variously into German, Spanish, and English;
Sullivan’s translation in Sahagún (1997) is the
standard English translation and contains the
most comprehensive bibliography, with citations
to the earlier translations. Major studies are
by Ballesteros Gaibrois (Sahagún 1964, vol. 1),
Nicholson (1973), and the editors of Sahagún
(1997); the codicology is found in Ballesteros
Gaibrois (Sahagún 1964, 1:329–342), Quiñones
Keber (1997:20–24), and Hidalgo Brinquis
(2013). For content summaries, with detailed
tabular listings, see Nicholson (1973:209–210,
212, 214) and Quiñones Keber (1997:38–51). I
draw here principally on Nicholson (1973), the
essays by Nicholson (1997) and Quiñones Keber
(1997) in Sahagún (1997), and, for the paintings,
Baird (1993).
45. The text in chapter 3 (fol. 52r) refers to 2
Reed (1559) during the reign of don Cristóbal
Cecepatci as the present time. However, in
chapter 2 a Nahuatl gloss and its Spanish
translation (fol. 289r) equate the day 8 Wind to
September 25, 1560 (which is at odds with the
commonly accepted Caso correlation). Sahagún
added a note in Spanish that identified the year
2 Reed as “este año de 1560” (fol. 283r); he may
have confused the year 2 Reed with the day 2
Reed (September 25, 1560).
46. The watermarks are the pilgrim in a circle
and the hand and flower common on Italian
paper of the mid-century; for the marks and
foliation, see Quiñones Keber (1997:21–24),
updated in Hidalgo Brinquis (2013:55–63,
74–88).
47. Baird (1983:161–163, 1993:113–115) noted
that the paintings and written descriptions of
only five veintenas are similar and that the last
seven veintenas differ the most.
48. See Quiñones Keber (1988b:256–257) for
a comparative listing of the deity figures in the
Primeros memoriales and Florentine Codex.
49. Baird’s nomenclature for the artists
identifies them from the beginning of the
manuscript (with the veintenas) to the end.
Quiñones Keber’s identification of the artists
generally agrees with Baird’s but assigns them
different letter designations, based not on their
priority in the manuscript but on their priority
in the gods’ list of paragraph 5; the two systems
equate as follows: BA = QKB, BB = QKC, BC
= QKE, BD = QKD, BE = QKA, and BF =
QKF. Baird (1993:137–155) also noted that in
the first gathering (ch. 1) the different artists
generally painted the images on the recto and
verso of a folio and suggested that they might
have sat side by side to copy their source.
Barthel (1964), Zantwijk (1982), and Baird
(1993:149–157) have proposed different scenarios
and prototypes to account for the identities
and order of the gods, but the issue remains
unresolved.
50. Baird (1993:30–37) discussed the
placement and role of the drawings.
51. See Baird (1993:104–117) for the pictorial
structure of the veintena images and their
variance from the texts; she noted that the text
of Izcalli extends beneath the painting of that
month.
52. Baird (1983, 1988a, 1993) analyzed the
style of the paintings most extensively; see also
Robertson (1959:172).
53. Tables 1–4 in Quiñones Keber (1997)
summarize the contents and varied format of the
document.
54. The Florentine Codex is published in
facsimile (Sahagun 1979), and its Nahuatl
and Spanish texts are published separately by
others: the 1950–1982 Anderson and Dibble
edition contains the Nahuatl texts with English
translations published book by book in separate
volumes, with the Spanish prologues, notes,
and apologia with English translations grouped
together in the introductory volume. The
García Quintana and López Austin edition
(Sahagún 1989b) contains the Spanish text
in two volumes. It is necessary to consult all
three of these publications simultaneously to
access the full manuscript, so different scholars
have tended to concentrate on the Nahuatl/
English, the Spanish, or the illustrations.
High-resolution scans of all the pages are in the
World Digital Library (https://www.wdl.org/
en/item/10096/, accessed November 5, 2019).
Major recent studies of the document itself are
Martínez (1982), essays in Wolf and Connors
(2011), and Peterson and Terraciano (2019), cited
separately here. A project by the Getty Research
Institute is digitizing and publishing the codex
online, with transcriptions and translations. The
seminar “Paleografía y traducción del Códice
florentino” directed by Miguel León-Portilla at
the Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas of
the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
has been publishing Spanish translations of the
Nahuatl texts in Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl
since 2009.
55. Codicological aspects are examined in
Paso y Troncoso (1896), Martínez (1982), and
Rao (2011).
56. The dedication is transcribed in Sahagún
(1989b, 1:306) but not included in Sahagún
(1950–1982). A longer dedication to Sequera
at the beginning of book 1 has survived in the
Tolosa copy (Sahagún 1975:15–16; Rao 2011:37).
57. The binding of the volumes is so tight that
it has not been possible to ascertain the collation
of the folios (Rao 2011:29) and thus whether
each book occupied its own gathering/s of folios.
58. See Garone Gravier (2011) for the codex’s
design, the identification of different hands,
and the sequence of texts and images (190). The
relationship between the texts and images is a
complex one, discussed more fully below.
59. Volume 1 has only a single table of
contents for the first five books; this was written
after the first prologue and introductory note
to the reader. A table of contents for books
7–11 was added after the prologue to book 7,
but all the other books have their own tables of
contents. They usually note the folio number of
each chapter.
60. Different authors give slightly different
dates for the document’s completion, for
example: 1576–1577 (Rao 2011:39), 1577
(Schwaller 2003:269), 1577–1578 (León-Portilla
2002:212), and 1578–1579 (Nicolau D’Olwer and
Cline 1973:196–198; Dibble 1982a:15).
61. For the early history of the codex, see also
Dibble (1982a), Marchetti (1983), Bustamante
García (1990:334–346), León-Portilla
(2002:212–222), and Schwaller (2003).
62. Schwaller (2003:269–271) made the case
that Philip II’s special ambassador to Florence,
Notes to Pages 167–181 • 215
Luis de Velasco, may have taken the manuscript
to Florence as a present to Ferdinando, then
grand duke of Tuscany, in order to cement
Habsburg ties; this would put the manuscript in
Florence after 1587. But Rao (2011:40–42) and
Markey (2011, 2016:93–117) have found what is
likely to be the Florentine Codex listed on an
inventory of Fernando’s possessions that went
with him from Rome to Florence in 1587.
63. Johansson (2011) has analyzed book 1’s
rhetorical structure. Anderson and Dibble
in Sahagún (1950–1982, bk. 1:70–84) also
published two addenda not in the codex proper
but derived from one of the drafts.
64. Anderson and Dibble in Sahagún (1950–
1982, bk. 7:33–81) also published, as an appendix,
an earlier draft that contains additional material.
65. Anderson and Dibble in Sahagún (1950–
1982, bk. 8: 81–89) also included three draft texts
that were not included in the Florentine Codex.
66. Dibble (1982a:20); Sahagún (1979,
2:358r–361v, 363v–364v, 369v–375r, 1982:58,
1989b, 2:577, 579, 582).
67. Martínez (1982:24) distinguished at least
five or six scribes. Garone Gravier (2011:185–188)
indicated that Scribes 2 and 3 were the principal
amanuenses of the Nahuatl texts throughout,
although all the other writers contributed
some, except for Scribe 7, who wrote in a
distinctive chancery style and may not have
been indigenous. Scribe 1 was the principal
contributor of the Spanish, for which Scribes
3 and 4 had secondary roles, but all the scribes
216 • Notes to Pages 181–194
supplied some of the Spanish. Scribes 1 and 6
were the trilinguals.
68. Depending on how the images are
counted, and whether the ornamentals are
included, the counts vary from 1,845 to 2,686:
1,846 (Glass and Robertson 1975:190), 1,855
(Quiñones Keber 1988c:205), 1,845 + 623
ornamentals (Martínez 1982:36), about 1,850
(Baird 2003:120), 1,862 + 601 ornamentals
(Peterson 1988:274), 2,468 (Rao 2011:30), 2,486,
of which 477 are ornamentals (Garone Gravier
2011:196), 2,686 (Magaloni Kerpel 2011b:47–48).
69. Images occasionally appear in the right
column when it has more space: for example, at
the end of book 7 (Binding of the Years, 2:447v),
the end of book 8 (Lords, 2:306v), sprinkled
through book 11 (Earthly Matters, 3:152–404v),
and in the appendix to book 1, where the
Nahuatl is the translation.
70. They also proposed that these four
artists “were responsible for planning the
work.” It is hard to know whether they, rather
than Sahagún, planned the effort. Peterson
(1988:275–278) also differentiates some of the
different artists’ contributions.
71. Peterson (1988) is the best overview of
the Florentine artists and their paintings, but
see also the general descriptions by Robertson
(1959:173–179) and Martínez (1982:36–86).
More topically focused studies treat the
reproduction of architecture (Robertson 1974;
Escalante Gonzalbo 2001; Baird 2003; Peterson
2003:245–248), gods (Quiñones Keber 1988b,
1988c, 2002), the conquest (Magaloni Kerpel
2003, 2008, 2011a, 2011b), and the use of color
and pigments (Baglioni et al. 2011; Reyes
Equiguas 2011). European elements have been
analyzed especially by Baird (1987, 1988b, 1995,
2003, 2019), Peterson (1988, 2003, 2017, 2019),
Escalante Gonzalbo (1999, 2001, 2003, 2008,
2014), and Magaloni Kerpel (2003).
72. Robertson suggested this possibility
and then presumed it (1959:176, 1974:157) and
Martínez (1982:62–63) later asserted it.
73. Dibble (1963:58); Arvey (1988); Peterson
(1988:285); Baird (2003:124–125); Sousa
(2019:190–197).
74. Thouvenot (1980, 1982, 1984); Peterson
(1988:287); Magaloni Kerpel (2011b:51–53).
75. See also Boone 2019.
76. Bartholomeus described the human
body in the head to toe order of medical books
(Seymour 1992:59). For Andreae Vesalius, see
Kusukawa (2012).
77. See Palmeri Capesciotti (2001) for
Sahagún’s use of European taxonomic categories
for fauna.
78. These ideas are expressed in the prologues
to books 3, 10, 11 (Sahagún 1982:59, 79, 80–81,
90–93).
79. See also León-Portilla (2002:135) and
Máynez (2002).
80. The information on Sahagún’s critics and
the problems he faced in the 1570s is based on
Anderson (1982:36–37), Dibble (1982a:14–15),
and León-Portilla (2002:199–206, 210–212).
References Cited
Acosta, José de
2002 Natural and Moral History of the Indies.
Edited by Jane E. Mangan with an introduc-
tion and commentary by Walter D. Mignolo.
Translated by Frances López-Morillas. Dur-
ham, NC: Duke University Press.
Acosta Saignes, Miguel (ed.)
1946 Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, “Historia
general de las cosas de Nueve España.” 3rd ed.
Mexico City: Nueva España.
Acuña, René
1985–1986 Relaciones geográficas del siglo XVI:
México. 3 vols. Mexico City: Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México.
Acuna-Soto, Rodolfo, Leticia Calderón Romero,
and James H. Maguire
2000 Large Epidemics of Hemorrhagic
Fevers in Mexico, 1545–1815. American
Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
62(2):733–739.
Afanador-Pujol, Angélica Jimena
2015 The Relación de Michoacán (1539–1541)
and the Politics of Representation in Colonial
Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Albrecht, Eva
2000 The Organization of Vincent of Beau-
vais’ Speculum maius and of Some Other
Latin Encyclopedias. In The Medieval
Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philoso-
phy, edited by Steven Harvey, pp. 46–74.
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers.
Albricus philosophus et al.
1976 Allegoriae poeticae, Paris, 1520/Albricus.
Theologia mythologica, Antwerp, 1532/Geor-
gius Pictorius. Apotheoseos . . . , Basel, 1558/
Georgius Pictorius. Renaissance and the Gods.
New York: Garland.
Alciati, Andrea
1534 Emblematum libellus. Paris: Christianus
Wechelus.
Alcina Franch, José
1986 Códice Veitia. Madrid: Patrimonio
Nacional.
Alvarado Tezozomoc, Hernando, and
Anonymous
1878 Crónica mexicana escrita por D. Hernando
Alvarado Tezozomoc, precedida del Códice
Ramírez. Mexico City: I. Paz.
1975 Crónica mexicana escrita por D. Hernando
Alvarado Tezozomoc, precedida del Códice
Ramírez. Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa.
Anders, Ferdinand (ed.)
1970 Codex Magliabechiano CL. XIII, 3
(B.R. 232) Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di
Firenze, Faksimile. Codices Selecti, Photo-
typice Impressi, vol. 23. Graz, Austria: Aka-
demische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt.
Anders, Ferdinand, and Maarten Jansen
1993 Manual del advino: libro explicativo del
llamado Códice Vaticano B. With facsimile.
Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- u.
Verlagsanstalt.
1996a Libro de la vida: texto explicativo del
llamado Códice Magliabechiano. With
facsimile. Graz, Austria, and Mexico City:
Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt and
Fondo de Cultura Económica.
1996b Religión, costumbres e historia de los anti-
guos Mexicanos: libro explicativo del llamado
Códice Vaticano A. With facsimile. Graz,
Austria, and Mexico City: Akademische
Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt and Fondo de
Cultura Económica.
Anders, Ferdinand, Maarten Jansen, and Luis
Reyes García
1991 El libro del Ciuacoatl: homenaje para el año
del Fuego Nuevo, libro explicativo del llamado
Códice Borbónico. With facsimile. Madrid,
Graz, Austria, and Mexico City: Sociedad
Estatal Quinto Centenario, Akademische
Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, and Fondo de
Cultura Económica.
Anderson, Arthur J. O.
1982 Sahagún: Career and Character. In Flo-
rentine Codex: General History of the Things
of New Spain: Introductions and Indices,
edited by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles
E. Dibble, pp. 29–41. Vol. 1. Santa Fe, NM,
and Salt Lake City: School of American
Research and University of Utah Press.
Andrews, J. Richard
1975 Introduction to Classical Nahuatl. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Aristotle
2019 Rhetoric. Online: The Internet Classics
Archive, classics.mit.edu/Aristotle
/rhetoric.1.i.html (accessed November 1,
2019).
Arvey, Margaret
1988 Women of Ill-Repute in the
Florentine Codex. In The Role of Gender in
Pre-Columbian Art and Architecture, edited
by Virginia Miller, pp. 179–204. Boston:
University Press of America.
Baglioni, Piero, Rodorico Giorgi, Marcia Caro-
lina Arroyo, David Chelazzi, Francesca Ridi,
and Diana Magaloni Kerpel
2011 On the Nature of the Pigments of the
General History of the Things of New
Spain: The Florentine Codex. In Colors
between Two Worlds: The Florentine Codex of
Bernardino de Sahagún, edited by Gerhard
Wolf and Joseph Connors, pp. 79–105.
Florence: Villa I Tatti (Harvard University
Center for Italian Renaissance Studies)
and Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz
(Max-Planck-Institut).
Baird, Ellen Taylor
1983 Text and Image in Sahagún’s Primeros
Memoriales. In Text and Image in Pre-
Columbian Art: Essays on the Interrelationship
217
 of the Verbal and Visual Arts, edited by Janet
Catherine Berlo, pp. 155–179. BAR Inter­
national Series. Oxford: BAR.
1987 Sahagún’s Codex Florentino: The Enig-
matic A. Ethnohistory 34:288–306.
1988a The Artists of Sahagún’s Primeros
Memoriales: A Question of Identity. In The
Work of Bernardino de Sahagún: Pioneer
Ethnographer of Sixteenth-Century Mexico,
edited by J. Jorge Klor de Alva, H. B. Nichol-
son, and Eloise Quiñones Keber, pp. 211–227.
Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies,
University at Albany, State University of
New York.
1988b Sahagún’s Primeros Memoriales and
Codex Florentino: European Elements in the
Illustrations. In Smoke and Mist: Mesoameri-
can Studies in Memory of Thelma D. Sullivan,
edited by J. Kathryn Josserand and Karen
Dakin, pp. 15–40. BAR International Series,
vol. 1. Oxford: BAR.
1993 The Drawings of Sahagún’s Primeros
Memoriales: Structure and Style. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
1995 Adaptation and Accommodation:
The Transformation of the Pictorial Text
in Sahagún’s Manuscripts. In Native Artists
and Patrons in Colonial Latin America, edited
by Emily Umberger and Tom Cummins,
pp. 36–51. Phoebus 7. Tempe: Arizona State
University.
2003 Sahagún and the Representation of His-
tory. In Sahagún at 500: Essays on the Quin-
centenary of the Birth of Fr. Bernardino de
Sahagún, edited by John Frederick Schwaller,
pp. 117–136. Berkeley, CA: Academy of
American Franciscan History.
2019 Parts of the Body: Order and Disorder.
In The Florentine Codex: An Encyclopedia
of the Nahua World in Sixteenth-Century
Mexico, edited by Jeanette Favrot Peterson
and Kevin Terraciano, pp. 200–215. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Ballesteros Gaibrois, Manuel
1973 Vida y obra de fray Bernardino de Sahagún.
León, Spain: Institución Fray Bernardino de
Sahagún, Consejo Superior de Investigacio-
nes Científicas.
Barker-Benfield, Bruce
1992 Addendum to A Physical Description of
the Codex Mendoza. In The Codex Mendoza,
edited by Frances F. Berdan and Patricia
Rieff Anawalt, pp. 20–23. Vol. 1. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
1999 Codex Mendoza (MS. Arch. Seld. A. 1)
Conservation Report. Unpublished manu-
script, Bodleian Library, Oxford.
n.d. Report on Repairs of 1985–6, Water-
marks, and Collation of Codex Mendoza. In
Manuscrito: Codex Mendoza, edited by Jorge
218 • References Cited
Gómez Tejada. Quito: Universidad San
Francisco de Quito (forthcoming).
Barlow, Robert
1945a La Crónica X: versiones coloniales de
la historia de los Mexica Tenochca. Revista
Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos 7:65–87.
1945b La guerra de 1473 in la “Crónica X.”
Memorias de las Academia Mexicana de la
Historia 4:459–463.
1949 The Extent of the Empire of the Culhua-
Mexica. Ibero-Americana 28. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Barney, Stephen A., et al.
2006 Introduction. In The Etymologies of
Isidore of Seville, edited by Stephen A. Bar-
ney et al., pp. 3–31. Translated by Stephen A.
Barney, W. J. Lewis, J. A. Beach, and Oliver
Berghof. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Barthel, Thomas
1964 Einige ordnungsprincipien im
Aztekischen pantheon (zur analyse de
Sahagunschen götterlisten). Paideuma
10(2):77–101.
Bartholomeus, Anglicus
1975–1988 On the Properties of Things. Trans-
lated by John Trevisa. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Bataillon, Marcel
1966 Erasmo y España: estudios sobre la historia
espiritual del siglo XVI. Translated by Anto-
nio Alatorre. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura
Económica.
Batalla Rosado, Juan José
1993a El Códice Tudela: análisis histórico y
formal de su primera sección. Anales del
Museo de América 1:121–142.
1993b Los tlacuiloque del Códice Borbónico:
análisis iconográfico de los signos calendári-
cos. Estudios de Historia Social y Económica
de América 10:9–24.
1994 Los tlacuiloque del Códice Borbónico:
una aproximación a su número y estilo.
Journal de la Société des Américanistes
80(1):47–72.
1995 La sección de los indios Yopes de la
segunda parte del Códice Tudela del Museo
de América: una revisión sobre su interpre-
tación. Anales del Museo de América 3:59–80.
1999 Estudio codicológico del Códice Tudela.
Anales del Museo de América 7:7–63.
2001a La importancia de una simple copia
incompleta: el Códice Fiestas de la Biblioteca
del Palacio Real de Madrid. In Actas del
I Congreso Iberoamericano del Patrimonio
Cultural, pp. 202–216. Madrid: Asociación
Española de Gestores de Patrimonio Cul-
tural y Editorial América Ibérica.
2001b Nuevas hipótesis sobre la historia
del Códice Tudela o Códice del Museo de
América. Revista Española de Antropología
Americana 31:131–163.
2002a El Códice Tudela y el Grupo Magliabe-
chiano: la tradición medieval europea de copia
de códices in América. Colección Thesaurus
Americae. Madrid: Testimonio.
2002b El número de tlacuiloque-“pintores”
del Libro Indígena del Códice Tudela.
Revista Española de Antropología Americana
32:127–177.
2006 Estudio codicológico de la sección
del xiuhpohualli del Códice Telleriano-
Remensis. Revista Española de Antropología
Americana 36(2):69–87.
2007a Matrícula de Tributos y Códice
Mendoza: la autoría de un mismo “maestro
de pintores” para los folios 6-R a 11-V del
primero y las totalidad del segundo. Anales
del Museo de América 15:9–20.
2007b The Scribes Who Painted the
Matrícula de Tributos and the Codex Men-
doza. Ancient Mesoamerica 18(1):31–51.
2008 El libro escrito europeo del Códice Fies-
tas de los indios a el Demonio en días deter-
minados y a los finados. Itinerarios: Revista
de Estudios Lingüísticos, Literarios, Históricos
y Antropológicos 7:9–46.
2010a Estudio codicológico del Códice
Mendoza. Revista Española de Antropología
Americana 40(2):229–248.
2010b La importancia del “Códice Tudela” y la
escasa validez del “Códice Magliabechiano”
para el estudio de la religión azteca: el mal
llamado “Grupo Magliabechiano.” Anales del
Museo de América 18:7–27.
Baudot, Georges
1995 Utopia and History in Mexico: The First
Chronicles of Mexican Civilization, 1520–1569.
Translated by Bernard R. Ortiz de Monte­
llano and Thelma Ortiz de Montellano.
Niwot: University Press of Colorado.
Berdan, Frances F.
1976 A Comparative Analysis of Aztec Tribute
Documents. Actas del XLI Congreso Inter-
nacional de Americanistas 2:131–141. Mexico
City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia.
1980 The Matricula de Tributos:
Introduction. In Matrícula de Tributos
(Códice de Moctezuma), Museo Nacional de
Antropología, Mexico (Cod. 35–52), pp. 9–11.
Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- u.
Verlagsanstalt.
1992 The Imperial Tribute Roll of the Codex
Mendoza. In The Codex Mendoza, edited
by Frances F. Berdan and Patricia Rieff
Anawalt, 1:55–79, 154–156, 156–159. 4 vols.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Berdan, Frances F., and Patricia Rieff Anawalt
(eds.)
1992 The Codex Mendoza. 4 vols. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Bierhorst, John
1992a Codex Chimalpopoca: The Text in
Nahuatl with a Glossary and Grammatical
Notes. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
1992b History and Mythology of the Aztecs: The
Codex Chimalpopoca. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.
Blair, Anne
2010 Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly
Information before the Modern Age. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Blanton, Richard E.
1993 The Basin of Mexico Market System and
the Growth of Empire. In Aztec Imperial
Strategies, edited by Frances Berdan et al.,
pp. 47–84. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Bleichmar, Daniela
2015 History in Pictures: Translating the
Codex Mendoza. Art History 38(4):682–701.
Boas, George (ed.)
1993 The Hieroglyphics of Horapollo (1950).
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bober, Harry
1956–1957 An Illustrated Medieval School-
Book of Bede’s “De Natura Rerum.” Journal
of the Walters Art Gallery 19–20:64–97.
Boccaccio, Giovanni
2011 Genealogy of the Pagan Gods: Volume I,
Books I–V, edited and translated by Jon
Solomon. I Tatti Renaissance Library. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bode, Georg Heinrich
1834 Scriptores rerum mythicarum latini tres
Romae nuper reperti. 2 vols. Celle, Germany:
E. H. C. Schulze.
Boemus, Johann
1520 Omnium gentium mores, leges et ritus.
Augsburg, Germany: Sigismundi Grimm ac
Marci Vuirsung.
1970 The Fardle of Facions concerning the
Aunciente Maners, Customes and Lawes, of
the Peoples Enhabiting the Two Partes of the
Earth, Called Afficke and Asie. Facsimile of
1555 English edition. Amsterdam: Theatrum
Orbis Terrarum and Da Capo Press.
Bolzoni, Lina
2001 The Gallery of Memory: Literary and
Iconographic Models in the Age of the Print-
ing Press. Toronto Italian Studies. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Boone, Elizabeth Hill
1983 The Codex Magliabechiano and the Lost
Prototype of the Magliabechiano Group.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
1988 The Nature and Earlier Versions of
Diego Durán’s “Historia de las Indias” in
Madrid. In Smoke and Mist: Mesoamerican
Studies in Memory of Thelma D. Sullivan,
edited by J. Kathryn Josserand and Karen
Dakin, pp. 41–58. BAR International Series,
vol. 1. Oxford: BAR.
1992 The Aztec Pictorial History of the Codex
Mendoza. In The Codex Mendoza, edited
by Frances F. Berdan and Patricia Rieff
Anawalt, pp. 35–54, 152–153. Vol. 1. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
1998 Pictorial Documents and Visual Think-
ing in Postconquest Mexico. In Native Tradi-
tions in the Postconquest World, edited by
Elizabeth Hill Boone and Tom Cummins,
pp. 149–199. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collections.
2000 Stories in Red and Black: Pictorial
Histories of the Aztecs and Mixtecs. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
2007 Cycles of Time and Meaning in the
Mexican Books of Fate. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
2012 Mesoamerican History: The Painted
Historical Genres. In Oxford History of
Historical Writing: Volume 3: 1400–1800,
edited by José Rabasa, Masuyuki Sato, and
Edoardo Tortarolo, pp. 575–599. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
2017a Seeking Indianness: Christoph Weiditz,
the Aztecs, and Feathered Amerindians.
Colonial Latin American Review 26(1):39–61.
2017b Who They Are and What They
Wore: Aztec Costumes for European Eyes.
Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 67/68
(2016/2017):316–334.
2019 Fashioning Conceptual Categories in the
Florentine Codex: Old World and Indig-
enous Foundations for the Rulers and Gods.
In The Florentine Codex: An Encyclopedia
of the Nahua World in Sixteenth-Century
Mexico, edited by Jeanette Favrot Peterson
and Kevin Terraciano, pp. 95–109. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Boone, Elizabeth Hill, Louise M. Burkhart, and
David E. Tavárez
2017 Painted Words: Nahua Catholicism,
Politics, and Memory in the Atzaqualco
Pictorial Catechism. Dumbarton Oaks Pre-
Columbian Art and Archaeology Studies
Series 39. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Borah, Woodrow, and Sherburne F. Cook
1963 The Aboriginal Population of Central
Mexico on the Eve of the Spanish Conquest.
Ibero-Americana. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Briesemeister, Dietrich
2006 Sobre indios, moriscos y cristianos
“a su manera”: testimonios pictóricos en el
Trachtenbuch de Christoph Weiditz. Jahr-
buch für Geschichte Lateinamerikas 43:1–24.
Brown, Betty Ann
1977 European Influences in Early Colonial
Descriptions and Illustrations of the Mexica
Monthly Calendar. PhD dissertation,
Department of Art History, University of
New Mexico.
1982 Early Colonial Representations of the
Aztec Monthly Calendar. In Pre-Columbian
Art History: Selected Readings, edited by
Alana Cordy-Collins, pp. 169–191. Palo Alto,
CA: Peek Publications.
