Codex Ríos

Spanish colonial-era manuscript From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Codex Ríos

Codex Ríos, originally titled Indorum cultus, idolatria, et mores[b] and also known as Codex Vaticanus A, is a 16th-century Italian translation and augmentation of an Aztec codex, the precise identity of which remains uncertain. Its source may have been either Codex Telleriano-Remensis or the hypothesised Codex Huitzilopochtli. The annotations, written in cursive Italian, are attributed to Pedro de los Ríos, a Dominican friar working in New Spain between 1547 and 1562. The codex is organised into seven sections by subject, encompassing Aztec religion, cosmology, ethnography, a divinatory almanac, and pictorial chronicles. Although based on earlier material compiled in New Spain, the manuscript was likely illustrated by an Italian artist in Rome before entering the Vatican Library, where it is still preserved.

Quick Facts Also known as, Date ...
Codex Ríos
Vatican Library
Thumb
Folio 20r,[a] which depicts the deity Tláloc (central left) surrounded by calendrical symbols
Also known as
  • Indorum cultus, idolatria, et mores (transl.Worship, Idolatry, and Customs of the Indians)[3]:108
  • Codex Vaticanus A[4]:272
  • Codex Vaticanus 3738[4]:272
  • Copia vaticana[4]:272
Date16th century
Language(s)Italian
MaterialEuropean paper
Size46 cm × 29 cm (18 in × 11 in)
FormatFolio[3]:108
Contents
Close

Contents

Summarize
Perspective

The codex is written on European paper and comprises 101 folios, approximately 46 by 29 centimetres (18 in × 11 in) in size.[4]:272 It is divided into seven sections, organised by subject, with each section separated by one or more blank folios.[5]:138

The first section addresses cosmological and religious traditions, including depictions of the heavens, pre-Hispanic giants known as tzocuillixeque, and the previous four eras or cosmogonic suns (1v–7r), as well as narratives concerning Aztec deities such as Quetzalcōātl (7v–11v).[5]:138[6]:31[7]:36–37 The second is the tōnalpōhualli, a 260-day divinatory almanac that portrays ornately dressed deities and other supernatural entities thought to influence the fate linked to each day (12v–33r).[5]:138[8]:234 The third section presents the Aztec calendar tables covering the years 1558 to 1619, without any pictorial content (34v–36r). The fourth is an 18-month festival calendar, accompanied by illustrations of deities and nēmontēmi symbols associated with each period (42v–51r). The fifth is a primarily ethnographic section, describing sacrificial and funerary practices (54v–57r), and concludes with portraits of Indigenous individuals (57v–61r).[5]:138 The sixth section comprises pictorial chronicles spanning the years 1195 to 1549, beginning with the migration from Chicomoztoc—the mythical place of origin of the Nahuatl-speaking peoples—and continuing with events in the Valley of Mexico.[4]:272 It includes representations of rulers, military campaigns, celestial phenomena, and other historical events (66v–94r).[5]:138[8]:234 The seventh and final section consists of year glyphs for the period 1562 to 1566, without accompanying text or imagery (95r–96v).[4]:272

Source and authorship

Summarize
Perspective
Thumb
Cropped image from Codex Ríos (f. 87r), depicting a scene from the early years of the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire[9]:70

The exact date of Codex Ríos's production is unclear.[4]:272 It is one of the two Aztec pictorial manuscripts known to have been held in the Vatican Library in the 16th century.[5]:137–138[c] Produced in Rome by a presumably Italian artist, the codex was based on an earlier Aztec source text, the precise identity of which remains uncertain. One hypothesis suggests that Codex Telleriano-Remensis was its model; however, the pages concerning the early years of the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire are missing from Codex Telleriano-Remensis, whilst Codex Ríos preserves material depicting that period.[9]:69–70 A view common in the 19th century held that Codex Ríos had been copied from Codex Telleriano-Remensis before those pages were lost. The opposite scenario—that Codex Telleriano-Remensis was copied from Codex Ríos—is implausible, as the former appears to be the work of multiple Indigenous artists, whereas the latter displays the uniform style of a single individual.[5]:136

The cursive Italian annotations in Codex Ríos are attributed to Pedro de los Ríos, a Dominican friar active in New Spain between 1547 and 1562. He is known to have been present in Oaxaca during the Zapotec uprising of 1547, a millenarian rebellion influenced by Indigenous prophecies. Maarten Jansen, a Dutch scholar of Mesoamerican history, has hypothesised that Codex Ríos had been copied from Codex Telleriano-Remensis shortly before Ríos's death (before 1565) and was sent to Italy, entering the Vatican Library before 1600, where it is still preserved.[10]

An alternative theory proposes that both manuscripts derived from a now-lost Aztec codex.[4]:272 R. H. Barlow, an American scholar of Mesoamerican cultures, coined the name Codex Huitzilopochtli for this hypothetical source, referencing Huītzilōpōchtli, the solar deity who appears at the beginning of the migration narratives in both Codex Ríos and Codex Telleriano-Remensis.[5]:137 Although both codices document the Aztec calendar, Codex Ríos includes a broader range of religious content, whilst Codex Telleriano-Remensis is characterised by its unique treatment of the calendrical systems and historical material. According to Juan José Batalla Rosado, a professor at the Complutense University of Madrid, this indicates that at least some parts of the two manuscripts may have been derived from distinct sources.[6]:31

See also

Notes

  1. In manuscript terminology, recto refers to the front side of a folio (the right-hand page when a book is open), and verso to the back side (the left-hand page).[1] Folios are typically cited using the folio number followed by r (recto) or v (verso), e.g., 7r, 11v.[2] For further details, see Recto and verso.
  2. Latin for 'Worship, Idolatry, and Customs of the Indians'[3]:108
  3. The identity of the other manuscript remains unknown.[5]:137–138

References

Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.