[Illustration: Figs. 17-20]
This is a deity who is pictured in the form of an old man with an aged
face and sunken, toothless mouth. He is frequently characterized by a
long, pendent head ornament, in which is the sign Akbal, darkness, night,
which also appears in his hieroglyph before the forehead of the deity,
surrounded by dots as an indication of the starry sky. His name-hieroglyph
is Fig. 17, and a second sign almost always follows (Fig. 18) which
evidently serves likewise as a designation of the god, just as god A also
is always designated by _two_ hieroglyphs. The second sign consists of
two sacrificial knives and the sign of the day Ahau, which is equivalent
to "king".
The head of this deity appears in reduced, cursive form as the sign of
the moon (Fig. 20). This character also has the significance of 20 as a
number sign in the calendar. The association of these ideas probably
rests upon the ancient conceptions, according to which the moon
appearing, waxing, waning and again disappearing, was compared to man,
and man in primeval ages was the most primitive calculating machine,
being equivalent, from the sum of his fingers and toes, to the number 20.
Twenty days is also the duration of that period during which the moon
(aside from the new moon) is really _alive_. Moreover the sign (Fig. 20)
appears in many places as a counterpart of the sign for the sun.
God D occurs once as feminine in the same passage mentioned above, in
which the death-deity is also pictured as feminine (Dr. 9c). In a few
other places the god is, curiously enough, depicted with a short beard,
as Dr. 4c, 7a, 27b. He seems to stand in an unknown relation to the
water-goddess I (see this deity) with the serpent as a head ornament,
compare Dr. 9c, where apparently this goddess is represented, though the
text has D's sign; still it is possible that god D is pictured here with
the attributes of goddess I.
God D is not connected with the grim powers of destruction; he never
appears with death symbols. In Dr. 5c and 9a he wears the snail on his
head. He seems, therefore, like god A to be connected with birth. In Dr.
8c he is connected with god C, and this is quite appropriate, if we look
upon these gods as heavenly bodies. The aged face, the sunken, toothless
mouth are his distinguishing marks. In the Madrid manuscript, where god D
occurs with special frequency, his chief characteristic, by which he is
always easily recognized, is the single tooth in his under-jaw (see Fig.
19), compare too Dr. 8c, where the solitary tooth is also to be seen. In
Dr. 9a (1st figure) the god holds in his hand a kind of sprinkler with
the rattles of the rattlesnake, as Landa (Cap. 26) describes the god in
connection with the rite of infant baptism (see also Cort. 26, Tro. 7*a
and 13*c)
A very remarkable passage is Tro. 15*; there a figure is pictured carving
with a hatchet a head, which it holds in its hand. Above it are four
hieroglyphs. The first shows a hatchet and the moon; the second probably
represents simply a head, while the third and fourth are those of god D,
the moon-god. This passage, the meaning of which is unfortunately still
obscure seems to contain a definite explanation of god D.
J. Walter Fewkes has made god D the subject of a special, very detailed
monograph (The God "D" in the Codex Cortesianus, Washington, 1895) in
which he has treated also of gods B and G, whom he considers allied to D.
He believes D to be the god Itzamná, as do also Förstemann, Cyrus Thomas
and Seler, and sees sun-gods in all three of these deities. Whether god D
is to be separated from G and B as an independent deity, Fewkes thinks is
doubtful. Brinton again holds that god D is Kukulcan. These different
opinions show, at all events, on what uncertain grounds such attempts at
interpretation stand, and that it is best to be satisfied with
designating the deities by letters and collecting material for their
purely descriptive designation.
According to Förstemann the calendar day devoted to D is Ahau.
E. The Maize-God.
[Illustration: Figs. 21-27]
This god bears on his head the Kan-sign and above it the ear of maize
with leaves (Fig. 23); compare Dr. 9b (left figure), 11b, 12a, etc.