Bull, Malcolm
2005 The Mirror of the Gods. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bunim, Miriam Schild
1940 Space in Medieval Painting and the Fore-
runners of Perspective. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Burkhart, Louise M.
1988 Solar Christ in Nahuatl Doctrinal Texts
of Early Colonial Mexico. Ethnohistory
35(3):234–256.
1989 The Slippery Earth: Nahua-Christian
Moral Dialogue in Sixteenth-Century Mexico.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
1992 Flowery Heaven: The Aesthetic of Para-
dise in Nahuatl Devotional Literature. Res:
Anthropology and Aesthetics 21:89–109.
1996 Holy Wednesday: A Nahuatl Drama from
Early Colonial Mexico. Philadelphia: Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Press.
2011 Aztecs on Stage: Religious Theater in
Colonial Mexico. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
2017 Christian Doctrine: Nahuas Encounter
the Catechism. In Painted Words: Nahua
Catholicism, Politics, and Memory in the
Atzaqualco Pictorial Catechism, edited by
Elizabeth Hill Boone, Louise M. Burkhart,
and David Tavárez, pp. 67–92. Studies in
Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology. Wash-
ington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collection.
Bustamante, Carlos María de (ed.)
1829 Historia de la conquista de México por el
P. Fr. Bernardino de Sahagún. Mexico City:
Impr. de Galvan a cargo de M. Arevalo.
1829–1830 Historia general de las cosas de
la Nueva España, que en doce libros y dos
volúmenes escribió el R. P. Fr. Bernardino de
Sahagún . . . 3 vols. Mexico City: A. Valdes.
Bustamante García, Jesús
1990 Fray Bernardino de Sahagún: una revisión
crítica de los manuscritos y de sus proceso
de composición. Mexico City: Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México.
Calnek, Edward E.
1992 The Ethnographic Content of the Third
Part of the Codex Mendoza. In The Codex
Mendoza, edited by Frances F. Berdan and
References Cited • 219
 Patricia Rieff Anawalt, pp. 81–91, 160–161.
Vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Cameron, Euan
1991 The European Reformation. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Campbell, Caroline, and Alan Chong
2005 Bellini and the East. London: National
Gallery.
Carruthers, Mary
1990 The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory
in Medieval Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Carruthers, Mary, and Jan M. Ziolkowski (eds.)
2002 The Medieval Craft of Memory: An
Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Cartari, Vincenzo
1556 Le imagini, con la spositione de i dei de
gliantichi: raccolte per Vincenzo Cartari.
Venice: Francesco Marcolini.
1571 Le imagini de i dei de gli antichi: nelle quali
si contengono gl’idoli, riti, ceremonie, & altre
cose appartenenti alla religione de gli antichi/
raccolte dal sig. Vincenzo Cartari; con la loro
espositione & con bellissime & accomodate
figure nouamente stampate. Venice: Appresso
Giordano Ziletti.
2012 Vincenzo Cartari’s Images of the Gods of
the Ancients: The First Italian Mythography.
Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and
Renaissance Studies.
Casado Soto, José Luis
2001 Estudio histórico científico. In Das
Trachtenbuch des Christoph Weiditz von
seinen Reisen nach Spanien (1529) und den
Niederlanden (1531/32), edited by José Luis
Casado Soto and Carlos Soler d’Hyver
de las Seses, pp. 5–174. Valencia, Spain:
Ediciones Grial.
Caso, Alfonso
1962 Review of Mexican Manuscript Painting
of the Early Colonial Period by Donald
Robertson. The Americas 19(1):100–107.
1967 Los calendarios prehispánicos. Mexico
City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México.
1971 Calendrical Systems of Central Mexico.
In Handbook of Middle American Indians,
Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, Part 1,
ed. Gordon F. Ekholm and Ignacio Bernal,
edited by Robert Wauchope, pp. 333–348.
Vol. 10. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Castañeda de la Paz, María
2013 Conflictos y alianzas en tiempos de cambio:
Azcapotzalco, Tlacopan, Tenochtitlan y
Tlatelolco (siglos XII–XVI). Mexico City:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas.
220 • References Cited
Castro, Florencio Vicente, and J. Luis Rodríguez
Molinero
1986 Bernardino de Sahagún, primer antro­
pólogo en Nueva España (siglo XVI). Sala-
manca, Spain: Universidad de Salamanca,
Institución Fray Bernardino de Sahagún,
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Científicas.
Caviness, Madeline H.
1983 Images of Divine Order and the Third
Mode of Seeing. Gesta 22(2):99–120.
Céard, Jean, and Jean-Claude Margolin
1986 Rébus de la Renaissance: des images qui
parlent. Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose.
Cervantes de Salazar, Francisco
1560 Túmulo imperial de la gran ciudad de
México. Mexico City: Antonio de Espinosa.
1971 Crónica de la Nueva España. Edited
by Agustín Millares Carlo. Biblioteca de
Autores Españoles. 2 vols. Madrid: Edicio-
nes Atlas.
Chávez, Ezequiel Adeodato
1962 Fray Pedro de Gante. Mexico City:
Editorial Jus.
Clark, James Cooper (trans. and ed.)
1938 Codex Mendoza: The Mexican Manuscript
Known as the “Collection of Mendoza” and
Preserved in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
3 vols. London: Waterlow & Sons.
Cline, Howard F.
1969 Hernando Cortés and the Aztec Indians
in Spain. Quarterly Journal of the Library of
Congress 26(2):70–90.
1973a Sahagún Materials and Studies,
1948–1971. In Handbook of Middle American
Indians, edited by Robert Wauchope and
Howard F. Cline, pp. 218–239. Vol. 13.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
1973b Selected Nineteenth-Century Mexican
Writers on Ethnohistory. In Handbook of
Middle American Indians, edited by Rob-
ert Wauchope and Howard F. Cline, pp.
370–427. Vol. 13. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Cline, S. L.
1988 Revisionist Conquest History:
Sahagún’s Revised Book XII. In The Work of
Bernardino de Sahagún: Pioneer Ethnographer
of Sixteenth-Century Mexico, edited by
J. Jorge Klor de Alva, H. B. Nicholson,
and Eloise Quiñones Keber, pp. 93–106.
Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies,
University at Albany, State University of
New York.
Codex Borbonicus
1974 Codex Borbonicus: Bibliothèque de
l’Assemblée Nationale, Paris (Y120). Edited
by Karl Anton Nowotny and Jacqueline de
Durand-Forest. Graz, Austria: Akademische
Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt.
1991 See Anders, Jansen, and Reyes García
1991.
Codex Boturini
1964–1967 Códice Boturini. In Antigüedades
de México basadas en la recopilación de Lord
Kingsborough, edited by José Corona Núñez,
2:7–29. 4 vols. Mexico City: Secretaria de
Hacienda y Crédito Público.
Códice Franciscano
1941 Códice Franciscano: nueva colección de
documentos para la historia de México.
Mexico City: Salvador Chávez Hayhoe.
Codex Magliabechiano
1903 The Book of the Life of the Ancient
Mexicans (Codex Magliabechi XIII, 11, 3).
Berkeley: University of California Press.
1904 Codex Magliabecchiano XIII. 3: manuscrit
mexicain post-Colombien de la Bibliothèque
nationale de Florence. Rome: Danesi.
1970 See Anders 1970.
1983 See Boone 1983.
1996 See Anders and Jansen 1996a.
Codex Mendoza
1992 The Codex Mendoza. Vol. 3. Edited
by Frances Berdan and Patricia Anawalt.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Codex Ramírez
1979 Códice Ramírez, manuscrito del siglo XVI
intitulado: relación del origen de los indios
que habitan esta Nueva España, según sus
historias. Edited by Manuel Orozco y Berra.
Mexico City: Editorial Innovación.
Codex Ríos [Vaticanus A/Vaticanus 3738]
1900 See Ehrle 1900.
1979 Codex Vaticanus 3738 (“Cod. Vat. A,”
“Cod. Ríos”) der Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana. Graz, Austria: Akademische
Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt.
1996 See Anders and Jansen 1996b.
Codex Telleriano-Remensis. See Hamy 1899b,
Quiñones Keber 1995a.
Codex Tudela. See Tudela de la Orden 1980,
Batalla Rosado 2002a.
Codex Vienna
1963 Codex Vindobonensis Mexicanus 1, Öster-
reichischen Nationalbibliothek, Wien. Edited
by Otto Adelhofer. Graz, Austria: Akade-
mische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt.
Colonna, Francesco
1999 Hypnerotomachia Poliphili: The Strife of
Love in a Dream. Edited by Joscelyn God-
win. London: Thames & Hudson.
Colston, Stephen Allyn
1973 Fray Diego Durán’s Historia de las Indias
de Nueva España e Islas de la Tierra Firme:
A Historiographical Analysis. PhD disserta-
tion, Department of History, University
of California at Los Angeles. Ann Arbor:
University Microfilms.
Conti, Natale
1568 Mythologiae sive explicationis fabularum
libri decem. Venice, n.p.
2006 Natale Conti’s “Mythologiae.” Tempe:
Arizona Center for Medieval and Renais-
sance Studies.
Córdova, Juan de
1987 Arte del idioma zapoteca: Facsimile of 1886
Edition. Edited by Nicolás León. Mexico
City: Editiones Toledo, Instituto Nacional
de Antropología e Historia.
Corona Núñez, José
1964–1967 Antigüedades de México basadas en
la recopilación de Lord Kingsborough (I–IV).
Mexico City: Secretaría de Hacienda y
Crédito Público.
Cortés, Hernán
1986 Letters from Mexico. Edited and trans-
lated by Anthony Pagden. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Couch, N. C. Christopher
1982 Images of the Common Man in the
Codex Borbonicus. Estudios de Cultura
Náhuatl 17:89–100.
1985 The Festival Cycle of the Aztec Codex Bor-
bonicus. BAR International Series. Oxford:
BAR.
1987 Style and Ideology in the Durán Illustra-
tions: An Interpretative Study of Three
Early Colonial Mexican Manuscripts. PhD
dissertation, Department of Art History,
Columbia University. Ann Arbor: University
Microfilms.
1989 Another Garden of Eden: Natural Imag-
ery in the Durán Illustrations. In I Coloquio
de Documentos Pictográficos de Tradición
Náhuatl, pp. 123–135. Mexico City: Instituto
de Investigaciones Históricos.
Coulmas, Florian
1991 The Writing Systems of the World. Oxford:
Blackwell.
2003 Writing Systems: An Introduction to Their
Linguistic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Coulter, Cornelia
1923 The Genealogy of the Gods. In Vassar
Medieval Studies, edited by Christabel
Forsyth Fiske, pp. 317–341. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Cruz, Juan de la
1571 Doctrina cristiana en la lengua guasteca
con la lengua castellana. Mexico City: Pedro
Ocharte.
Curran, Brian A.
1998 The Hypnerotomachia Poliphili and
Renaissance Egyptology. Word & Image
14(1/2):156–185.
2003 The Renaissance Afterlife of Ancient
Egypt (1400–1650). In The Wisdom of Egypt:
Changing Visions through the Ages, edited by
Peter J. Ucko and Timothy Champion, pp.
101–131. London and Portland, OR: UCL
Press, Institute of Archaeology, and Caven-
dish Pub.
2007 The Egyptian Renaissance: The Afterlife
of Ancient Egypt in Early Modern Italy. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Daly, Peter M.
1998 Literature in the Light of Emblem Studies:
Structural Parallels between the Emblem and
Literature in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Damisch, Hubert
1994 The Origin of Perspective. Translated by
John Goodman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Daniels, Peter T., and William Bright (eds.)
1996 The World’s Writing Systems. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Dávila Padilla, Agustín
1955 Historia de la fundación y discurso de la
provincia de Santiago de Mexico, de la Orden
de Predicadores. Facsimile of first edition of
1625 ed. Mexico City: Academia Literaria.
Dawson, Christopher (ed.)
1980 The Mission to Asia: Narratives and Let-
ters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia
and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Centuries. London: Sheed & Ward.
Defert, Daniel
1984 Un genre ethnographique profane au
XVIe: les livres d’habits (Essai d’ethno-
iconographie). In Histoires de l’Anthropologie
(XVIe–XIXe siècles), edited by Britta Rupp-
Eisenreich, pp. 25–41. Paris: Klincksieck.
Del Puppo, Dario
2011 All the World Is a Book: Italian Renais-
sance Printing in a Global Perspective.
Textual Cultures 6(2):1–22.
Dempsey, Charles
1988 Renaissance Hieroglyphic Studies and
Gentile Bellini’s Saint Mark Preaching in
Alexandria. In Hermeticism and the Renais-
sance: Intellectual History and the Occult
in Early Modern Europe, edited by Ingrid
Merkel and Allen G. Debus, pp. 342–365.
Washington, DC: Folger Shakespeare
Library and Associated University Presses.
Deserps, François
2001 A Collection of the Various Styles of Cloth-
ing Which Are Presently Worn in Countries of
Europe, Asia, Africa and the Savage Islands,
All Realistically Depicted. Translated by Sara
Shannon. Minneapolis: James Ford Bell
Library, University of Minnesota.
Díaz Álvarez, Ana Guadalupe
2009 La primera lámina del Códice Vaticano
A. ¿Un modelo para justificar la topografía
celestial de la antigüedad pagana indígena?
Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas
95:5–44.
Díaz del Castillo, Bernal
1933–1934 Verdadera y notable relación del
descubrimiento y conquista de la Nueva
España y Guatemala. 2 vols. Guatemala City:
Tipografia Nacional.
Dibble, Charles E.
1963 Glifos fonéticos del Códice Florentino.
Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 4:55–60.
1982a Sahagún’s Historia. In Florentine Codex:
General History of the Things of New Spain:
Introductions and Indices, edited by Arthur
J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble,
pp. 9–23. Vol. 1. Santa Fe, NM: School of
American Research and University of Utah.
1982b The Watermarks in the Florentine
Codex. In Florentine Codex: General History
of the Things of New Spain. Introductions and
Indices, edited by Arthur J. O. Anderson and
Charles E. Dibble, pp. 25–28. Vol. 1. Santa
Fe, NM: School of American Research and
University of Utah.
Diel, Lori
2018 The Codex Mexicanus: A Guide to Life in
Late Sixteenth-Century New Spain. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Diringer, David
1968 The Alphabet: A Key to the History of
Mankind. 3rd revised ed. 2 vols. New York:
Funk & Wagnalls.
Dodgson, Campbell
1934–1935 Woodcuts of the XV Century in the
Department of Prints and Drawings, British
Museum. 2 vols. London: British Museum.
Doesburg, Geert Bastiaan van
1996 Apuntaciones y pinturas de un histo-
riador: estudio de un documento colonial
que trata del calendario naua. In Codex
Ixtlilxochitl, edited by Ferdinand Anders,
Maarten Jansen, and Luis Reyes García,
pp. 7–159. Graz, Austria, and Mexico City:
Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt and
Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Domenici, Davide, and Chiara Grazia, David
Buti, Laura Cartechini, Francesca Rosi,
Francesca Gabrieli, Virginia M. Lladó-
Buisán, Aldo Romani, Antonio Sgamellotti,
and Costanza Miliani
n.d. The Painting Materials of Codex Men-
doza. In Manuscrito: Codex Mendoza, ed.
Jorge Gómez Tejada. Quito: Universidad
San Francisco de Quito (forthcoming).
Durán, Diego
1867–1880 Historia de las Indias de Nueva
España y Islas de Tierra Firme. 2 vols. Edited
by José Fernando Ramírez. Mexico City:
J. M. Andrade and F. Escalante.
1951 Historia de las Indias de Nueva España y
Islas de Tierra Firme. Facsimile of 1867–1880
References Cited • 221
 edition. Edited by José Fernando Ramírez.
2 vols. Mexico City: Editora Nacional.
1964 The Aztecs: The History of the Indies of
New Spain. Translated and edited by Doris
Heyden and Fernando Horcasitas. New
York: Orion Press.
1967 Historia de las Indias de Nueva España
e Islas de la Tierra Firme. Edited by Ángel
María Garibay K. 2 vols. Mexico City: Edi-
torial Porrúa.
1971 Book of the Gods and Rites and The
Ancient Calendar. Translated and edited by
Fernando Horcasitas and Doris Heyden.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
1994 The History of the Indies of New Spain.
Translated and edited by Doris Heyden.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
1995 Historia de las Indias de Nueva España e
Islas de Tierra Firme. Edited by Rosa Camelo
and José Rubén Romero. Cien de México.
2 vols. Mexico City: Consejo Nacional para
la Cultura y las Artes.
Durand-Forest, Jacqueline
1974 Codex Borbonicus: description codi-
cologique. In Codex Borbonicus: Bibliothèque
de l’Assemblée Nationale, Paris (Y120), edited
by Karl Anton Nowotny and Jacqueline de
Durand-Forest, pp. 27–32. Graz, Austria:
Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt.
1976 Commentaire. In Codex Ixtlilxochitl
(Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, MS mexicain
65–71), facsimile, edited by Ferdinand
Anders, pp. 3–36. Graz, Austria: Akade-
mische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt.
Edgerton, Samuel Y.
2001 Theaters of Conversion: Religious Architec-
ture and Indian Artisans in Colonial Mexico.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
Ehrle, Franz (ed.)
1900 Il manoscritto messicano Vaticano 3738
detto il Codice Rios. Rome: Stab. Danesi.
Elliott, John H.
1963 Imperial Spain, 1496–1716. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.
Ellison, Alexandra
n.d. European Framing Devices in Diego
Durán’s The History of the Indies of New
Spain. Paper written for ARHS 6730 seminar
“Mexican Manuscript Painting,” taught by
Elizabeth Boone, Tulane University, fall 2017.
Escalante Gonzalbo, Pablo
1999 Los animales del Códice Florentino en el
espejo de la tradición occidental. Arqueología
Mexicana 36(4):52–59.
2001 Tula y Jerusalem: imaginario indígena e
imaginario cristiano. In Ciudades mestizas:
intercambios y continuidades en la expan-
sión occidental: siglos XVI a XIX, edited
by Clara García Ayluardo and Manuel
222 • References Cited
Ramos Medina, pp. 77–88. Mexico City:
CONDUMEX.
2003 The Painters of Sahagún’s Manuscripts:
Mediators between Two Worlds. In Sahagún
at 500: Essays on the Quincentenary of the
Birth of Fr. Bernardino de Sahagún, edited
by John Frederick Schwaller, pp. 167–191.
Berkeley, CA: Academy of American Fran-
ciscan History.
2008 Humanismo y arte cristiano-indígena: la
cultura emblemática entre colegiales, artistas
y otros miembros de las elites nahuas del
siglo XVI. In El arte cristiano-indígena del
siglo XVI novohispano y sus modelos europeos,
edited by Pablo Escalante Gonzalbo, pp.
9–27. Cuernavaca, Mexico: Centro de Inves-
tigación y docencia en Humanidades del
Estado de Morelos.
2014 Sobre la posible presencia de los
emblemas de Andrea Alciato en el medio de
elaboración del Códice Florentino. In Los
espacios de la emblemática, edited by Herón
Pérez Martínez and Bárbara Skinfill Nogal,
pp. 159–175. Mexico City: COOLMICH.
Esmeijer, Anna
1978 Divina Quaternitas: A Preliminary Study
in the Method and Application of Visual
Exegesis. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.
Evans, Michael
1980 The Geometry of the Mind. Architectural
Association Quarterly 12(4):32–55.
Feest, Christian F.
2007 John White’s New World. In A New
World: England’s First View of America,
edited by Kim Sloan, pp. 65–77. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Fernández del Castillo, Francisco
1925 Fray Diego Durán: Aclaraciones históricas.
Anales del Museo Nacional de Arqueología,
Historia y Ethnografía, 4th epoch, 3:223–229.
Fischer, Steven R.
2003 A History of Reading. London: Reaktion
Books.
Foote, Peter G.
1996 Introduction. In A Description of the
Northern Peoples by Olaus Magnus, edited by
Peter G. Foote, pp. xxiii–xciii. Translated by
Peter Fischer and Humphrey Higgens. Peter
G. Foote, general editor. 3 vols. London:
Hakluyt Society.
Fowler, Robert L.
1997 Encyclopaedias: Definitions and Theo-
retical Problems. In Pre-Modern Encyclopae-
dic Texts: Proceedings of the Second COMERS
Congress, Groningen, 1–4 July 1996, edited by
Peter Binkley, pp. 3–29. Leiden: Brill.
Frassani, Alessia
2016 Color y monocromo en las ilustraciones
del Códice Florentino. Estudios de Cultura
Náhuatl 52:193–223.
Gante, Pedro de
1569 Cartilla para enseñar a leer, nuevamente
enmendada, y quitadas todas las abreviaturas
que antes tenia. Mexico City: Pedro Ocharte.
García Icazbalceta, Joaquín
1881 Don Fray Juan de Zumárrage, primer
obispo y arzobispo de México. Mexico City:
Antigua Librería de Andrade y Morales.
1886–1892 Nueva colección de documentos para
la historia de México. 5 vols. Mexico City:
Andrade y Morales, Sucesores.
1954 Bibliografía mexicana del siglo XVI.
Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
1981 Bibliografía mexicana del siglo XVI:
catálogo razonado de libros impresos en México
de 1539 a 1600. 2nd revised ed. Edited by
Agustín Millares Carlo. Mexico City: Fondo
de Cultura Económica.
García Martínez, Bernardo
1966 La Historia de Durán. Historia Mexicana
16(1):30–47.
Garibay K., Ángel María
1953–1954 Historia de la literatura náhuatl.
2 vols. Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa.
1956 See Sahagún 1956.
1967 Diego Durán y su obra. In Historia de las
Indias de Nueva España e Islas de la Tierra
Firme escrita por Fray Diego Durán, edited
by Ángel María Garibay K., 1:ix–xlvii. 2 vols.
Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa.
1971 Historia de la literatura náhuatl. 2nd ed.
2 vols. Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa.
1979 Teogonía e historia de los mexicanos: tres
opúsculos del siglo XVI. Mexico City: Edito-
rial Porrúa.
Garone Gravier, Marina
2011 Sahagún’s Codex and Book Design in
the Indigenous Context. In Colors between
Two Worlds: The Florentine Codex of
Bernardino de Sahagún, edited by Gerhard
Wolf and Joseph Connors, pp. 156–197.
Florence: Villa I Tatti (Harvard University
Center for Italian Renaissance Studies)
and Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz
(Max-Planck-Institut).
Gaur, Albertine
1992 A History of Writing. New York: Cross
River Press.
Gelb, Ignace
1963 Study of Writing. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Gibson, Charles
1964 The Aztecs under Spanish Rule: A His-
tory of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico,
1519–1810. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer-
sity Press.
Gibson, Charles, and John B. Glass
1975 A Census of Middle American Prose
Manuscripts in the Native Historical
Tradition. In Handbook of Middle American
 Indians, vol. 15, edited by Robert Wauchope
and Howard F. Cline, pp. 322–400. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Giehlow, Karl
1915 Die Hieroglyphenkunde des Huma­
nismus in der Allegorie der Renaissance.
Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen
des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses 32:1–218.
Giraldi, Lilio Gregorio
1548 De deis gentium, varia & multiplex
historia, in qua simul de eorum imaginib. &
cognominib. agitur, vbi plurima etiâ hactenus
multis ignota explicantur, & pleraque clarius
tractantur. Basel: Johannes Oporinus.
Glass, John B.
1975a Annotated References. In Handbook of
Middle American Indians, vol. 15, edited by
Robert Wauchope and Howard F. Cline, pp.
537–724. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1975b A Survey of Native Middle American
Pictorial Manuscripts. In Handbook of
Middle American Indians, vol. 14, edited by
Robert Wauchope and Howard F. Cline, pp.
3–80. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Glass, John B., in collaboration with Donald
Robertson
1975 A Census of Native Middle American
Pictorial Manuscripts. In Handbook of
Middle American Indians, vol. 14, edited by
Robert Wauchope and Howard F. Cline, pp.
81–296. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Gombrich, Ernst H.
1948 The Visual Image in Neo-Platonic
Thought. Journal of the Warburg and Cour-
tauld Institutes 11:163–192.
1960 Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology
of Pictorial Representation. Bollingen Series.
New York: Pantheon Books.
1976 The Heritage of Apelles: Studies in the
Art of the Renaissance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Gómez Canedo, Lino
1982 La educación de los marginados durante la
época colonial: escuelas y colegios para indios
y mestizos en la Nueva España. Mexico City:
Editorial Porrúa.
Gómez de Orozco, Federico (ed.)
1941 ¿Quién fue el autor material del Códice
Mendocino y quién su interprete? Revista
Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos 5:43–52.
1945 Costumbres, fiestas, enterramientos y
diversas formas de proceder de los indios de
Nueva España. Tlalocan 2(1):37–63.
Gómez Tejada, Jorge
2012 Making the Codex Mendoza, Construct-
ing the Codex Mendoza: A Reconsideration
of a 16th Century Mexican Manuscript. PhD
dissertation, Department of the History of
Art and Architecture, Yale University.
n.d.a The History of the Codex Mendoza. In
Manuscrito: Codex Mendoza, edited by Jorge
Gómez Tejada. Quito: Universidad San
Francisco de Quito (forthcoming).
n.d.b The Makers of the Codex Mendoza. In
Manuscrito: Codex Mendoza, edited by Jorge
Gómez Tejada. Quito: Universidad San
Francisco de Quito (forthcoming).
Gómez Tejada, Jorge (ed.)
n.d.c Manuscrito: Codex Mendoza. Quito:
Universidad San Francisco de Quito
(forthcoming).
Gonzalbo Aizpuru, Pilar
1990 Historia de la educación en la época
colonial: el mundo indígena. Historia de la
Educación. Mexico City: El Colegio de
México, Centro de Estudios Históricos.
González de Barcia, Andrés
1737 Adiciones á Antonio de León Pinelo:
epítome de la bibliotheca oriental, y occidental,
náutica y geográfica. Madrid: Francisco
Martínez Abad.
Goodall, John A.
2003 The Use of the Rebus on Medieval
Seals and Monuments. Antiquaries Journal
83:448–471.
Grafton, Anthony
1993 Foreword. In The Hieroglyphics of Hora-
pollo, edited by George Boas, pp. xi–xxxii.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Graulich, Michel
1983 Les ères ou Soleils des anciens
Mésoaméricains. Indiana 8:57–91.
Groenewegen-Frankfort, Henriette Antonia
1951 Arrest and Movement: An Essay on Space
and Time in the Representational Art of the
Ancient Near East. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Guzman, Gregory G.
1974 The Encyclopedist Vincent of Beauvais
and His Mongol Extracts from John of
Plano Carpini and Simon of Saint-Quentin.
Speculum 49(2):287–307.
Hale, John Rigby
1990 Artists and Warfare in the Renaissance.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hampe, Theodor
1994 Authentic Everyday Dress of the Renais-
sance: All 154 Plates from the “Trachtenbuch”
of Christoph Weiditz. New York: Dover.
Hamy, Ernest Théodore (ed.)
1899a Codex Borbonicus; manuscrit mexicain de
la Bibliothèque du Palais Bourbon (Livre divi-
natoire et rituel figure). Paris: Ernest Leroux.
