Footnote 79:

Adair, _History of the North American Indians_, pp. 184, 185:—William

Bartram, _Travels_, p. 561: Dumont, _Memoires Historiques de la

Louisiane_, Tome i, pp. 246, 264, et al.: Bernard Romans, _Natural and

Civil History of Florida_, pp. 88–90, (a good account.)

The _Relations des Jesuits_ describe the custom among the Northern

Indians.

Footnote 80:

_Antiquities of the Southern Indians_, particularly the Georgian

Tribes, p. 135, (New York, 1873.)

Footnote 81:

For particulars of this see my _Myths of the New World_, pp. 241–2,

(New York, 1876.)

Footnote 82:

C. C. Jones, _Monumental Remains of Georgia_, p. 32.

Footnote 83:

Ibid., _Antiquities of the Southern Indians_, p. 169.

Footnote 84:

Squier & Davis, _Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, p. 29.

Footnote 85:

_Origin of the Big Mound of St. Louis, a paper read before the St.

Louis Academy of Science._

Footnote 86:

Thomas E. Pickett, _The Testimony of the Mounds: Considered with

especial reference to the Pre-historic Archæology of Kentucky and the

Adjoining States_, pp. 9, 28, (Maysville, 1876.)

Footnote 87:

_Myths of the New World._ By D. G. Brinton, chap. vi. _passim_.

Footnote 88:

Especially in _American Hero Myths, a study in the Native Religions of

the Western Continent_, pp. 35, 64, 82, etc. (Philadelphia, 1882.)

Footnote 89:

M. Charnay, in his essay, _La Civilisation Toltèque_, published in the

_Revue d’ Ethnographie_, T. iv., p. 281, 1885, states his thesis as

follows: “Je veux prouver l’existence du Toltèque que certains ont

niée; je veux prouver que les civilisations Américaines ne sont qu’une

seule et même civilisation; enfin, je veux prouver que cette

civilisation est toltèque.” I consider each of these statements an

utter error. In his _Anciennes Villes du Nouveau Monde_, M. Charnay

has gone so far as to give a map showing the migrations of the ancient

Toltecs. As a translation of this work, with this map, has recently

been published in this country, it appears to me the more needful that

the baseless character of the Toltec legend be distinctly stated.

Footnote 90:

Ixtlilxochitl, in his _Relaciones Historicas_ (in Lord Kingsborough’s

_Antiquities of Mexico_, Vol. ix., p. 333), says that during the reign

of Topiltzin, last king of Tula, the Toltec sovereignty extended a

thousand leagues from north to south and eight hundred from east to

west; and in the wars that attended its downfall five million six

hundred thousand persons were slain!!

Footnote 91:

Sahagun (_Hist. de la Nueva España_, Lib. viii, cap. 5) places the

destruction of Tula in the year 319 B. C.; Ixtlilxochitl (_Historia

Chichimeca_, iii, cap. 4) brings it down to 969 A. D.; the _Codex

Ramirez_ (p. 25) to 1168; and so on. There is an equal variation about

the date of founding the city.

Footnote 92:

Since writing the above I have received from the Comte de Charencey a

reprint of his article on _Xibalba_, in which he sets forth the theory

of the late M. L. Angrand, that all ancient American civilization was

due to two “currents” of Toltecs, the western, straight-headed

Toltecs, who entered Anahuac by land from the north-west, and the

eastern, flat-headed Toltecs, who came by sea from Florida. It is to

criticise such vague theorizing that I have written this paper.

Footnote 93:

Motolinia, in his _Historia de los Indios de Nueva España_, p. 5,

calls the locality “el puerto llamado Tollan,” the pass or gate called

Tollan. Through it, he states, passed first the Colhua and later the

Mexica, though he adds that some maintain these were the same people.

In fact, Colhua is a form of a word which means “ancestors:” _colli_,

forefather; _no-col-huan_, my forefathers; _Colhuacan_, “the place of

the forefathers,” where they lived. In Aztec picture-writing this is

represented by a hill with a bent top, on the “ikonomatic” system, the

verb _coloa_, meaning to bend, to stoop. Those Mexica who said the

Colhua proceeded them at Tula, simply meant that their own ancestors

dwelt there. The _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_ (pp. 29, 33) distinctly

states that what Toltecs survived the wars which drove them southward

became merged in the Colhuas. As these wars largely arose from civil

dissensions, the account no doubt is correct which states that others

settled in Acolhuacan, on the eastern shore of the principal lake in

the Valley of Mexico. The name means “Colhuacan by the water,” and was

the State of which the capital was Tezcoco.

Footnote 94:

This description is taken from the map of the location in M. Charnay’s

_Anciennes Villes du Nouveau Monde_, p. 83. The measurements I have

made from the map do not agree with those stated in the text of the

book, but are, I take it, more accurate.

Footnote 95:

Sometimes called the _Rio de Montezuma_, and also the _Tollanatl_,

water of Tula. This stream plays a conspicuous part in the

Quetzalcoatl myths. It appears to be the same as the river _Atoyac_ (=

flowing or spreading water, _alt_, _toyaua_), or _Xipacoyan_ (= where

precious stones are washed, from _xiuitl_, _paca_, _yan_), referred to

by Sahagun, _Hist. de la Nueva España_, Lib. ix., cap. 29. In it were

the celebrated “Baths of Quetzalcoatl,” called _Atecpanamochco_, “the

water in the tin palace,” probably from being adorned with this metal

(_Anales de Cuauhtitlan_).

Footnote 96:

See the _Codez Ramirez_, p. 24. Why called Snake-Hill the legend says

not. I need not recall how prominent an object is the serpent in Aztec

mythology. The name is a compound of _coatl_, snake, and _tepetl_,

hill or mountain, but which may also may mean town or city, as such

were usually built on elevations. The form _Coatepec_ is this word

with the postposition _c_, and means “at the snake-hill,” or, perhaps,

“at Snake-town.”

Footnote 97:

Or to one of them. The name is preserved by Ixtlilxochitl, _Relaciones

Historicas_, in Kingsborough, _Mexico_, Vol. ix., p. 326. Its

derivation is from _palli_, a color (root _pa_), and the postposition

_pan_. It is noteworthy that this legend states that Quetzalcoatl in

his avatar as _Ce Acatl_ was born in the Palpan, “House of Colors;”

while the usual story was that he came from Tla-pallan, the place of

colors. This indicates that the two accounts are versions of the same

myth.

Footnote 98:

There are two ancient Codices extant, giving in picture-writing the

migrations of the Mexi. They have been repeatedly published in part or

in whole, with varying degrees of accuracy. Orozco y Berra gives their

bibliography in his _Historia Antigua de Mexico_, Tom. iii. p. 61,

note. These Codices differ widely, and seem contradictory, but Orozco

y Berra has reconciled them by the happy suggestion that they refer to

sequent and not synchronous events. There is, however, yet much to do

before their full meaning is ascertained.

Footnote 99:

The name Aztlan is that of a place and Mexitl that of a person, and

from these are derived _Aztecatl_, plural, _Azteca_, and _Mexicatl_,

pl. _Mexica_. The Azteca are said to have left Aztlan under the

guidance of Mexitl (_Codex Ramirez_). The radicals of both words have

now become somewhat obscured in the Nahuatl. My own opinion is that

Father Duran (_Hist. de Nueva España_, Tom. i, p. 19) was right in

translating Aztlan as “the place of whiteness,” _el lugar de

blancura_, from the radical _iztac_, white. This may refer to the

East, as the place of the dawn; but there is also a temptation to look

upon Aztlan as a syncope of _a-izta-tlan_, = “by the salt water.”

Mexicatl is a _nomen gentile_ derived from _Mexitl_, which was another

name for the tribal god or early leader Huitzilopochtli, as is

positively stated by Torquemada (_Monarquia Indiana_, Lib. viii, cap.

xi). Sahagun explains Mexitl as a compound of _metl_, the maguey, and

_citli_, which means “hare” and “grandmother” (_Hist. de Nueva

España_, Lib. x. cap. 29). It is noteworthy that one of the names of

Quetzalcoatl is _Meconetzin_, son of the maguey (Ixtlilxochitl, _Rel.

Hist._, in Kingsborough, Vol. ix, p. 238). These two gods were

originally brothers, though each had divers mythical ancestors.

Footnote 100:

Orozco y Berra, _Historia Antigua de Mexico_, Tom. iii, cap. 4. But

Albert Gallatin was the first to place Aztlan no further west than

Michoacan (_Trans. American Ethnolog. Society_, Vol. ii, p. 202).

Orozco thinks Aztlan was the small island called Mexcalla in Lake

Chapallan, apparently because he thinks this name means “houses of the

Mexi;” but it may also signify “where there is abundance of maguey

leaves,” this delicacy being called _mexcalli_ in Nahuatl, and the

terminal _a_ signifying location or abundance. (See Sahagun, _Historia

de Nueva España_, Lib. vii, cap. 9.) At present, one of the smaller

species of maguey is called _mexcalli_.

Footnote 101:

It is quite likely that the stone image figured by Charnay, _Anciennes

Villes du Nouveau Monde_, p. 72, and the stone ring used in the

_tlachtli_, ball play, which he figures, p. 73, are those referred to

in the historic legend.

Footnote 102:

The _Codex Ramirez_, p. 24, a most excellent authority, is quite

clear. The picture-writing—which is really phonetic, or, as I have

termed it, _ikonomatic_—represents the Coatepetl by the sign of a hill

(_tepetl_) inclosing a serpent (_coatl_). Tezozomoc, in his _Cronica

Mexicana_, cap. 2, presents a more detailed but more confused account.

Duran, _Historia de las Indias de Nueva España_, cap. 3, is worthy of

comparison. The artificial inundation of the plain to which the

accounts refer probably means that a ditch or moat was constructed to

protect the foot of the hill. Herrera says: “Cercaron de agua el cerro

llamado Coatepec.” _Decadas de Indias_, Dec. iii, Lib. ii, cap. 11.

Footnote 103:

The _Annals of Cuauhtitlan_, a chronicle written in the Nahuatl

language, gives 309 years from the founding to the destruction of

Tula, but names a dynasty of only four rulers. Veitia puts the

founding of Tula in the year 713 A. D. (_Historia de Nueva España_,

cap. 23.) Let us suppose, with the laborious and critical Orozco y

Berra (notes to the _Codex Ramirez_, p. 210) that the Mexi left Aztlan

A. D. 648. These three dates would fit into a rational chronology,

remembering that there is an acknowledged hiatus of a number of years

about the eleventh and twelfth centuries in the Aztec records (Orozco

y Berra, notes to _Codex Ramirez_, p. 213). The _Anales de

Cuauhtitlan_ dates the founding of Tula _after_ that of Tlaxcallan,

Huexotzinco and Cuauhtitlan (p. 29).

Footnote 104:

As usual, Ixtlilxochitl contradicts himself in his lists of rulers.

Those given in his _Historia Chichimeca_ are by no means the same as

those enumerated in his _Relaciones Historicas_ (Kingsborough,

_Mexico_, Vol. ix, contains all of Ixtlilxochitl’s writings). Entirely

different from both is the list in the _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_. How

completely euhemeristic Ixtlilxochitl is in his interpretations of

Mexican mythology is shown by his speaking of the two leading Nahuatl

divinities Tezcatlipoca and Huitzilopochtli as “certain bold warriors”

(“ciertos caballeros muy valerosos.” _Relaciones Historicas_, in

Kingsborough, Vol. ix, p. 326).

Footnote 105:

See the note to page 84. But it is not at all likely that Tula was

absolutely deserted. On the contrary, Herrera asserts that _after_ the

foundation of Mexico and the adjacent cities (despues de la fundacion

de Mexico i de toda la tierra) it reached its greatest celebrity for

skilled workmen. _Decadas de Indias_, Dec. iii, Lib. ii, cap. 11. The

general statement is that the sites on the Coatepetl and the adjacent

meadows were unoccupied for a few years—the _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_

says nine years—after the civil strife and massacre, and then were

settled again. The _Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas_, cap.