The hieroglyph is definitely determined (Fig. 21). The god is identical
with the figures recurring with especial frequency in the Madrid
manuscript, the heads of which are prolonged upward and curved backward
in a peculiar manner; compare Cort. 15a, 20c, 40 (bottom), Tro. 32*b
(Figs. 25-27) and especially the representation in Dr. 50a (Fig. 24),
which is very distinct. This head was evolved out of the conventional
drawing of the ear of maize; compare the pictures of the maize plant in
the Codex Tro., p. 29b (Fig. 22) with the head ornament of the god in
Dr. 9b (Fig. 23), 9a, 12a; what was originally a head ornament finally
passed into the form of the head itself, so that the latter appears now
as an ear of maize surrounded by leaves. Compare the pictures, Figs.
25-27. That these gods with elongated heads are, in point of fact,
identical with E is plainly seen from the passage in Dr. 2 (45)c (first
figure). There the figure represented, which is exactly like the pictures
in the Madrid manuscript, is designated explicitly as god E by the third
hieroglyph in the accompanying writing.
The hieroglyph of this deity is thus explained; it is the head of the god
merged into the conventionalized form of the ear of maize surrounded by
leaves. When we remember that the Maya nations practised the custom of
artificially deforming the skull, as is seen in particular on the reliefs
at Palenque, we may also regard the heads of these deities as
representations of such artificially flattened skulls.
God E occurs frequently as the god of husbandry, especially in the Madrid
manuscript, which devotes much attention to agriculture. He seems to be a
counterpart of the Mexican maize-god Centeotl. The passages in the Madrid
manuscript (Tro. 29a and Cort. 39a, 40a) are very remarkable, where
the deity E is represented in the position of a woman in labor with
numerals on the abdomen; perhaps the underlying idea is that of
fruitfulness.
In the Codex Cort., p. 40, this grain-deity is pictured with a tall and
slender vessel before him, which he holds in his hands. It is possible
that this is meant to suggest a grain receptacle; to be sure, in the same
place, other figures of gods likewise have such vessels in their hands.
At any rate, it is interesting to note that in the passage already
mentioned (Dr. 50a) god E also holds a similar tall and slender vessel
in his hands.
According to all appearances the scene pictured in Dr. 50a has reference
to the conflict of the grain-god with a death-deity. The latter, the
figure sitting on the right, is characterized by a skull as a head
ornament (see Fig. 6) and seems to address threats or commands to god E,
who stands before him in the attitude of a terrified and cowed
individual.
Furthermore god E has nothing to do with the powers of the underworld; he
is a god of life, of prosperity and fruitfulness; symbols of death are
never found in connection with him. Brinton calls this god Ghanan,
equivalent to Kan; it is possible, too, that he is identical with a deity
Yum Kaax who has been handed down to us and whose name means "Lord of the
harvest fields".
According to Förstemann the day dedicated to this god is Kan.
F. The God of War and of Human Sacrifices.
[Illustration: Figs. 28-34]
This is a deity closely related to the death-god A, resembling the Aztec
Xipe, and may, I think, without hesitation be regarded simply as the god
of human sacrifice, perhaps, even more generally, as the god of death by
violence. His hieroglyph is Figs. 28-30; it contains the number 11. A
variant of this occurs on Dr. 7b, where instead of the 11 there is the
following sign: [Hieroglyph]
The characteristic mark of god F is a single black line usually running
perpendicularly down the face in the vicinity of the eye. This line
should be distinguished from the parallel lines of C's face and from the
line, which, as a continuation of god E's head resembling an ear of
maize, frequently appears on his face, especially as in the variants of
the Madrid manuscript (compare Figs. 25-27). These pictures of E can
always be unfailingly recognized by the peculiar shape of the head and
should be distinguished from those representing F. The black face-line is
the distinguishing mark of god F, just as it is of the Aztec Xipe. It
sometimes runs in a curve over the cheek as a thick, black stripe, as
Cort. 42. Sometimes it encircles the eye only (Dr. 6a) and again it is a
dotted double line (Dr. 6b). The hieroglyph of god F likewise exhibits
this line and with the very same variants as the god himself. See the
hieroglyphs of the god belonging to the pictures in Dr. 6a, 1st and 3d
figures, in which the line likewise differs from the other forms (Figs.
30-34).
In a few places god F is pictured with the same black lines _on his
entire body_, which elsewhere he has only on his face, the lines being
like those in Fig. 31, namely Tro. 27*c. Indeed, in Tro. 28*c, the
death-god A likewise has these black lines on his body and also F's line
on his face; a clear proof of the close relationship of the two deities.