1899b Codex Telleriano-Remensis: manuscrit
mexicain du cabinet de Ch.-M. Le Tellier,
archevêque de Reims à la Bibliothèque
Nationale—MS. Mexicain no. 385. Paris:
Duc de Loubat.
Harris, Roy
1995 Signs of Writing. London: Routledge.
Harthan, John
1981 The History of the Illustrated Book: The
Western Tradition. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Harwood, Joanne
2002 Disguising Ritual: A Re-assessment of
Part 3 of the Codex Mendoza. PhD disserta-
tion, University of Essex, UK.
n.d. The Ancient Rule for Living in the Codex
Mendoza: Part 3 as a Transformed Tonala-
matl. In Manuscrito: Codex Mendoza, edited
by Jorge Gómez Tejada. Quito: Universidad
San Francisco de Quito (forthcoming).
Heikamp, Detlef
1972 Mexico and the Medici. Florence: Edam.
Hernández de León-Portilla, Ascensión
2002 La Historia General de Sahagún a la
luz de las enciclopedias de la tradición
greco-romana. In Bernardino de Sahagún:
Quinientos años de presencia, edited by
Miguel León-Portilla, pp. 41–59. Mexico
City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México.
Herrera y Tordesilla, Antonio de
1601–1615 Historia general de los hechos de los
castellanos en las Islas y Tierra Firme del Mar
Oceano. 4 vols. Madrid: Emprenta Real.
Heuer, Christopher P.
2009 The City Rehearsed: Object, Architecture,
and Print in the Worlds of Hans Vredeman de
Vries. New York: Routledge.
Heures à l’usage de Rome
ca. 1512 Heures à l’usage de Rome. Paris: Jean
de Brie.
Heyden, Doris
1994 Translator’s Introduction. In The History
of the Indies of New Spain by Diego Durán,
translated and edited by Doris Heyden, pp.
xxv–xxxvi. Norman: University of Okla-
homa Press.
Hicks, Frederick
1987 First Steps Toward a Market-Integrated
Economy in Aztec Mexico. In Early State
Dynamics, edited by Henri J. M. Claessen
and Peiter van de Velde, pp. 91–107. Leiden:
E. J. Brill.
Hidalgo Brinquis, Ma. del Carmen, ed.
2013 Los manuscritos de la Historia general de
las cosas de la Nueva España de Bernardino de
Sahagún. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación,
Cultura y Deporte.
Higgitt, Catherine, and C. Miliani
2012 Materials and Techniques of the Pre-
Colombian Mixtec Manuscript, the Codex
Zouche-Nuttall. In MOLAB User Report.
London: British Museum. Electronic docu-
ment. Access, Research and Technology
for the Conservation of the European Cul-
tural Heritage: Structuring the European
Research Area—Research Infrastructures.
References Cited • 223
Hill, Archibald A.
1967 The Typology of Writing Systems.
In Papers in Linguistics in Honor of Leon
Dostert, edited by William A. Austin, pp.
92–99. The Hague: Mouton.
Hodgen, Margaret T.
1953 Johann Boemus (Fl. 1500): An Early
Anthropologist. American Anthropologist n.s.
55(2):284–294.
1964 Early Anthropology in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries. Philadelphia: Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Press.
1966 Ethnology in 1500: Polydore Vergil’s
Collection of Customs. Isis 57(3):315–324.
Holbrook, Sue Ellen
1998 A Medieval Scientific Encyclopedia
“Renewed by Goodly Printing”: Wynkyn De
Worde’s English De Proprietatibus Rerum.
Early Science and Medicine 3(2):119–155.
Holt, Elizabeth Gilmore (ed.)
1981–1982 A Documentary History of Art. 2 vols.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Honour, Hugh
1975 The New Golden Land: European Images
of America from the Discoveries to the Present
Time. New York: Pantheon Books.
1979 Science and Exoticism: The European
Artist and the Non-European World
before Johan Maurits. In Johan Maurits van
Nassau-Siegen 1604–1679: A Humanist Prince
in Europe and Brazil, Essays on the Occasion
of the Tercentenary of his Death, edited by
E. v. d. Boogaart, H. R. Hoctink, and P. J. P.
Whitehead, pp. 269–296. The Hague: Johan
Marits an Nassau Stichtung.
Höper, C.
2003 Enea Vico. In Grove Art Online: https://
doi.org/10.1093/gao/9781884446054.article.
T089243. Accessed October 18, 2019.
Horcasitas, Fernando, and Doris Heyden
1971 Fray Diego Durán: His Life and Works.
In Book of the Gods and Rites and The
Ancient Calendar by Diego Durán, translated
and edited by Fernando Horcasitas and
Doris Heyden, pp. 3–47. Norman: Univer-
sity of Oklahoma Press.
Howe, Kathleen Stewart
1992 The Relationship of Indigenous and
European Styles in the Codex Mendoza:
An Analysis of Pictorial Style. In The Codex
Mendoza, edited by Frances F. Berdan and
Patricia Rieff Anawalt, pp. 25–33. Vol. 1.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Huizinga, Johan
1952 Erasmus of Rotterdam: With a Selection from
the Letters of Erasmus. London: Phaidon Press.
Humboldt, Alexander von
1810 Vues des cordillères, et monumens des
peuples indigènes de l’Amérique. Paris: Chez
F. Schoell.
224 • References Cited
Hyginus, Mythographus, et al.
1681 Mythographi Latini: C. Jul. Hyginus. Fab.
Planciades Fulgentius, Lactantius Placidus,
Albricus, Philosophus. 2 vols. Amsterdam: ex
Officina viduae Joannis à Someren.
Ilg, Ulrike
2004 The Cultural Significance of Costume
Books in Sixteenth-Century Europe. In
Clothing Culture, 1350–1650, edited by Cath-
erine Richardson, pp. 29–47. Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate.
Isidore
2006 The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Iversen, Erik
1961 The Myth of Egypt and Its Hieroglyphs in
European Tradition. Copenhagen: Gec Gad
Publishers.
Ivins, William M., Jr.
1938 On the Rationalization of Sight: With an
Examination of Three Renaissance Texts on
Perspective. Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Papers. New York: Metropolitan Museum
of Art.
Jansen, Maarten E.R.G.N.
1984 El Códice Ríos y Fray Pedro de los Ríos.
Boletín de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del
Caribe 36:69–81.
Jansen, Maarten E.R.G.N., and Gabina Aurora
Pérez Jiménez
2017 Time and the Ancestors: Aztec and Mixtec
Ritual Art. Leiden: Brill.
2019 Chronological Correlations in Aztec
and Mixtec History. In Mesoamerican
Manuscripts: New Scientific Approaches and
Interpretations, edited by Maarten E.R.G.N
Jansen, Virginia M. Lladó-Buisán, and Ludo
Snijders, pp. 341–379. Leiden: Brill.
Jiménez Moreno, Wigberto
1938 Fray Bernardino de Sahagún y su obra. In
Historia general de las cosas de Nueva España,
edited by Joaquín Ramírez Cabañas, pp.
xiii–lxxxiv. Vol. 1. Mexico City: P. Robredo.
Johannesson, Kurt
1991 The Renaissance of the Gods in Sixteenth-
Century Sweden: Johannes and Olaus Magnus
as Politicians and Historians. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press.
Johansson K., Patrick
2002 La Historia General: un encuentro de dos
sistemas cognitivos. In Bernardino de Sahagún:
quinientos años de presencia, edited by Miguel
León-Portilla, pp. 185–219. Mexico City:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
2011 Las estrategias discursivas de Sahagún
en una refutación en náhuatl del libro I
del Códice florentino. Estudios de Cultura
Náhuatl 42:139–165.
Jones, Ann Rosalind
2006 Habits, Holdings, Heterologies:
Populations in Print in a 1562 Costume
Book. In Meaning and Its Objects: Material
Culture in Medieval and Renaissance France,
edited by Margaret Burland, David LaGuar-
dia, and Andrea Tarnowski, pp. 92–121.
Yale French Studies 110. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Jones, Ann Rosalind, and Peter Stallybrass
2000 Renaissance Clothing and the Materials of
Memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Jonghe, Edouard de
1905 Histoyre du Mechique, manuscrit fran-
çais inédit du XVI siècle. Journal de la Société
des Américanistes n.s., 2:1–41.
Karttunen, Frances
1995 From Court Yard to the Seat of Govern-
ment: The Career of Antonio Valeriano,
Nahua Colleague of Bernardino de Sahagún.
Amerindia 19/20:113–120.
Kauffman, Thomas Da Costa
1975 The Perspective of Shadows: The History
of the Theory of Shadow Projection. Journal
of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
38:258–287.
Keen, Elizabeth
2007 The Journey of a Book: Bartholomew the
Englishman and the Properties of Things.
Canberra: Australian National University.
Kingsborough, [Edward King] Lord
1831–1848 Antiquities of Mexico. 9 vols.
London: Robert Havell and Conaghi.
Kircher, Athanasius
1652–1654 Oedipus Aegyptiacus. Rome: V.
Mascardi.
Klein, Cecelia F.
2016 Death in the Hands of Strangers: Aztec
Human Sacrifice in the Western Imagina-
tion. In Altera Roma: Art and Empire from
Mérida to Mexico, edited by John M. D. Pohl
and Claire L. Lyons, pp. 257–311. Los Ange-
les: University of California at Los Angeles,
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
Kobayashi, José María
1974 La educación como conquista (empresa fran-
ciscana en México). Mexico City: El Colegio
de México, Centro de Estudios Históricos.
Koreny, Fritz
2000 Venice and Dürer. In Renaissance Venice
and the North: Crosscurrents in the Time of
Bellini, Dürer and Titian, edited by Bernard
Aikema and Beverly Louise Brown, pp.
240–331. New York: Rizzoli International
Publications.
Kubler, George
1948 Mexican Architecture of the Sixteenth
Century. 2 vols. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Kubler, George, and Charles Gibson
1951 The Tovar Calendar. Memoirs of the
 Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences.
New Haven, CT: Connecticut Academy of
Arts and Sciences.
Kubler, George, and Martin Soria
1959 Art and Architecture in Spain and Portugal
and Their American Dominions, 1500–1800.
Baltimore: Penguin Books.
Kusukawa, Sachiko
2012 Picturing the Book of Nature: Image, Text,
and Argument in Sixteenth-Century Human
Anatomy and Medical Botany. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lacadena, Alfonso
2008 Regional Scribal Traditions: Method-
ological Implications for the Decipherment
of Nahuatl Writing. PARI Journal 8(4):1–23.
Lafaye, Jacques
1970 Le Manuscrit Tovar de la John Carter
Brown Library: Attribution et filiation.
Mélanges de la Casa de Velázquez 6:359–371.
1972a Introduction. In Manuscrit Tovar: origi-
nes et croyances des indiens du Mexique, edited
by Jacques Lafaye, pp. 9*–73*. Graz, Austria:
Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt.
1972b Manuscrit Tovar: origines et croyances des
indiens du Mexique. Graz, Austria: Akade-
mische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt.
Laird, Andrew
2016a Aztec and Roman Gods in Sixteenth-
Century Mexico: Strategic Uses of Classical
Learning in Sahagún’s Historia General. In
Altera Roma: Art and Empire from Mérida to
Mexico, edited by John M. D. Pohl and Claire
L. Lyons, pp. 167–187. Los Angeles: UCLA
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
2016b Nahua Humanism and Ethnohistory:
Antonio Valeriano and a Letter from
the Rulers of Azcapotzalco to Philip II,
1561. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 52
( June–December):23–74.
las Casas, Bartolomé de
1967 Apologética historia sumaria. 2 vols. Mex-
ico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México.
Laurencich Minelli, Laura
1999 A Note on the Mesoamerican Codex
Cospi. Journal de la Société des Américanistes
85:375–386.
Leitch, Stephanie
2010 Mapping Ethnography in Early Modern
Germany: New Worlds in Print Culture. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lejarza, Fidel de
1948 Franciscanismo de Cortés y Corte-
sianismo de los Franciscanos. Missionalia
Hispanica 5(13):43–136.
Leonard, Irving Albert
1992 Books of the Brave: Being an Account of
Books and of Men in the Spanish Conquest
and Settlement of the Sixteenth-Century New
World. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
León-Portilla, Miguel
1969 Ramírez de Fuenlean y las antigüedades
mexicanos. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 8:9–49.
1971 Foreword. In Book of the Gods and Rites
and The Ancient Calendar by Diego Durán,
translated and edited by Fernando Horcasi-
tas and Doris Heyden, pp. v–vii. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
1987 Bernardino de Sahagún. Madrid: Historia
16 y Quorum.
2001 Antonio Valeriano de Azcapotzalco:
un filólogo nahua del siglo XVI. In
Filología mexicana, edited by Fernando
Curiel Defossé and Belem Clark de Lara,
pp. 383–405. Mexico City: Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de
Investigaciones Filológicas.
2002 Bernardino de Sahagún: First Anthropolo-
gist. Translated by Mauricio J. Mixco. Nor-
man: University of Oklahoma Press.
Lockhart, James
1992 The Nahuas after the Conquest. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
López, P. Atanasio
1920 Los primeros Franciscanos in Méjico.
Archivo Ibero-Americano 13:21–28, 105–111.
1925 Cuestionario histórico: ¿Escribió Fray
Toribio Motolinía una obra intitulada
“Guerra de los indios de la Nueva España
o Historia de la conquesta de México”?
Archivo Ibero-Americano 23:221–247.
López Austin, Alfredo
1974 The Research Method of Fray Bernardino
de Sahagún: The Questionnaires. In Sixteenth-
Century Mexico: The Work of Sahagún, edited
by Munro S. Edmonson, pp. 111–149. School of
American Research Advanced Seminar Series,
Douglas Schwartz, general editor. Albuquer-
que: University of New Mexico Press.
2016 La cosmovisión de la tradición
mesoamericana, segunda parte. Arqueología
Mexicana (special edition) 69:7–89.
Loubat, Duc de (ed.)
1904 Codex Magliabecchiano XIII, 3, Manuscrit
mexicain post-colombien de la bibliothèque
nationale de Florence. Rome: Duc de Loubat.
Lovett, A. W.
1986 Early Habsburg Spain, 1517–1598. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Luper, David A.
2006 Romans in a New World: Classical Models
in Sixteenth-Century Spanish America. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lynch, John
1981 Spain under the Habsburgs. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid
2004 The Reformation. New York: Viking.
Magallón, Manuel (ed.)
1914 Crónica de la Nueva España que escribió el
Dr. D. Francisco Cervantes de Salazar, cronista
de la imperial ciudad de México. Madrid:
Hispanic Society of America.
1971 Francisco Cervantes de Salazar: Crónica
de la Nueva España. Biblioteca de Autores
Españoles. 2 vols. Madrid: Ediciones Atlas.
Magaloni Kerpel, Diana
2003 Visualizing the Nahua/Christian
Dialogue: Images of the Conquest in
Sahagún’s Florentine Codex and Their
Sources. In Sahagún at 500: Essays on the
Quincentenary of the Birth of Fr. Bernardino
de Sahagún, edited by John Frederick
Schwaller, pp. 193–221. Berkeley, CA:
Academy of American Franciscan History.
2006 Real and Illusory Feathers: Pigments,
Painting Techniques, and the Use of Color
in Ancient Mesoamerica. In Nuevo Mundo
Mundos Nuevos, Coloquios ( January 25,
2006): http://journals.openedition.org
/nuevomundo/1462; DOI: 10.4000
/nuevomundo.1462.
2008 Painting a New Era: Conquest,
Prophecy, and the World to Come. In
Invasion and Transformation: Interdisciplinary
Perspectives on the Conquest of Mexico, edited
by Rebecca Brienen and Margaret Jackson,
pp. 125–149. Boulder: University Press of
Colorado.
2011a History under the Rainbow: The Con-
quest of Mexico in the Florentine Codex.
In Contested Visions in the Spanish Colonial
World, edited by Ilona Katzew, pp. 79–95.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2011b Painters of the New World: The Process
of Making the Florentine Codex. In Colors
between Two Worlds: The Florentine Codex of
Bernardino de Sahagún, edited by Gerhard
Wolf and Joseph Connors, pp. 46–76.
Florence: Villa I Tatti (Harvard University
Center for Italian Renaissance Studies)
and Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz
(Max-Planck-Institut).
2019 Powerful Words and Eloquent Images.
In The Florentine Codex: An Encyclopedia
of the Nahua World in Sixteenth-Century
Mexico, edited by Jeanette Favrot Peterson
and Kevin Terraciano, pp. 152–164. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Magnus, Olaus
1555 Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus.
Rome: Apud Ioannem Mariam de Viottis
Parmensem.
1996 A Description of the Northern Peoples.
Translated by Peter Fischer and Humphrey
Higgens. 3 vols. London: Hakluyt Society.
Maltby, William S.
1996 Spain. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the
References Cited • 225
 Reformation, edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand,
4:92–96. 4 vols. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Manning, John
1999 Renaissance and Baroque Symbol
Theory: Some Introductory Questions and
Problems. In Aspects of Renaissance and
Baroque Symbol Theory, 1500–1700, edited
by Peter M. Daly and John Manning, pp.
xi–xxii. New York: AMS Press.
Marchetti, Magda
1983 Hacia la edición crítica de la “Historia”
de Sahagún. Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos
396:505–540.
Markey, Lia
2011 “Istoria della terra chiamata la nuova
spagna”: The History and Reception of
Sahagún’s Codex at the Medici Court. In
Colors between Two Worlds: The Florentine
Codex of Bernardino de Sahagún, edited by
Gerhard Wolf and Joseph Connors, pp.
198–218. Florence: Villa I Tatti (Harvard
University Center for Italian Renaissance
Studies) and Kunsthistorisches Institut in
Florenz (Max-Planck-Institut).
2016 Imagining the Americas in Medici Flor-
ence. University Park: Pennsylvania State
University Press.
Marr, John S., and James B. Kiracofe
2000 Was the Huey Cocoliztli a Haemor-
rhagic Fever? Medical History 44:341–362.
Martínez, José Luis
1982 El “Códice Florentino” y la “Historia
General” de Sahagún. Mexico City: Archivo
General de la Nación.
Martyr d’Anghiera, Peter
1912 De Orbe Novo: The Eight Decades of
Peter Martyr D’Anghera. Edited by Francis
Augustus MacNutt. 2 vols. New York: G. P.
Putnam’s Sons.
Mason, Peter
1998 Infelicities: Representations of the Exotic.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Massing, Jean Michel
1992 Early European Images of America: The
Ethnographic Approach. In Circa 1492: Art
in the Age of Discovery, edited by Jay A. Lev-
enson, pp. 514–520. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Mathes, Miguel [W. Michael]
1982 Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco: la primera biblio-
teca académica de las Américas. Mexico City:
Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores.
Máynez, Pilar
2002 El Calepino de Sahagún: un acerca-
miento. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México and Fondo de Cultura
Económica.
Mayor, A. Hyatt
1971 Prints and People: A Social History of
226 • References Cited
Printed Pictures. New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art.
McAndrew, John
1965 The Open-Air Churches of Sixteenth-
Century Mexico: Atrios, Posas, Open Chapels,
and Other Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Medina, José Toribio
1913–1920 El descubrimiento del océano pací-
fico: Vasco Núñez de Balboa, Hernando de
Magallanes y sus compañeros. 3 vols. Santiago
de Chile: Imprenta Universitaria.
Meier, Christel
2004 On the Connection between
Epistemology and Encyclopedic Ordo in
the Middle Ages and the Early Modern
Period. In Schooling and Society: The
Ordering and Re­ordering of Knowledge in the
Western Middle Ages, edited by Alasdair
A. MacDonald and Michael W. Twomey,
pp. 93–114. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters.
Mena, Ramón
1926 Filigranas, o, marcas transparentes en
papeles de Nueva España del siglo XVI.
Monografías Bibliográficas Mejicanas.
Mexico City: Imprenta de la Secretaria de
Relaciones Exteriores.
Mendieta, Gerónimo de
1892 Códice Mendieta: documentos franciscanos,
siglos XVI y XVII. Edited by Joaquín García
Icazbalceta. Nueva colección de documen-
tos para la historia de México 4–5. 2 vols.
Mexico City: Andrade y Morales, Sucesores.
1971 Historia eclesiástica indiana (1596). Edited
by Joaquín García Icazbalceta. Facsimile of
1870 edition. Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa.
Miliani, C., D. Domenici, C. Clementi,
F. Presciutti, F. Rose, D. Buti, A. Romani,
L. Laurencich Minelli, and A. Sgamellotti
2012 Colouring Materials of Pre-Columbian
Codices: Non-invasive in Situ Spectroscopic
Analysis of the Codex Cospi. Journal of
Archaeological Science 39(3):672–679.
Mills, Kenneth, and William B. Taylor
1998 Colonial Spanish America: A Documen-
tary History. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly
Resources.
Milne, Michael Geo
1984 Diego Durán: Historia de las Indias de
Nueva España (Spain, Mexico). PhD disser-
tation, Romance Languages and Literatures:
Spanish, University of Michigan. Ann
Arbor: University Microfilms, Proquest.
Moffitt, John F. (ed.)
2004 A Book of Emblems: The Emblematum
liber in Latin and English, by Andrea Alciati.
Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
Mohar Betancourt, Luz María
1990 La escritura en el México antiguo. 2 vols.
Mexico City: Plaza y Valdés.
Montes Bardo, Joaquín
1998 Arte y espiritualidad franciscana en la
Nueva España: siglo XVI, iconología en la
provincia del Santo Evangelio. Jaén, Spain:
Universidad de Jaeín.
Montoro, Gláucia Cristiani
2010 Estudio codicológico del Códice
Telleriano-Remensis. Revista Española de
Antropología Americana 40(2):167–187.
Morales, Francisco
2008 The Native Encounter with
Christianity: Franciscans and Nahuas in
Sixteenth-Century Mexico. The Americas
65(2):137–159.
Moreno de los Arcos, Roberto
1967 Los cinco soles cosmogónicos. Estudios de
Cultura Náhuatl 7:183–210.
Motolinía, Toribio
1951 Motolinía’s History of the Indians of New
Spain. Translated and edited by Francis
Borgia Steck. Publications of the Academy
of American Franciscan History, Documen-
tary Series 1. Washington, DC: Academy of
American Franciscan History.
1971 Memoriales o Libro de las cosas de la Nueva
España y de los naturales de ella. Edited by
Edmundo O’Gorman. Mexico City: Uni-
versidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas.
Muñoz, Diego
1922 Descripción de la Provincia de los Após-
toles San Pedro y San Pablo en las Indias
de Nueva España. Archivo Ibero-Americano
9:383–425.
Murphy, Trevor
2004 Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The
Empire in the Encyclopedia. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Navarro, Federico (ed.)
1970 El catecismo de Fray Pedro de Gante.
Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia.
Nazir, Tatjana A., and Anke Huckauf
2008 The Visual Skill “Reading.” In Single-
Word Reading: Behavioral and Biological
Perspectives, edited by Elena L. Grigorenko
and Adam J. Naples, pp. 25–42. New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nicholson, H. B.
1973 Sahagún’s “Primeros memoriales,”
Tepepulco 1559–1561. In Handbook of Middle
American Indians, vol. 13, edited by Howard
F. Cline, pp. 207–218. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
1974 Some Remarks on the Provenience of
the Codex Borbonicus. Adeva Mitteilungen
40: 14–18.
1988a The Iconography of the Deity Repre-
sentations in Fray Bernardino de Sahagún’s
Primeros Memoriales: Huitzilopochtli and
Chalchiuhtlicue. In The Work of Bernardino
 de Sahagún: Pioneer Ethnographer of
Sixteenth-Century Mexico, edited by J. Jorge
Klor de Alva, H. B. Nicholson, and Eloise
Quiñones Keber, pp. 229–253. Albany: Insti-
tute for Mesoamerican Studies, University
at Albany, State University of New York.
1988b The Provenience of the Codex Borboni-
cus: An Hypothesis. In Smoke and Mist:
Mesoamerican Studies in Memory of Thelma
D. Sullivan, edited by J. Kathryn Josserand
and Karen Dakin, 1:77–97. BAR Inter­
national Series. 2 vols. Oxford: BAR.
1992 The History of the Codex Mendoza.
In The Codex Mendoza, edited by Frances F.
Berdan and Patricia Rieff Anawalt, pp. 1–11.
Vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
1997 Introduction. In Primeros Memoriales by
Bernardino de Sahagún: Paleography of Nahuatl
Text and English Translation by Thelma D.
Sullivan: Completed and Revised with Additions
by H. B. Nicholson and Others, pp. 3–14. Nor-
man: University of Oklahoma Press.
2001 Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl: Once and Future
Lord of the Toltecs. Boulder: University Press
of Colorado.
2002 Representing the Veintena Ceremonies
in the Primeros Memoriales. In Representing
Aztec Ritual: Performance, Text, and Image
in the Work of Sahagún, edited by Eloise
Quiñones Keber, pp. 63–106. Boulder: Uni-
versity Press of Colorado.
2003 Sahagún’s Itemization of the Structure
of the Templo Mayor Precinct of Mexico-
Tenochtitlan: “Legend” of a Lost Diagram?
In Sahagún at 500: Essays on the Quin-
centenary of the Birth of Fr. Bernardino de
Sahagún, edited by John Frederick Schwaller,
pp. 255–263. Berkeley, CA: Academy of
American Franciscan History.
Nicolau D’Olwer, Luis
1952 Fray Bernardino de Sahagún (1499–1590).
Colección Historiadores de América.
Mexico City: Instituto Panamericano de
Geografía e Historia.
1987 Fray Bernardino de Sahagún (1499–1590).
Translated by Mauricio J. Mixco. Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press.
Nicolau D’Olwer, Luis, and Howard Cline
1973 Sahagún and His Work. In Handbook of
Middle American Indians, edited by Howard
F. Cline, pp. 186–207. Vol. 13. Austin: Univer-
sity of Texas Press.
Nielsen, Jesper, and Toke Sellner Reunert
2009 Dante’s Heritage: Questioning the
Multi-layered Model of the Mesoamerican
Universe. Antiquity 83:399–413.
2015 Estratos, regiones e híbridos: una recon-
sideración de la cosmología mesoamericana.
In Cielos e inframundos: una revisión de
las cosmologías, edited by Ana Díaz, pp.
25–64. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México, Fideicomiso Felipe y
Monserrat Alfau de Teixidor.
Nowotny, Karl Anton
1974 Herkunft und Inhalt des Codex
Borbonicus. In Codex Borbonicus:
Bibliothèque de l’Assemblée Nationale, Paris
(Y120), edited by Karl Anton Nowotny and
Jacqueline de Durand-Forest, pp. 11–25.
Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- u.
Verlagsanstalt.
Nowotny, Karl Anton, and Jacqueline de
Durand-Forest. 1974. Codex Borbonicus:
Bibliothèque de l’Assemblée Nationale, Paris
(Y120). Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck-
u. Verlagsanstalt.
Nuttall, Zelia
1903 Introduction. In The Book of the Life of the
Ancient Mexicans (Codex Magliabechi XIII,
11, 3), edited by Zelia Nuttall, pp. vii–xix.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ogg, Oscar
1953 Three Classics of Italian Calligraphy: An
Unabridged Reissue of the Writing Books of
Arrighi, Tagliente and Palatino. New York:
Dover.