11, says, “y ansi fueron muertos todos los de Tula, que no quedó

ninguno.”

Footnote 106:

See Buschmann, _Ueber die Aztekischen Ortsnamen_, ss. 682, 788. Orozco

y Berra, _Geografia de las Lenguas de Mejico_, pp. 248, 255.

Footnote 107:

_Historia de las Indias Occidentales_, Dec. iii, Lib. ii, cap. II.

Footnote 108:

_Relaciones Historicas_, in Kingsborough’s _Mexico_, Vol. ix, p. 392.

Compare his _Historia Chichimeca_.

Footnote 109:

Buschmann, _Ueber die Aztekischen Ortsnamen_, ss. 682, 797.

Footnote 110:

_Cronica Mexicana_, cap. 1, “Partieron de alli y vinieron á la parte

que llaman Coatepec, términos de Tonalan, lugar del sol.” In Nahuatl

_tonallan_ usually means summer, sun-time. It is syncopated from

_tonalli_ and _tlan_; the latter is the locative termination;

_tonalli_ means warmth, _sunniness_, akin to _tonatiuh_, sun; but it

also means soul, spirit, especially when combined with the possessive

pronouns, as _totonal_, our soul, our immaterial essence. By a further

syncope _tonallan_ was reduced to _Tollan_ or _Tullan_, and by the

elision of the terminal semi-vowel, this again became Tula. This name

may therefore mean “the place of souls,” an accessory signification

which doubtless had its influence on the growth of the myths

concerning the locality.

It may be of some importance to note that Tula or Tollan was not at

first the name of the town, but of the locality—that is, of the warm

and fertile meadow-lands at the foot of the Coatepetl. The town was at

first called Xocotitlan, the place of fruit, from _xocotl_, fruit,

_ti_, connective, and _tlan_, locative ending. (See Sahagun, _Historia

de Nueva España_, Lib. x, cap. 29, secs. 1 and 12.) This name was also

applied to one of the quarters of the city of Mexico when conquered by

Cortes, as we learn from the same authority.

Footnote 111:

Buschmann, _Ueber die Aztekischen Ortsnamen_, ss. 794, 797, (Berlin,

1852.)

Footnote 112:

The verbal radical is _tona_, to warm (hazer calor, Molina,

_Vocabulario de la Lengua Mexicana_, s. v.); from this root come many

words signifying warmth, fertility, abundance, the sun, the east, the

summer, the day, and others expressing the soul, the vital principle,

etc. Siméon, _Dict. de la Langue Nahuatl_, s. v. _tonalli_. As in the

Algonkin dialects the words for cold, night and death are from the

same root, so in Nahuatl are those for warmth, day and life. (Comp.

Duponceau, _Mémoire sur les Langues de l’Amérique du Nord_, p. 327,

Paris, 1836.)

Footnote 113:

_Coatlan, to-nan_, from _coatl_, serpent; _tlan_, among; _to-nan_, our

mother. She was the goddess of flowers, and the florists paid her

especial devotion (Sahagun, _Historia_, Lib. ii, cap. 22). A precinct

of the city of Mexico was named after her, and also one of the

edifices in the great temple of the city. Here captives were

sacrificed to her and to the Huitznahua. (Ibid., Lib. ii. Appendix.

See also Torquemada, _Monarquia Indiana_, Lib. x. cap. 12.)

Footnote 114:

_Centzon Huitznahua_, “the Four Hundred Diviners with Thorns.” Four

hundred, however, in Nahuatl means any indeterminate large number, and

hence is properly translated myriad, legion. _Nahuatl_ means wise,

skillful, a diviner, but is also the proper name of the

Nahuatl-speaking tribes; and as the Nahuas derived their word for

south from _huitzli_, a thorn, the Huitznahua may mean “the southern

Nahuas.” Sahagun had this in his mind when he said the Huitznahua were

goddesses who dwelt in the south (_Historia de Nueva España_, Lib.

vii, cap. 5). The word is taken by Father Duran as the proper name of

an individual, as we shall see in a later note.

Footnote 115:

_Huitzilopochtli_, from _huitzilin_, humming-bird, _opochtli_, the

left side or hand. This is the usual derivation; but I am quite sure

that it is an error arising from the ikonomatic representation of the

name. The name of his brother, Huitznahua, indicates strongly that the

prefix of both names is identical. This, I doubt not, is from

_huitz-tlan_, the south; _ilo_, is from _iloa_, to turn; this gives us

the meaning “the left hand turned toward the south.” Orozco y Berra

has pointed out that the Mexica regarded left-handed warriors as the

more formidable (_Historia Antigua de Mexico_, Tom. i, p. 125). Along

with this let it be remembered that the legend states that

Huitzilopochtli was born in Tula, and insisted on leading the Mexica

toward the south, the opposition to which by his brother led to the

massacre and to the destruction of the town.

Footnote 116:

This myth is recorded by Sahagun, _Historia de Nueva España_, Lib.

iii, cap. 1, “On the Origin of the Gods.” It is preserved with some

curious variations in the _Historia de los Mexicanos por sus

Pinturas_, cap. 11. When the gods created the sun they also formed

four hundred men and five women for him to eat. At the death of the

women their robes were preserved, and when the people carried these to

the Coatepec, the five women came again into being. One of these was

Coatlicue, an untouched virgin, who after four years of fasting placed

a bunch of white feathers in her bosom, and forthwith became pregnant.

She brought forth Huitzilopochtli completely armed, who at once

destroyed the Huitznahua. Father Duran translates all of this into

plain history. His account is that when the Aztecs had occupied Tollan

for some time, and had fortified the hill and cultivated the plain, a

dissension arose. One party, followers of Huitzilopochtli, desired to

move on; the other, headed by a chieftain, Huitznahua, insisted on

remaining. The former attacked the latter at night, massacred them,

destroyed the water-dams and buildings, and marched away (_Historia de

las Indias de Nueva España_, Tom. i, pp. 25, 26). According to several

accounts, Huitznahua was the brother of Huitzilopochtli. See my

_American Hero Myths_, p. 81.

Footnote 117:

I have discussed both these accounts in my _American Hero Myths_,

chap. iii., and need not repeat the authorities here.

Footnote 118:

The most highly-colored descriptions of the mythical Tula are to be

found in the third and tenth book of Sahagun’s _Historia de Nueva

España_, in the _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_, and in the various writings

of Ixtlilxochitl. Later authors, such as Veitia, Torquemada, etc.,

have copied from these. Ixtlilxochitl speaks of the “legions of

fables” about Tulan and Quetzalcoatl which even in his day were still

current (“otras trescientas fabulas que aun todavia corren.”

_Relaciones Historicas_, in Kingsborough, _Mexico_, Vol. ix, p. 332).

Footnote 119:

In the collection of _Ancient Nahuatl Poems_, which forms the seventh

volume of my _Library of Aboriginal American Literature_, p. 104, I

have printed the original text of one of the old songs recalling the

glories of Tula, with its “house of beams,” _huapalcalli_, and its

“house of plumed serpents,” _coatlaquetzalli_, attributed to

Quetzalcoatl.

Footnote 120:

_Les Anciennes Villes du Nouveau Monde_, p. 84 (Paris, 1885).

Footnote 121:

_Historia de Nueva España_, Lib. viii, cap. 5.

Footnote 122:

Father Duran relates, “Even to this day, when I ask the Indians, ‘Who

created this pass in the mountains? Who opened this spring? Who

discovered this cave? or, Who built this edifice?’ they reply, ‘The

Toltecs, the disciples of Papa.’” _Historia de las Indias de Nueva

España_, cap. 79. _Papa_, from _papachtic_, the bushy-haired was one

of the names of Quetzalcoatl. But the earlier missionary, Father

Motilinia, distinctly states that the Mexica invented their own arts,

and owed nothing to any imaginary teachers, Toltecs or others. “Hay

entre todos los Indios muchos oficios, y de todos dicen _que fueron

inventores los Mexicanos_.” _Historia de los Indios de la Nueva

España_, Tratado iii, cap. viii.

Footnote 123:

Quetzalcoatl announced that his return should take place 5012 years

after his final departure, as is mentioned by Ixtlilxochitl (in

Kingsborough, _Mexico_, Vol. ix, p. 332). This number has probably

some mystic relation to the calendar.

Footnote 124:

_American Hero Myths_, p. 35. The only writer on ancient American

history before me who has wholly rejected the Toltecs is, I believe,

Albert Gallatin. In his able and critical study of the origin of

American civilization (_Transactions of the American Ethnological

Society_, Vol. i, p. 203) he dismissed them entirely from historical

consideration with the words: “The tradition respecting the Toltecs

ascends to so remote a date, and is so obscure and intermixed with

mythological fables, that it is impossible to designate either the

locality of their primitive abodes, the time when they first appeared

in the vicinity of the Valley of Mexico, or whether they were preceded

by nations speaking the same or different languages.” Had this

well-grounded skepticism gained the ears of writers since 1845, when

it was published, we should have been saved a vast amount of rubbish

which has been heaped up under the name of history.

Dr. Otto Stoll (_Guatemala; Reisen und Schilderungen_, ss, 408, 409,

Leipzig, 1886) has joined in rejecting the ethnic existence of the

Toltecs. As in later Nahuatl the word _toltecatl_ meant not only

“resident of Tollan,” but also “artificer” and “trader,” Dr. Stoll

thinks that the Central American legends which speak of “Toltecs”

should be interpreted merely as referring to foreign mechanics or

pedlers, and not to any particular nationality. I quite agree with

this view.

Footnote 125:

Andrew Lang, _Custom and Myth_, p. 28.

Footnote 126:

Revised extracts from an article read before the American

Philosophical Society in 1881.

Footnote 127:

_Las Historias del Origen de los Indios de esta Provincia de

Guatemala_. Por el R. P. F. Francisco Ximenez.

Footnote 128:

See Dr. Otto Stoll, _Ethnographie der Republik Guatemala_, p. 118. I

regret to differ from this able writer, whose studies of the Quiche

und Cakchiquel are the most thorough yet made, and from whose version

the above translation of the opening lines of the _Popol Vuh_ is

taken.

Footnote 129:

In his _MS. Dictionary_ is the following entry:

“PODER: _vtziniçabal_, vel _vtzintaçibal_; deste nombre usa la

_Cartilla_ en el Credo para decir por obra vel poder del Spirito

Santo. Al poder que tienen los Sacerdotes de perdonar pecados y dar

sacramentos, se llaman, o an llamado, _puz_, _naual_. Asi el Ph. Varea

en su _Diccionario_ y el Sancto Vico en la _Theologia Indorum_ usa en

muchas partes destos vocablos en este sentido. Ya no estan tan en uso,

pues entienden por el nombre _poder y vtzintaçibal_; y son vocablos

que antiguamente aplicaban a sus idolos, y oy se procura que vayan

olbidando todo aquello con que se les puede hacer memoria dellos.”

Footnote 130:

Coto says, “_Vugh_; nota que esta mesmo nombre tiene un genero de

baile en que con los pies dan bueltas a un palo; tambien signfica el

temblor de cuerpo que da con la terciana, o la misma cission;

significa asi mesmo quando quiere ya amanescer aquel ponerse escuro el

cielo; tambien quando suele estar el agua del rio o laguna, por

antiparastassis, caliente, al tal calorsillo llaman _Vugh_.”

Footnote 131:

I have traced the growth of this myth in detail in _The Myths of the

New World, a Treatise on the Symbolism and Mythology of the Red Race

of America_, chap. vi, (New York, 1876.) Dr. Otto Stoll in his most

recent discussion of the myth of Hunahpu does not urge the meaning

“opossum hunter,” and remarks that in the Pokonchi dialect _henahpo_

means “moon-man,” and “month,” referring therefore to a night-god.

_Ethnologie der Indianer Stämme von Guatemala_, p. 32, (Leyden, 1889.)

Footnote 132:

_Popol Vuh_, p. 40.

