Talk:Florentine Codex

Proposed split

Makes sense to me. Splitting into Florentine Codex and General History of the Things of New Spain would help distinguish between these related sources, & it's probably a worthwhile distinction to draw. Only suggestion, would be for the split-off article to go under its Spanish title Historia general de las cosas de Nueva España, with the english translated name redirecting (naturally enough) to there. Then, just a hatnote on both articles to cross-link and delineate the two, should do it. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Yes, agreed. The original title of Fray Bernardino de Sahagun's work is Historia General de las Cosas de la Nueva Espana. It was preserved in the Florentine Codex, and is better known by that name, but I argue that good scholarship means its original name be preserved. Also worth noting is that he acted as the director of these documentation projects; Native Mesoamericans served as scribes and illustrators. Bernardino wrote much, but not all. For a good overview, see Miguel Lopez-Portillo, Bernardino de Sahagun: First Anthropologist (University of Oklahoma Press, 2002). 15 October 2009 (kdw)

Use of psychedelic drugs among Aztecs

I have valid references regarding Florentine Codex's mentions of recreational use of teonanacatl (psilocybin mushrooms) and peyote among Aztecs. Can I add these, or do you think it's not so important? Wawawemn (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethnographic Methodologies section

The claim that Bernardo is "The Father of American Ethnography" is probably a little over the top. In fact,several parts of this article, added by Jtasarz, need to be wikified. They currently come across (to me, anyway) as original research. That said, the content itself is excellent, and should be preserved. If anyone wants to help with this project, contact me on my talk page. Jtmorgan (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Date of completion?

Is the date of completion given as 1569 a typo? I don't have access to the reference cited, but the other online sources I have seen, as well as Terraciano, Ethnohistory. Volume 57, Issue 1, pp. 51-72, gives the date as 1579. David Shalloway (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Claims of a translation mistake are poorly explained

The first paragraph says the following:

"Sahagún originally titled it La Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España (in English: The General History of the Things of New Spain). After a translation mistake, it was given the name Historia general de las Cosas de Nueva España."

So, the second title is exactly the same as the first title, except that the first contains the article "La" and the second does not...This is not a translation mistake, or at least not a meaningful one. The way this article is worded makes it sound like the initial meaning of Sahagún's words/title was lost or misconstrued due to mistranslation, but practically no meaning is lost due to these differences. This statement should either be rewritten/clarified to show what meaning was lost from the "translation mistake," or else removed entirely. As is, the reader is left wondering if they are simply illiterate and missing an obvious difference between the two nearly identical titles. Optimisms (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

'Books' section

Parts of the summary of the contents sound like the original Early Modern wordings, and parts are definitely the words of a modern editor (like the stuff about agents-provocateurs). Either the original titles should be kept in their entirety, or else they should all be summarised in a modern style and from a modern point of view. Anonymous44 (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)