O’Gorman, Edmundo
1971 Estudio analítico de los escritos históricos
de Motolinía. In Memoriales o Libro de las
cosas de la Nueva España y de los naturales de
ella, by Fray Toribio de Benavente o Motolinia,
pp. xv–cxxxi. Mexico City: Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de
Investigaciones Históricas.
Olivier, Guilhem
2002 El panteón en la Historia General de las
cosas de Nueva España de Fray Bernardino
de Sahagún. In Bernardino de Sahagún:
Quinientos años de presencia, edited by
Miguel León-Portilla, pp. 61–80. Mexico
City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México.
2010 El panteón mexica a la luz del politeísmo
grecolatino: el ejemplo de la obra de fray
Bernardino de Sahagún. Studi e Materiali di
Storia delle Religioni 76(2):389–410.
2016 The Mexican Pantheon in Light of
Graeco-Roman Polytheism: Uses, Abuses,
and Proposals. In Altera Roma: Art and
Empire from Mérida to Mexico, edited by
John M. D. Pohl and Claire L. Lyons, pp.
189–214. Los Angeles: UCLA Cotsen Insti-
tute of Archaeology Press.
Olson, David R.
1994 The World on Paper: The Conceptual and
Cognitive Implications of Writing and Read-
ing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olton, Elizabeth
2010 To Shepherd the Empire: The Catafalque
of Charles V in Mexico City. In Hispanic
Issues On Line 7: 10–26. http://
hispanicissues.umn.edu/DeathAfterlife.
html. Accessed October 19, 2019.
Ong, Walter J.
1967 The Presence of the Word. New Haven,
NJ: Yale University Press.
1982 Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of
the Word. London: Methuen.
Osgood, Charles
1956 Boccaccio on Poetry: Being the Preface and
the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Books of Boc-
caccio’s “Genealogia deorum gentilium” in an
English Version. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Palatino, Giovanni Battista
1540 Libro nuove d’imparare a scrivere tutte
sorte lettere antiche et moderne di tutte nationi,
. . . con un breve et utile trattato de le cifere.
Rome: Antonio Blado Asolano.
Palmeri Capesciotti, Ilaria
2001 La fauna del libro XI del Códice
florentino de fray Bernardino de Sahagún:
dos sistemas taxonómicos frente a frente.
Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 32:189–221.
Panofsky, Erwin
1991 Perspective as Symbolic Form. New York
and Boston: Zone Books and MIT Press.
Pardo, Osvaldo
2004 The Origins of Mexican Catholicism:
Nahua Rituals and Christian Sacraments
in Sixteenth-Century Mexico. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Parkes, Malcolm B.
1993 Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the
History of Punctuation in the West. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Parshall, Peter W., and Ranier Schoch, with
David S. Areford, Richard S. Field, and
Peter Schmidt
2005 Origins of European Printmaking:
Fifteenth-Century Woodcuts and the Public.
Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art.
Paso y Troncoso, Francisco del
1896 Études sur le codex mexicain du
P. Sahagún conservé à la Bibliothèque
Mediceo-Laurenziana de Florence. Rivista
delle Biblioteche e degli Archivi 7:171–174.
1898 Descripción, historia y exposición del Códice
pictórico de los antiguos náuas que se conserva
en la Biblioteca de la Cámara de Diputados
de París (antiguo Palais Bourbon). Florence:
Salvador Landi.
1979 Descripción, historia y exposición del Códice
Borbónico. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno.
Paso y Troncoso, Francisco del (ed.)
1914–1936 Crónica de Nueva España escrita
por el Doctor y Maestro Francisco Cervantes
de Salazar, cronista de la ciudad de México.
Papeles de Nueva España, 3rd ser., Historia.
3 vols. Madrid and Mexico City: Hauser y
References Cited • 227
 Menet and Museo Nacional de Arqueología,
Historia y Etnografía.
Paso y Troncoso, Francisco del, and Jesús
Galindo y Villa (eds.)
1925 Colección de Mendoza o Códice Men-
docino: documento mexicano del siglo XVI
que se conserva en la Biblioteca Bodleiana en
Oxford, Inglaterra. Facsimile. Mexico City:
Museo Nacional.
Peperstraete, Sylvie
2007 La “Crónica X”: reconstitution et analyse
d’une source perdue fondamentale sur las
civilisation Aztèque, d’après l’Historia de las
Indias de Nueva España de D. Durán (1581)
et la Crónica Mexicana de F. A. Tezozomoc
(ca. 1598). BAR International Series. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Pereda, Felipe
2000 La arquitectura elocuente: el edificio de
la Universidad de Salamanca bajo el reinado
de Carlos V. Madrid: Sociedad Estatal para
la Conmemoración de los Centenarios de
Felipe II y Carlos V.
Peterson, Jeanette Favrot
1988 The Florentine Codex Imagery and the
Colonial Tlacuilo. In The Work of Bernardino
de Sahagún: Pioneer Ethnographer of Sixteenth-
Century Mexico, edited by J. Jorge Klor de
Alva, H. B. Nicholson, and Eloise Quiñones
Keber, pp. 273–293. Albany: Institute for
Mesoamerican Studies, University at Albany,
State University of New York.
2003 Crafting the Self: Identity and the
Mimetic Tradition in the Florentine Codex.
In Sahagún at 500: Essays on the Quin-
centenary of the Birth of Fr. Bernardino de
Sahagún, edited by John Frederick Schwaller,
pp. 223–253. Berkeley, CA: Academy of
American Franciscan History.
2017 Translating the Sacred: The Peripatetic
Print and Sahagún’s Florentine Codex,
Mexico (1575–77). In Intersections: The
Global Republic of Sacred Things, edited by
Mia M. Mochizuki and Christine Göttler,
pp. 187–214. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.
2019 Rhetoric as Acculturation: The Anoma-
lous Book 6. In The Florentine Codex: An
Encyclopedia of the Nahua World in Sixteenth-
Century Mexico, edited by Jeanette Favrot
Peterson and Kevin Terraciano, pp. 167–183.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Peterson, Jeanette Favrot, and Kevin Terraciano
(eds.)
2019 The Florentine Codex: An Encyclopedia
of the Nahua World in Sixteenth-Century
Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Phelan, John Leddy
1970 The Millennial Kingdom of the Franciscans
in the New World. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
228 • References Cited
Phillips, Margaret Mann
1965 Erasmus and the Northern Renaissance.
New York: Collier Books.
Pliny
1938 Natural History. Loeb Classical Library.
10 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Ponce de León, Pedro
1953 Breve relación de los dioses y ritos de la
gentilidad, por Pedro Ponce, beneficiado
que fue del partido de Tzumpahuacan. In
Tratado de las idolatrías, supersticiones, dioses,
ritos, hechicerías y otras costumbres gentílicas
de las razas aborígenes de México, edited by
Francisco del Paso y Troncoso, pp. 369–380.
2nd ed. Vol. 1. Mexico City: Ediciones
Fuente Cultural.
Pottier, Fabien
2017 Étude des matières picturales du Codex
Borbonicus: apport des spectroscopies non-
invasives à la codicologie. Thesis, Université
de Cergy-Pontoise, Cergy-Pontoise, France.
Pottier, Fabien, Anne Michelin, Salomon
Kwimang, Christine Andraud, Fabrice Gou-
bard, and Bertrand Lavédrine
2019 Macroscopic Reflectance Spectral Imag-
ing to Reveal Multiple and Complementary
Types of Information for Non-invasive
Study of an Entire Polychrome Manuscript.
Journal of Cultural Heritage 35:1–15.
Pottier, Fabien, Anne Michelin, Aurélie Tournié,
Christine Andraud, Fabrice Goubard,
Ludovic Bellot-Gurlet, Anne Genachte-Le
Bail, and Bertrand Lavédrine
n.d. Non-invasive Characterization of Organic
Colorant-Based Paints of Prehispanic Meso-
america: The Colors of the Codex Borboni-
cus. Proceedings of the 34th DHA Conference,
Thessaloniki, October 21–24, 2015.
Prem, Hanns J.
1991 Disease Outbreaks in Central Mexico
during the Sixteenth Century. In The Secret
Judgments of God: Old World Disease in
Colonial Spanish America, edited by Noble
David Cook and George Lovell, pp. 20–48.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
1992 Aztec Writing. In Supplement to the
Handbook of Middle American Indians:
Epigraphy, edited by Victoria R. Bricker,
pp. 53–69. Vol. 5. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Purchase, Samuel
1625 Hakluytus Posthumus: Or, Purchase His
Pilgrimages. 4 vols. W. London: Stansby for
H. Fethershone.
Quiñones Keber, Eloise
1987a The Codex Telleriano-Remensis and
Codex Vaticanus A: Thompson’s Prototype
Reconsidered. Mexicon 9(1):8–16.
1987b From Tollan to Tlapallan: The Tale of
Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl in the Codex Vati-
canus A. Latin American Indian Literatures
Journal 3(1):76–94.
1988a Appendix: The Sahaguntine Corpus: A
Bibliographic Index of Extant Documents.
In The Work of Bernardino de Sahagún:
Pioneer Ethnographer of Sixteenth-Century
Aztec Mexico, edited by Jorge Klor de Alva,
H. B. Nicholson, and Eloise Quiñones
Keber, pp. 341–345. Albany: Institute for
Mesoamerican Studies, University at Albany,
State University of New York.
1988b Deity Images and Texts in the Prim-
eros Memoriales and Florentine Codex.
In The Work of Bernardino de Sahagún:
Pioneer Ethnographer of Sixteenth-Century
Mexico, edited by J. Jorge Klor de Alva,
H. B. Nicholson, and Eloise Quiñones
Keber, pp. 255–272. Albany: Institute for
Mesoamerican Studies, University at Albany,
State University of New York.
1988c Reading Images: The Making and
Meaning of the Sagahuntine Illustrations.
In The Work of Bernardino de Sahagún:
Pioneer Ethnographer of Sixteenth-Century
Mexico, edited by J. Jorge Klor de Alva,
H. B. Nicholson, and Eloise Quiñones
Keber, pp. 199–210. Albany: Institute for
Mesoamerican Studies, University at Albany,
State University of New York.
1995a Codex Telleriano-Remensis: Ritual,
Divination, and History in a Pictorial Aztec
Manuscript. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
1995b Collecting Cultures: A Mexican Manu-
script in the Vatican Library. In Reframing
the Renaissance: Visual Culture in Europe and
Latin America 1450–1650, edited by Claire
Farago, pp. 228–242, 335–337. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
1995c Painting the Nahua Universe: Cosmol-
ogy and Cosmogony in the Codex Vaticanus
A. Part 1: Introduction and Translation.
Latin American Indian Literatures Journal
11:183–205.
1996 Creating the Cosmos: The Myth of
the Four Suns in the Codex Vaticanus A.
Latin American Indian Literatures Journal
12(2):192–211.
1997 An Introduction to the Images, Artists,
and Physical Features of the Primeros Memo-
riales. In Primeros Memoriales by Bernardino
de Sahagún: Paleography of Nahuatl Text and
English Translation by Thelma D. Sullivan:
Completed and Revised with Additions by
H. B. Nicholson and Others, pp. 15–51. Nor-
man: University of Oklahoma Press.
2002 Painting Divination in the Florentine
Codex. In Representing Aztec Ritual: Per-
formance, Text, and Image in the Work of
 Sahagún, edited by Eloise Quiñones Keber,
pp. 251–276. Boulder: University Press of
Colorado.
Raby, Julian
1991 Picturing the Levant. In Circa 1492: Art
in the Age of Exploration, edited by Jay A.
Levenson, pp. 77–81. Washington, DC:
National Gallery of Art.
Raforth, Bennett A.
1988 Discourse Community: Where Writers,
Readers, and Texts Come Together. In The
Social Construction of Written Communication,
edited by Bennett A. Raforth and Donald L.
Rubin, pp. 131–146. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ramírez, José Fernando
1867 Introducción. In Historia de las Indias de
Nueva España y Islas de Tierra Firme, edited
by José Fernando Ramírez, pp. iii–xvi. Vol. 1.
Mexico City: J. M. Andrade and F. Escalante.
Ramírez Cabañas, Joaquín
1938 See Sahagún 1938.
Rao, Ida Giovanna
2011 Mediceo Palatino 218–220 of the Biblio-
teca Medicea Laurenziana of Florence. In
Colors between Two Worlds: The Florentine
Codex of Bernardino de Sahagún, edited by
Gerhard Wolf and Joseph Connors, pp.
26–45. Florence: Villa I Tatti (Harvard
University Center for Italian Renaissance
Studies) and Kunsthistorisches Institut in
Florenz (Max-Planck-Institut).
Reina, B.
1925 Algunas observaciones acerca del Códice
Vaticano 3738 o Códice Ríos. El México
Antiguo 2:212–219.
Resines, Luis
1997 La catequesis en España: historia y textos.
Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos.
Rey, Arnaud, Johannes C. Ziegler, and Arthur
M. Jacobs
2000 Graphemes Are Perceptual Reading
Units. Cognition 75(1):B1–B12.
Reyes Equiguas, Salvador
2011 Plants and Colors in the Florentine
Codex. In Colors between Two Worlds: The
Florentine Codex of Bernardino de Sahagún,
edited by Gerhard Wolf and Joseph Con-
nors, pp. 134–155. Florence: Villa I Tatti
(Harvard University Center for Italian
Renaissance Studies) and Kunsthistorisches
Institut in Florenz (Max-Planck-Institut).
Reyes García, Luis
1997 Matrícula de Tributos, o, Códice de
Moctezuma: Introducción y explicación. In
Códice Moctezuma, o, Matrícula de Tributos,
edited by Ferdinand Anders, Maarten Jan-
sen, and Luis Reyes García, pp. 5–237. Graz,
Austria, and Mexico City: Akademische
Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt and Fondo de
Cultura Económica.
Ribémont, Bernard
1995 De Natura Rerum: études sur les ency-
clopédies médiévales. Medievalia. Orléans:
Paradigme.
1997 On the Definition of an Encyclopaedic
Genre in the Middle Ages. In Pre-Modern
Encyclopaedic Texts: Proceedings of the Second
COMERS Congress, Groningen, 1–4 July
1996, edited by Peter Binkley, pp. 47–74.
Leiden: Brill.
Ricard, Robert
1966 The Spiritual Conquest of Mexico: An
Essay on the Apostolate and the Evangelizing
Methods of the Mendicant Orders in New
Spain, 1523–1572. Translated by Lesley Byrd
Simpson. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Riese, Berthold
1986 Ethnographische Dokumente aus Neu­
spanien im Umfeld der Codex Magliabechi-
Gruppe. Acta Humboldtiana. Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag.
Robertson, Donald
1959 Mexican Manuscript Painting of the Early
Colonial Period: The Metropolitan Schools.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
1966 The Sixteenth Century Mexican Ency-
clopedia of Fray Bernardino de Sahagún.
Cahiers d’Histoire Mondiale, Journal of World
History, Cuadernos de Historia Mundial
9(3):617–627.
1968 The Paste-Over Illustrations in the Durán
Codex of Madrid. Tlalocan 5:340–348.
1974 The Treatment of Architecture in the
Florentine Codex of Sahagún. In Sixteenth-
Century Mexico: The Work of Sahagún,
edited by Munro S. Edmonson, pp. 151–164,
pls. 153–159. School of American Research
Advanced Seminar Series, Douglas
Schwartz, general editor. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Rosenthal, Margaret F., and Ann Rosalind Jones
2008 The Clothing of the Renaissance World:
Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas: Cesare
Vecellio’s Habiti Antichi et Moderni. New
York: Thames & Hudson.
Ross, Elizabeth
2014 Picturing Experience in the Early Printed
Book: Breydenbach’s Peregrinatio from Venice
to Jerusalem. University Park: Pennsylvania
State University Press.
Rowe, John Howland
1965 The Renaissance Foundation of Anthro-
pology. American Anthropologist 67:1–20.
Rublack, Ulinka
2010 Dressing Up: Cultural Identity in Renais-
sance Europe. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ruwet, Wayne
1992 A Physical Description of the Codex
Mendoza. In The Codex Mendoza, edited
by Frances F. Berdan and Patricia Rieff
Anawalt, pp. 13–20. Vol. 1. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press.
Saenger, Paul
1997 Space between Words: The Origins of Silent
Reading. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press, Stanford.
Sahagún, Bernardino de
1905–1907 Historia general de las cosas de
Nueva España. Edited by Francisco del Paso
y Troncoso. Madrid: Hauser y Menet.
1938 Historia general de las cosas de Nueva
España. Edited by Joaquín Ramírez Caba-
ñas. 5 vols. Mexico City: P. Robredo.
1950–1982 Florentine Codex: General History
of the Things of New Spain. Translated and
edited by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles
E. Dibble. 12 vols. Santa Fe, NM: School of
American Research and University of Utah.
1956 Historia general de las cosas de Nueva
España. Edited by Ángel María Garibay K.
4 vols. Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa.
1964 Codices matritenses de la Historia general
de las cosas de la Nueva España de Fr. Ber-
nardino de Sahagún. Edited by Manuel Ba­
llesteros Gaibrois. 2 vols. Madrid: Ediciones
José Porrúa Turanzas.
1975 Historia general de las cosas de Nueva
España. Edited by Ángel María Garibay K.
3rd ed. Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa.
1979 El Códice Florentino: manuscrito 218–20 de
la Colección Palatina de la Biblioteca Medicea
Laurenziana. Facsimile ed. 3 vols. Mexico
City: Secretaría de Gobernación.
1982 Sahagún’s Prologues and Interpolations.
In Florentine Codex: General History of
the Things of New Spain, Introductions and
Indices, translated and edited by Arthur
J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble, pp.
43–101. Santa Fe, NM: School of American
Research and University of Utah.
1989a Conquest of New Spain: 1585 Revision.
Translated by Howard F. Cline. Edited by
S. L. Cline. Salt Lake City: University of
Utah Press.
1989b Historia general de las cosas de Nueva
España. Edited by Josefina García Quintana
and Alfredo López Austin. 2 vols. Mexico
City: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y
las Artes.
1993 Primeros Memoriales: Facsimile Edition.
Edited by Ferdinand Anders. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
1997 Primeros Memoriales by Bernardino de
Sahagún: Paleography of Nahuatl Text and
English Translation by Thelma D. Sullivan:
Completed and Revised with Additions by
H. B. Nicholson and Others. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
References Cited • 229
Sampson, Geoffrey
1985 Writing Systems: A Linguistic Introduction.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sandler, Lucy Freeman
1999 The Psalter of Robert de Lisle in the British
Library. 2nd ed. London: Harvey Miller.
Satterfield, Andrea McKenzie
2007 The Assimilation of the Marvelous
Other: Reading Christoph Weiditz’s
Trachtenbuch (1529) as an Ethnographic
Document. Thesis, Department of Art and
Art History, University of South Florida,
Scholar Commons.
Schäfer, Heinrich
1974 Principles of Egyptian Art. Translated and
edited with an introduction by John Baines.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Schenck, Eva-Maria
1973 Das Bilderrästel. New York: Olms.
Schlesinger, Robert, and Arthur Phillips Stabler
(trans. and eds.)
1986 André Thevet’s North America: A
Sixteenth-Century View. Kingston, Ontario:
McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Scholes, France V., and Eleanor B. Adams
1957 Información sobre los tributos que los indios
pagaban a Moctezuma, año de 1554. Docu-
mentos para la Historia del México Colonial.
Mexico City: José Porrúa.
Schroeder, Susan
1991 Chimalpahin and the Kingdom of Chalco.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Schwaller, John Frederick
2003 Tracking the Sahagún Legacy:
Manuscripts and Their Travels. In Sahagún
at 500: Essays on the Quincentenary of the
Birth of Fr. Bernardino de Sahagún, edited
by John Frederick Schwaller, pp. 265–273.
Berkeley, CA: Academy of American
Franciscan History.
Sears, Elizabeth
1986 The Ages of Man: Medieval Interpretations
of the Life Cycle. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Seler, Eduard
1904 Altmexikanischer Schmuck und soziale
und militárische Rangabzeichen. In Gesam-
melte Abhandlungen zur amerikanische
Sprach- und Altertumskunde, by Eduard
Seler, 2:509–619. 5 vols. Berlin: A. Asher
& Co.
Sell, Barry D., and Louise M. Burkhart
2004–2009 Nahuatl Theater, 4 vols. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
Seymour, Michael C., et al.
1992 Bartholomaeus Anglicus and His Encyclo-
pedia. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate/Valiorum.
Seznec, Jean
1972 The Survival of the Pagan Gods: The
Mythological Tradition and Its Place in
230 • References Cited
Renaissance Humanism and Art. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Shapiro, Meyer
1969 On Some Problems in the Semiotics
of Visual Art: Field and Vehicle in Image-
Signs. Semiotica 1(3):487–502.
Silver, Larry
2009 The Landsknecht: Summer Soldier and
Sunshine Patriot. In The Plains of Mars:
European War Prints, 1500–1825, from the
Collection of the Sara Campbell Blaffer
Foundation, edited by James Clifton and
Leslie M. Scattone, pp. 16–29. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Simpson, Lesley Byrd
1982 The Encomienda in New Spain: The
Beginning of Spanish Mexico. Revised and
enlarged, first paperback ed. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Smith, Mary Elizabeth, and Ross Parmenter
1991 The Codex Tulane. New Orleans:
Middle American Research Institute, Tulane
University.
Solomon, Jon
2011 Introduction. In Genealogy of the Pagan
Gods/Giovanni Boccaccio, Volume I, Books
I–V, pp. vii–xxxvii. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Sousa, Lisa
2019 Flowers and Speech in Discourses on
Deviance in Book 10. In The Florentine
Codex: An Encyclopedia of the Nahua World
in Sixteenth-Century Mexico, edited by Jea-
nette Favrot Peterson and Kevin Terraciano,
pp. 184–199. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Spitler, Susan
2005 Nahua Intellectual Responses to the
Spanish: The Incorporation of European
Ideas into the Central Mexican Calendar.
MA thesis, Department of Anthropology,
Tulane University.
Steck, Francis Borgia
1944 El primer colegio de América: Santa Cruz
de Tlatelolco, con un estudio del Códice de
Tlatelolco por R. H. Barlow. Mexico City:
Centro de Estudios Franciscanos.
1947 Columbus and the Franciscans. The
Americas 3(3):319–341.
1951 Introduction: Father Toribio de Moto-
linia, O.F.M., His Life and Writings. In
Motolinía’s History of the Indians of New
Spain, edited by Frances Borgia Steck,
pp. 1–70. Publications of the Academy of
American Franciscan History, Documentary
Series, vol. 1. Washington, DC: Academy of
American Franciscan History.
Sullivan, Thelma D.
1974 The Rhetorical Orations, or Hue-
huetlatolli, Collected by Sahagún. In
Sixteenth-Century Mexico: The Work of
Sahagún, edited by Munro S. Edmonson,
pp. 79–109. School of American Research
Advanced Seminar Series, Douglas
Schwartz, general editor. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Sylvest, Edwin Edward
1975 Motifs of Franciscan Mission Theory in
Sixteenth-Century New Spain Province of the
Holy Gospel. Washington, DC: Academy of
American Franciscan History.
Tannen, Deborah (ed.)
1982 Spoken and Written Language: Exploring
Orality and Literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Terraciano, Kevin
2010 Three Texts in One: Book XII of the
Florentine Codex. Ethnohistory 57(1):51–72.
2019 An Encyclopedia of Nahua Culture:
Context and Content. In The Florentine
Codex: An Encyclopedia of the Nahua World
in Sixteenth-Century Mexico, edited by Jea-
nette Favrot Peterson and Kevin Terraciano,
pp. 1–18. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Thevenot, Melchisedec
1672 Histoire de l’empire mesicain, representée
par figures. In Relations de divers voyages
curieux . . . (separate pagination), pp. 1–58.
Vol. 4. Paris: André Cramoisy.
1696 Histoire de l’empire mesicain, repre-
sentée par figures. In Relations de divers
voyages curieux . . . Nouvelle edition (separate
pagination), pp. 1–58. Vol. 4. Paris: Thomas
Moette.
Thompson, J. Eric. S.
1941a The Missing Illustrations of the Pomar
Relación. Notes on Middle American Archae-
ology and Ethnology, Carnegie Institution of
Washington 1(4):15–21.
1941b The Prototype of the Mexican Codices
Telleriano-Remensis and Vaticanus A. Car­
negie Institution of Washington, Division of
Historical Research, Notes on Middle Ameri-
can Archaeology and Ethnology 1(6):24–26.
Thouvenot, Marc
1980 Coquillages glyphés: étude de quelques
vignettes du Codex Florentino de Fray
Bernardino de Sahagún (Mexique ancien).
L’Ethnographie 76(83):291–328.
1982 Pierres precieuses glyphées: étude de
quelques vignettes du Codex Florentino
de Fray Bernardino de Sahagún (Mexicain
ancien). L’Ethnographie 78(86):31–102.
1984 Turquoises according to the Florentine
Codex Vignettes. In The Native Sources and
the History of the Valley of Mexico, edited by
Jacqueline de Durand-Forest, pp. 183–205.
BAR International Series 204. Oxford:
BAR.
Torre Villar, Ernesto de la
1974 Fray Pedro de Gante, maestro y
 civilizador de América. Estudios de Historia
Novohispaña 5:1–69, plates 1–12.
Tschohl, Peter
1989 Das Ende der Leyenda de los Soles
und die Übermittlungsprobleme des
Códice Chimalpopoca. Baessler-Archiv n.s.
37(1):201–279.
Tudela de la Orden, José
1960 Las primeras figuras de indios pintadas
por españoles. In Homenaje a Rafael García
Granados, edited by Raphael Martínez del
Río, pp. 319–329. Mexico City: Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
1971 La pena de adulterio en los pueblos pre-
cortesianos. Revista de Indias 31:377–388.
1980 Códice Tudela. Madrid: Ediciones Cul-
tura Hispánica.
Twomey, Michael W.
1988 Medieval Encyclopedias. In Medieval
Christian Literary Imagery: A Guide to
Interpretation, edited by Robert Earl Kaske,
pp. 182–215. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Underwood, Geoffrey, and Vivienne Batt
1996 Reading and Understanding: An Introduc-
tion to the Psychology of Reading. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Valadés, Diego
1579 Rhetorica christiana. Perugia: Apud
Petrumiacobum Petrutium.
1989 Retórica cristiana. Translated by Tarsicio
Herrera Zapién. Mexico City: Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México and Fondo
de Cultura Económica.
Valeriano, Giovanni Piero
1976 Hieroglyphica. New York: Garland.
Vargas Montes, Paloma
2016a The Durán Codex: A Content Analysis.
In Print Culture through the Ages: Essays
on Latin American Book History, edited
by Blanca López de Mariscal, Donna M.
Kabalen de Bichara, and Paloma Vargas
Montes, pp. 62–79. Newcastle upon Tyne,
UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
2016b El rito y el drama en la crónica de fray
Diego Durán. Revista de Filología Hispánica
32(2):785–802.
2018 Fray Diego Durán: Libro de los ritos.
Mexico City: El Colegio de México.
2019 Imagen: escritura y narración en los
tlacuilos novohispanos: el caso del Códice
Durán. Romance Notes 59(1):113–129.
Velázquez, Primo Feliciano (trans. and ed.)