Footnote 133:

_Ibid._ pp. 225, 249.

Footnote 134:

_Ibid._ p. 314.

Footnote 135:

_Die Indianer von Santa Catalina Istlavacan; ein Beitrag zur

Culturgeschichte der Urbewohner Central Amerikas._ Von Dr. Karl

Scherzer, p. 9 (Wien, 1856).

Footnote 136:

_Ibid._, p. 11.

Footnote 137:

_Escolios à las Historias del Origen de los Indios_, p. 157.

Footnote 138:

To quote his words:

“BUBAS: _galel_ vel _tepex_. * * Quando an pasado dicen _xin colah

ahauarem_, id est, ya an dejado su señoria, porque el que las tiene se

esta sentado, sin hacer cosa, como si fuese señor ó señora.

“SEÑORA: _xogohau_; Señoria, _xogohauarem_. * * Deste nombre _xogohau_

vsan metaphoricamente para decir que una muger moza tiene bubas;

porque se esta sin hacer cosa, mano sobre mano, * * y quando a anado

de la enfermedad, dicen, si es varón: _xucolah rahauarem achi rumal

tepex. Tepex_ es la enfermedad de bubas.”

Footnote 139:

Sahagun, _Historia de Nueva España_, Lib. vii, cap. 2. He translates

_Nanahuatzih_, “el buboso,” Comp. Boturini, _Idea de una Nueua

Historia de la America_, pp. 37, 38.

Footnote 140:

The MS. Dictionary of Coto says, s. v. Corazon: “Attribuenle todos los

affectos de las potencias, memoria y entendimiento y voluntad, * *

unde _ahgux_, el cuidadoso, entendido, memorioso * *; toman este

nombre _gux_ por el alma de la persona, y por el spirito vital de todo

viviente, v. g. _xel ru gux Pedro_, murió Pedro, vel, salio el alma de

Pedro, * * deste nombre _gux_ se forma el verbo _tin gux lah_, por

pensar, cuidar, imaginar.”

Footnote 141:

“De adonde,” remarks Granados y Galvez, “viene que mis Otomites, de

una misma manera llaman à la alma que al corazon, aplicandoles à

entrambos la voz _muy_.” _Tardes Americanas_, Tarde iv, p. 101.

(Mexico, 1778.)

Footnote 142:

Ximenez, _Gramatica de la Lengua Quiche_, p. 17.

Footnote 143:

_Popol Vuh_, pp. 18, 20, 23, 69, etc.

Footnote 144:

“Cosa que esta encubierta ó enterrada.” The _Diccionario de Motul_ is

the most complete dictionary of the Maya ever made. It dates from

about 1590 and has its name from the town of Motul, Yucatan, where it

was written. The author is unknown. Only two copies of it are in

existence, one, very carefully made, with numerous notes, by Dr.

Berendt, is in my possession. It is a thick 4to of 1500 pages.

Footnote 145:

_Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, § XXXIII.

Footnote 146:

“R’atit zih, r’atit zak,” _Popol Vuh_, pp. 18, 20.

Footnote 147:

Especially the _membrum virile_, Pio Perez, _Diccionario de la Lengua

Maya_, s. v.

Footnote 148:

“Entrar, juntarse el macho con la hembra.” Brasseur, _Vocabulaire Maya

vancais_, s. v.

Footnote 149:

_Popol Vuh_, pp. 8, 14.

Footnote 150:

I take the following entries from Coto’s _MSS._:

“LARGA COSA: Lo ordinario es poner _rakan_ para significar la largura

de palo, cordel, etc.

“GIGANTE: _hu rapah rakan chi vinak, hu chogah rakan chi vanak_; este

nombre se usa de todo animal que en su specie es mas alto que los

otros. Meo. P^e Saz, serm. de circumsciss, dice del Gigante Golias:

_tugotic rogoric rakan chiachi_ Gigante _Golias_.”

Ignorant, apparently, of this meaning, Dr. Stoll continues in his

latest work to interpret Hurakan “with one foot.” _Die Ethnologie der

Indianer Stämme von Guatemala_, p. 31, (Leiden, 1889.) The chapter on

mythology is the least satisfactory in this important work.

Footnote 151:

De la Borde, _Relation de l’origine, etc., des Caraibes_, p. 7.

(Paris, 1674.)

Footnote 152:

Las Casas, _Historia Apologetica de las Indias Occidentales_, cap.

cxxiv (Madrid edition): P. F. Alonzo Fernandez, _Historia

Ecclesiastica de Nuestros Tiempos_, p. 137 (Toledo, 1611).

Footnote 153:

_Dissertation sur les Mythes de l’Antiquité Americane_, § 8 (Paris,

1861); see also his note to the _Popol Vuh_, p. 70.

Footnote 154:

_Ch’u qux uleu_, “in its heart the earth.” (Coto, _Dicc._ s. v.)

Coto adds that the ancient meaning of the word was a ghost or vision

of a departed spirit—“antiguamente este nombre _Xibalbay_ significaba

el demonio, vel los diffuntos ô visiones que se les aperescian, y asi

decian, y aun algunos ay que lo dicen oy _xuqutzii xibalbay ri cetzam

chi nu vach_, se me apereció el diffunto.”

Footnote 155:

“El Demonio se llamaba _Xibilha_, que quiere decir el que se desparece

ó desbanece.” _Historia de Yucatan_, Lib. iv, cap. vii. Cogolludo had

lived in Yucatan twenty-one years when he was making the final

revision of his History, and was moderately well acquainted with the

Maya tongue.

Footnote 156:

The _Diccionario de Motul_, MS., gives:

“XIBIL, _xibi_, _xibic_: cundir como gota de aceita; esparcirse la

comida en la digestion, y deshacerse la sal, nieve ô yelo, humo ô

niebla. _Item:_ desparecerse una vision ô fantasma. _Item:_ temblar de

miedo y espantarse.”

Footnote 157:

_De Legibus_, Lib. ii, cap. 2.

Footnote 158:

“Les petits Tigres,” _Mythes de l’Antiquité Americane_, § viii, _Popol

Vuh_, p. 34, note.

Footnote 159:

_Compendio de Nombres en Lengua Cakchiquel, MS._

Footnote 160:

_Las Historias del Origen de los Indios_, p. 16.

Footnote 161:

Father Varea, in his _Calepino de la Lengua Cakchiquel. MS._, gives

the following entries:

“BALAM: el tigre, _zakbalam_, tigre pequeño de su naturelezo; _gana

balam_, el grande, tainbein sig^a un signo de los Indios. _Maceval gih

P^o balam_, ô _Maria xbalam_. _Balam_ se llama el echizero.”

“_Queh_: el venado. Sig^a un cierto dia; otras veces dos dias; otras

veces es signo de trece, otras veces cinco ó seis dias á la quenta de

los Indios: _xa hun queh vœ gih_, ô, _cay queh_, _voo queh_, _vahaki_,

ó, _oxlahuh queh_.”

Footnote 162:

Published in the _American Antiquarian_, for May, 1885.

Footnote 163:

_The Algonquin Legends of New England_, (Boston, 1884.)

Footnote 164:

The Micmac word _kĕlooskăbāwe_, means “he is a cheat,” probably one

who cheats by lying. See Rand, _Micmac Dictionary_, s. v. A cheat.

Footnote 165:

_Dictionnaire de la Langue des Cris_, sub. voce _Wisakketjâk_. “Homme

fabuleux des différentes tribus du Nord, auquel elles attribuent une

puissance surnaturelle, avec un grand nombre de ruses, de tours, et de

folies. Il est regardé comme le principal génie et le fondateur de ces

nations. Chez les Sauteux on l’appelle _Nenaboj_, chez les

Pieds-Noirs, _Nâpiw_. _Wisakkeljakow_, C’est un fourbe, un trompeur.”

Footnote 166:

Baraga, _Otchipwe Dictionary_.

Footnote 167:

_Key into the language of America_, p. 24.

Footnote 168:

_Lexique de la Langue Algonquine_, p. 443. (Montreal, 1886.)

Footnote 169:

See his article in _The American Review_, for 1848, entitled

“Manabozho and the Great Serpent, an Algonquin legend.”

Footnote 170:

_Algic Researches_, Vol. 1, p. 134.

Footnote 171:

An address delivered at the annual meeting of the Numismatic and

Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, and published in its

_Proceedings_ for 1883.

Footnote 172:

This paper was read before the American Philosophical Society in

December, 1888, and was printed in its _Proceedings_.

Footnote 173:

Dr. E. T. Hamy, _An Interpretation of one of the Copan Monuments_, in

_Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, February 1887; also,

_Revue d’ Ethnographie_, 1886, p. 233; same author, _Le Svastika et la

Roue Solaire en Amérique_, _Revue d’ Ethnographie_, 1885, p. 22. E.

Beauvois, in _Annales de Philosophie Chretienne_, 1877, and in various

later publications. Ferraz de Macedo, _Essai Critique sur les Ages

Prehistorique de Bresil_, Lisbon, 1887, etc.

Footnote 174:

See his article, “Art in Shell of the Ancient Americans,” _Second

Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology_, p. 270.

Footnote 175:

See his article in _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, 1886, p. 223.

Footnote 176:

Von Luchan, in _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, 1886, p. 301.

Footnote 177:

See Dumoutier, _Le Svastika et la Roue Solaire en Chine_, in _Revue d’

Ethnologie_, 1885, pp. 333, _sq._

Footnote 178:

I am indebted for some of these explanations to Mr. K. Sungimoto, an

intelligent Japanese gentleman, well acquainted with Chinese, late

resident in Philadelphia.

Footnote 179:

George Copway, _Traditional History of the Ojibway Nation_, p. 134. It

will be noted that in the sign for sunrise the straight line meets the

curve at its _left_ extremity, and for sunset at its _right_. This

results from the superstitious preference of facing the south rather

than the north.

Footnote 180:

The triplicate constitution of things is a prominent feature of the

ancient Mexican philosophy, especially that of Tezcuco. The visible

world was divided into three parts, the earth below, the heavens

above, and man’s abode between them. The whole was represented by a

circle divided into three parts, the upper part painted blue, the

lower brown, the centre white (See Duran, _Historia_, Lam. 15^a, for

an example). Each of these three parts was subdivided into three

parts, so that when the Tezcucan king built a tower as a symbol of the

universe, he called it “The Tower of Nine Stories” (see my _Ancient

Nahuatl Poetry_, Introduction, p. 36).

Footnote 181:

Mallery, _Pictography of the North American Indians_, in _Fourth

Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology_, p. 239.

Footnote 182:

_Captivity and Adventures of John Tanner_, pp. 359, 360.

Footnote 183:

Dr. Ferraz de Macedo, _Essai Critique sur les Ages Prehistorique de

Bresil_, p. 38 (Lisbonne, 1887).

Footnote 184:

Op. cit., p. 38.

Footnote 185:

See Worsaae, _Danish Arts_, and Virchow, in various numbers of the

_Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_. The ring-cross is a common figure in

American symbolism and decorative art. It frequently occurs on the

shields depicted in the Bologna Codex, and the two codices of the

Vatican (Kingsborough’s _Antiquities of Mexico_, Vols. ii. and iii).

Dr. Ferraz de Macedo says that the most common decorative design on

both ancient and modern native Brazilian pottery is the ring-cross in

the form of a double spiral, as in Fig. 19 (_Essai Critique sur les

Ages Prehistorique de Bresil_, p. 40). A very similar form will be

found in the Bologna Codex, pl. xviii, in Kingsborough’s _Mexico_,

Vol. ii.

Footnote 186:

See Mallery, _Pictography of the North American Indians_, pp. 88, 89,

128, etc.

Footnote 187:

This name is given in Landa, _Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, p.

313.

Footnote 188:

_Historia de la Nueva España_, Trat. III, cap. i.

Footnote 189:

Printed originally in _The Folk-Lore Journal_, London, 1883.

Footnote 190:

_Informe del Señor Cura de Yaxcabà_, Don Bartolomé del Granado Baeza,

in the _Registro Yucateco_, tomo i, pp. 165 _et seq._

The Rev. Estanislao Carrillo was cura of Ticul, where he died in 1846.