These lines probably signify gaping death-wounds and the accompanying
rows of dots are intended to represent the blood.
Since god F is a death-deity the familiar sign (Fig. 5), which occurs so
frequently with the hieroglyphs of A, also belongs to his symbols. F is
pictured in company with the death-god in connection with human sacrifice
(Cort. 42); an exactly similar picture of the two gods of human sacrifice
is given in Codex Tro. 30d; here, too, they sit opposite one another.
The identity of this attendant of death with the deity, designated by the
hieroglyph with the numeral 11, is proved by the following passages:
Tro. 19, bottom (on the extreme right hand without picture, only
hieroglyph, see Fig. 29), Dr. 5b, 6a, b, and c and many others. In
some of the passages cited (Dr. 5a and b) he is distinguished by an
unusually large ear-peg. His hieroglyph occurs with the hieroglyph of the
death-god in Dr. 6c, where he is himself not pictured.
As war-god, god F occurs combined with the death-god in the passages
mentioned above (Tro. 27*-29*c), where he sets the houses on fire with
his torch and demolishes them with his spear.
God F occurs quite frequently in the manuscripts and must therefore be
considered as one of the more important deities.
According to Förstemann his day is Manik, the seizing, grasping hand,
symbolizing the capturing of an enemy in war for sacrificial purposes.
F's sign occurs once, as mentioned above, in fourfold repetition with all
the four cardinal points, namely in Tro. 29*c. In ancient Central
America the captured enemy was sacrificed and thus the conceptions of the
war-god and of the god of death by violence and by human sacrifice are
united in the figure of god F. In this character god F occurs several
times in the Madrid manuscript in combat with M, the god of travelling
merchants (see page 35). Spanish writers do not mention a deity of the
kind described here as belonging to the Maya pantheon.
G. The Sun-God.
[Illustration: Figs. 35-36]
God G's hieroglyph (Fig. 35) contains as its chief factor the sun-sign
Kin. It is one of the signs (of which there are about 12 in the
manuscripts), which has the Ben-ik prefix and doubtless denotes a month
dedicated to the sun. There is, I think, no difference of opinion
regarding the significance of this deity, although Fewkes, as already
stated, is inclined to identify G with B, whom, it is true, the former
resembles. It is surprising that a deity who from his nature must be
considered as very important, is represented with such comparative
infrequency. He occurs only a few times in the Dresden manuscript, for
example 22b, 11c, and in the Codex Tro.-Cortesianus none can be found
among the figures which could be safely regarded as the sun-god; in no
manuscript except the Dresden does a deity occur wearing the sun-sign Kin
on his body. But once in the Codex Cort. the figure of D appears with the
sun-sign on his head, as pointed out by Fewkes in his article entitled
"The God 'D' in the Codex Cortesianus". G's hieroglyph, to be sure, is
found repeatedly in the Madrid manuscript, for example Codex Tro. 31c.
God G seems to be not wholly without relation to the powers of death; the
owl-sign (Fig. 5) occurs once in connection with him (Dr. 11c). Besides
the sun-sign Kin, which the god bears on his body, his representations
are distinguished by a peculiar nose ornament (Fig. 36) which, as may be
seen by comparison with other similar pictures in the Dresden manuscript,
is nothing but a large and especially elaborate nose-peg. Similar
ornaments are rather common just here in the carefully drawn first part
of the Dresden manuscript. Compare Dr. 22b (middle figure), 21 (centre),
17b, 14a, b; occasionally they also have the shape of a flower, for
example 12b (centre), 11c (left), 19a. Lastly it is worthy of note,
that god G is sometimes represented with a snake-like tongue protruding
from his mouth, as in Dr. 11b and c.
H. The Chicchan-God.
[Illustration: Figs. 37-40]
The figure of a deity of frequent occurrence in the Dresden manuscript is
a god, who is characterized by a skin-spot or a scale of a serpent on his
temple of the same shape as the hieroglyph of the day Chicchan (serpent).
Moreover the representations of the god himself differ very much, so that
there are almost no other positive, unvarying characteristic marks to be
specified. His picture is plainly recognizable and has the Chicchan-mark
on the temple in Dr. 11a, 12b and 20b.