1975 Códice Chimalpopoca: Anales de Cuauh-
titlan y Leyenda de los soles. Mexico City:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Vergil, Polydore
2002 On Discovery. I Tatti Renaissance
Library 6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Verworn, Max
1914 Ideoplastische Kunst: ein Vortrag. Jena,
Germany: G. Fischer.
Vetancurt, Agustin de
1971 Menologio franciscano de los varones
más señalados, que con sus vidas ejemplares,
perfección religiosa, ciencia, predicación
evangélica en su vida, ilustraron la Provincia
del Santo Evangelio de México. In Teatro
mexicana: descripción breve de los sucesos ejem-
plares, históricos y religiosos del Nuevo Mundo
de las Indias (separate pagination), pp. 1–156.
Facsimile ed. Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa.
Vocht, Henry de
1951–1955 History of the Foundation and the
Rise of the Collegium Trillingue Lovaniense,
1517–1550. 4 vols. Louvain: Bibliothèque de
l’Université, Bureaux du Recueil.
Vogel, Klaus A.
1995 Cultural Variety in a Renaissance
Perspective: Johannes Boemus on “The Man-
ners, Laws and Customs of All People.” In
Shifting Cultures: Interaction and Discourse in
the Expansion of Europe, edited by Henriette
Bugge and Joan Pau Rubiés, pp. 17–34.
Münster, Germany: Lit.
Volkmann, Ludwig
1923 Bilderschriften der Renaissance: Hiero-
glyphik und Emblematik in ihren Bezie­
hungen und Fortwirkungen. Leipzig: K. W.
Hiersemann.
Voorbij, Johannes B.
2000 Purpose and Audience: Perspectives on
the Thirteenth-Century Encyclopedias of
Alexander Neckam, Bartholomaeus Angli-
cus, Thomas of Cantimpré, and Vincent of
Beauvais. In The Medieval Hebrew Encyclope-
dias of Science and Philosophy, edited by Ste-
ven Harvey, pp. 31–45. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Watts, Pauline Moffitt
1991 Hieroglyphics of Conversion: Alien
Discourses in Diego Valadés’s Rhetorica
Christiana. In Gli ordini religiosi mendicanti:
tradizione e dissenso, pp. 405–433. Memoria
Domenicane. Pistoia, Italy: Centro Riviste
della Provincia Romana.
Weiditz, Christoph
2001 Das Trachtenbuch des Christoph Weiditz
von seinen Reisen nach Spanien (1529) und
den Niederlanden (1531–32). Valencia, Spain:
Ediciones Grial.
West, Ashley
2009 Global Encounters: Conventions and
Invention in Hans Burgkmair’s Images of
Natives of Africa, India and the New World.
In Crossing Cultures: Conflict, Migration
and Convergence, Proceedings of the 32nd
Inter­national Congress of the History of Art,
edited by Jaynie Anderson, pp. 272–278.
Melbourne: Miegunyah Press, Melbourne
University Publishing.
White, John
1957 The Birth and Rebirth of Pictorial Space.
London: Faber and Faber.
Whittaker, Gordon
2009 The Principles of Nahuatl Writing.
Göttinger Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft
16:47–81.
Wilkerson, S. Jeffrey K.
1974 The Ethnographic Works of Andrés
de Olmos, Precursor and Contemporary
of Sahagún. In Sixteenth-Century Mexico:
The Work of Sahagún, edited by Munro S.
Edmonson, pp. 27–77. School of American
Research Advanced Seminar Series, Douglas
Schwartz, general editor. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Wilkins, Ernest H.
1957 Descriptions of Pagan Divinities from
Petrarch to Chaucer. Speculum 32(3):511–522.
Wilson, Bronwen
2005 The World in Venice: Print, the City, and
Early Modern History. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
Wittkower, Rudolf
1977 Hieroglyphics in the Early Renaissance.
In Allegory and the Migration of Symbols,
edited by Rudolf Wittkower, pp. 113–128,
210–212. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Wolf, Gerhard, and Joseph Connors (eds.)
2011 Colors between Two Worlds: The Flor­
entine Codex of Bernardino de Sahagún.
Florence: Villa I Tatti (Harvard University
Center for Italian Renaissance Studies)
and Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz
(Max-Planck-Institut).
Zantwijk, Rudolf van
1982 La cosmovisión de los informantes
indígenas interrogados por Sahagún en
Tepepulco (primero mitad del siglo XVI).
In Coloquio internacional Los Indígenas de
México en la Época Prehispánica y en la
Actualidad/The Indians of Mexico in Pre-
Columbian and Modern Times International
Colloquium, edited by Maarten Jansen and
Ted Leyenaar, pp. 139–165. Leiden: Rijks-
museum voor Volkenkunde.
Zender, Marc
2008 One Hundred and Fifty Years of
Nahuatl Decipherment. PARI Journal
8(4):24–37.
Zorita, Alonso de
1963 Life and Labor in Ancient Mexico: The
Brief and Summary Relation of the Lords of
New Spain. Translated and edited by Ben-
jamin Keen. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
References Cited • 231
Index
Note: Italic page numbers refer to figures and
tables.
Acamapichtli (ruler), 71, 82, 95, 152, 186, 187,
209n24
Acolhuacan province, in tribute list of Codex
Mendoza, 209n27
Acosta, José de, 10, 28, 164–165, 195
Acuecuexco aqueduct, 97
Adrian VI (pope), 41, 43–44, 207n12
Aesop, 49, 205n17
Afanador-Pujol, Angélica Jimena, 85, 210n49
Ahuitzotl (ruler): and Codex Ríos, 109; and
Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 95, 97, 211n22; in
Diego Durán’s Historia, 154, 161, 214n25; some
of his conquests during his sixteen-year reign,
71, 72, 80, 81, 161
Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsanstalt
(ADEVA), 6, 99, 211n25
Albricus, Liber ymaginum deorum, 37–38, 39, 192,
199, 207n18
Alcalá, Jerónimo de, Relación de Michoacán, 4,
50, 51, 84–85
Alciati, Andrea, Emblematum libellus, 21–22, 22,
89, 91, 206nn25, 26
Alcina Franch, José, 115, 212n45
Alessandrini, Alessandro, 206n10
Alonso, Antonio, 206n26
alphabetic writing: definitions of, 11, 205n3; eco-
nomic and technological network supporting,
14; as European graphic system, 7, 10, 11–14,
28, 196; European pictography as alternative
to, 23; extralinguistic information of, 12, 14;
field of page, 12–13, 14, 25, 205n5; graphemes
of, 12, 13; hieroglyphs compared to, 21; indig-
enous Mexican pictography compared to, 10,
12, 13, 14, 23, 25, 28; internal and external syn-
tagmatics of, 205n5; letters and punctuation
232
marks of, 13, 23; marks organized in, 25, 28;
nonmimetic iconicity of, 13; orthography and
syntax of, 12, 13, 14; pictographic expression
conveyed by, 92; pictures and diagrams in, 14;
in printed books, 11, 12, 12, 13, 14; relationship
of spoken language to, 11; sequence and direc-
tionality of, 13; word space and punctuation
in, 13, 205n7
Altamirano, Diego, 207n8
Altdorfer, Albrecht, 206n12
Alva Ixtlilxochitl, Fernando, 210n38
Alvarado Tezozomoc, Hernando, 154, 163, 213n9,
214n30
amatl (native paper) screenfolds, 3. See also
Codex Borbonicus
Ambrose, Saint, 49
Amimitl (deity), 172, 173
Amman, Jost, 191, 202
Anales de Cuauhtitlan, 4, 53, 84
Anawalt, Patricia Rieff, 6, 209n36
Anders, Ferdinand: on Codex Borbonicus,
208nn5, 8, 9, 14; on Codex Magliabechiano, 6,
212n48; on Codex Ríos, 6, 99, 100, 211nn23, 25,
26; on Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 210nn5, 7
Anderson, Arthur J. O., 5, 6
Andrés, D., 54
Andrews, J. Richard, 24
Aora, Juan de, 44, 207nn8, 18
Apocalypse, 43
Aristotle, 33, 49, 100, 108, 125, 192, 211n37
Atemoztli (festival): in Codex Borbonicus, 61; in
Codex Magliabechiano, 117, 118, 119, 120, 125;
in Codex Ríos, 105, 111; in Codex Telleriano-
Remensis, 90; in Codex Tudela, 129; in Diego
Durán’s Calendar treatise, 152; in Diego
Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise, 148; in
Florentine Codex, 182, 183; in Bernardino de
Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, 170
Atlahua (deity), 56, 61, 172, 173
Atlcahualo (Cessation of Waters festival), 8;
in Codex Borbonicus, 65; in Codex Maglia­
bechiano, 119; in Codex Ríos, 104, 105, 111; in
Diego Durán’s Gods and Rights treatise, 148;
in Florentine Codex, 182, 183
Atlmotzacuaya (festival), 151
Atonal of Coixtlahuaca, 209n25
átrio crosses, 19
Augustine, Saint: The City of God, 16, 192; print
on title page of Juan de la Cruz’s Doctrina
cristiana, 15–16, 15, 205n12; works of, 49
Augustinians, 44, 47
Axayacatl (ruler), 160, 161, 164, 200, 210n38
Ayauhcalli (Mist House), 61, 62, 208n3
Ayopechtli (deity), 172, 173
Azcapotzalco: conquest of, 26, 26; and tributes,
158, 214n19; Antonio Valeriano as governor
of, 48, 54
Aztec ideology and practice: in Codex Bor-
bonicus, 56, 69; in Codex Tudela, 140; Diego
Durán’s knowledge of, 144, 165; manuscripts
used for insights on, 7; mendicant project
for collecting information on, 30, 33, 53,
86, 87, 143, 198; persistence under veneer of
Christianity, 144; pictorial compilations of,
84, 87; representation in sets of paintings,
55; Spanish Crown’s investigation into, 1, 2,
3; taxonomies on, 30; turn-of-the-century
facsimiles and commentaries on, 5. See also
Preconquest Aztec culture
Aztec pictography: alphabetic writing compared
to, 13; annals of, 26–27, 26, 53, 80, 83, 84,
199, 200; corpus defined by, 2, 3–4, 6, 204;
divinatory almanacs of, 26, 27–28, 53, 86, 199;
divinatory pinwheel pose of, 98, 101, 125, 200,
201, 202; European pictography compared to,
17–18, 80; facsimile editions of, 5, 6; figural
 images of, 7, 23–25, 56, 85, 89, 199, 200, 201;
Franciscans learning about, 50; friars’ percep-
tion of, 23; functions of pictographic images,
25; glyphs for stone and stoniness, 24, 25;
grammar of, 28; graphic abstractions in,
24–25; graphic articulation of metaphoric
meaning in, 24, 28; as graphic system, 23–28;
iconography of, 5, 7, 23, 38, 67, 91, 100, 108, 115,
116, 124, 125, 126, 137, 141, 156, 157, 162, 175, 177,
188, 189, 190, 203, 204; ideoplastic images of,
23, 80, 97–98, 99, 175, 189, 201, 202; images as
agglutinative constructions, 23–24; images
functioning as figural sentences, 24; and
interpretation of Aztec culture, 3; language-
yielding signs of, 25, 206n31; marks organized
on, 25, 28; and metonymy, 24, 25; Motolinía
on, 10; nonglottic character of, 28; Andrés de
Olmos’s interpretation of, 53; prototypes of,
116, 122, 124, 125–126, 127, 133, 141, 201, 203,
204, 212n61; Bernardino de Sahagún on, 2;
scholarly attention to, 4–6; space and syntax
of, 25–28; and synecdoche, 24, 25; traditional
forms of, 7, 80, 86–87, 89, 175, 199–201; trans-
lations into alphabetic text, 2
Aztec Sun Stones, 100
Bacon, Roger, Opus majus, 34, 40, 199
Badianus Herbal, 49
Baird, Ellen Taylor, 175, 190, 192, 206n9, 215nn47,
49, 51
Barlow, Robert, 163
Barney, Stephen, 31
Bartholomeus Anglicus, De proprietatibus rerum
(On the Properties of Things), 31–33, 32, 40,
108, 181, 192, 193, 198–199, 206n4
Basaccio, Arnaldo de, 45, 47
Batalla Rosado, Juan José: analysis of Magliabe-
chiano Group, 6; on Codex Borbonicus, 67,
208n14; on Codex Magliabechiano, 212n46;
on Codex Mendoza, 209nn32, 34, 210n42; on
Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 210nn6, 9; on
Codex Telleriano-Remensis and Codex Ríos,
210n4; on Codex Tudela, 114, 115, 126–127,
131–132, 138, 212nn42, 43, 46, 48, 67, 68, 69,
213nn72, 73, 75, 77; on Codex Veytia, 115; on
Fiestas de los Indios, 115; on Libro de Figuras,
211n41
Baudot, Georges, 49, 52, 83, 207n23, 208nn33, 36
Bautista, Juan, 48, 53
Bellini, Gentile, 206n12
Berdan, Frances F., 6, 209n36, 210nn41, 42
Bernal, Ignacio, 144
Bersuire, Pierre, Ovidius moralizatus, 37, 38, 39,
40
Bertelli, Fernando, 207n17
Betanzos, Domingo de, 44
Bibles: illustrations of, 162–163, 191, 202; polyglot
Bible, 42
Bierhorst, John, 210n38
Boccaccio, Giovanni, Genealogia deorum
gentilium (Genealogy of the Pagan Gods), 37, 38,
39, 192, 207n22
Bodleian Library, 70
Boemus, Johann: Manners, 34; Omnium gentium
mores, leges et ritus, 33–34, 193, 199, 206n10;
works in library of Colegio de Santa Cruz, 49
books: concept of, 10, 11, 205n2; European books,
10, 11, 17, 23; Franciscans’ burning of heathen
books, 43; illustrations of, 17; Mesoamerican
screenfold books, 11, 11, 23, 206n29; Meso-
americans’ use of, 10–11, 23; Renaissance
costume books, 36, 37, 138–139. See also
Preconquest painted manuscripts
Borgia Group manuscripts: almanacs of, 103,
134; divinatory manuscripts of, 142
Bouma shape, 13
Breydenbach, Bernhard von, Peregrinatio in
Terram Sanctam, 35–36, 36, 191
Brown, Betty Ann, 67, 206n9, 208n14
Bull, Malcolm, 207n18
Burgkmair, Hans, 206n12
Burkhart, Louise, 51
Bustamante, Carlos María de, 5
Bustamante, Francisco, 47
Buti, Ludovico, 181
Byzantine icons, 14, 25
cabecera status, of polities, 98
Cabezón, Mariano Gutiérrez, 212n44
Caldera, Luis, 208n35
Calepino, Ambrogio, 49, 177, 194
Calnek, Edward E., 79–80, 209n29
Camaxtli (deity), 90, 146, 146, 148, 152, 214n20
Canary Islands, 42
Carpini, John de Plano, 34, 40, 54, 193, 199,
206n9
Carpio, Bernardo del, 154
Cartari, Vincenzo: Le imagini de i dei de gli
antichi, 4, 37, 192, 205n3; Le imagini con la
spositione de i del de gliantichi, 38–39
Caso, Alfonso: on Codex Borbonicus, 64, 68,
208nn8, 9, 14, 209n15; on Tonalamatl Aubin,
209n15
catechisms, 14, 17, 20, 49, 50, 51
censuses, in Preconquest painted manuscripts,
25
Centeotl (deity), 61, 119, 182, 183
Cervantes de Salazar, Francisco: on catafalque
for Charles V, 206n28; and Codex Tudela,
127; Crónica de la Nueva España, 114, 116, 127,
134, 212n69; on Spanish conquest, 53
Chalchalmeca (deity), 172
Chalchiuhtlicue (deity): in Codex Borbonicus,
61; in Codex Magliabechiano, 119, 212n52; in
Codex Ríos, 102; Diego Durán on, 146, 146,
148; in Florentine Codex, 180; ideoplastic
image of, 23, 24, 25; protocol for ritual involv-
ing, 66, 66; in Bernardino de Sahagún’s Prim-
eros memoriales, 172; trecena 5 governed by, 23,
24, 27–28, 27, 91, 92, 210n11
Chalmecacihuatl (deity), 172
Chantico (deity), 172
Chapultepec, 94–95, 152, 154
Charles V (Holy Roman Emperor): catafalque
for, 22, 206n28; Codex Mendoza commis-
sioned for, 69, 204; on conversion of con-
quered Mexicans, 41, 44; Hernando Cortés’s
audience with, 167; Hernando Cortés’s
correspondence with, 10, 43, 207n9; and
education for sons of indigenous elites, 47;
and Franciscans, 44; as Habsburg emperor,
42, 43; Matrícula de Tributos prepared for,
83; Pillars of Hercules with motto Plus Oultre
(Even Further), 21; and Christoph Weiditz,
36; Juan de Zumárraga’s correspondence
with, 207n27
Chichimecs: in Codex Ríos, 109, 109; in Codex
Tudela, 138; in Diego Durán’s Historia,
145, 155, 161, 163, 214nn18, 26; in Florentine
Codex, 185
Chicomecoatl (deity): in Codex Borbonicus, 61,
62; in Codex Tudela, 129; in Diego Durán’s
Gods and Rites treatise, 146, 146, 148; in
Florentine Codex, 180, 183; in Bernardino de
Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, 170, 172, 173
Chicomoztoc: and Codex Ríos, 109; and Codex
Telleriano-Remensis, 94, 95, 97, 98, 197,
211n17; in Diego Durán’s Historia, 143, 145,
145, 150, 152, 161, 198
Chimalpanecatl (deity), 173
Chimalpopoca (ruler), 71, 82, 95, 152, 187, 209n33,
210n39
Cholula: indigenous rulers of, 1; Andrés de
Olmos on, 52
Cicero, 48, 49
Cihuacoatl (deity): in Codex Borbonicus, 56, 59,
60, 61, 62–63, 64, 65, 68; in Codex Maglia­
bechiano, 119, 124, 212n52; in Codex Ríos, 111;
in Codex Tudela, 129; in Diego Durán’s Gods
and Rites treatise, 146, 146, 148; in Florentine
Codex, 180; in Bernardino de Sahagún’s
Primeros memoriales, 170, 172, 173
Cihuacoatl (political office), 163
Cihuaihuitl (Festival of Women), 65
Cihuapipiltin (deities), 172, 180
Cipactonal (deity), 58, 58
Cisneros, Francisco Ximénez de, 42–43, 45
Cisneros, García de, 44, 47
Ciudad Rodrigo, Antonio de, 44, 166–167
civil war of 1473, and Codex Telleriano-
Remensis, 96, 97, 98
Clapión, Juan, 43, 44
Clark, James Cooper, 5
Clavijero, Francisco, 69
Coailhuitl (festival), 151
Coatlicue (deity), xiii, 172
Cocoliztli (Pestilence), 47, 48, 207n25
Codex Aubin, 99, 109
Codex Borbonicus: as amatl screenfold, 3, 8,
55, 56, 67, 87, 197, 208n11; annotations of, 55,
Index • 233
 203; annotators of, 67–68, 208n13; Atlahua
featured in, 56; audience of, 55, 68; Ayauhcalli
(Mist House), 62, 208n3; burying of bundled
years in, 56, 60, 64, 208n9; and chinampa
region, 56; Cihuacoatl featured in, 56, 59;
Codex Mendoza compared to, 55–56; Codex
Telleriano-Remensis compared to, 89, 91,
197; as compilation of indigenous history and
culture, 55, 56, 86, 197; contents of, 56–60,
62–67; dating of, 56, 68–69, 208n14; day signs
in, 27, 56–57, 57, 67, 200; divinatory cycle of,
55, 56, 58–59, 68; division of pages by vertical
black line, 59, 208n6; documentary trajec-
tory of, 87; facsimile edition of, 6; festival of
Hueytozoztli, 60, 60, 202, 209n16; festival of
Izcalli, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 208n8; festival
of Ochpaniztli, 62, 62–63, 202; festival of
Panquetzaliztli, 60, 63, 64, 66; festival of
Quecholli, 208n12; festival of Tititl, 60, 63,
64; festival of Tlaxochimaco, 59, 202; festival
of Xocotlhuetzi, 59, 67, 202, 203; New Fire
Ceremony of 1507, 56, 60, 63–64, 64, 66, 67,
68, 197; orientation of figures shifting in, 59;
and painted manuscripts as site of discourse
between wise men and friars, 54; painters
of, 56, 60, 63, 65–67, 68, 197, 203; pictorial
content of, 3, 8, 55, 84, 97, 197, 201; primordial
couple Oxomoco and Cipatonal surrounded
by twenty-six years 1 Rabbit to 13 Reed,
accompanied by Night Lords, 57–58, 58; pub-
lishing of, 5; rain god (Tlaloc) temple on hill,
208n3; relationship to Preconquest predeces-
sors, 56, 68; and religious activities of yearly
festival cycle, 55, 56, 66, 84, 197, 198; tonalamatl
(divinatory almanac) of, 8, 56, 67–68, 86,
133, 197, 200, 208n14; Tonalamatl Aubin
compared to, 210n46; trecena 5, governed by
Chalchiuhtlicue, 23, 24, 27–28, 27; trecena 6,
58, 68; trecena 7, governed by Tezcatlipoca
and Tonatiuh, 57, 200; trecenas of, 67–68, 97,
141, 142, 197; veintena festival section of, 8,
56, 58–68, 61, 118, 125, 171, 197, 201, 202, 203,
208n13; year count in, 65, 66–67, 68, 197
Codex Borgia: calendrical signs in, 125; corporeal
almanac in, 134–135, 197, 201; José Fábrega’s
study of, 5, 7; narrative sequence of, 208n7;
Night Lords in, 92, 210–211n13
Codex Boturini, 109, 154
Codex Cabezón, 115. See also Fiestas de los Indios
Codex Chimalpopoca, 209–210n38
Codex Cospi, 66
Codex Fejérváry-Mayer: almanac of, 134; Night
Lords in, 92, 210–211n13; protocol for ritual
involving the water goddess Chalchiuhtlicue,
66, 66
Codex Ixtlilxochitl, 114–115, 116, 138, 211n36,
213n77
Codex Laud, 66
Codex Magliabechiano: annotations of, 116–117,
118, 120, 125, 126, 141; Aztec gods in, 116,
234 • Index
117–118, 120, 125, 126, 140; circular glyph to
signify twenty days, 209n30; commentary
of, 6, 87, 140, 204; commentators of, 125–126,
140, 141, 212n63; content of, 116–118, 120, 122,
124; as copy of Libro de Figuras, 114, 116;
dates of, 163; day signs in, 116, 117, 118, 124, 138,
142, 197; derived from Olmos’s working notes,
52; European audience of, 4, 86, 125, 126, 140,
142; on European paper, 8, 87, 116, 212nn47,
67; facsimile edition of, 6; funerary rite for
a merchant, 122, 122; healing rites in, 122;
heart sacrifice, 122, 123, 125, 126, 138, 202–203;
humanistic minuscule of, 14; Julian calendar
correlated with native year signs, 118; mantles
in, 116–117, 117, 124, 125, 133, 138, 141, 201, 202,
212n58; painters of, 116, 118, 122, 124–125, 140,
141, 202, 203, 212n53; paintings of, 116, 122,
124, 126, 128, 138, 140–141; pictorial content
focused on Aztec religion and ideology, 4, 86,
87, 116, 124–125; priests offering blood to a
Mictlantecuhtli-like figure, 122, 123, 125, 202;
prototype for, 116, 122, 124, 125–126, 212n61;
pulque gods in, 116, 118, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125,
138, 163, 202, 212n51; pulque god Tlaltecayoua,
121, 125; rituals in, 116, 122, 126, 140; sacrificial
practices of, 116, 126; title page of, 87, 142;
transcriptions of, 5; unannotated paintings
in, 141; veintena of Atemoztli, 117, 118, 120, 125;
veintena of Tlacaxipehualiztli, 118, 120, 125;
veintena of Xocotlhuetzi, 118, 121, 125, 163, 202,
214n27; veintenas of, 116, 117–118, 119, 120, 120,
121, 125, 142, 197, 201, 202, 212n49; and verso-
recto facing pages, 141; year count in, 117, 142
Codex Mendoza: annals in, 7, 8, 55, 69, 72, 74,
80, 81–82, 83, 97, 154, 201; annotations of,
55, 69, 70, 71–72, 74, 81–82, 83, 209nn26, 36;
audience of, 55, 69; binding of, 209n21; birth
and naming of child and presentation of child
to priest and master of youths, 74, 75, 202;
children’s development year by year, 74–75,
76, 202; circular glyph to signify twenty days,
74; James Cooper Clark’s photographic edi-
tion of, 5; Codex Borbonicus compared to,
55–56; cognates of, 6, 82–84; colonial innova-
tions in, 69; commentator of, 69, 70, 72, 73,
77, 79, 80, 81–82, 83; as compilation of indig-
enous history and culture, 55–56, 69, 70, 86;
content of, 70–80; date and history of, 69–70,
209n19; ethnography of well-regulated lives,
69, 74–80, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83–84, 197; European
readership of, 4, 69, 80, 82, 84, 196, 199–200;
father and his son in, 80, 81, 202; Folio 69,
palace of Moctezuma, 74, 78, 80–81, 203,
209nn21, 22, 32, 34; founding of Tenochitlan,
69, 70–71, 71, 80, 81; as group project, 82;