He was a zealous archæologist, and is frequently mentioned by Mr.

Stephens in his travels in Yucatan. He is deservedly included in the

_Manual de Biografia Yucateca_ of Don Francisco de P. Sosa (Merida,

1866). His article on the subject of the text appeared in the

_Registro Yucateco_, tomo iv. p. 103.

Footnote 191:

“De idolatras paganos que eran, solo se ha conseguido que se

conviertan en idolatras cristianos.”—Apolinar Garcia y Garcia,

_Historia de la Guerra de Castas en Yucatan_, Prologo, p. xxiv

(Merida, 1865).

Footnote 192:

Landa, _Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, pp. 208 _et seq._ The work

of Landa was first printed at Paris in 1864.

Footnote 193:

Charencey, _Des Couleurs considérées comme Symboles des Points de

l’Horizon chez les Peuples du Nouveau-Monde_, in the _Actes de la

Sociétè Philologique_, tome vi (Octobre 1876).

Footnote 194:

_Chrestomathie de Litérature Maya_, p. 101, in the second volume of

the _Etudes sur le Système Graphique et la Langue des Mayas_ (Paris,

1870).

Footnote 195:

“La fiesta de fuego, que hasta ahora en esta provincia se hacia.”—Fr.

Diego Lopez Cogolludo, _Historia de Yucatan_, tomo i, p. 483 (3d ed.

Merida, 1867).

Footnote 196:

Thomas Gage, _A New Survey of the West Indiès_, pp. 377 _et seq._

(London, 1699). The Abbé Brasseur is willing to consider these tales

fictitious, “supposé qu’ils n’eussent eu, en realité, aucune

communication avec les puissances du monde invisible,” about which,

however, he is evidently not altogether sure.—_Voyage sur l’Isthme de

Tehuantepec_, p. 175 (Paris, 1862).

Footnote 197:

_Popol Vuh, le Livre Sacré des Quiches_, p. 315 (Paris, 1864).

Footnote 198:

The derivation of this word is from _kat_, which in the _Diçcionario

Maya-Español del Convento de Motul_, MS. of about 1580, is defined as

“la tierra y barro de las olleras,” but which Perez in his modern Maya

dictionary translates “ollas ô figuras de barro”; _ob_, is the plural

termination; _lox_, is strong, or the strength of anything; _h’_ or

_ah_, as it is often written, is the rough breathing which in Maya

indicates the masculine gender.

Footnote 199:

From the _Journal of American Folk-lore_, 1888.

Footnote 200:

The form from which he derives it is _lenni-peu_.

Footnote 201:

Read before the Anthropological Section of the American Association

for the Advancement of Science, at Buffalo, August, 1886, and

published in the _American Antiquarian_ in November of the same year.

Footnote 202:

_Study or the MS. Troano_, p. 141.

Footnote 203:

_Erläuterungen der Maya Hand-schrift_, etc., p. 2. (Dresden, 1886.)

Footnote 204:

_Die Maya Hand-schrift der König._ _Bib. zu Dresden_, p. 77; (Berlin,

1886.)

Footnote 205:

_Die Maya Hand-schrift_, etc., p. 47.

Footnote 206:

_American Antiquarian_, March, 1886.

Footnote 207:

The first of M. Aubin’s Memoirs appeared in 1849, and was the result

of studies begun in 1830. A new and enlarged edition has lately been

edited by Dr. Hamy: _Mémoires sur la Peinture Didactique et l’Ecriture

Figurative des Anciens Mexicains_. Par. J. M. A. Aubin (Paris 1885.)

But Dr. Hamy has traveled very far beyond the limits of a sober

appreciation of M. Aubin’s results when he writes: “Les recherches de

M. Aubin ont réussi à resoudre presque toutes les difficultés que

presentait la lecture des hieroglyphes nahuas.” (Introduction, p.

viii.) He is also in error in supposing (in a note to same page) that

Aubin’s theory is not well-known to Americanists. Brasseur popularized

it in his introductions to his _Histoire du Mexique_. Aubin, in fact,

guided by the Spanish writers of the 16th century and the annotators

of the Codices, first clearly expressed the general principles of the

phonetic picture writing; but his rules and identifications are

entirely inadequate to its complete or even partial interpretation.

Footnote 208:

Orozco y Berra, _Historia Antigua de Mexico_, (Mexico, 1880). The

Atlas to this work contains a large number of proposed identifications

of hieroglyphics. See also by the same writer, _Ensayo de Descifracion

Geroglifica_ in the _Anales del Museo Nacional_, tom. II. Much of this

is founded on Ramirez’s studies, who, however, by his own admission,

knew little or nothing of the Nahuatl language (as he states in his

introduction to the _Codex Chimalpopoca_ or _Anales de Quauhtitlan_).

Dr. Peñafiel’s praiseworthy collection is entitled _Catalogo

Alfabetico de los nombres de Lugares pertenecientes al Idioma Nahuatl,

Estudio Jeroglifico_. (Mexico, 1885.)

Footnote 209:

This paper was originally read before the American Philosophical

Society in October, 1886, and was published in their _Proceedings_.

Footnote 210:

The following elements occur in the old Egyptian writing:

1. Ideographic.—(_a_) Pictures or ikonographs.

(_b_) Symbols.

(_c_) Determinatives.

2. Phonetic.—(_a_) Words.

(_b_) Syllables.

(_c_) Letters.

Footnote 211:

See M. A. Lower, _Curiosities of Heraldry_, Chap. vi (London, 1845).

An appropriate motto of one of these bearings was: “Non verbis sed

_rebus_ loquimur.”

Footnote 212:

_Tam_, near; _uch_, scorpion. _Diccionario Huasteca-Español_, MS., in

my possession. This and most of the other instances quoted are to be

found in Lord Kingsborough’s great work on Mexico, and also in Dr.

Peñafiel’s _Catàlogo Alfabetico de los Nombres de Lugares

pertenecientes al Idioma Nahuatl_ (Mexico, 1885).

Footnote 213:

It is given in the appendix to the _Ensayo sobre la Interpretacion de

la Escritura Hieratica de la America Central_, by De Rosny, translated

by D. Juan de Dios de la Rada y Delgada (Madrid, 1884).

Footnote 214:

Valentini’s Essay appeared in the _Proceedings of the American

Antiquarian Society_, April, 1880. Landa’s work was originally

published by the Abbé Brasseur (de Bourbourg) at Paris, 1864, and more

accurately at Madrid, 1884, under the supervision of Don Juan de Dios

de la Rada y Delgada.

Footnote 215:

Originally published as an introduction to Dr. Cyrus Thomas’ _Study of

the Manuscript Troano_, issued by the U. S. Geographical and

Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, Washington, 1882,

(revised with additions for the present volume).

Footnote 216:

Dr. Friedrich Müller, _Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, Band i, pp.

151–156.

Footnote 217:

Aubin. _Mémoire sur la Peinture didactique et l’Écriture figurative

des anciens Mexicains_, in the introduction to Brasseur (de

Bourbourg)'s _Histoire des Nations civilisées du Mexique et de

l’Amérique Centrale_, tom. i; Manuel Orozco y Berra _Ensayo de

Descifracion geroglifica_, in the _Anales del Museo Nacional de

México_, tom. i, ii.

Footnote 218:

Peter Martyr, Decad. iv, cap. viii.

Footnote 219:

“Se sujetaron de su propria voluntad al Señorio de los Reies de

Castilla, recibiendo al Emperador, como Rei de España, por Señor

supremo y universal, e hicieron ciertas señales, como Firmas; las

quales, con testimonio de los Religiosos Franciscos, que alli estaban,

llevó consigo el buen Obispo de Chiapa, Don Fr. Bartolomé de las

Casas, amparo, y defensa de estos Indios, quando se fué á España.”

Torquemada, _Monarquia Indiana_, lib. xix, cap. xiii.

Footnote 220:

“Letreros de ciertos caracteres que en otra ninguna parte.” Las Casas,

_Historia Apologetica de las Indias Occidentales_, cap. cxxiii.

Footnote 221:

_Relacion Breve y Verdadera de Algunas Cosas de las muchas que

sucedieron al Padre Fray Alonso Ponce, Commissario General, en las

Provincias de la Nueva España_, in the _Coleccion de Documentos para

la Historia de España_, tom. lviii, p. 392. The other traits he

praises in the natives of Yucatan are their freedom from sodomy and

cannibalism. (For the text see later, p. 255.)

Footnote 222:

Bernardo de Lizana, _Historia de Yucatan. Devocionario de Nuestra

Señora de Izamal, y Conquista Espiritual_, 8vo. Pinciæ (Valladolid),

1633.

Footnote 223:

For these facts see Diego Lopez Cogolludo, _Historia de Yucatan_, lib.

ix, cap. xv. Cogolludo adds that in his time (1650–'60) Solana’s MSS.

could not be found; Lizana may have sent them to Spain.

Footnote 224:

I add the original of the most important passage: “La historia y

autores que podemos alegar son unos antiguos caracteres, mal

entendidos de muchos, y glossados de unos indios antiguos, que son

hijos de los sacerdotes de sus dioses, que son los que solo sabian

leer y adivinar, y a quien creian y reverenciavan como á Dioses

destos.”

Footnote 225:

Pedro Sanchez de Aguilar, _Informe contra Idolorum cultores del

Obispado de Yucatan_. 4to. Madrid, 1639, ff. 124.

Footnote 226:

“El primero quo halló las letras de la lengua Maya é hizó el cómputo

de los años, meses y edades, y lo enseño todo a los Indios de esta

Provincia, fué un Indios llamado _Kinchahau_, y por otro nombre

Tzamna.” Fr. Pedro Beltran de Santa Rosa Maria, _Arte del Idioma

Maya_, p. 16 (2d ed., Mérida de Yucatan, 1859).

Footnote 227:

Diego Lopez Cogolludo, _Historia de Yucatan_, lib. iv, cap. III. The

original is: “No acostumbraban escribir los pleitos, aunque tenian

caracteres con que se entendian, de que se ven muchos en las ruinas de

los edificios.”

Footnote 228:

“Porque lo leia su Rey en sus Analtehes, tenian Noticias de aquellas

Provincias de Yucatan (que Analtehes, ò Historias, es una misma cosa)

y de que sus Pasados avian salido de ellas.” _Historia de la Conquista

de la Provincia de el Itza, Reduccion y Progressos de la de el

Lacandon_, etc., (folio, Madrid, 1701) lib. vi, cap. iv.

Footnote 229:

_Ibid._, lib. vii, cap. i.

Footnote 230:

“Y en su casa tambien tenia de estos Idolos, y Mesa de Sacrificios, y

los Analtehes, ò Historias de todo quanto los avia sucedido.” _Ibid._,

lib. viii, cap. xiii.

Footnote 231:

Diego de Landa, _Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, pp. 316, 318,

_seq._

Footnote 232:

Dr. Valentini’s article was published in the _Proceedings of the

American Antiquarian Society_, 1880. More recently Dr. Ed. Seler has

condemned the Landa alphabet as “ein Versuch von Ladinos, von in die

Spanische Wissenschaft eingeweihten Eingebornen in der Art, wie sie

die Spanier ihre Lettern verwenden sahen, auch mit den Eingebornen

geläufigen Bildern und Charaktern zu hantiren.” _Verhandlungen der

Berliner anthropologischen Gesellschaft_, 1887, s. 227. I am far from

adopting this sweeping statement, which I believe is contradicted by

the whole tenor of Landa’s words and the testimony of other writers.

Footnote 233:

Diego de Landa, _Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, p. 44.

Footnote 234:

I add a few notes on this text:

_Enhi_ is the preterit of the irregular verb, _hal_, to be, pret.

