Codex Zouche-Nuttall

#

o information has yet been found concerning the time or manner in which the Codex Zouche-Nouttall was taken from Mexico or the circumstances by which the manuscript reached Europe. For many years the little that was known of its whereabouts during the nineteenth century was limited almost entirely to a few general comments by Zelia Nuttall (1902), but through research in European and American libraries, archives, and museums I have discovered considerably more data.

I can now trace the location of the codex in detail from 1854, when it had already reached Italy, to its ultimate acquisition by the British Museum. My studies show that four persons played key roles in the history of the document during this time: the Italian historian Pasquale Villari (1827-1917); the American anthropologist Zelia Nuttall (1857-1933); the English connoisseur John Temple Leader (1810-1903); and the English bibliophile Robert Curzon, Lord Zouche (1810-1873).

Curzon clearly considered the codex to be Aztec, however he may have arrived at that opinion. After he received the codex he apparently conducted extensive research into Mesoamerican manuscripts, enough that he knew the whereabouts of most of the important codices then in Europe, as he wrote in his catalogue notes on the Zouche-Nuttal. Whatever that research may have been, he apparently thought that all these surviving codices were Aztec.

Zelia Nuttall likewise considered the codex to be Aztec, a conclusion she apparently reached on the basis of Villariīs original description to her in 1890 of the screenfold form of the manuscript and the nature of its pictorial contexts.

Nuttallīs monograph was notable for its insistance that the pictorial text of the Zouche-Nouttall represented actual history. Noting the occurance of the Year 1 Reed, she equated this with the year in which Cortes reached Mexico, 1519. Working backwards from that date, and assuming that the years were recorded without regard for their chronological order, she concluded that the codex covered the 51 years from 1468 to 1519. She was mistaken in her chronological work, but in other matters - such as noting the consistent connection of individuals with specific day sign, and the use of designs for some persons that might represent a particular name or title - her oberservations were both astute and accurate.

#