honorable labor contrasted with personal
vices, 77–79, 79; Alexander von Humboldt’s
publishing drawings of, 5; imagery translated
in, 69; as instrument of governance, 196;
judicial appeals in palace of Moctezuma,
76–77, 78, 83, 199, 202; life choices at age
fifteen by gender, 76, 77, 202, 203; life cycles
of Aztec people in, 4, 69, 74–80, 75, 77, 78, 79,
81, 82, 83–84, 196, 197, 199, 201, 202; Matrícula
de Tributos compared to, 82, 83, 199–200,
209n32, 210nn40, 41, 42; and Moctezuma’s
rule, 81; Nahuatl glosses in, 70; New Fire
Ceremony, year 2 Reed, 70; Andrés de Olmos
as source for Aztec history in, 52; Andrés
de Olmos’s Suma as source of, 210nn43, 44;
painter of, 69, 70, 71, 74–75, 76, 79–81, 82, 83,
199–200, 201, 203, 209n32; paintings of, 69,
70, 72, 74, 80, 81, 82, 200, 201; paper of, 70,
209nn22, 30; Francisco del Paso y Troncoso’s
reproduction of, 5; pictorial content of, 4,
8, 55, 70, 77, 83, 84, 115; place signs in, 5, 7;
publishing of, 5, 6; ruler Ahuitzotl and some
of his conquests during his sixteen-year reign,
71, 72, 80, 81, 161; rulers and conquests in, 4,
69, 70–73, 72, 80, 81, 82–83, 84, 196–197, 199,
200, 201, 209n24; Bernardino de Sahagún’s
Primeros memoriales compared to, 177; as
secular compilation, 8, 56, 69, 84, 196; sources
and cognates of, 52, 82–84, 210nn43, 44;
Spanish glosses in, 69, 70, 197, 209n35; tribute
list in, 4, 8, 55, 69, 73–74, 73, 80, 81, 82, 83,
196, 199–200, 201, 209nn26, 28, 37, 210n41;
as tripartite manuscript, 69, 70, 209n23; year
count in, 70, 72, 73
Codex Mexicanus, 99, 109, 141
Codex Ramírez, 164
Codex Ríos: additional material in, 116; annals
in, 7, 86, 87, 97, 99, 108–113, 109, 111, 141, 142,
196, 200; annotations of, 100, 104, 106, 107,
112; Aztec gods in, 4, 39, 99, 112, 199; Codex
Telleriano-Remensis’s relationship to, 6, 8, 86,
87–88, 95, 99, 103, 108–112, 113, 141, 197, 199,
210nn4, 8, 10; commentaries and transcrip-
tions of, 5, 87, 100, 204; commentator of,
100–101, 103–104, 106–107, 110–113, 126, 141,
211n37; content of, 100–113; cosmology of, 100,
101, 102, 112, 197, 211n29; costume study in, 30,
37, 99, 106, 107, 108, 112, 139, 197, 199; customs
in, 100, 104, 106–108, 113; European audience
of, 86, 99, 100, 112, 126, 140, 142; European
paper of, 100, 113; first age of water, 100, 102;
founding of Tenochtitlan in, 109; Alexander
von Humboldt’s publishing drawings of, 5;
indigenous ritual practice in, 99, 107, 107, 112;
Italian texts of, 4, 99, 113, 199; lack of title
and title page, 126; layers of the cosmos, 100,
101, 211n29; medical augury in the form of a
Zodiac Man, 106–107, 106, 211n35; migration
history of, 95, 109–110, 109, 111, 211n17, 211n18;
narrative continuity of, 100; origins, 100–101,
197; pagination of, 99; painted episodes of
Toltec history in, 101; painter of, 100, 106, 108,
110, 111, 141, 211n29; paintings of, 99–100, 107,
108–109, 197; preservation of organizational
structure of Preconquest sources in, 141; and
 religious ideology, 86, 87, 111–112, 140; Pedro
de los Ríos’s commissioning of, 3–4, 51, 52,
99, 112–113, 140, 199, 203; sacrifice practices
in, 86, 107, 107, 112, 197; stages of human life
in, 107–108, 211n37; tonalamatl (divinatory
almanac) of, 4, 7, 84, 86, 87, 99, 101, 103–104,
112, 142, 200; trecena 1, 101, 103, 103; turquoise
diadem as name glyph in, 101; veintena and
trecena in, 86, 87, 99, 103–104, 105, 110–112, 110,
111, 142, 211nn33, 34; veintena of Atlcahualo,
104, 105
Codex Telleriano-Remensis: annals history in,
7, 86, 87, 89, 93–95, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97–99, 98,
112, 113, 140, 141, 142, 150, 152, 154, 161, 196,
197, 200, 210n6, 211nn14, 15; annotations of,
88–89, 92, 93, 94, 99, 112, 203, 210n7; audience
of, 113; cartographic history of, 94, 97, 200;
circular glyph to signify twenty days, 209n30;
civil war of 1473, 96, 97, 98, 200; Codex Ríos’s
relationship to, 6, 8, 86, 87–88, 95, 99, 103,
108–112, 113, 141, 197, 199, 210nn4, 8, 10; com-
mentaries and transcriptions of, 5, 87, 88, 89,
91–92, 93, 210n11; commentators of, 87, 89,
92, 93–94, 126, 140, 142; content of, 89–99;
dedication of Templo Mayor, 89, 97; facsimile
edition of, 6, 92; Alexander von Humboldt’s
publishing drawings of, 5; as intermediary
manuscript, 3, 8, 142; Julian calendar cor-
related with native year signs, 89, 93; lack of
title and title page, 126; layers of annotations
and glosses in, 3, 87, 116, 126; migration his-
tory of, 89, 93, 93, 94, 97, 98, 113, 200, 210n6,
211nn16, 17, 18; new binding of, 92; painters of,
86, 87, 88–89, 91, 95, 97, 98, 99, 141, 142, 203,
204, 210n6, 211n15; paintings of, 87, 88, 89, 113;
paper of, 87, 210n3, 212nn47, 67; postconquest
events of 1532–1537, 97, 98, 98, 99, 200, 203;
post foundation story of, 93; preimperial lords
of Tenochtitlan, 94, 200; preservation of orga-
nizational structure of Preconquest sources
in, 141; and religious ideology, 86, 87, 91, 92,
113, 140, 198; Pedro de los Ríos’s annotation
of, 51, 52, 100, 104, 112, 113, 140, 199; Spanish
glosses in, 87, 197; tonalamatl (divinatory
almanac) of, 7, 84, 86, 87, 89, 91–92, 91, 93, 95,
97, 98, 99, 112, 113, 133, 142, 197, 199, 200, 201,
210n6; trecena 5, featuring Chalchiuhtlicue,
91, 92, 210n11; trecenas of, 86, 87, 91–92, 97, 141,
142, 199; turquoise diadem as name glyph in,
101; veintena cycle of, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92,
93, 97–98, 99, 112, 118, 140, 142, 197, 198, 199,
201, 204, 210nn6, 9, 211n15; veintena festival
of Panquetzaliztli, 88, 92, 98, 204; as working
document, 87, 113, 142
Codex Tudela: amendments to, 142, 197; artists
of, 124, 126, 136–139, 140, 141, 202; cognate
presentation of, 118; commentaries of, 86, 87,
114, 115, 116, 126, 131–132, 135, 139–141, 204,
212n42; content of, 126, 127–128, 130–136; and
Costumbres, fiestas, enterramientos manuscript,
115; costume study added to, 4, 30, 37, 107,
114, 115, 126, 127–128, 136, 138–139, 139, 140,
199, 208n38; date of, 126–127, 163; deerskin
almanac of, 114, 127, 134–135, 136, 136, 137,
197, 201; deities of, 127, 130, 132, 137, 140, 197;
derived from Olmos’s working notes, 52,
208n38; dress of Mexica women, 128, 136, 138,
139; European audience of, 86, 139, 140, 142;
on European paper, 8, 87, 212n67; facsimile of,
6, 114; funerary rite for a lord, 131, 137, 138, 139;
Julian calendar correlated with native year
signs, 140; mantles in, 127, 133, 134, 137, 138, 141,
197, 201, 212n68, 213n72; on marriage, 114, 127,
130–132, 133, 136, 137, 199, 202, 203; modifica-
tion of, 135–136; name glyphs in, 212n51; New
Fire Ceremony in, 133, 139, 140; painters of,
124, 140, 202; paintings of, 114, 115, 124, 126,
128, 136–137, 138, 139, 140–141, 212n54; picto-
rial content of, 115, 116; priests offering blood,
130, 132, 137, 139, 202; prototype for, 126, 127,
133, 141; pulque gods in, 127, 130, 130, 132, 137,
138, 163, 197; pulque god Toltecatl, 130, 130, 137,
138; and religious ideology, 86, 87, 140, 141; rit-
ual practices in, 122, 127, 130, 131, 132, 132, 138,
140, 141, 197; scribe of, 4, 126, 139–141, 213n78;
tonalamatl (divinatory almanac) in, 86, 127,
132, 133–134, 135, 136, 137, 142, 199, 201, 212n68;
trecena 1 in, 133, 135, 197, 201; trecenas group in,
133, 135, 142, 197, 199, 201; unannotated paint-
ings in, 141; veintena named Hueymiccailhuitl,
showing images of Xocotlhuetzi, 126, 127, 128,
129, 136, 137, 138, 139, 202, 203, 214n27; veintena
of Tlacaxipehualiztli, 128, 128, 137, 138, 163,
214n27; veintenas in, 127, 127, 128, 128, 129,
132, 138, 139, 140, 142, 197, 199, 201, 202, 203,
214n27; and verso-recto facing pages, 126, 132,
133, 139, 141; year count in, 142
Codex Tulane, 208n7
Codex Vaticanus A. See Codex Ríos
Codex Vaticanus B, 201
Codex Veytia, 115–116
Codex Vienna, 11, 11, 109
Códice Mendieta, 207n23
codices, definition of codex, 9, 12
Colegio de Santa Cruz, Tlatelolco: censorship
in, 49, 208n33; as center of indigenous stud-
ies, 48; collaboration between indigenous
elites and Franciscans, 49; conquered and
colonized Mexicans learning languages,
visual systems, and ideology of Spaniards,
50; curriculum of, 47–48; and education
of indigenous elites, 45, 47–48, 49, 50; and
European graphic conventions, 185; former
students as instructors and administrators
of, 48, 207n24; and Franciscan investigation
of history of Preconquest period, 49; Fran-
ciscan staff of, 47, 48, 49; languages taught
at, 47; library of, 34, 40, 48–49, 193, 208n31;
reciprocal learning at, 49; revitalization of, 48;
Bernardino de Sahagún as faculty member
of, 47–49, 167, 168; Bernardino de Sahagún’s
administration of, 48; students as collabora-
tors of Bernardino de Sahagún, 2, 48, 144, 167,
168; training of indigenous clergy at, 48
Colhuacatzincatli (deity), 138
Colonna, Francesco, Hypnerotomachia Poliphili
(The Strife of Love in a Dream of Poliphili),
21, 21
Colston, Stephen Allyn, 213n1, 214n28
Columbus, Christopher, 5, 42, 43
Conti, Natale, Mythologiae, 37, 38–39, 192
conversions: of indigenous population of the
Americas, 43, 44, 50, 51; of nonbelievers in
Spain, 41, 42, 43; Preconquest painted manu-
scripts as aids to, 55; Hernando Talavera
advocating mass conversion, 43
conversos, 42
Córdova, Juan de, 135
Corona Núñez, José: Antigüedades de México, 5;
on Codex Ríos, 211nn25, 26
corporeal almanacs, 134–135, 197, 201, 211n35
Cortés, Hernando: arrival of, 155; Aztec Mexico
conquered by, 42, 71; conquest of Tenoch-
titlan, 109, 110, 140; correspondence with
Charles V, 10, 43, 207n9; in Diego Durán’s
Historia, 155, 214n24; and Franciscans, 43,
207n8; Honduran campaign of, 43, 207nn8,
18; on imperial tribute rolls, 10; murder of
Cuauhtemoc, 155; Nahua nobles traveling to
Spain with, 167; on pictography as indigenous
way of writing, 14; Texcocan lords as allies
of, 45
Cosimo III de Medici, 116
cosmologies: of Codex Ríos, 100, 101, 102, 112, 197,
211n29; in Leyenda de los soles, 82; in painted
manuscripts, 25, 84
Costumbres, fiestas, enterramientos manuscript,
114, 115, 138, 212nn65, 68, 213n77
Couch, Christopher: on Codex Borbonicus,
56, 64, 66, 208nn5, 9, 14; on Codex Ramírez,
214n30; on Diego Durán’s Historia, 150, 154,
155, 158, 161–163, 213nn1, 12, 13, 18, 214n28; on
Juan de Ferrer, 208n42
Council of Indies, 127, 194
Council of Trent, 10
Crónica X (Nahuatl history), 153–154, 163–164,
165, 214n28
Cruz, Juan de la, Doctrina cristiana en la lengua
guasteca con la lengua castellana, 15–16, 15
Cuahuitlehua (festival): in Diego Durán’s Calen-
dar treatise, 151, 152; in Florentine Codex, 182
Cuauhtemoc (ruler): in Codex Ríos, 110; in
Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 97; Diego Durán
on, 150, 152, 155, 213n8
Cuauhuitlehua (Raising of Poles festival), 65,
148, 170, 182
Cube, Johan von, Hortus sanitatis, 193
Cuitlahuac (ruler), 213n8
Culhuacan: and Codex Borbonicus, 56, 63, 64,
68, 209n15; and Codex Mendoza, 70; and
Index • 235
 Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 95; Preconquest
Aztec culture of, 9
cultural encyclopedias: audience of, 7, 54, 55,
68, 69, 196; as colonial manuscript genre,
6–8, 40; development of, 29; and evangelical
projects, 7, 40, 196, 198; pictographic genres
reproduced in, 26. See also mid-century
encyclopedias
culture, European categorization of, 7–8
Dante Alighieri, 100
Dávila Padilla, Agustín, 52, 53, 144, 154
Day Lords: in Codex Borbonicus, 27, 28, 56, 57,
68, 98; in Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 91,
200; in Codex Tudela, 197
De deorum imaginibus libellus, 38, 207n20
de la Coruña, Martín, 44
de los Ángeles, Juan, 43, 44
Descripción de Nueva España, 50, 208n33
Deserps, François, Recueil de la diversité des
habits (Collection of the Variety of Costume), 37,
37, 207n17
diagrams, as teaching aids, 10
Díaz Álvarez, Ana Guadalupe, 100
Díaz del Castillo, Bernal, 207n8
Dibble, Charles, 5, 6
Diel, Lori, 211n35
doctrinas, 14, 15–16, 15, 17, 49
Doesburg, Geert Bastiaan van, 115
Dominicans: and Hernando Cortés, 43; educa-
tional goals of, 47; ethnographic information
of, 50; and evangelical project, 44, 53; inter-
pretation of indigenous Mexican pictography,
29; relationship with indigenous communi-
ties, 2, 3
Dorantes de Carranza, Baltasar, 155, 214n31
Durán, Diego: autograph of, 213n13; boyhood in
central Mexico, 144; censorship of, 195, 204;
as Dominican friar, 3, 144; English translation
of religious treatises, 5; on idolatrous beliefs
and practices, 2, 51, 142, 143, 144, 145, 155, 165,
166, 193; investigative process of, 53, 143, 144,
165, 203; and Pliny the Elder’s organizational
template, 31; recognition of images in pictorial
manuscripts, 165; translation of religious and
calendrical treatises, 6; on visual attributes of
Aztec gods, 38. See also Historia (Durán)
Durand-Forest, Jacqueline, 115, 208n11
Dürer, Albrecht, 206n12
Edgerton, Samuel Y., 207n20
education: Francisans’ emphasis on, 45, 46,
47–50, 47; and schools for girls, 47; for sons
of indigenous elites, 45, 47–48, 49, 50
Egypt, rebuses of, 20
Egyptian hieroglyphs, 10, 21, 23, 206n22
Ehecatl (deity): in Codex Borbonicus, 61; in
Codex Magliabechiano, 118, 124, 138; in Diego
Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise, 146, 156
Ehrle, Franz, 5, 211nn25, 26
236 • Index
El Cid, 154
Ellison, Alexandra, 162
emblemata, 18, 20–23, 29, 142
Enríquez, Martín, 164, 195
epidemic of 1545–1548, 47, 48, 207n25
epidemic of 1576–1580, 48
Erasmus, Desiderius: Enchiridion militis Chris-
tiani, 42; and Pedro de Gante, 207n12; works
in library of Colegio de Santa Cruz, 49
Escalante Gonzalbo, Pablo, 190, 193
Esmeijer, Anna, 19
Espinosa, Garcia de, 126–127
Etzalcualiztli (festival): in Codex Borbonicus,
61; in Codex Magliabechiano, 118, 119, 214n27;
in Codex Ríos, 105, 111; in Codex Tudela, 129,
140; in Diego Durán’s Calendar treatise, 151,
214n27; in Diego Durán’s Gods and Rites
treatise, 148, 214n20; in Florentine Codex,
182, 183; in Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros
memoriales, 170
European encyclopedias: ancient and medieval
encyclopedias, 30–33, 181, 192, 198–199; cos-
tume studies of, 8, 30, 35–37, 40, 107; cultural
compilations of, 7–8, 30, 143, 192, 198, 199;
customs collections of, 30, 33–34, 40; life
stages in, 108; natural history in, 191, 192; on
pagan gods, 8, 30, 37–40, 120, 192–193, 198,
199, 202; tradition of, 3, 7, 8, 30, 99, 112, 143,
192, 196; universal encyclopedias, 30, 40, 192,
193, 198, 199
European figuration, indigenous Mexican pic-
tography blended with, 8, 67, 87, 89, 97, 202
European pictography: Aztec pictography
compared to, 17–18, 80; in Codex Mendoza,
80; in Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 97, 98; in
Codex Tudela, 137, 138, 213n75; in Florentine
Codex, 192, 195; glyphic clusters of, 19, 20,
28, 205n17; as graphic system, 7, 11, 17–23;
hieroglyphics and emblemata of, 18, 20–23,
29, 142; indigenous Mexican pictography
compared to, 17–18, 19, 28–29, 156–157; and
ladder diagrams, 18–19, 18; rebus expres-
sions, 20, 23, 29; in Bernardino de Sahagún’s
Primeros memoriales, 176; schemata of, 18–19;
and scientific and philosophical diagrams, 18;
semantic forms of, 28; spatial field of, 25; and
speculum theologie, 18, 205n15. See also mimetic
figuration
evangelical project in Mexico: and Augustinians,
44; and cultural encyclopedias, 7, 40, 196, 198;
and didactic aids, 51; and didactic lienzos, 19,
51, 51, 208n35; and Dominicans, 44, 53; Diego
Durán on, 144, 165, 166, 193, 204; and educa-
tion, 45, 47–50; and Franciscans, 41, 42–45,
47–50; and intellectual and linguistic transla-
tion, 51; Motolinía’s documentation of, 53, 167;
Bernardino de Sahagún on, 193, 204
Fábrega, José, 4–5, 7
featherwork, 45, 74, 78, 186, 190, 191
Ferdinand II (king of Spain), 41–42
Ferdinando di Medici, 181, 216n62
Ferrer, Juan de, 3, 51, 52, 53, 203, 208n42
Fiestas de los Indios, 114, 115, 116, 138, 212nn46, 68
Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae, 193
Florentine Codex (Sahagún): agency of paint-
ings in, 144; Aztec culture in, 192, 194, 195,
198; Aztec gods in, 174, 179, 180, 181, 182–183,
186, 188, 192, 198, 199; Aztec rulers in, 184, 186,
187, 189, 190, 192, 198, 200, 201; Bartholomeus
Anglicus’s encyclopedia as model for, 181;
celestial phenomena in, 184, 190–191, 198;
ceremonies in, 181–182, 185, 186, 192; Codex
Ríos compared to, 99, 100; collaborators
used in, 144, 167, 185, 186, 192, 203; content
of, 181–185; contents of books of, 178, 179,
179, 195; critics of, 194; dating of, 179, 215n60;
digital edition of, 6, 215n54; early history of,
179, 181, 215–216n62; English translation of,
5; European audience of, 4, 186, 192, 193, 195;
and European expository tradition, 144, 198;
facsimile edition of, 6, 215n54; featherwork-
ing, 190, 191; format of, 178, 178, 190; glyphs
used in, 190, 192; goals of, 193–194, 195, 198;
goldworking in, 184–185, 184, 186, 190, 202,
203; huehuetlatolli (rhetorical speeches) in, 167,
179, 183, 192, 198; humankind in, 185, 186, 191,
193, 198; hymns in, 182, 186; ideology in, 143;
indigenous informants used in, 144, 167, 198;
indigenous literary genres in, 192; indigenous
Mexican pictography in, 187, 189–190, 189,
192; Latin in, 186; Master of Both Traditions,
188, 188; Master of the Complex Skin Tones,
188, 189; Master of the Long Noses, 189; Mas-
ter of the Three-Quarter Profiles, 188–189;
merchants in, 184–185, 186, 198; Nahuatl texts
in, 178, 179, 181, 185–186, 190, 193, 194, 195,
198, 199, 216n67; natural history in, 143, 181,
185, 186, 190, 191, 193, 194, 198; and New Fire
Ceremony, 184, 198; omens in, 183, 191, 198;
ornamental designs of, 186, 188, 202, 216n68;
painters of, 185, 186, 188–192, 195, 198, 203,
216n70; paintings of, 178, 179, 186, 188–192,
193, 195, 201, 216nn68, 69; physical properties
of, 178–179, 215n57; and pictorial encyclo-
pedic genre, 8; point of view of author in,
144; and Primeros memoriales, 3, 5, 8, 174, 178,
181, 182, 184, 198; process of creating of, 179;
prologues of, 144, 178, 179, 185, 186, 193, 194;
publication of, 5; relationship between images
and text in, 143–144, 166, 178, 181, 185, 186, 190,
195, 204; rhetoric and moral philosophy in,
179, 181, 183–184, 191, 192; scribes of, 185–186,
194, 198; social norms and expectations in,
143; soothsayers in, 183, 191, 192; sources for,
192–193; Spanish conquest in, 143, 181, 184,
185–186, 188, 190, 191, 194, 198, 199, 202; Span-
ish translations in, 178, 179, 181, 183, 185, 186,
190, 193, 195, 198, 216n67; specific and named
sections of, 143; structure of, 181; as study of
 ancient cultural practices, 2; texts of, 185–186;
textual emphasis of, 143; and Tolosa manu-
script, 181; tonalamatl in, 192, 198, 201; trecenas
in, 182, 183, 198; as universal encyclopedia,
6–7, 30, 143; veintenas in, 115, 181–182, 181, 182,
183, 186, 192, 198
Focher, Juan, 47, 207nn15, 16
Fondo de Cultura Económica, 6
Francis, Saint, print of St. Francis receiving the
stigmata on title page of Pedro de Gante’s
Cartilla para enseñar a leer, 16–17, 17
Franciscans: arrival of, 97; and Bartholomeus
Anglicus’s De proprietatibus rerum, 32–33,
40; Christopher Columbus as lay member
of, 43; and Hernando Cortés, 43, 207n8;
education emphasized by, 45, 46, 47–50, 47;
ethnographic information of, 34, 50, 199; and
evangelical project, 41, 42–45, 47–50; inter-
pretation of indigenous Mexican pictography,
29; Observant branch of, 41, 42–43; political
power of, 42; preaching Gospel to Muslims,
42, 43; Province of San Gabriel in Extre-
madura, 43, 44; Provincia de los Ángeles in
Spain, 43; reforms of, 42–43; relationship
with indigenous communities, 2–3; trade
crafts taught by, 45, 46, 47, 207n20
Franck, Sebastian, 206n10
Fuenleal, Sebastián Ramírez de, 1, 47, 50, 52,
208n33
Fuente, Agustín de la, 190
Galindo y Villa, Jesús, 5
Gante, Pedro de: and Juan de Aora, 207n8; and
Charles V, 44; in detail of Diego Valadés’s
Rhetorica christiana, 45, 47; educational mis-
sion of, 45, 47; and evangelical project, 44;
indigenous school of, 22; and University of
Louvain, 44, 207n12
Gante, Pedro de (attributed), Cartilla para ense-
ñar a leer, nuevamente enmendada, y quitadas
todas las abreviaturas que antes tenia, 16, 17
Gaona, Juan de, 44–45, 47
García Icazbalceta, Joaquín, 52
García Quintana, Josefina, 6, 181
Garibay, Ángel María, 33, 193, 208n38, 210n47,
213nn1, 13
Garone Gravier, Marina, 185, 186, 188, 216n67
Gerson, Juan, 162
Getty Research Institute, 6, 215n54
Gibson, Charles, 89
Gilberti, Maturino, 49, 207n15, 207n23
Giraldi, Lilio Gregorio, De deis gentium varia et
multiplex historia, 37, 38–39, 192
Glass, John B., 205n2, 208n14
Gómez de Orozco, Federico, 83, 115
Gómez Tejada, Jorge, 52, 70, 81, 83, 209nn19, 20,
28, 32, 35, 210n43
González, Juan, 83
González de Barcia, Andrés, 114, 115
Grado, Diego de, 168, 185
Granada, 42, 43
graphic systems: interactions of, 11, 29, 196;
knowledge conveyed by, 10, 11, 14, 18, 21, 23,
29. See also alphabetic writing; Aztec pictog-
raphy; European pictography; indigenous
Mexican pictography; mimetic figuration
Greek gods, 30
Gregory, Saint, Mass of St. Gregory, ca.