_enhi_, fut. _anac_. _Katun yum_, father or lord of the Katun or

cycle. Each Katun was under the protection of a special deity or lord,

who controlled the events which occurred in it. _Tu coɔ pop_, lit.,

“for the rolling up of Pop,” which was the first month in the Maya

year. _Holom_ is an archaic future from _hul_; this form in _om_ is

mentioned by Buenaventura, _Arte de la Lengua Maya_, 1684, and is

frequent in the sacred language, but does not occur elsewhere. _Tucal

ya_, on account of his love; but _ya_ means also “suffering,” “wound,”

and “strength,” and there is no clue which of these significations is

meant. _Ahkinob_; the original has _lukinob_, which I suspect is an

error; it would alter the phrase to mean “In that day there are

fathers” or lords, the word _yum_, father, being constantly used for

lord or ruler. The _ahkin_ was the priest; the _ahbobat_ was a diviner

or prophet. The 9th Ahau Katun was the period of 20 years which began

in 1541, according to most native authors, but according to Landa’s

reckoning in the year 1561.

Footnote 235:

In quoting and explaining Maya words and phrases in this article, I

have in all instances followed the _Diccionario Maya-Español del

Convento de Motul_ (Yucatan); a copy of which in manuscript (one of

the only two in existence) is in my possession. It was composed about

1580. The still older Maya dictionary of Father Villalpando, printed

in Mexico in 1571, is yet in existence in one or two copies, but I

have never seen it.

Footnote 236:

Read before the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, at

its twenty-fourth annual meeting, January 5th, 1882, and published in

_The Penn Monthly_.

Footnote 237:

Of the numerous authorities which could be quoted on this point, I

shall give the words of but one, Father Alonso Ponce, the Pope’s

Commissary-General, who traveled through Yucatan in 1586, when many

natives were still living who had been born before the Conquest

(1541). Father Ponce had traveled through Mexico, and, of course, had

learned about the Aztec picture writing, which he distinctly contrasts

with the writing of the Mayas. Of the latter, he says: “_Son alabados

de tres cosas entre todos los demas de la Nueva España, la una de que

en su antiguedad tenian caracteres y letras, con que escribian sus

historias y las ceremonias y orden de los sacrificios de sus idolos y

su calendario, en libros hechos de corteza de cierto arbol, los cuales

eran unas tiras muy largas de quarta ó tercia en ancho, que se

doblaban y recogian, y venia á queder á manera de un libro

encuardenado en cuartilla, poco mas ó menos. Estas letras y caracteres

no las entendian, sino los sacerdotes de los idolos. (que en aquella

lengua se llaman ‘ahkines,’) y algun indio principal. Despues las

entendieron y supieron léer algunos frailes nuestros y aun las

escribien._”—(“_Relacion Breve y Verdadera de Algunas Cosas de las

Muchas que Sucedieron al Padre Fray Alonso Ponce, Comisario-General en

las Provincias de la Nueva España_,” page 392). I know no other author

who makes the interesting statement that these characters were

actually used by the missionaries to impart instruction to the

natives; but I have heard that an example of one such manuscript has

been discovered, and is now in the hands of a well-known Americanist.

Footnote 238:

“_Se les quemamos todos_,” he writes, “_lo qual á maravilla sentian y

les dava pena_.”—“_Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_,” page 316.

Footnote 239:

_Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, page 160.

Footnote 240:

See above, pp. 128 and 172. The terminal letter in both these

words—“_chilan_,” “_balam_,”—may be either “_n_” or “_m_,” the change

being one of dialect and local pronunciation. I have followed the

older authorities in writing “_Chilan Balam_,” the modern preferring

“_Chilam Balam_.” Señor Eligio Ancona, in his recently published

_Historia de Yucatan_, (Vol. i., page 240, note, Merida, 1878), offers

the absurd suggestion that the name “_balam_” was given to the native

soothsayers by the early missionaries in ridicule, deriving it from

the well-known personage in the Old Testament. It is surprising that

Señor Ancona, writing in Merida, had never acquainted himself with the

Perez manuscripts, nor with those in possession of Bishop Carrillo.

Indeed, the most of his treatment of the ancient history of his

country is disappointingly superficial.

Footnote 241:

For example, in the _Registro Yucateco, Tome III: Diccionario

Universal de Historia y Geografía, Tome VIII._ (Mexico, 1855);

_Diccionario Historico de Yucatan, Tome I._ (Merida, 1866); in the

appendix to Landa’s _Cosas de Yucatan_ (Paris, 1864), etc. The epochs,

or _katuns_, of Maya history have been recently again analyzed by Dr.

Felipe Valentini, in an essay in the German and English languages, the

latter in the _Proceedings_ of the American Antiquarian Society, 1880.

Footnote 242:

The Abbé’s criticism occurs in the note to page 406 of his edition of

Landa’s _Cosas de Yucatan_.

Footnote 243:

It is described at length by Don Crescencio Carrillo y Ancona, in his,

‘_Disertacion sobre la Historia de la Lengua Maya_’ (Merida, 1870).

Footnote 244:

“_Je dois déclarer que l’examen dans tous leurs détails du ‘Codex

Troano’ et du ‘Codex Peresianus’ m’invite de la façon la plus sérieuse

à n’accepter ces signes, tout au moins au point de vue de l’exactitude

de leur tracé, qu’ avec une certaine réserve._”—Leon de Rosny’s _Essai

sur le Déchiffrement de l’Ecriture Hiératique de l’Amérique Centrale_,

page 21 (Paris, 1876). By the “_Codex Peresianus_,” he does not mean

the “_Codice Perez_,” but the Maya manuscript in the Bibliothêque

Nationale. The identity of the names is confusing and unfortunate.

Footnote 245:

“The Manuscript Troano,” published in _The American Naturalist_,

August, 1881, page 640. This manuscript or codex was published in

chrome-lithograph, Paris, 1879, by the French Government.

Footnote 246:

“_Declarar las necesidades y sus remedios._”—_Relacion de las Cosas de

Yucatan_, page 160. Like much of Landa’s Spanish, this use of the word

“_necesidad_” is colloquial, and not classical.

Footnote 247:

A _Medicina Domestica_, under the name of “Don Ricardo Ossado, (alias,

_el Judio_,)” was published at Merida in 1834; but this appears to

have been merely a bookseller’s device to aid the sale of the book by

attributing it to the “great unknown.”

Footnote 248:

Read before the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia in

1889.

Footnote 249:

_Los Aztecas_, Mexico, 1888.

Footnote 250:

Dupaix, _Antiquités Mexicaines_. 1st Exped., p. 7, Pl. vi, vii, fig.

6, 7. At that time the flat surface of the rock was the floor of a

cabin built upon it. At present the cabin has disappeared, Mr.

Bandelier does not seem to have visited this stone when he was at

Orizaba, although he refers to Dupaix’s explorations. _Report of an

Archæological Tour in Mexico in 1881_, p. 26 (Boston, 1884). Nor does

M. H. Strebel, though he also refers to it, give any fresh information

about it. See his _Alt-Mexiko_, Band I, s. 30.

Footnote 251:

One appears to be a gigantic full face; another an animal like a frog,

with extended legs; two others are geometrical designs, the outlines

of which have evidently been recently freshened with a steel

implement. Future observers should be on their guard that this

procedure shall not have mutilated the early workmanship.

Footnote 252:

It is needless to expand this explanation of the Aztec Calendar; but

it is worth while to warn the student of the subject that the problem

is an intricate one and has never yet been satisfactorily solved,

because the information presented is both incomplete and

contradictory. I consider the most instructive discussion of the

Calendar is that in Orozco y Berra, _Historia Antigua de Mexico_, Lib.

iv., Cap. 1–6.

Footnote 253:

Father Sotomayor, in the newspaper account above referred to, states

that tradition assigned the inscription to the time of Cortes’ march

to the City of Mexico; a date which he quite properly ridicules as

impossible. The vicinity of Orizaba was, moreover, not a part of the

Mexican State until some time after the middle of the 15th century.

See Bandelier, _Archæological Tour in Mexico_, pp. 22, sqq.

Footnote 254:

_Tzontemoc_, a compound of _tzontli_, hair, and _temoa_, to fall;

_mictlan_, locative from _mictli_, to die; _tecutli_, lord, noble. For

a description of this deity see Sahagun, _Historia de la Nueva

España_, Lib. iii, Appendix, chap. I. I have elsewhere suggested that

the falling hair had reference to the long slanting rays of the

setting sun. See above, p. 146.

Footnote 255:

Both are reproduced in Kingsborough’s _Mexican Antiquities_. But I

would warn against the explanations in Spanish of the _Codex

Telleriano-Remensis_. They are the work of some ignorant and careless

clerk, who often applies the explanation of one plate and date to

another, through sheer negligence.

Footnote 256:

I would refer to an explanation of this system published by me in the

_Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society_, for 1886.

Footnote 257:

The phonetic significance of this symbol is well established. See

Aubin in the Introduction to Brasseur, _Histoire des Nations

Civilisées de la Mexique_, Tome I, p. lxix.

Footnote 258:

_Historia Antigua de Mexico_, Tomo III, p. 426.

Footnote 259:

Ixtlilxochitl, _Historia Chichimeca_, cap. 70. He errs in assigning it

to the year 1503, as all the other narratives of importance are

against him.

Footnote 260:

_Annales de Chimalpahin_, p. 173 (Ed. Siméon, Paris, 1889). His words

are “auh ça niman ihcuac oncan in hual motlatocalli in

Moteuhcçomatzin,” which Siméon renders “Immédiatement apres,” etc.

Footnote 261:

Tezozomoc, _Cronica Mexicana_, cap. 81. This writer adds that the

emperor expected his approaching end, and made a number of

preparations with regard to it. The _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_, p. 80,

places the events of 10 _tochtli_ under the following year 11 _acatl_,

and the reverse. It reads “murio el señor de Tenochtitlan,

Ahuitzotzin, le sucedio immediatamente Moteuczomatzin.”

Footnote 262:

Selections from an Address read before the Numismatic and Antiquarian

Society of Philadelphia, in 1886.

Footnote 263:

An Address delivered by request before the Historical Societies of

Pennsylvania and New York, in 1885. It was printed in the

_Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography_ for that year.

Footnote 264:

For another derivation, see _ante_, p. 182.

Footnote 265:

_Introduction to the Study of Indian Languages._ By J. W. Powell

(second edition, Washington, 1880).

Footnote 266:

This essay is extracted from a more general discussion of Humboldt’s

linguistic philosophy which I read before the American Philosophical

Society in 1885, and which was printed in their _Proceedings_ for that

year. Humboldt’s great work was his Introduction to his essay on the

Kawi language under the title: _Ueber die Verschiedenheit des

menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige

Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts_. Prof. Adler translates this,

“The Structural Differences of Human Speech and their Influence on the

Intellectual Development of the Human Race.” The word _geistige_,

however, includes emotional as well as intellectual things. Of the

many commentators on this masterly production, I have used

particularly the following:

_Die Elemente der Philosophischen Sprachwissenschaft Wilhelm von

Humboldt’s. In systematischer Entwicklung dargestellt und kritisch

erläutert_, von Dr. Max Schasler, Berlin, 1847.

_Die Sprachwissenschaft Wilhelm von Humboldt’s und die Hegel’sche

Philosophie_, von Dr. H. Steinthal, Berlin, 1848. The same eminent

linguist treats especially of Humboldt’s teachings in _Grammatik,

Logik und Psychologic, ihre Principien und ihr Verhältniss zu

einander_, pp. 123–135 (Berlin, 1855); in his well-known volume

_Characteristik der Hauptsächlichsten Typen des Sprachbaues_, pp.

20–70 (Berlin, 1860); in his oration _Ueber Wilhelm von Humboldt_

(Berlin, 1883); and elsewhere.

_Wilhelm von Humboldt’s Linguistical Studies._ By C. J. Adler, A. M.

(New York, 1866). This is the only attempt beside my own, so far as I

know, to present Humboldt’s philosophy of language to English readers.

It is meritorious, but certainly in some passages Prof. Adler failed

to catch Humboldt’s meaning.