The hieroglyph belonging to this deity likewise displays the
Chicchan-sign as its distinguishing mark. Furthermore several variants
occur. The Chicchan-sign has sometimes the form of Fig. 37 and again that
of Fig. 38. The prefix likewise differs very much, having sometimes the
form of Fig. 37, and again that of Fig. 38 or of Figs. 39 and 40. Thus
there are, in all, four different forms of the prefix. It is to be
assumed that all these hieroglyphs have the same meaning, notwithstanding
their variations. Taking into consideration the frequency of the
variations of other hieroglyphs of gods and of the hieroglyphs in the
Maya manuscripts in general, it is quite improbable from the nature of
the case, that a hieroglyph, which displays so great an agreement in its
essential and characteristic elements, should denote several different
gods. The dissimilarity which Seler thinks he finds between the forms of
the Chicchan-sign in Figs. 37 and 38 and which leads him to assume that
Fig. 37 is not a Chicchan-sign at all, but that it denotes another face
ornament, cannot be satisfactorily proved, and must be regarded as an
arbitrary assumption. The Chicchan-mark in the sign of the day Chicchan
also differs very much from that on the bodies of the serpents pictured
in the manuuscripts, so that variations of this kind by no means make it
necessary to assume that the hieroglyphs actually denote different
things. Observe, for example, the different Chicchan-spots on the
serpent's body in Tro. 27a. The crenelated, black border of the
Chicchan-spot in Fig. 38 passes in rapid cursive drawing almost of itself
into the scallops of Fig. 37, a transition to which there are distinct
tendencies on the serpent's body in Tro. 27a. Nor does the fact, that
under H's hieroglyph different personages are very often pictured, whom
we cannot positively identify, compel the assumption that we have here
not _one_, but two or more mythical figures, for the same is true of
other hieroglyphs of gods. There are many places in the manuscripts where
the text contains a definite well-known hieroglyph of a god, while the
accompanying picture represents some other deity or some other figure not
definitely characterized, perhaps merely a human form (priest, warrior,
woman and the like). Thus in Dr. 4a we see H's hieroglyph in the text,
but the picture is the figure of god P while in other places we miss the
characteristic Chicchan-spot on the figure represented, for example Dr.
4c, 6a, 7b, 7c, 14a, 21c. In the Madrid manuscript, it is true, H's
hieroglyph also occurs often enough, but _not in a single instance_ is a
deity represented displaying the Chicchan-spot. This fact is, I think, to
be explained by the coarser style of the drawing, which does not admit of
representing such fine details as in the Dresden manuscript. In the Paris
manuscript H's hieroglyph occurs but once (p. 8, bottom).
Seler thinks he recognizes in some of the figures represented under H's
hieroglyph in the manuscripts, a so-called "young god". Such a deity is
unknown and the assumption is entirely arbitrary. Apparently this "young
god" is an invention of Brinton. The purely inductive and descriptive
study of the manuscripts does not prove the existence of such a
personage, and we must decline to admit him as the result of deductive
reasoning. In this so-called "young god", we miss, first of all, a
characteristic mark, a distinct peculiarity such as belongs to all the
figures of gods in the manuscripts without exception and by which he
could be recognized. Except his so-called youthfulness, however, no such
definite marks are to be found. Furthermore there is no figure of a god
in the manuscripts which would not be designated by a definite
characteristic hieroglyph. No such hieroglyph can be proved as belonging
to the "young god". The figures, which are supposed to have a "youthful
appearance" in the Madrid manuscript, often convey this impression merely
in consequence of their smallness and of the pitiful, squatting attitude
in which they are represented. Furthermore real _children_ do occur here
and there, thus, for example, in the Dresden manuscript in connection
with the pictures of women in the first part and in Tro. 20*c in the
representation of the so-called "infant baptism."
That god H has some relation to the serpent must be conjectured from what
has been said. Thus, for example, on Dr. 15b, we see his hieroglyph
belonging to the figure of a woman with the knotted serpent on her head,
in Dr. 4a to the god P, who there bears a serpent in his hand, and in
Dr. 35b in connection with a serpent with B's head. What this relation
is, cannot now be stated.
The day dedicated to god H is Chicchan, and the sign for this day is his
distinguishing hieroglyph.