1420–1430, with the Virgin and St. John, 19,
19, 205n18
Grijalva, Juan de, 155
Gualpuyogualcal, Francisco, 69, 80
Hackmack Box, 206n30
Hakluyt, Richard, 70
Hamy, Ernst Théodore, 5, 6
Harris, Roy, 205n5
Harwood, Joanne, 209nn23, 29
Heikamp, Detlef, 179
Henri II (king of France), 70
Hernández de León-Portilla, Ascención, 192
Herrera y Tordesillas, Antonio de: Década
segunda, 82, 115; Descripción de las Indias,
82, 83, 115; Historia general de los hechos de
los castellanos en las Islas i Tierra Firme del
Mar Oceano, 4, 69, 82, 114, 115, 116, 208n33;
on Libro de Figuras, 113–114, 211–212n14;
pictorial used by, 84; as professor in Europe,
207n16
Heures à l’usage de Rome, 20, 20
Heyden, Doris, 5, 6, 213nn1, 13
Hispaniola, Dominicans traveling to Mexico
from, 44
Historia (Durán): agency of paintings in,
144; artists of, 156–159, 161–163, 195, 203,
213–214n18; audience of, 4, 150, 165–166, 195,
198; Aztec gods in, 143, 144, 146, 156, 165, 199;
Aztec history in, 143, 144, 145, 150, 152–154,
165–166, 195, 196, 198, 199; Aztec religious
life in, 144, 146, 150, 155, 165; ball game in,
146; Calendar treatise, 143, 145–146, 150, 150,
151–152, 154, 155, 156, 158, 158, 159, 163, 164,
165, 166, 195, 198, 213n11, 213–214n18; cognates
with, 6; compilation of, 154–155; content of,
145–154; and Crónica X (Nahuatl history),
153–154, 163–164, 165, 214n28; dance in, 146;
and Durán Group, 163–165, 214n30; editions
of, 5, 213n1; editor’s alteration of content, 155,
163, 166, 213n13; “Epistle to the Gentle Reader,”
165; ethnographic investigations of, 2, 86, 143,
144, 165, 194–195; framing and embellishing
practice in, 162, 214n25; frontispiece and first
page of, 145, 163; glyphic images in, 158, 164;
goals of, 145, 165–166, 195, 198; Gods and
Rites treatise, 145–146, 146, 147, 148, 149–150,
154, 155, 156, 156, 157–158, 157, 159, 163, 164,
165, 166, 195, 198, 199, 203, 213n11, 213–214n18,
214n21; Gregorian dates for feasts in, 146, 150;
History treatise, 145, 145, 150, 152–155, 153,
156, 158–159, 160, 161–163, 161, 164, 165–166,
195, 198, 199, 200, 201–202, 203, 213nn8, 11,
213–214n18, 214nn21, 24, 26; indigenous
informants used in, 144; indigenous literary
tradition as focus of, 144; Madrid manuscript,
154, 165; name signs in, 161; and Old Testa-
ment, 154, 162–163, 165–166; paintings of, 144,
156–159, 161–163, 195, 201, 214nn19, 21, 22;
place signs in, 161; point of view of author in,
144, 150, 198; prologue of, 144, 146, 158, 166;
purpose of, 144; relationship between images
and text in, 7, 143–144, 150, 155, 158, 159, 162,
163–164, 165, 195, 198, 204; religious images
in, 8; on sacrifice rituals, 146; scribes and text
copy, 154, 155, 165; as source for other chroni-
clers, 164, 214n31; specific and named sections
of, 143; textual emphasis of, 143, 144, 150, 155,
198; title page removed from, 155; treatises of,
143, 144–145, 155; on veintenas, 146, 148, 150,
150, 151–152, 155, 157, 158, 158, 159, 163, 165, 198,
214n27; writing of, 145, 213n5
Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas
(Olmos): Codex Tudela as continuation of,
208n38; Ángel María Garibay’s publishing
of, 210n47; pictorial material of, 84; texts
transcribed from, 3, 4, 52, 53; topics in final
section of, 169
Historia general (Sahagún): Aztec gods in, 143;
on Aztec social life, 84; and Bartholomeus
Anglicus’s De proprietatibus rerum as model
for, 33, 198–199; as dictionary, 177, 194, 199;
drafts of, 185; editions of, 5; ethnographic
investigations of, 2, 86, 143, 166, 167; Floren-
tine Codex distinguished from, 178–179; as
guide to Nahuatl language, 194; painters of,
190; Pliny the Elder’s topical organization in,
31, 33; preparation of, 48; textual nature of, 8,
168, 198; universal encyclopedia as reference
point for, 30, 192, 193. See also Florentine
Codex (Sahagún)
Histoyre du Mechique (Olmos): on origin of
name “Mexico,” 210n44; painted source for,
83; prototype of, 84; texts transcribed from,
3, 4, 52, 53
Hodgen, Margaret T., 206nn9, 10
Horappolo, 10
Horcasitas, Fernando, 5, 213nn1, 13
Hours of the Virgin, 47
Howe, Kathleen Stewart, 209n32
Huanitzin, Diego, 45
Huastec, 15; Andrés de Olmos as authority
on, 51
Huastecs, 61, 115, 138
Huaxtepec province, in tribute list of Codex
Mendoza, 209n27
Huehuecoyotl (deity), 61, 92
Huehueteotl (deity), 119, 129, 138
huehuetlatolli (rhetorical speeches), 51, 167, 173,
179, 183, 192, 198
Huejotzinco: indigenous rulers of, 1; Andrés de
Olmos on, 52
Index • 237
Huexotla: rulers in Florentine Codex, 184; rulers
in Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros memo-
riales, 174, 175
Huey Cocoliztli (Great Pestilence), 48, 191
Hueymiccailhuitl (festival): in Codex Maglia-
bechiano, 118, 119; in Codex Ríos, 105, 111; in
Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 90; in Codex
Tudela, 127, 128, 129, 138, 202, 203, 214n27;
in Diego Durán’s Calendar treatise, 151, 158;
in Diego Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise,
148; in Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros
memoriales, 170
Hueypachtli (festival): in Codex Magliabe-
chiano, 118, 119, 212n49; in Codex Ríos, 105,
110, 111; in Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 90; in
Codex Tudela, 129; in Diego Durán’s Calen-
dar treatise, 151; in Diego Durán’s Gods and
Rites treatise, 148
Hueytecuilhuitl (festival): in Codex Borbonicus,
61, 62, 63; in Codex Magliabechiano, 119; in
Codex Ríos, 105, 111; in Codex Telleriano-
Remensis, 90; in Codex Tudela, 128, 129; in
Diego Durán’s Calendar treatise, 151; in Diego
Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise, 148; in
Florentine Codex, 182, 183; in Bernardino de
Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, 170
Hueytozoztli (festival): in Codex Borbonicus,
60, 60, 61, 202, 209n16; in Codex Maglia­
bechiano, 119, 212n49; in Codex Ríos, 105, 111;
in Codex Tudela, 129, 138; in Diego Durán’s
Calendar treatise, 151, 158, 158, 164; in Diego
Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise, 148; in
Florentine Codex, 182, 183; in Bernardino de
Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, 170; in Tovar
Calendar, 164
Huitzilihuitl (ruler), 152, 186, 187, 214n25
Huitzilopochtli (deity): in Codex Borbonicus,
61, 63; in Codex Ixtlilxochitl, 213n77; in
Codex Magliabechiano, 119, 124, 212n52; in
Codex Mendoza, 70; in Codex Ríos, 105, 109;
in Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 88, 90, 94, 97,
211n17; in Codex Tudela, 129, 138, 213n77; in
Codex Veytia, 115, 212n45; in Diego Durán’s
Calendar treatise, 151, 152, 214n18; in Diego
Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise, 146, 146, 147,
148, 157–158, 214n18, 214n19, 214n20; in Flo-
rentine Codex, 178, 180, 181, 182, 182, 183, 190;
in Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros memo-
riales, 170, 171, 171, 172, 173, 175; Tepepulco
temple of, 167, 171, 215n41
Huixachtlan (hill, now Cerro de las Estrellas),
63–64
Huixtocihuatl (deity), 90, 105, 119, 148, 170, 172,
182, 183
humanism, 10, 21, 42, 45, 49
Humboldt, Alexander von, 5
Iberian peninsula, forced conversion of non-
Christians in, 41, 42, 43
idolatrous beliefs and practices: calendrical
238 • Index
systems of, 56; Diego Durán on, 2, 51, 142, 143,
144, 145, 155, 165, 166, 193; mendicants preach-
ing against, 2, 84, 196, 198; objective annota-
tions on, 87, 142; Bernardino de Sahagún on,
2, 51, 142, 143, 181, 193–194
Ilamatecuhtli (deity), 148, 170, 182, 183
indigenous artisans: accomplishments of, 44, 45;
and construction of catafalque of Charles V,
22; featherwork, 45, 74, 78, 186, 190, 191; and
luxury crafts, 74, 78, 184, 184, 190, 191, 191, 193,
198, 202; prevalence of crafts practitioners, 74;
symbols of the crafts, 45, 46, 47, 207n20
indigenous elders: discourse with Bernardino
de Sahagún, 2, 167; Diego Durán working
with, 53, 54, 144, 165, 203; identification of,
53–54; Motolinía working with, 54, 203;
Andrés de Olmos working with, 51, 54, 203;
Bernardino de Sahagún working with, 53,
54, 192, 203; translations of pictography into
alphabetic text, 2
indigenous elites: education for sons of, 45,
47, 49; and Bernardino de Sahagún, 167; as
source for Bernardino de Sahagún, 192
indigenous manuscript painters: Aztec iconogra-
phy used by, 156, 157, 162; Aztec ideologies and
practices represented by, 55; and blank spaces
for glosses, 68, 203; of Codex Borbonicus,
56, 60, 63, 65–67, 68, 209n16; and Codex
Magliabechiano, 113; of Codex Mendoza, 69,
80–81; and Codex Tudela, 113; diagrammatic
structure of Preconquest almanacs, 67; of
early colonial period, 68; European iconog-
raphy used by, 67, 68, 201; European pictorial
conventions adopted by, 8, 29, 156–157, 157,
162; and field of painted page, 202–203; and
figuration, 67, 202; ideoplastic images of,
23, 24, 25, 80, 97–98, 99, 175, 189, 201; lines
defining forms, 67, 208n12; management of
recto and verso of folios, 12, 69, 74, 80, 91–92,
99, 125, 126, 141, 200; master painters of
Preconquest codices, 68; pictorial illusionism
used by, 67, 201–202; pigments used by, 67;
Preconquest style of, 3, 67, 68, 69, 74, 80, 87,
196; tridimensional techniques of, 201, 203;
workshops of, 67, 69, 80
indigenous Mexican pictography: alphabetic
writing compared to, 10, 12, 13, 14, 23, 25,
28; Codex Borbonicus drawing from, 55;
Codex Magliabechiano drawing from, 124;
Codex Mendoza drawing from, 55; Codex
Ríos drawing from, 106; Codex Telleriano-
Remensis drawing from, 98, 113; Codex
Tudela drawing from, 137, 138; European
pictography compared to, 17–18, 19, 28–29,
156–157; figural nature of, 28, 175; Florentine
Codex drawing from, 187, 189–190, 189, 192; as
graphic system, 7, 10; iconography of, 137, 138,
140, 141, 156, 157, 162, 175–176, 190, 196, 202;
lack of margins in Preconquest manuscripts,
13; as screenfold books, 11, 11, 23, 206n29
indigenous rulers: assistance in documentation
of Preconquest culture, 1–2, 3, 54, 55; and
ceremony for catafalque of Charles V, 22;
Andrés de Olmos’s compiling paintings of,
52, 53; recognition of European writing and
pictography, 29
Información sobre los tributos que los indios
pagaban a Moctezuma, 83, 84
Isabella I (queen of Spain), 41–42
Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae (Etymologies or
Origins), 31, 33, 37, 181, 192
Itzcoatl (Obsidian Serpent, Aztec ruler), 26, 26,
71, 72, 95, 95, 153, 154, 161, 187, 209n24
Ivins, William, 15
Ixcozauhqui (deity), 172, 173
Ixtlilton (deity), 61, 172, 180, 212n51
Izcalli (festival): in Codex Borbonicus, 60, 61, 63,
65, 66, 67, 208n8; in Codex Magliabechiano,
119, 125, 212n50; in Codex Ríos, 105, 111; in
Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 90; in Codex
Tudela, 129; in Diego Durán’s Calendar
treatise, 152; in Diego Durán’s Gods and Rites
treatise, 148; in Florentine Codex, 182, 183; in
Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales,
170, 215n51
Iztaccihuatl (deity), 146, 146
Iztac Cihuatl Coatlicue (deity), 172
Iztapalapa, and Codex Borbonicus, 63
Jacobita, Martín de, 54, 168, 185
Jaguar Cuauhxicalli, interior of, 206n30
Jalisco, Franciscans schools of, 47
Jansen, Maarten: on Codex Borbonicus, 208n14;
on Codex Magliabechiano, 6, 212n48; on
Codex Ríos, 6, 99, 100, 211nn23, 25, 26; on
Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 210nn5, 7
Jerome, Saint, 49
Jesus Christ: glyphs of Christ’s passion, 19; in
Mass of St. Gregory, ca. 1420–1430, with
the Virgin and St. John, 19, 19; Moctezuma’s
visual image aligned with, 191, 202; Quetzal-
coatl compared to, 112
Jews: conversion of, 41, 42; expulsion from
Spain, 41, 42; and Philip II’s cédula of 1577,
164
Jiménez, Francisco, 44
Joachim of Fiore, theory of successive ages, 43,
44
John, Saint, in Mass of St. Gregory, ca. 1420–
1430, with the Virgin and St. John, 19, 19
Jones, Ann Rosalind, 207n17
Jonghe, Edouard de, 83
Julian calendar, 89, 93, 118, 140
Julius Caesar, 49
Julius III (pope), 53, 208n42
Juvenal, 49
Kingsborough, Edward King, Lord: Antiquities
of Mexico, 5, 205n4; Codex Ríos, 211n25
Kircher, Athanasius, 5
Klein, Cecelia, 137
Kobayashi, José María, 207n24
Kublai Khan, 34
Kubler, George, 89, 215n41
La Coruña, J. Miguez of, 127
Lafaye, Jacques, 164, 214nn28, 31
Landsknechte (Germanic mercenary infantry-
men), 206n12
las Casas, Bartolomé de, 10, 20, 23, 34, 50, 53, 70
Latin, 45, 47–49, 54, 99, 167, 177, 181, 186, 194
Lejarza, Fidel de, 207n8
León-Portilla, Miguel, 208n33, 214n36
León y Gama, Manuel, 210n38
Leo X (pope), 41, 43, 207n10
Le Tellier, Charles-Maurice, 87
Leyenda de los soles: Codex Mendoza related to,
82, 83; as part three of Codex Chimalpopoca,
209–210n38; pictorial sources of, 84; struc-
ture of ancient literary genres preserved in, 4
Libellus, 192
Libro de Figuras, 113–114, 115, 116, 127, 138
lienzos: and evangelical project in Mexico, 19, 51,
51, 208n35; narrative sequence of, 208n7
Livy, History of Rome, 152
López, Jerónimo, 69
López Austin, Alfredo, 6, 100, 181
López de Gómara, Francisco, Historia, 53, 114
Lord of Duality/Sustenance, 101, 101
Lorenzo, D., 54
Loubat, Joseph Florimond, Duc de, 5
Luther, Martin, 41
Macuiltochtli (deity), 172
Macuilxochitl (deity), 120, 172, 173, 180, 199,
209n30
Magallón, Manuel, 114
Magaloni Kerpel, Diana, 188, 190, 191
Magliabechiano, Antonio da Marco, 116
Magliabechiano Group: analysis of, 6; as
cognate manuscripts, 86, 113; and Diego
Durán’s Historia, 163; and ethnographic
recording, 113, 116, 140; figure logos signifying
veintenas in, 89; lost manuscript of, 82; and
Andrés de Olmos’s pictorial manuscripts, 3;
primary members of, 113–115; pulque gods
in, 122, 140, 198, 199; ritual practices in, 140,
199; secondary members of, 115–116; themes
of, 113. See also Codex Magliabechiano;
Codex Tudela
Magnus, Olaus, Historia de gentibus septentrion-
alibus, 34, 35, 40, 193, 199
Mandeville, John, 34
Mansion, Colard, 38, 39
Mapa Sigüenza, 154
Marco Polo, Liber diversorum, 206n9
Markey, Lia, 179
Martínez, José Luis, 216nn67, 72
Martínez Siliceo, Juan, 49
Martyr d’Anghiera, Peter, 10, 23, 49
Mass of St. Gregory, 19, 19, 205n18; feather
“painting” of, 45
Mathes, Michael, 49, 208nn31, 32
Matrícula de Tributos, 82, 83, 84, 177, 199,
209n32, 210nn40, 41, 42
Maximiliano, Bonifacio, 168, 185
Mayahuel (deity), 212n51
Medieta, Gerónimo de, 3, 20
Melgarejo de Urrea, Pedro, 207n8
memoria, as devotional aids, 18
mendicant ethnographers: on Aztec culture,
2–3, 4, 8, 30, 33, 86, 194–195, 198, 199; and
collections of pagan gods in European ency-
clopedias, 39–40, 192–193, 198, 199; general
knowledge base of, 40; indigenous assistants
of, 40, 203; investigative process of, 50–54, 55;
and mid-century encyclopedias, 86; working
manuscripts of, 142. See also Durán, Diego;
Motolinía (Fray Toribio de Benavente);
Olmos, Andrés de; Sahagún, Bernardino de
mendicant orders: establishment in Mexico, 43,
44–45; monasteries established by, 45; secu-
lar clergy replacing, 166, 195
Mendieta, Gerónimo de: on artisans of San
José de los Naturales, 45, 47; chronicles of
Franciscans, 45, 207nn14, 23; on education
of indigenous elites, 45; Historia ecclesiástica
indiana, 62, 82, 83, 210n43; on Motolinía,
52–53, 83; and Andrés de Olmos’s investiga-
tions, 3, 7, 52, 53, 54, 83, 84, 208n35; papal
bulls published by, 207n10; on Antonio
Valeriano, 208n30
Mendoza, Antonio de: and Colegio de Santa
Cruz, 47; and commissioned accounts of
indigenous history, 4, 50, 55, 69, 84, 209n19;
on epidemic of 1545, 48, 207n25; representa-
tion in Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 97
Mendoza, Diego de, 167
Mesoamerican pictorials: ADEVA’s publishing
of facsimiles of, 6, 99, 211n25; chronology of,
8; as codices, 9, 23; European readership of, 4;
publication history of, 205n2. See also Aztec
pictography; and specific codices
Mexía, Pedro, 49
Mexican hieroglyphic writing, 5, 7. See also indig-
enous Mexican pictography
Mexica rulers: conquests of, 82; in Florentine
Codex, 184, 186, 187; history of, 150, 152,
153–154, 161, 163, 164; preimperial lords of
Tenochtitlan, 94, 200; in Bernardino de
Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, 169, 173, 174,
174, 175, 176, 198
Mexico City: hieroglyphic and emblematic dis-
plays in, 22; Bernardino de Sahagún on, 192
Mexico-Tenochtitlan: book compiled on
antiquities of Indians of, 1; and Codex
Telleriano-Remensis, 97; conquest of, 43;
Andrés de Olmos on, 52; rulers in Florentine
Codex, 184, 186, 187; rulers in Bernardino de
Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, 174, 175
Miccailhuitontli (festival): in Codex Maglia-
bechiano, 118, 119; in Codex Ríos, 105, 111; in
Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 90; in Codex
Tudela, 128, 129, 140; in Diego Durán’s Cal-
endar treatise, 151; in Diego Durán’s Gods
and Rites treatise, 148; in Bernardino de
Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, 170
Mictlantecuhtli (deity), 90, 105, 117, 122, 123, 125,
132, 202, 212n51
mid-century encyclopedias: annals history in,
86, 87, 142, 200; annotations of, 86, 87; Aztec
culture in, 141; Aztec gods in, 143, 156, 199;
commentaries of, 141, 143–144; compilation
of, 143; European paper and bindings used
for, 87, 141; friars’ sponsorship of, 143; inter-
pretative process of, 86; neutrality on Aztec
religion and history, 87, 142, 204; paintings
of, 86, 141, 203; pedagogical goals of, 165; Pre-
conquest pictographic tradition used in, 87,
141, 142; presentation of indigenous thought
and behavior in, 86, 141; and preservation of
structure of ancient manuscript genres, 141;
primacy of image in, 86, 87, 141, 143–144, 197;
and principal calendrical cycles, 142; relation-
ship between images and text in, 175; on
religious ideology, 86; rhetorical and graphic
framing lacking in, 141–142; shared features
of, 86, 141; title pages lacking in, 142; veintena
(monthly) rituals in, 86, 87, 142, 143, 171, 197,
199; and verso-recto of facing pages, 141, 200.
See also Codex Magliabechiano; Codex Ríos;
Codex Telleriano-Remensis; Codex Tudela
Middle Ages, encyclopedias of, 31, 34, 35
migration histories: in Codex Ríos, 95, 109–110,
109, 111, 211n17, 211n18; in Codex Telleriano-
Remensis, 89, 93, 93, 94, 97, 98, 113, 200,
210n6, 211nn16, 17, 18; Diego Durán on, 145,
150, 152, 154; as source for Historia de los mexi-
canos por sus pinturas, 84
millennial views, 43
Milne, Michael, 150, 153, 154, 163, 213n1
mimetic figuration: alphabetic writing’s relation-
ship to, 14; and atmospheric perspective, 14,
157, 190, 203; and chiaroscuro, 190, 202, 203;
in Codex Magliabechiano, 118, 125; in Codex
Mendoza, 80; in Codex Tudela, 137; and
color perspective, 14; contour lines of, 14, 16;
as European graphic system, 11, 14–17, 28;
and glyphic clusters, 19; indigenous Mexican
pictography’s similarity to, 23; linear perspec-
tive of, 15, 16, 80, 87, 116, 125, 138, 141, 190, 202,
203, 212n57; medieval tradition compared
to, 16–17, 17; overlapping forms and planes
of, 14–15; and perspectiva naturalis (optical
perspective), 14–15; and stage space, 16; visual
tridimensionality of, 11, 14–16, 15. See also
pictorial illusionism
Mimixcoa (deity), 173
Mixcoatl (deity), 61, 90, 105, 117, 119, 129, 152, 170,
182, 183
Index • 239
Moctezuma I (ruler): accession statement of, 26,
26, 95; in Diego Durán’s Historia, 214n22; as
ruler of Tenochitlan, 155; tribute sent to, 50,
69, 196
Moctezuma II (ruler), 71, 81, 83, 110; in Codex
Mendoza, 73; costume of, 107; death of,
139, 191; in Diego Durán’s Historia, 152, 155,
214n22; judicial appeals in palace of, 76–77,
78, 83, 199, 202; palace of, 74, 78, 80–81, 203,
209nn21, 22, 32, 34
Molina, Alonso de: Confesionario mayor, en len-
gua mexicana y castellana, 12; as faculty mem-
ber of Colegio de Santa Cruz, 48, 207n23;
Nahua vocabulary of, 167; works in library of
Colegio de Santa Cruz, 49
Mongol peoples, 34, 40, 54
Montoro, Gláucia Cristiani, 210nn4, 5, 6
Moquihuix of Tlatelolco, 96, 97, 209n25
More, Thomas, 49
Moriscos, 42
Moses, woodcut print of the ten plagues and the
Ten Commandments with, 18–19, 18
Motolinía (Fray Toribio de Benavente): calendar
document associated with, 2–3; De moribus
indorum, 53; on education of indigenous
elites, 45; on epidemics, 207n25; and evan-
gelical project, 44, 167; on genres of ancient
pictography, 2, 3, 10, 14, 53; Historia de los
indios, 52, 53, 208n39; investigative research
of, 51, 52–53, 203, 208n36; Memoriales, 53; and
Andrés de Olmos’s investigations, 3, 53, 55; as
San Gabriel friar, 43
Muenster, Sebastian, 206n10
Muñoz, Juan Bautista, 127
Muñoz Camargo, Diego, on Tlaxcala, 4
Muslims: conversion of, 41, 42, 43; expulsion
from Spain, 41, 42
Nahuas, collaboration with Franciscans, 49–50
Nahuatl: agglutination as characteristic of gram-
mar of, 24; Catholic doctrine translated into,
51–52; Catholic songs and religious dramas
sung and performed in, 51; in Codex Maglia-
bechiano, 117, 125, 126; in Codex Ríos, 112;
dictionary of, 193, 194; Diego Durán’s exper-
tise in, 143, 144, 155, 165; Franciscans fluent in,
47, 50; Franciscans’ learning of, 49; Pedro de
Gant’s knowledge of, 45; Andrés de Olmos
as authority on, 1, 51–52; Bernardino de
Sahagún’s expertise in, 143, 167, 194, 214n38;
Bernardino de Sahagún’s preservation of, 143;
sentence-words of, 24
Napatecuhtli (deity), 172, 180
Nazareo, Pablo, 48
Nebrija, Antonio de, 42, 49
Neckham, Alexander, 206n4
Nemontemi: in Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 90,
210n9; in Diego Durán’s Calendar treatise, 152;
in Florentine Codex, 182, 183; in Bernardino
de Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, 170
240 • Index
neoplatonic humanists, 10, 21
New Fire Ceremony of 1507: in Codex Borboni-
cus, 56, 60, 61, 63–64, 64, 66, 67, 68, 197; in
Codex Mendoza, 70; in Codex Tudela, 133,
139, 140; in Florentine Codex, 184, 198; in Ber-
nardino Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, 173
New Spain, 1, 48, 50, 53
Nicholson, H. B.: on Codex Borbonicus, 56, 64,
208nn8, 14; on Codex Mendoza, 209n19; on
Libro de Figuras, 211–212n41; on Andrés de
Olmos, 210nn44, 45; on veintenas, 205n7
Nielsen, Jesper, 100
Night Lords: in Codex Borbonicus, 27, 28, 56,
57–58, 200; in Codex Borgia, 92, 210–211n13;
in Codex Fejérváry-Mayer, 92, 210–211n13;
in Codex Ríos, 92, 103; in Codex Telleriano-
Remensis, 91, 92, 200; in Codex Tudela, 133,
135, 197, 201; in divinatory almanacs, 27, 28;
in Florentine Codex, 198
Niza, Marcos de, 207n15
Nowotny, Karl Anton, 208n14
Nuttall, Zelia, 5, 6
Ocharte, Pedro, 15
Ochpanaliztli (festival), in Codex Tudela, 129
Ochpaniztli (festival): in Codex Borbonicus,
61, 62, 62–63, 202; in Codex Magliabechiano,
119, 138, 212n49; in Codex Ríos, 105; in Codex
Telleriano-Remensis, 90, 92, 210n12; in Codex
Tudela, 138; in Diego Durán’s Calendar trea-
tise, 151, 158; in Diego Durán’s Gods and Rites
treatise, 148, 214n20; in Florentine Codex,
182, 183; in Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros
memoriales, 170
Olmos, Andrés de: in Basque country, 1, 52;
Codex Mendoza linked to, 82; ethnography
of, 3, 50, 51–52, 55, 203; as faculty member of
Colegio de Santa Cruz, 47, 49; foundational
study of, 3; investigative process of, 1, 2, 3,
7, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 84; knowledge of native
languages, 51, 52; Nahuatl huehuetlatolli
(rhetorical speeches) recorded by, 51; as
source for Codex Mendoza commentary,
83; Suma, 52, 82, 210nn43, 44; in Tepepulco,
167. See also Historia de los mexicanos por
sus pinturas (Olmos); Histoyre du Mechique
(Olmos)
Omacatl (deity), 172, 180
Opochtli (deity), 172, 180
Otontecuhtli (deity), 170, 172, 173
Ototonilco, 209n33
Oviedo y Valdés, Gonzalo Fernández de, 69, 84
Oxomoco (deity), 58, 58
Pachtontli (festival): in Codex Magliabechiano,
119, 212n49; in Codex Ríos, 105; in Codex
Telleriano-Remensis, 90; in Codex Tudela,
129; in Diego Durán’s Calendar treatise, 151;
in Diego Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise, 148
pagan gods of antiquity, in European
encyclopedias, 8, 30, 37–40, 120, 192–193, 198,
199, 202
Palatino, Giovanni Battista, 20, 205–206n20
Panquetzaliztli (festival): in Codex Borbonicus,
60, 61, 63, 64, 66; in Codex Magliabechiano,
119; in Codex Ríos, 105, 111, 142; in Codex
Telleriano-Remensis, 88, 90, 92; in Codex
Tudela, 129; in Codex Veytia, 115; in Diego
Durán’s Calendar treatise, 152; in Diego
Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise, 148; in
Florentine Codex, 182, 183; in Bernardino
de Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, 170
Papaztac (deity), 212n51
Parkes, Malcolm B., 13, 205n8
Paso y Troncoso, Francisco del: on Francisco
Cervantes de Salazar, 114; on Codex Bor-
bonicus, 52, 56, 68, 208nn3, 8; on Codex
Telleriano-Remensis and Codex Ríos, 210n4;
on Bernardino de Sahagún, 5, 168, 181
passage of time, in Preconquest painted manu-
scripts, 25
Paul III (pope), 45
Paynal (deity), 171, 172, 175, 180
Peperstraete, Sylvie, 163, 213nn1, 9, 13, 214n28
Peregrinato in Terram Sanctam (Breydenbach),
35–36, 36, 191
Pérez Jiménez, Gabina Aurora, 208n14
Peterson, Jeanette Favrot, 190, 216n70
Petrarch, 37, 38, 192
Petrus Apianus, 49
Philip II (king of Spain), 164, 179, 194,
215–216n62
philosophical concepts: in ancient and medieval
encyclopedias, 30, 31; in European pictogra-
phy, 18; in Florentine Codex, 179, 181, 183–184,
191, 192
Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni, 49, 206n26
pictography. See Aztec pictography; European
pictography; indigenous Mexican pictography
Pictor, Georg, 192
pictorial illusionism: alphabetic writing’s rela-
tionship to, 14; as graphic system, 7, 11; tech-
niques of, 16, 80, 87, 116, 125, 126, 137, 138, 141,
156–157, 162, 188, 190, 196, 201–203, 209n33.