Footnote 267:

_Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc., Bd. vi, s. 271, note. I may say,

once for all, that my references, unless otherwise stated, are to the

edition of Humboldt’s _Gesammelte Werke_, edited by his brother,

Berlin, 1841–1852.

Footnote 268:

_Aus Wilhelm von Humboldt’s letzten Lebensjahren. Eine Mittheilung

bisher unbekannter Briefe_, von Theodor Distel, p. 19 (Leipzig, 1883).

Footnote 269:

From his memoir _Ueber das vergleichende Sprachstudium in Beziehung

auf die verschiedenen Epochen der Sprachentwicklung_, Bd. iii, s. 249.

Footnote 270:

He draws examples from the Carib, Lule, Tupi, Mbaya, Huasteca,

Nahuatl, Tamanaca, Abipone, and Mixteca; _Ueber das Entstehen der

grammatischen Formen, und ihren Einfluss auf die Ideenentwicklung_,

Bd. iii, ss. 269–306.

Footnote 271:

_Ueber die Buchstabenschrift und ihren Zusammenhang mit dem

Sprachbau_, Bd. vi, s. 526.

Footnote 272:

This letter is printed in the memoir of Prof. E. Teza, _Intorno agli

Studi del Thavenet sulla Lingua Algonchina_, in the _Annali delle

Universitá toscane_, Tomo xviii (Pisa, 1880).

Footnote 273:

Compare Prof. Adler’s Essay, above mentioned, p. 11.

Footnote 274:

This is found expressed nowhere else so clearly as at the beginning of

§ 13, where the author writes: “Der Zweck dieser Einleitung, die

Sprachen, in der Verschiedenartigkeit ihres Baues, als die nothwendige

Grundlage der Fortbildung des menschlichen Geistes darzustellen, und

den wechselseitigen Einfluss des Einen auf das Andre zu erörtern, hat

mich genöthigt, in die Natur der Sprache überhaupt einzugehen.” Bd.

vi, s. 106.

Footnote 275:

“Das Studium der verschiedenen Sprachen des Erdbodens verfehlt seine

Bestimmung, wenn es nicht immer den Gang der geistigen Bildung im Auge

behält, und darin seinen eigentlichen Zweck sucht.” _Ueber den

Zusammenhang der Schrift mit der Sprache_, Bd. vi, s. 428.

Footnote 276:

“Eine Gedankenwelt an Töne geheftet.” _Ueber die Buchstabenschrift und

ihre Zusammenhang mit dem Sprachbau_, Bd. vi, s. 530.

Footnote 277:

This cardinal point in Humboldt’s philosophy is very clearly set forth

in his essay, _Ueber die Aufgabe des Geschichtschreibers_. Bd. i, s.

23, and elsewhere.

Footnote 278:

This reasoning is developed in the essay, _Ueber das Vergleichende

Sprachstudium_, etc., _Gesammelte Werke_, Bd. iii, ss. 241–268; and

see Ibid., s. 270.

Footnote 279:

See the essay _Ueber die Buchstabenschrift und ihren Zusammenhang mit

dem Sprachbau_, _Ges. Werke_, Bd. vi, ss. 551–2.

Footnote 280:

_Ueber das Entstehen der grammatischen Formen_, etc., _Werke_, Bd.

iii, s. 292.

Footnote 281:

Speaking of such “imperfect” languages, he gives the following wise

suggestion for their study: “Ihr einfaches Geheimniss, welches den Weg

anzeigt, auf welchem man sie, mit gänzlicher Vergessenheit unserer

Grammatik, immer zuerst zu enträthseln versuchen muss, ist, das in

sich Bedeutende unmittelbar an einander zu reihen.” _Ueber das

Vergleichende Sprachstudium_, etc., _Werke_, Bd. iii, s. 255; and for

a practical illustration of his method, see the essay, _Ueber das

Entstehen der grammatischen Formen_, etc., Bd. iii, s. 274.

Footnote 282:

His teachings on this point, of which I give the barest outline, are

developed in sections 12 and 13 of his Introduction, _Ueber die

Verschiedenheit_, etc. Steinthal’s critical remarks on these sections

(in his _Charakteristik der haupt. Typen des Sprachbaues_) seem to me

unsatisfactory, and he even does not appear to grasp the chain of

Humboldt’s reasoning.

Footnote 283:

_Lettre à M. Abel-Remusat_, Werke, Bd. vii, s. 353.

Footnote 284:

“Daher ist das Einschliessen in Ein Wort mehr Sache der

Einbildungskraft, die Trennung mehr die des Verstandes.” _Ueber die

Verschiedenheit_, etc., s. 327. Compare also, s. 326 and 166.

Footnote 285:

“Der Mexikanischen kann man am Verbum, in welchem die Zeiten durch

einzelne Endbuchstaben und zum Theil offenbar symbolisch bezeichnet

werden, Flexionen und ein gewisses Streben nach Sanskritischer

Worteinheit nicht absprechen.” _Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc.,

_Werke_, Bd. vi, s. 176.

Footnote 286:

Read before the American Philosophical Society in 1885, and revised

from the _Proceedings_ of that year.

Footnote 287:

“Diese thatsachen scheinen darauf hinzudeuten, dass jeder grössere in

sich zusammenhängende ländercomplex nur einen oder doch nur ganz

wenige sprachgrundtypen herausbildet, so eigenartig, dass selten eine

spräche ganz aus dem allgemeinen rahmen heraustritt.” Dr. Heinrich

Winkler, _Uralaltaische Völker und Sprachen_, s. 147 (Berlin, 1884).

Footnote 288:

_Report of the Corresponding Secretary to the Committee, of his

progress in the Investigation committed to him of the General

Character and Forms of the Languages of the American Indians._ Read

(12th Jan., 1819) in the _Transactions of the Historical and Literary

Committee of the American Philosophical Society_. Vol. i, 1819, pp.

xxx, xxxi.

Footnote 289:

See _Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc., pp. 170–173, 325–6, etc.

Footnote 290:

Published in H. R. Schoolcraft’s _History and Statistics of the Indian

Tribes of the United States_. Vol. ii, pp. 346–349 (Washington, 1853).

Footnote 291:

“Je suis donc autorisé à conclure qu’il faut tenir pour absolument

fausse cette proposition devenue faute d’y avoir regardé de près, une

sorte de clichè: que si les langues Américaines diffèrent entre elles

par la lexique, elles possedent néanmoins en commun une seule et méme

grammaire.” _Examen grammatical comparé de seize langues Américaines_,

in the Compte-rendu of the Congrès international des Américanistes,

1877, Tome ii, p. 242. As no one ever maintained the unity of American

grammar outside of the _Einverleibungssystem_, it must be to this

theory only that M. Adam alludes.

Footnote 292:

_Etudes sur Six Langues Américaines_, p. 3 (Paris, 1878); and compare

his _Examen Grammatical_ above quoted, p. 24, 243.

Footnote 293:

_Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, Von Dr. Friedrich Müller. Compare

Bd. i., s. 68, und Bd. ii, s. 182.

Footnote 294:

_Introduction to the Study of Indian Languages._ By J. W. Powell, p.

55, Second edition. Washington, 1880.

Footnote 295:

This obscure feature in Algonkin Grammar has not yet been

satisfactorily explained. Compare Baraga, _Grammar of the Otchipwe

Language_, p. 116 (Montreal, 1878), and A. Lacombe, _Grammaire de la

Langue des Cris_, p. 155 (Montreal, 1874).

Footnote 296:

See _Grammar of the Chòctaw Languages_. By the Rev. Cyrus Byington.

Edited by D. G. Brinton, pp. 35, 36 (Philadelphia, 1870).

Footnote 297:

_Gramática Quechua, ó del Idioma del Imperio de los Incas._ Por el Dr.

José Dionisio Anchorena, pp. 163–177 (Lima, 1874).

Footnote 298:

_Organismus der Khetsua Sprache._ Von J. J. von Tschudi, p. 368

(Leipzig, 1884).

Footnote 299:

“Ces exemples font comprendre combien quelquefois on peut rendre des

mots tres longs, pour exprimer toute une phrase, quoiqu’ aussi on

puisse facilement rendre les mêmes ideés par des périphrases.”

Lacombe, _Grammaire de la Langue des Cris_, p. 11 (Montreal, 1874).

Footnote 300:

“Se explicara la razon filosófica de los dos modos de usar las

palabras en Mexicano, uno componiendo de varias palabras uno solo, y

otro dejandolas separadas y enlazandolas solo por regimen.” From the

programme of Prof. A. de la Rosa’s course in 1870.

Footnote 301:

The original authorities I have consulted on the Othomi are:

_Reglas de Orthographia, Diccionario, y Arte del Idioma Othomi._ By

Luis de Neve y Molina (Mexico, 1767).

_De Lingúa Othomitorum Dissertatio._ By Emmanuel Naxera (Philadelphia,

1835).

_Catecismo en Lengua Otomi._ By Francisco Perez (Mexico, 1834).

Footnote 302:

He speaks of the Othomi in these terms:—“Une langue aux allures toutes

spéciales, fondamentalement distincte de toutes les langues qui se

parlent aujourd’ hui sur le continent américain.” _Mission

Scientifique au Mexique._ Pt. i. Anthropologie, p. 32 (Paris, 1884).

This is the precise opinion, strongly expressed, that it is my object

to controvert. Many other writers have maintained it. Thus Count

Piccolomini in the _Prolegomena_ to his version of Neve’s Othomi

Grammar says: “La loro lingua che con nessuna altra del mondo

conosciuto ha la menoma analogia, è semplice. * * * La formazione del

loro verbi, nomi ed altri derivati ha molta semplecitá,” etc.

_Grammatica della Lingua Otomi_, p. 3 (Roma, 1841). This writer also

offers an illustration of how imperfectly Duponceau’s theory of

polysynthesis has been understood. Not only does Piccolomini deny it

for the Otomi, but he denies that it is anything more than merely

running several words together with some phonetic syncopation. See the

_Annotationi_ at the close of his Othomi Grammar.

Footnote 303:

This is the orthography of Neve. The terminal vowels are both nasals;

_nhian_ is from the radical _hia_, to breathe, breath.

Footnote 304:

See the “Comparacion del Othomi con el Mazahua y el Pirinda,” in the

_Cuadro Descriptivo y Comparativo de las Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico_,

por Francisco Pimentel. Tomo iii, pp. 431–445 (Mexico, 1875).

Footnote 305:

See Pimentel, _Cuadro Descriptivo_, etc. Tomo iii, pp. 426 and 455.

Footnote 306:

“Parte de la dificultad de este idioma consiste en la syncopa, pues el

no syncopar los principiantes artistas, es causa de que sus periodos y

oraciones sean tan rispidos, y faltos de harmonia, por cuyo motivo los

nativos los murmuran, y tienen (como vulgarmente decimos), por

quartreros.” _Reglas de Orthographia_, etc., p. 146.

Footnote 307:

“L’Othomi nous a tout l’air d’une langue primitivement incorporante,

et qui, parvenu au dernier degré d’usure et délabrement, a fini par

prendre les allures d’un dialecte à juxtaposition.” _Melanges de

Philologie et de Paléographie Américaine._ Par le Comte de Charencey,

p. 80 (Paris, 1883).

Footnote 308:

Neve, _Reglas_ etc., pp. 159, 160.

Footnote 309:

Pimentel, _Cuadro Descriptivo_, Tom. iii, p. 424.

Footnote 310:

Pimentel, _Cuadro Descriptivo_, Tomo iii, p. 462.

Footnote 311:

Wm. M. Gabb, _On the Indian Tribes and Languages of Costa Rica_, in

the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society for 1875, p.

532.

Footnote 312:

“Dessen einfacher Bau die über die Amerikanischen Sprachen im

Allgemeinen verbreiteten Theorien zu widerlegen im Stande ist.”

_Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, ii Band, s. 318 (Wien, 1882).

Footnote 313:

_Le Taensa a-t-il été forgé de toutes Piéces?_ Réponse à M. Daniel G.

Brinton, Par Lucien Adam, p. 19 (Paris, Maisonneuve et Cie, 1885).

Footnote 314:

_Apuntes Lexicograficos de las Lenguas y Dialectos de los Indios de

Costa-Rica._ Por Bernardo Augusto Thiel, Obispo de Costa-Rica, (San

José de Costa-Rica, 1882. Imprenta Nacional).

Footnote 315:

Gabb, ubi supra, p. 539.

Footnote 316:

“Especial dificultad ofrecen los verbos.” _Apuntes Lexicograficos_,

etc. Introd. p. iv. This expression is conclusive as to the

incorrectness of the opinion of M. Adam, and Prof. Müller above

quoted, and shows how easily even justly eminent linguists may fall

into error about tongues of which they have limited means of

knowledge. The proper course in such a case is evidently to be

cautious about venturing positive assertions.

Footnote 317:

_Transactions of the American Philological Association_, 1872, p. 58.

Footnote 318:

_Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, Bd. ii, p. 387.

Footnote 319:

_The Brazilian Language and its Agglutination._ By Amaro Cavalcanti,

LL. B., etc., p. 5 (Rio Janeiro, 1883).

Footnote 320:

The most valuable for linguistic researches are the following:

_Arte de Grammatica da Lingua maís usada na Costa do Brazil._ By

Joseph de Anchieta. This is the oldest authority, Anchieta having

commenced as missionary to the Tupis in 1556.

_Arte, Vocabulario y Tesoro de la Lengua Guarani, ó mas bien Tupi._ By

Antonio Ruiz de Montoya. An admirable work representing the southern

Tupi as it was in the first half of the seventeenth century.

Both the above have been republished in recent years. Of modern

writings I would particularly name:

_Apontamentos sobre o Abañeénga tambem chamado Guarani on Tupi._ By

Dr. B. C. D’A. Nogueira (Rio Janeiro, 1876).

Footnote 321:

_Notes on the Lingoa Geral_, as above, p. 71.

Footnote 322:

James Howse, _A Grammar of the Cree Language_ (London, 1844). A

remarkable production which has never received the attention from

linguists which it merits.

Footnote 323:

Anchieta, _Arte de Grammatica_, etc., p. 75.

Footnote 324:

_The Brazilian Language_, etc., pp. 48–9.

Footnote 325:

See Anchieta, _Arte de Grammatica_, etc., p. 52.

Footnote 326:

_The Brazilian Language_, etc., p. 111.

Footnote 327:

“Kein polysynthesis und keine incorporation,” says Dr. Heinrich

Winkler (_Uralaltaische Völker und Sprachen_, p. 149), who apparently

has obtained all his knowledge of it from the two pages devoted to it

by Professor Friedrich Müller, who introduces it as “äusserst

einfach.” _Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, Bd. ii, p. 257.

Footnote 328:

_Grammatica Mutsun_; Por el R. P. F. F. Arroyo de la Cuesta; and

_Vocabulario Mutsun_, by the same, both in Shea’s “Library of American

Linguistics.”

Footnote 329:

Read before the American Philosophical Society in 1888, and published

in their _Proceedings_ under the title “The Language of Palæolithic

Man.”

Footnote 330:

“L’homme chelleen n’ avait pas la parole,” Mortillet, _La

Prehistorique Antiquité de l’ Homme_, p. 250 (Paris, 1883).

Footnote 331:

See Dr. H. Steinthal, _Der Ursprung der Sprache_, s. 264, et seq.

(Berlin, 1888), who rehearses the discussion of the point with

sufficient fullness.

Footnote 332:

See, for instance, Plate X of Mortillet, _Musée Préhistorique_:

Cartailhac, _Ages Préhistoriques de l’ Espagne_, plate on p. 27.

Footnote 333:

I have collected the evidence for this in an Essay on Prehistoric

Archæology, in the _Iconographic Encyclopedia_, Vol. ii.

Footnote 334:

See his address on “The Origin of Languages and the Antiquity of

Speaking Man,” in the _Proceedings of the American Association for the

Advancement of Science._ Vol. xxxv, p. 279.

Footnote 335:

_Dix-huit Ans chez les Sauvages_, p. 85.

Footnote 336:

Petitot, _Dictionnaire de la Langue Déné Dindjié_, Introduction.

Footnote 337:

On the astonishingly wide distribution of the n and k sounds as

primitive demonstratives, compare H. Winkler, _Uralaltaische Völker

und Sprachen_, s. 86, 87, (Berlin, 1884). For other comparisons, see

Tolmie and Dawson, _Vocabularies of Inds. of British Columbia_, p.

128.

Footnote 338:

“Es hat offenbar eine Zeit gegeben, in der _ka_ alleiniges Pron. pers.

für alle drei Personen war, erst allmählig entwickelten sich _ño ka_,

ego, _ka m_, tu, _ka y_, ille.” J. J. von Tschudi, _Organismus der

Khetsua Sprache_, s. 184 (Leipzig, 1884). In the language of the

Baures of Bolivia when the verb takes the negative termination

_apico_, the pronominal signs are discarded; thus, _era_, to drink, a

drink; _erapico_—I, thou, he, we, you, they, do not drink. Magio,

_Arte de la Lengua de los Indios Baures_, p. 82 (Paris, 1880). This

reveals a time when both affirmative and negative verbals dispensed

with pronouns altogether.

Footnote 339:

_Apuntes sobre la Lengua Chapaneca, MS._

Footnote 340:

_Arte de la Lengua Guarani_, p. 93.

Footnote 341:

_La Lengua Araucana_, p. 15 (_Santiago de Chile_, 1888).

Footnote 342:

Albornoz, _Arte de la Langua Chapaneca_, p. 10.

Footnote 343:

_Principes de la Langue des Sauvages appellés Sauteux._ Introd.

Footnote 344:

_Arte de la Lengua Guarani, ó mas bien Tupi._ Por el P. Antonio Ruiz

de Montoya, p. 100.

Footnote 345:

_Grammatica de la Lengua Chibcha._ Introd.

Footnote 346:

See Howse. _Grammar of the Cree Language_, pp. 16, 134, 135, 169, etc.

Footnote 347:

_The Religious Sentiment; Its Source and Aim. A Contribution to the

Science of Religion._ By D. G. Brinton, p. 31 (New York, 1876). The

statement in the text can be algebraically demonstrated in the

mathematical form of logic as set forth by Prof. Boole, thus: _A_=not

(not-_A_); which, in its mathematical expression becomes, _x_=_x^2_.

Whence by transposition and substitution we derive, _x^2_=1; in which

equation 1=_A_. See Boole. _An Investigation into the Laws of Thought_

(London, 1854).

Footnote 348:

_On Polysynthesis and Incorporation_, in _Proceedings_ of the American

Philosophical Society, 1885. (See the preceding essay.)

Footnote 349:

_On the Grammatical Construction of the Cree Language_, p. 12 (London,

1875).

Footnote 350:

Steinthal, _Gramatik, Logik und Psychologie_, s. 325.

Footnote 351:

In Maya the conjunction “and” is rendered by _yetl_, a compound of the

possessive pronoun, third person singular _y_, and _etl_, companion.

The Nahuatl, _ihuan_, is precisely the same in composition.

Footnote 352:

“Die meisten amerikanischen Sprachen haben die Eigenthümlichkeit, dass

in der Regel die Haupttempora in Auwendung kommen und unter diesen

besonders das Präsens, selbst wenn von einer bestimmten, besonders

aber von einer unbestimmten Vergangenheit gesprochen wird.” J. J. von

Tschudi, _Organismus der Khetsua Sprache_, s. 189. The same tense is

also employed for future occurrences. What classical grammarians call

“the historical present,” will illustrate this employment of a single

tense for past and future time.

Footnote 353:

The Chiquita of Bolivia is an extreme example. “La distinction du

passé, du présent et du futur n’existe pas dans cette langue étrange.”

_Arte y Vocabulario de la Lengua Chiquita_. Por. L. Adam, y V. Henry,

p. x.

Footnote 354:

_On the Verb in American Languages._ By Wilhelm von Humboldt.

Translated by D. G. Brinton, in _Proceedings of the American

Philosophical Society_, 1885.

Footnote 355:

A striking example is the Chiquita of Bolivia. “No se puede en

chiquito, ni contar dos, tres, cuatro, etc., ni decir segundo,

tercero, etc.” _Arte y Vocabulario de la Lengua Chiquita_, p. 19

(Paris, 1880).

Footnote 356:

Those distinctions, apparently of sex, called by M. Lucien Adam

_anthropic_ and _metanthropic_, _arrhenic_ and _metarrhenic_, found in

certain American tongues, belong to the material, not the formal part

of the language, and, strictly speaking, are distinctions not really

based on sexual considerations. See Adam, _Du Genre dans les Diverses

Langues_ (Paris, 1883).

Footnote 357:

Washington Matthews, _Grammar and Dictionary of the Language of the

Hidatsa_ (New York, 1873) In a letter received since the first

publication of this essay, Dr. Matthews writes that the analysis in

the text is quite correct.

Footnote 358:

Extract from a paper read before the American Philosophical Society in

1886.

Footnote 359:

_Linguistic Essays_, by Carl Abel, Ph. D. (London, 1882).

Footnote 360:

I scarcely need say that I refer to the marvelous words of St. John: ὁ

μη αγαπων. ουκ εγνω τον θεον, οτι ὁ θεος αγαπμ εστιν (1 John iv, 8);

and to the _amor intellectualis_, the golden crown of the philosophy

of Spinoza as developed in the last book of his _Ethica_.

Footnote 361:

Chipeway: _nin sagiiwin_, I love; _sagiiwewin_, love; _saiagiiwed_, a

lover.

Cree: _sâkihituwin_, friendship; _manitowi sâkihewewin_, the love of

God. The words from the Chipeway are from Baraga’s _Otchipwe

Dictionary_; those from the Cree from Lacombe’s _Dictionnaire de la

langue des Cris_, except when otherwise noted.

Footnote 362:

Chipeway: _sagibidjigan_, a string or cord.

Cree: _sakkappitew_, he fastens, he ties; _sakkahigan_, a nail;

_sakkistiwok_, coeunt, copulati sunt.

Footnote 363:

See Joseph Howse, _Grammar of the Cree Language_, p. 165.

Footnote 364:

See the remarks in Andrew’s _Latin Lexicon_, s. v.

Footnote 365:

Cree: _espiteyimit kije-manito_, for the love of God;

_espiteyimatijk_, for the love of the children.

Footnote 366:

Cree: _ni wittjiwâgan_, my friend; _wi’chettuwin_, a confraternity, or

society.

Footnote 367:

Chipeway: _inawema_, I am his relative, or, his friend.

Cree: _ijinákusiw_, he has such an appearance. This particle of

similarity is considered by Howse to be “one of the four primary

generic nouns” of the Algonkin language. _Grammar of the Cree

Language_, p. 135.

Footnote 368:

Chipeway: _nin minenima_, I like (him, her, it).

Footnote 369:

See Howse, _Grammar of the Cree Lang._, p. 157. _Keche_ (_kees_) as an

interjection of pleasure, he considers in antithesis to _ak_ (compare

German _ach!_) as an interjection of pain, and cites abundant

examples.

Footnote 370:

Chipeway: _nin kijewadis_, I am amicable, benevolent; _kijewadisiwin_,

charity, benevolence, benignity, compassion; _kije manitowin_,

God-head, divine nature.

Cree: _kisatew_, he is devoted to (him, her); _kisew_, she loves (her

children); _kisewatisiwin_, charity, the highest virtue; _kise

manito_, “l’esprit charitable, Dieu,” and numerous others.

Footnote 371:

The following words and meanings are from Carochi’s Grammar and

Molina’s Dictionary of this tongue:

_ço_, punzar, sangrar.

_çoço_, ensartar, como flores, cuentas, etc.

_çotica_, estar ensartada la cuenta, etc.

_tlaçotl_, cosa ensartada.