See also mimetic figuration
Pilahuana (festival), 119, 212n49
Pius V (pope), 168
plague of 1550, 210n5. See also epidemic of
1545–1548
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia (Natural
History), 31, 33, 49, 181, 192, 193
Plutarch, 49
Polydore Vergil, De inventoribus rerum, 193
Pomar, Juan Bautista, Relación de Texcoco, 114,
211n36, 213n77
Popocatepetl, 146
Postclassic Mexico, 28
Pottier, Fabien, 67
Preconquest Aztec culture: ancient literary
genres of, 3, 87, 143, 192, 196; and Colegio de
 Santa Cruz, 49, 50; as distant memory, 143;
Diego Durán’s knowledge of, 143; epistemo-
logical traditions of, 143; mendicant project to
record and comprehend, 30; Motolinía’s doc-
umentation of, 53; Andrés de Olmos’s docu-
mentation of, 1, 52; pictorial compilations of,
84, 85; pictorial encyclopedias of, 29, 199–201;
pictorial records of, 2, 3, 4, 7; Bernardino de
Sahagún’s knowledge of, 143, 167
Preconquest painted manuscripts: Diego Durán
on, 53, 54; iconography of, 141, 175, 177, 188,
189, 190; indigenous rulers providing, 1–2, 3,
54, 55; intermediary manuscripts joining texts
to indigenous images, 3–4; painters of, 67, 68,
69, 74, 80, 87, 196; protocols for rituals in, 25,
66; regional schools of, 6; scholarly interest
in, 5; as site of discourse between wise men
and friars, 54; as source of indigenous infor-
mation, 7; and transference of indigenous
thought and expression to Spanish-speaking
audience, 54, 55, 68, 141, 196. See also Aztec
pictography; Codex Borbonicus; Codex
Mendoza
Primeros memoriales (Sahagún): artists of,
175–176, 203, 215n49; on Aztec gods, 169, 171,
171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 181, 198, 202, 215n49;
on Aztec rulers, 169, 173, 174, 174, 175, 176, 198;
on calendars, 169; on celestial bodies, 169, 175,
198; content of, 99, 169, 171, 173–174; date of,
8, 168, 215n45; day count in, 173, 175, 200–201;
duties of priests of gods, 176; facsimile of, 5,
6; huehuetlatolli (rhetorical speeches) in, 173;
on hymns, 171, 173, 174, 176; and indigenous
Mexican pictography, 167, 171, 173, 174, 175;
itemization and explanation of weapons and
military costumes, 176, 177; Nahuatl cultural
expression in, 177; Nahuatl text of, 169, 171,
173–174, 175, 176, 176, 177, 215n44; on natural
history, 169; and New Fire Ceremony, 173; on
offerings, 171, 171, 174, 175, 176; paintings of,
168, 171, 174–176, 186; paper of, 215n46; rela-
tionship between images and texts in, 7, 166,
168, 171, 173, 174–175, 176, 177, 215n51; on reli-
gious practice, 169, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 197,
198; scribes of, 175, 176–177; structure of, 169,
175; texts of, 171, 176–177; trecenas in, 173, 175,
200–201; on veintena festivals, 65, 169, 169,
170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 198, 201, 215nn47, 51;
on warriors’ costumes, 174, 175, 177, 199; year
count in, 171, 173, 175, 198
Ptolemy, 49
pulque gods: in Codex Magliabechiano, 116, 118,
120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 138, 163, 202, 212n51; in
Codex Tudela, 127, 130, 130, 132, 137, 138, 163,
197; in Magliabechiano Group, 122, 140, 198,
199; Bernardino de Sahagún on, 122
Purchase, Samuel, Hakluytus Posthumus, 5, 70
Quaquauhtzin (Tepechpan ruler), 26–27, 26
Quauhnahuac province, 209n27
Quauhtlatoa of Tlatelolco, 209n25
Quauitleua (festival), 183
Quecholli (festival): in Codex Borbonicus, 61,
208n12; in Codex Magliabechiano, 119; in
Codex Ríos, 105, 110, 111; in Codex Telleriano-
Remensis, 90; in Codex Tudela, 129; in Diego
Durán’s Calendar treatise, 152; in Diego
Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise, 148, 214n20;
in Florentine Codex, 182, 183; in Bernardino
de Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, 170
Quetzalcoatl (deity): in Codex Borbonicus, 58,
61, 67; in Codex Ixtlilxochitl, 114; in Codex
Magliabechiano, 117, 119, 120, 124, 124, 126,
199, 212n52; in Codex Ríos, 101, 112; in Codex
Telleriano-Remensis, 112; in Codex Tudela,
129, 130; in Diego Durán’s Historia, 146,
146, 148, 156, 164; in Florentine Codex, 180,
182, 188; in Magliabechiano Group, 199; in
Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales,
172
Quilaztli (deity), 172
Quiñones Keber, Eloise: on Codex Ríos, 6,
211nn25, 30; on Codex Telleriano-Remensis,
6, 87, 89, 92, 97, 210nn5, 6, 211nn15, 17, 20, 22;
on Codex Telleriano-Remensis and Codex
Ríos, 210n4; on Bernardino de Sahagún’s
Primeros memoriales, 175, 215n49
Quintilian, 48, 49
Ramírez, José Fernando, 5, 144, 155, 213nn1, 13
Rao, Ida Giovanni, 179, 185
rebuses, 20, 23, 29
Reformation, 41, 42
Reina, B., 100
Relaciones geográficas of 1578–1586, 2, 4
Renaissance: costume books of, 36, 37, 138–139;
and emblemata, 21; encyclopedias of, 31, 33,
34, 192; and formulae for suggesting plasticity
of form, 14, 16; and hieroglyphs, 21, 206n22
Reportorios de los tiempos, 92
Reunert, Toke Sellner, 100
Reuwich, Erhard, 35
Riese, Berthold, 6, 115, 211n41
Ríos, Pedro de los: calligraphy of, 100; com-
mentaries on Codex Telleriano-Remensis,
88, 89, 92, 93, 99, 210nn5, 11; commissioning
of Codex Ríos, 3–4, 51, 52, 99, 112–113, 140,
199, 203; on female supernaturals, 92, 210n12;
on migration history, 211n17; working near
Puebla, 89, 210nn5, 13
Robertson, Donald: on Bartholomeus Anglicus,
33, 192; on Codex Borbonicus, 68, 209n15; on
Codex Mendoza, 79; on Codex Telleriano-
Remensis, 94, 210n5; on Diego Durán’s
Historia, 157, 162, 213n12; on Florentine Codex
painters, 189–190, 216n72; on manuscript
painting, 6, 209n32; on symbols of the crafts,
207n20
Robertson, William, 56
Roman Catholic Church: and hybrid of
Preconquest and Christian thought and prac-
tice, 51; indigenous Catholicism, 165, 166, 193;
liturgical calendars of, 158; in Spain, 41–42.
See also evangelical project in Mexico; mendi-
cant ethnographers; mendicant orders
Roman gods, 30
Roman numerals, in alphabetic writing, 205n6
Roman tombs, rebuses of, 20
Rosenthal, Margaret F., 207n17
royal history, image-based studies of, 2
Rubruck, William, 34, 40, 54, 193, 199
Sachs, Hans, Book of Trades, 193
Sahagún, Bernardino de: Códices Matritenses
of, 168, 212n47, 215n43; Coloquios y doctrina
cristiana, 51; confiscation of manuscripts of,
166, 194, 195, 204; and Diego Durán, 3; on
epidemics, 207n25; as faculty member of
Colegio de Santa Cruz, 47–49, 167, 168; on
idolatrous beliefs and practices, 2, 51, 142,
143, 181, 193–194; investigative process of, 1–2,
51, 53, 143, 165, 166–168, 203; on layers of the
cosmos, 211n28; Manuscript of Tlatelolco,
82–83; manuscripts of, 168, 215n43; Francisco
del Paso y Troncoso’s study of, 5, 168; and
Philip II’s cédula of 1577, 164; and Pliny the
Elder’s organizational template, 31; on pulque
gods, 122; questionnaire of, 206n9; relation-
ships among manuscripts of, 6, 166; on rulers,
82–83; scholarly literature on, 166; studies of,
7; in Tepepulco, 1–2, 48, 167, 168; and Univer-
sity of Salamanca, 21; on visual attributes of
Aztec gods, 38; works in Nahuatl, 49. See also
Florentine Codex (Sahagún); Historia general
(Sahagún); Primeros memoriales (Sahagún)
San Buenaventura, Pedro de, 54, 168, 185
San Francisco, order of, 50
San Francisco monastery, Mexico City, 22, 45,
48, 168
San José de los Naturales, Mexico City: and
Arnaldo de Basaccio, 47; conquered and
colonized Mexicans learning languages, visual
systems, and ideology of Spaniards, 49–50;
enrollment of, 45; and Pedro de Gant’s educa-
tion of indigenous elites, 45, 47
Santiago Tlatelolco monastery, 49, 154, 168, 179,
207n23, 208n31
Santo Domingo convent, Mexico City, 165
Sardi, Alessandro, 206n10
Scandinavia, 34, 40
School of Texcoco, 6
scriptura continua, 13
Second Audiencia, Sebastián Ramírez de
Fuenleal as first president of, 50
second Nicene Council, 10
Selden, John, 70
Selden Roll, 109, 208n7
Seler, Eduard, 5, 7
Seneca, 49
Sequera, Rodrigo de, 168, 179, 181, 194
Index • 241
Serlio, Sebastiano, 190
Severino, Mateo, 168, 185
Shapiro, Meyer, 205n2
Soto, Francisco de, 44
Sotomayor, Catalina de, 126–127
Spain: exploration and colonization of
Americas, 42; proselytizing and converting
non­believers in, 41, 42, 43; Roman Catholic
Church in, 41–42; Spanish ethnographies on
Aztec culture sent to, 3
Spanish conquest: Hernando Alvarado Tezo-
zomoc on, 213n9; Francisco Cervantes de
Salazar on, 53; in Codex Mendoza, 69; in
Codex Ríos, 110, 110, 111; in Codex Telleriano-
Remensis, 93; in Codex Tudela, 139; in Diego
Durán’s Historia, 143, 150, 152, 153, 155, 159,
162, 166, 198, 213n9; European chroniclers’
reports on, 10; in Florentine Codex, 143, 181,
184, 185–186, 188, 190, 191, 194, 198, 199, 202;
quincentenary of, 6
Spanish Crown: curtailing dominance of
mendicant orders, 195; evangelical project of,
41, 44; request for geographic and economic
description of New Spain, 50; request for
information on tribute, 55; support of Colegio
de Santa Cruz, 47, 48
Spanish ethnographic projects: and Colegio de
Santa Cruz, 49; Franciscans associated with,
2–3; pictorial manuscripts created for, 3–4;
purpose of, 50; reliance on the visual and the
oral, 2; suppression of, 166. See also mendicant
ethnographers
Spauteren, Jean von, 49
spoken language: relationship of alphabetic
writing to, 11; relationship of pictography to,
23, 28
Stone of Tizoc, 206n30
Suárez, Juan, 44
Suárez de Peralta, Juan, 53
Suda encyclopedia, 49
Sullivan, Thelma, 6, 215n44
Sutro, Adolph, 208n31
Sweden, 34
Talavera, Hernando, 43
Tecto, Juan de, 44, 207nn8, 18
Tecuilhuitontli (festival): in Codex Borbonicus,
61; in Codex Magliabechiano, 119, 212n49;
in Codex Ríos, 105, 111; in Codex Telleriano-
Remensis, 89, 90; in Codex Tudela, 128; in
Diego Durán’s Calendar treatise, 151; in Diego
Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise, 148; in
Florentine Codex, 182, 183; in Bernardino de
Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, 170
Templo Mayor: and Codex Telleriano-
Remensis, 89, 97; in Codex Tudela, 213n77;
in Diego Durán’s Historia, 158
Tenayuca, and Codex Mendoza, 70
Tenochca history, 97
Tenochtitlan, 4, 9, 26, 45, 47, 52, 73, 97, 111, 153,
242 • Index
167, 169, 208n8; conquest of, 1, 41, 43, 109,
110, 110, 185, 211n14, 214n30; in Diego Durán’s
Historia, 150, 152, 153, 153, 155, 158, 159; in
Florentine Codex, 194, 198; founding of, 69,
70, 71, 71, 80, 81, 82, 83, 93, 95, 109, 150, 152, 153,
154, 155, 158, 159, 164, 200; place sign of, 70;
Preconquest Aztec culture of, 9; ritual pre-
cinct of, 171; rulers of, 71, 83, 94, 187; Antonio
Valeriano as governor of, 48, 54
Teotleco (festival): in Codex Borbonicus, 61, 62;
in Codex Magliabechiano, 118, 119, 212n49; in
Codex Tudela, 129, 137, 138; in Diego Durán’s
Calendar treatise, 151; in Florentine Codex,
182, 183; in Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros
memoriales, 170
Tepanec war, 95, 211n19
Tepeaca: indigenous rulers of, 1; Andrés de
Olmos on, 52
Tepeacac, in tribute list of Codex Mendoza, 73
Tepeilhuitl (festival): in Codex Borbonicus,
61; in Codex Ríos, 110, 111; in Diego Durán’s
Calendar treatise, 151; in Diego Durán’s Gods
and Rites treatise, 148; in Florentine Codex,
182, 183; in Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros
memoriales, 170
Tepepulco, 167, 171, 215n41; Bernardino de
Sahagún at monastery of, 1–2, 48, 167, 168,
185, 192
Tepictoton (Little Molded Ones), 171, 172, 180,
181
Tepoztecatl (deity), 212n51
Testera, Jacobo de, 45, 51, 207n15
Testimonio Compañía Editorial, 6
Teteoinnan (deity), 170, 172, 173, 180, 182, 183
Texcoco: book compiled on antiquities of Indi-
ans of, 1; Pedro de Gante’s educational mis-
sion with indigenous elites of, 45; Andrés de
Olmos on, 52; Preconquest Aztec culture of,
9; rulers in Florentine Codex, 184; rulers in
Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales,
173, 174, 174, 175
Textor, Joseph Ravisius, 49
Tezcacoac Ayopechtli (deity), 172
Tezcatlipoca (deity): in Codex Borbonicus, 57,
58, 61, 63, 67; in Codex Magliabechiano, 117,
119, 212n52; in Codex Ríos, 105, 111; in Codex
Telleriano-Remensis, 90, 92; in Codex Tudela,
129, 138; in Creation narratives, 58; in Diego
Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise, 146, 146, 148,
149; in Florentine Codex, 180, 181, 182, 183; in
Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales,
170, 171, 172; titles used to characterize, 51;
trecena 7 governed by, 57
Tezcatzoncatl (deity), 173, 180
Theophrastus, 192, 193
Thevenot, Melchisedec, 5
Thevet, André, 70, 83, 84, 206n10, 209n20,
210n45
Thomas, Saint, 149, 164, 165
Thomas Aquinas, Saint, 49
Thomas of Cantimpré, 206n4
Thompson, J. Eric S., 210n4
Tira de Tepechpan, 26–27, 26, 141
Tititl (festival): in Codex Borbonicus, 60, 61,
63, 64; in Codex Magliabechiano, 119, 122;
in Codex Ríos, 105, 111; in Codex Telleriano-
Remensis, 90; in Codex Tudela, 129; in Diego
Durán’s Calendar treatise, 152; in Diego
Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise, 148; in
Florentine Codex, 182, 183; in Bernardino de
Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, 170
Titlacahuan (deity), 119
Tito Livio, 49
Tizoc (ruler), 71, 160, 161, 164, 200, 206n30
Tlacaelel (adviser to Mexica rulers), 153–154, 159,
163, 164, 214n18
Tlacaxipehualiztli (festival): in Codex Borboni-
cus, 61, 209n16; in Codex Magliabechiano, 118,
119, 120, 125, 212n50; in Codex Ríos, 105, 111;
in Codex Tudela, 128, 128, 129, 138, 214n27;
in Diego Durán’s Calendar treatise, 150, 151,
158, 214n27; in Diego Durán’s Gods and Rites
treatise, 146, 148, 157, 157, 158, 163, 214n21,
214n27; in Florentine Codex, 182, 183; in
Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales,
169, 170
Tlacochcalco Yaotl (deity), 172. See also Yaotl of
Huitznahuac
Tlalmanalco: indigenous rulers of, 1; Andrés de
Olmos on, 52
Tlaloc (deity): in Codex Borbonicus, 61, 62,
208n3, 209n16; in Codex Magliabechiano, 119,
124, 212n52; in Codex Ríos, 104, 105; in Codex
Telleriano-Remensis, 90; in Codex Tudela,
129, 135, 213n77; in Codex Veytia, 212n45; in
Diego Durán’s Calendar treatise, 151, 152; in
Diego Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise, 146,
146, 148, 214n20; in Florentine Codex, 180, 181,
182, 183; in Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros
memoriales, 170, 171, 172, 173
Tlaltecahua (deity), 173
Tlaltecayoua (deity), 121
Tlaltecuhtli (deity), 146
Tlaltetecuin (deity), 180
Tlatelolco, 97, 174, 198, 207n24, 208n8, 209n25;
indigenous elite of, 52; Andrés de Olmos
on, 52; rulers in Florentine Codex, 184; Ber-
nardino de Sahagún and, 82, 168, 174, 192; and
tribute list of Codex Mendoza, 73, 209n26.
See also Colegio de Santa Cruz; Santiago
Tlatelolco monastery
Tlatilulco. See Tlatelolco
Tlaxcala, 97, 103, 134, 194, 209n15, 214n21; book
compiled on antiquities of Indians of, 1, 4;
Franciscan schools of, 47; Andrés de Olmos
on, 52
Tlaxochimaco (festival): in Codex Borbonicus,
59, 61, 63, 65, 202; in Codex Magliabechiano,
118, 119; in Codex Tudela, 129, 140; in Diego
Durán’s Calendar treatise, 151; in Diego
 Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise, 148; in Flo-
rentine Codex, 182, 183
Tlazolteotl (deity): in Codex Ríos, 7, 105; in
Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 90, 91, 92; in
Florentine Codex, 180; headdress of, 24, 25;
in Bernardino de Saguhún’s Primeros memo-
riales, 172
Tlillan (Dark Temple), 64
Tochpan, 25
Toci (deity): in Codex Borbonicus, 61, 62, 62; in
Codex Magliabechiano, 119, 212n49; in Codex
Telleriano-Remensis, 90, 92; in Codex Tudela,
129; in Diego Durán’s Calendar treatise, 151;
in Diego Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise,
146, 146, 148, 157, 214nn20, 21; in Florentine
Codex, 180, 182, 183
Toltecatl (deity), 130, 138
Tomiyauhtecuhtli (deity), 172
Tonacacihuatl (deity), 92, 103
Tonacatecuhtli (deity), 92, 103, 103, 112
Tonalamatl Aubin: arrangement and composi-
tion of, 141; Codex Borbonicus compared to,
210n46; contents of, 57; hill in sixth trecena
panel, 68, 209n15
Tonatiuh (deity), 57, 135
Topiltzin (deity/ruler), 101, 146, 149, 165, 182,
214nn18, 19
Toral, Francisco de, 167
Torquemada, Juan de, 52, 53, 195
Totochtin (deities), 172, 173
Totoltecatl (deity), 172
Totonac, Andrés de Olmos as authority on, 51
Tovar, Juan de, 4, 164, 214n31
Tovar Calendar, 158, 164
Tovar Manuscript, 164
Toxcatl (festival): in Codex Borbonicus, 61, 63;
in Codex Magliabechiano, 119; in Codex
Ríos, 105, 111; in Codex Tudela, 129, 138; in
Diego Durán’s Calendar treatise, 151; in Diego
Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise, 148, 214n20;
in Florentine Codex, 182, 183; in Bernardino
de Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, 170
Tozoztontli (festival): in Codex Borbonicus,
61; in Codex Magliabechiano, 118, 119, 125,
212n50; in Codex Ríos, 105, 111; in Codex
Tudela, 129; in Diego Durán’s Calendar
treatise, 151; in Diego Durán’s Gods and Rites
treatise, 148, 164; in Florentine Codex, 182; in
Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales,
169, 170
transcultural hybrids, 3
tribute lists: actual and potential levels of, 50; in
Codex Mendoza, 4, 8, 55, 69, 73–74, 73, 80, 81,
82, 83, 196, 199–200, 209nn26, 28, 37, 210n41;
image-based studies of, 2; as indigenous
records, 10; Matrícula de Tributos, 82, 83,
84, 177, 199, 209n32, 210nn40, 41, 42; painted
tribute lists, 25, 55, 199; Spanish Crown’s
request for information on, 55
Tudela de la Orden, José, 6
Tula Cholula, pyramid at, 101
Twomey, Michael W., 206n4
Tzapotlantenan (deity), 172, 180
Tzitzimitl (deity), xiii, 137, 212n52
Ubilla, Andrés de, 213n13
Universidad Complutense at Alcalá de Henares,
42, 45
University of Salamanca, 21
Valadés, Diego: on didactic lienzos, 208n35; on
Mesoamerican scripts compared to Egyptian
hieroglyphic writing, 10, 23; Rhetorica chris-
tiana, 45, 46, 47, 51, 51, 207n20
Valencia, Martín de, 1, 43, 44, 50
Valeriano, Antonio, 48, 54, 168, 185, 208n30
Valeriano, Giovanni Pierio, 21, 206n26
Vargas Montes, Paloma, 213nn1, 11, 13
Vatican Library, 4, 5
Vaticanus 3738. See Codex Ríos
Vaticanus B, 135
Vecellio, Cesare, Degli habiti antichi et moderni
de tutto il mondo, 207n17
Vegerano, Alonso, 54, 168, 185
veintena (monthly) rituals: of Codex Borboni-
cus, 8, 56, 58–68, 61, 118, 125, 171, 197, 201, 202,
203, 208n13; of Codex Magliabechiano, 116,
117–118, 119, 120, 120, 121, 125, 142, 197, 201,
202, 212n49; of Codex Telleriano-Remensis,
86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 97–98, 99, 112,
118, 140, 142, 197, 198, 199, 201, 204, 210nn6,
9, 211n15; of Codex Tudela, 127, 127, 128, 128,
129, 132, 138, 139, 140, 142, 197, 199, 201, 202,
203, 214n27; as cultural category, 7; dating of,
8; Diego Durán’s Historia on, 146, 148, 150,
150, 151–152, 155, 157, 158, 158, 159, 163, 165, 198,
214n27; of Florentine Codex, 115, 181–182,
181, 182, 183, 186, 192, 198; in mid-century
encyclopedias, 86, 87, 142, 143, 171, 197, 199;
H. B. Nicholson on, 205n7; Bernardino de
Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales on, 65, 169, 169,
170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 198, 201, 215nn47, 51;
symbols of deity associated with, 65, 142
Velasco, Luis de, 48, 216n62
Velázquez, Primo Feliciano, 210n38
Veracruz, Alonso de la, 49, 207n16
Vergil, Polydore, De inventoribus rerum
(On Discovery), 33, 34
Verworn, Max, 23
Vesalius, Andreae, 193
Vetancurt, Agustín de, 190, 207n23
Veytia, Mariano, 115
Vico, Enea, 207n17
Vincent of Beauvais, 31, 34, 40, 206n4
Virgil, 49
Virgin Mary: and Heures à l’usage de Rome, 20,
20; in Mass of St. Gregory, ca. 1420–1430,
with the Virgin and St. John, 19, 19
Virgin of Guadalupe, 54
Vives, Juan Luis, 49
Volatiles (flying creatures): in Codex Borboni-
cus, 27, 28, 56, 57, 68; in Codex Telleriano-
Remensis, 91, 200; in Codex Tudela, 133, 135,
197, 201
Vredeman de Vries, Hans, 162, 162
Watts, Pauline Moffitt, 207n20
Weiditz, Christoph, Trachtenbuch, 36–37, 36,
206n14
Weltbücher (world books), 31
Wilkerson, S. Jeffrey K., 52, 208n38
Wilkins, Ernest, 38
Wittkower, Rudolf, 21
Xilomanaliztli (festival): in Codex Magliabe-
chiano, 119; in Codex Tudela, 129
Xilomaniztli (Offering of Xilotes festival), 8; in
Codex Borbonicus, 61, 65; in Codex Ríos, 111;
in Diego Durán’s Calendar treatise, 151, 152; in
Diego Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise, 148
Xilonen (deity): in Codex Magliabechiano, 119,
212n52; in Diego Durán’s Calendar treatise,
151; in Florentine Codex, 182, 183; in Ber-
nardino de Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales,
170, 172
Xipe (deity): in Codex Borbonicus, 61, 209n16;
in Codex Magliabechiano, 212n52; in Codex
Ríos, 112; in Codex Tudela, 129, 138; in Ber-
nardino de Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales,
173. See also Xipe Totec
Xipe Anahuatlitec (deity), 172
Xipe Totec (deity): in Codex Ríos, 105, 111; in
Diego Durán’s Calendar treatise, 151, 158;
in Diego Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise,
146, 146, 157; in Florentine Codex, 180, 182,
183; in Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros
memoriales, 176
Xiuhtecuhtli (deity): in Codex Borbonicus, 61,
63, 67; in Codex Magliabechiano, 119, 124,
212n52; in Codex Ríos, 105, 111; in Codex
Telleriano-Remensis, 90; in Codex Tudela,
129; in Diego Durán’s Gods and Rites
treatise, 146; in Florentine Codex, 180, 182,
183; in Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros
memoriales, 170, 172
Xiutzitzquilo (festival), in Diego Durán’s
Calendar treatise, 151
Xochimilco, 44, 208n2, 214n25; ceremonial
cloaks of, 113, 114, 115; Diego Durán on, 154;
Bernardino de Sahagún’s work in, 48, 167
Xochipilli (deity), 172, 173
Xochiquetzal (deity): in Codex Magliabechiano,
119, 126; in Codex Ríos, 92, 100; in Codex
Telleriano-Remensis, 90, 92; in Codex Tudela,
129; in Diego Durán’s Gods and Rites treatise,
146, 146, 148; in Bernardino de Sahagún’s
Primeros memoriales, 173
Xoconoxco province, in tribute list of Codex
Mendoza, 73, 74
Xocotlhuetzi (festival): in Codex Borbonicus,
Index • 243
 59, 61, 67, 202, 203; in Codex Magliabechiano,
118, 119, 121, 125, 163, 202, 214n27; in Codex
Ríos, 111; in Codex Tudela, 127, 137, 138, 139,
202, 203, 214n27; in Diego Durán’s Calendar
treatise, 151, 158, 159; in Diego Durán’s Gods
and Rites treatise, 146, 149, 158, 214n27; in
Florentine Codex, 182, 183; in Bernardino de
Sahagún’s Primeros memoriales, 170
Xolotl (deity), 61
244 • Index
Yacatecuhtli (deity), 170, 172, 173, 180, 212n51
Yanhuitlan monastery, Oaxaca, 47
Yaotl of Huitznahuac (deity), 173
Yauhqueme (deity), 172
Yzcoatzahque (deity), 129
Zodiac Man, 18, 106–107, 106, 199, 211n35
Zorita, Alonso de: on judicial records, 10; and
Motolinía’s investigations, 53; and Andrés
de Olmos’s investigations, 3, 52, 53
Zumárraga, Juan de: in Basque country, 1, 52; in
Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 97; and Colegio
de Santa Cruz, 47, 48, 49; commissioning
of Olmos, 52; correspondence with Charles V,
207n27; death of, 89, 210n5; representation
of indigenous interests to Spanish colonial
authorities, 50; Bernardino de Sahagún as
interpreter for inquisition proceedings of,
214n38; André Thevet on, 83