The original meaning of _zo_, a pointed tool or awl, is not given by

Molina, but is repeatedly expressed in the phonetic picture-writing of

the Aztecs.

Footnote 372:

_Estudio de la Filosofia y Riqueza de la Lengua Mexicana._ Par Agostin

de la Rosa, p. 78 (Guadalajara, 1877).

Footnote 373:

There is another word in Nahuatl of similar derivation. It is _pohui_,

to make much of a person, to like one. The root is _po_, which carries

with it the idea of sameness, similarity or equality; as _itelpocapo_,

a boy like himself. (Paredes, _Promptuario Manual Mexicano_, p. 140.)

Footnote 374:

Thus:

_ya_ or _yail_, love; pain, sickness, a wound; difficult, laborious.

_yate_, to love.

_yacunah_, to love.

_yaili_, painfully, laboriously.

_yalal_, to taste; to have relations with a woman.

_yatzil_, love, charity; something difficult or painful.

Footnote 375:

“_Ya_: sentir mucho una cosa.

_yamab_: sin sentir [the _ma_ is the negative].”

_Diccionario Maya-Español del Convento de Motul._ (MS. in my

possession).

Footnote 376:

Thus:

_yahtetabal cah tumen Dios_, we are loved by God.

_u yacunah Dios toon_, the love of God to us.

_yacunahil Dios_, the love with which God is loved.

_mehenbit yacunah_, filial love.

_bakil yacunah_, carnal love.

All from the _Diccionario de Motul_ (MS.).

Footnote 377:

Thus:

_tatu canel ixallé_, my beloved wife.

_ma a canezal a Dios_, dost thou love God?

_Diccionario Huasteca-Español_, por Carlos de Tapia Zenteno (Mex.,

1767).

Footnote 378:

A number of examples are given in the _Diccionario de Motul_ (MS.).

Footnote 379:

“Der blosse Begriff derjenigen Liebe, welche das lateinische Zeitwort

_amare_ ausdrückt, dem Cakchiquel Indianer fremd ist.” _Zur

Ethnographie der Republik Guatemala._ Von Otto Stoll, M. D., p. 146

(Zürich, 1884).

Footnote 380:

_Xelogox ka chiri ruma Akahal vinak_, “they were loved by the Akahal

men.” _Annals of the Cakchiquels_, p. 126 (Vol. VI of Brinton’s

Library of Aboriginal American Literature). In the Quiche _Popol Vuh_

the word has the same meaning, as (page 102):

_chi log u vach_, their beloved face.

In fact, the word Dr. Stoll gives as that now usual among the

Cakchiquels for “to love”—to desire, in the _Popol Vuh_ is applied to

the price paid for wives (p. 304):

_rahil pu mial_, the price of their daughters.

This word may be a derivative from the Maya _ya_, above mentioned.

Footnote 381:

_De Naturâ Deorum_, I, 44.

Footnote 382:

_Gramática Quechua_, por Dr. J. D. Anchorena, pp. 163–177 (Lima,

1874).

Footnote 383:

_Ollanta: Drame en vers Quechuas du Temps des Incas._ Traduit et

commenté par Gavino Pacheco Zegarra (Paris, 1878).

Footnote 384:

Thus, from the _Ollanta_:

_Ollantaytan munar ccanqui_, thou lovest Ollanta! (line 277).

_munacusccallay_, my well beloved! (the Inca to his daughter, line

344).

_munayman_, I should prefer (line 1606).

Holguin, in his _Vocabulario de la Lengua Qquichua_, gives:

_Dios munay_, the love of God.

_munaricuy_, unchaste love.

Footnote 385:

Holguin (u. s.) gives the definitions:

_munana_, la voluntad que es potentia.

_munay_, voluntad, el querer, el gusto, appetito ô amor que es acto.

Footnote 386:

From the _Ollanta_:

_Huay ccoyailay, Huay mamallay,

Ay, huayllucusccay ccosallay._

Oh, my queen! Oh my mother!

Oh, my husband so beloved! (305, 306).

These lines show both the word and its derivation.

Footnote 387:

From the _Ollanta_:

_ña llulluspa_, caress thee, are fond of thee (934).

Footnote 388:

From the _Ollanta_:

_ccuyaccuscallay_, my beloved one (1758).

_ccuyaska_, compassionate (1765).

Footnote 389:

See the Qquichua love songs, _harahui_ and _huaynu_, as they are

called, given by Anchorena in his _Gramática Quechua_, pp. 131–135.

Footnote 390:

See Holguin, _Vocabulario Qquichua_, s. v. _mayhuay_ and

_mayhuayccuni_.

Footnote 391:

Thus:

_Tupa nande raihu_, God loves us.

_Tupa nande haihu_, the love which we have for God.

_ahaihu_, I love her (him, it).

Footnote 392:

_yecotiaha_, friend; compounded of _coti_, a dwelling, and _aha_, to

go,—a goer to a dwelling, a visitor. This, and the other Guarani words

given, are taken from Ruiz de Montoya’s _Tesoro de la Lengua Guarani_

(ed. Vienna, 1876).

Footnote 393:

Another possible derivation would be from _ahii_, desire, appetite

(Spanish, _gana_); and _hu_, in the sense of being present. This would

express a longing, a lust, like love (see above).

Footnote 394:

I find _çaiçu_ given by Dr. Couto de Magalhaes in his _Cours da Lingoa

Geral segundo Ollendorf_ (Rio de Janeiro, 1876); _saisu_ by Dr. Amaro

Cavalcanti in _The Brazilian Language and its Agglutination_ (Rio

Janeiro, 1883); _çauçub_ by Dias, _Diccionario da Lingua Tupy_

(Leipzig, 1858), and by Dr. E. F. França in his _Chrestomathia da

Lingua Brasilica_ (Leipzig, 1859).

Footnote 395:

“_Ani_, es gehört, ist eigen; _ta ani_, nach seiner Art.”

_Arawackisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch._ This dictionary, published

anonymously at Paris, in 1882, in Tome viii of the _Bibliotheque

Linguistique Américaine_, is the production of the Moravian

Missionary, Rev. T. S. Schuhmann. See _The Literary Works of the

Foreign Missionaries of the Moravian Church_. By the Rev. G. H.

Reichelt. Translated and annotated by Bishop Edmund de Schweinitz, p.

13 (Bethlehem, 1886).

Footnote 396:

_The Religious Sentiment, its Source and Aim; a Contribution to the

Science and Philosophy of Religion_, p. 60 (New York, 1876).

Footnote 397:

From the _Proceedings_ of the American Philosophical Society for 1885.

Footnote 398:

_Diccionario del Convento de Motul_, MS., s. v.

Footnote 399:

_Acanceh Cheltun. Titulo de un solar y Monte in Acanceh_, 1767, MS.

Footnote 400:

_Geografia Maya._ _Anales del Museo Nacional de Mexico_, Tomo ii, p.

435.

Footnote 401:

“The metre is the _only measure of dimension_ which agrees with that

adopted by these most ancient artists and architects.”—Dr. LePlongeon.

_Mayapan and Maya Inscriptions_, in _Proceedings_ of the American

Antiquarian Society, April, 1881.

Footnote 402:

“Nearly all the monuments of Yucatan bear evidence that the Mayas had

a predilection for the number _seven_,” etc. LePlongeon, _Vestiges of

the Mayas_, p. 63 (New York, 1881). Of course, this may have other

symbolic meanings also.

Footnote 403:

Coto, _Diccionario de la Lengua Cakchiquel_, MS.

Footnote 404:

Coto, _Diccionario_, MS., s. v. “Ploma de albañil.”

Footnote 405:

“Cuanto se mide con el pulgar y el indice.” Molina, _Vocabulario de la

Lengua Mexicana_.

Footnote 406:

Carochi, _Arte de la Lengua Mexicana_, p. 123.

Footnote 407:

Orozco y Berra, _Historia Antigua de la Conquista de Mexico_, Tomo i,

pp. 557–8, (Mexico, 1880).

Footnote 408:

_Memoria de los Trabajos ejecutados por la comision scientifica de

Pachuca en el año de 1861_, p. 357, quoted by Orozco. Almaraz’s words

are not at all precise: “la unidad lineal, con pequeñas

modificaciones, debió ser cosa de o, m 8, ó cuatro palmos

próximamente.”

Footnote 409:

_The Metrical Standard of the Mound-Builders._ Reduced by the Method

of Even Divisors. By Col. Chas. Whittlesey (Cleveland, 1883).

Footnote 410:

_Notes on Mitla_, in _Proceedings of the American Antiquarian

Society_, April, 1882, p. 97.

Footnote 411:

See Herrera, _Decadas de Indias_, Dec. ii, Lib. vii, cap. xvi, and

Dec. iii, Lib. iv. cap. xvii. “Castigaban mucho alque falseaba

medidas, diciendo que era enemigo de todos i ladron publico,” etc.

Footnote 412:

“Habian terminos señalados de cuantas leguas habian de acudir á los

mercados,” etc. Diego Duran, _Historia de la Nueva España_, Vol. ii,

pp, 215, 217. Both the terms in the text are translated _legua_ in

Molina’s Vocabulary, so that it is probable that the resting places

were something near two and a half to three miles apart.

Footnote 413:

“Todo lo venden por cuenta y medida, excepto que fasta agora no se ha

visto vender cosa alguna por peso.” _Cartas y Relaciones de Hernan

Cortes_, p. 105. (Ed. Gayangos.)

Footnote 414:

“Tenian medida para todas las cosas; hasta la ierva, que era tanta,

quanta se podia atar con una cuerda de una braza por un tomin.”

Herrera, _Decadas de Indias_, Dec. ii, Lib. vii, cap. xvi. In another

passage where this historian speaks of weights (Dec. iii, Lib. iv,

cap. xvii), it is one of his not infrequent slips of the pen.

Footnote 415:

A copy of this curious production called _Cancionero Americano_ is in

the Library of the Bureau of Ethnology at Washington. The introductory

note is as follows:

“Esos cantos, escogidos en el año mil y ocho cientos veinte y siete, ó

veinte y ocho, por un viagero en America, y despues hallados en sus

papeles, no vinieron jamás, siquiera por lo que podemos saber,

conocidos del publico sabio. Estos son los mismos cantos del Pueblo

Taensa, para las orillas del Misisipi ó del Alabama, todos escritos en

el dulce y pulido dialecto de aquel pueblo. Todos los amigos de la

ciencia han de sentir el precio de esta pequeña colleccion.”

It will be noticed that the Spanish is full of errors, as _esos_ for

_estos_, _hallados_ for _encontrados_, _para las orillas_ for _por las

orillas_; and _sentir el precio_ does not mean _appreciate_, as the

author would say, but “regret the price.”

Footnote 416:

The discussion elicited the following additional brochures from M.

Adam: _Le Taensa n’a pas été forgé de toutes piecès. Lettre de M.

Friedrich Müller á Lucien Adam_, pp. 4.

_Dom Parisot ne produira pas le Manuscrit Taensa. Lettre á M. Victor

Henry_, pp. 13.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. P. 67, changed “has certain” to “has a certain”.

2. P. 132, changed “Leixque de la Langue Algonquine” to “Lexique de la

Langue Algonquine”.

3. P. 172, changed ‘yalahi: Zazaba’ to ‘yalahi: “Zazaba’.

4. P. 255, changed “qus se doblaban” to “que se doblaban”.

5. P. 255, changed “de un libo encuardenado” to “de un libro

encuardenado”.

6. P. 293, changed “A maiden who loves me we” to “A maiden who loves me

well”.

7. P. 301, changed “allegiance turn to hatred” to “allegiance turns to

hatred”.

8. P. 433, changed “these where spoken” to “these were spoken”.

9. P. 452, removed footnote anchor from the end of “THE CURIOUS HOAX OF

THE TAENSA LANGUAGE” as there was no corresponding footnote.

10. Silently corrected typographical errors and also variations in

spelling.

11. Retained anachronistic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as

printed.

12. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.

End of Project Gutenberg's Essays of an Americanist, by Daniel G. Brinton