The change of a symbol to the face form, as seen in this instance at LXV, 15-16, does not appear to have any significance. The chief element of this character is the circular spot in the right portion, usually bordered by a double line and little square blocks, with the interior generally crosshatched. As the crosshatching is also found in the symbol for the month _Pax_ (plate LXV, 22), it is probable, if phonetic, that this characteristic denotes the _x_ (sh) or _ch_ sound. As a similar marking is frequently present on the serpent figures in the codices (plate LXV, 23), it is possible that its signification is _chan_, "serpent," or it may refer to some real or mythological characteristic.

The signification of the names of this day, except that of the Nahuatl calendar--_cohuatl_, "serpent"--appears to be uncertain. Perez says the word _chicchan_ can be explained only by considering it to be incorrectly written for _chichan_, "little." Henderson in his lexicon writes it _chichan_, and gives as the meaning of the word, "new, young, as _chichan u_, the new moon." Dr Seler first suggested that the first part of the name might be derived from the root _chi_, _chii_, "mouth, to bite," and hence that the signification might be "the biting serpent." However, he subsequently concluded that the proper interpretation is "a sign marked or taken," from _chich_, "a sign or mark," and _ch'aan_, "something taken or carried away." Dr Brinton thinks there is much less difficulty in construing it as _chich_, strong or great, and _chan_, the generic Tzental term for serpent. The generic term for serpent in the Zoztzil is _cham_.

Dr Seler does not attempt an explanation of the Tzental term, but Dr Brinton says that it means in that dialect and in Cakchiquel, "luck, fate, fortune." This, he says, is identical with the Zapotec _ci_, _zii_, and _guii_, and, as he finds evidence that the serpent is mentioned as an animal whence portents were derived by the Zapotecs, thinks this furnishes the connecting link with the signification in other calendars. This explanation is so circuitous, and in fact strained, as to render it unsatisfactory.

A study of the symbol with reference to its origin may perhaps furnish some aid in arriving at the true signification of the name. As will be seen by reference to the various forms of the symbol, the bordering of the circular inclosed s.p.a.ce appears to be more permanent than the inner markings. This is apparent from the fact that the little squares or blocks are retained in all the types except the anomalous forms shown in plate LXV, 16-18, and even in one of these (LXV, 18) they appear. On the other hand, the markings in the inclosed s.p.a.ce are varied, and in some instances, as LXV, 11, are omitted altogether. It would seem, therefore, from this that the bordering was considered the essential element of the glyph. From what, then, is the symbol taken? If we turn to Dresden 25c, we see in the priest's robe, in all probability, that from which the symbol was derived. Here we have the inner crosshatching and the little dark blocks or squares around the border. The same pattern is seen also on Tro. 16*b and c, and on the female dresses, same codex, 20*c and d.

On the latter, in some cases, is the waved line seen in the unusual forms of the day symbol shown in plate LXV, 17, 18, and 19. Other examples could be referred to, but attention is called only to one more, viz, the curtain-like articles exhibited on Tro. 29*b, where we see not only the inner crosshatching and bordering blocks, but on the side borders the precise marking of the day symbol shown in plate LXV, 17.

As _chi_, _chii_, signifies not only mouth, but also "limit, border, margin, sh.o.r.e," and especially the "skirt or loose edge of a garment,"

the relation of the symbol to the name of the day is obvious. It is used here for its phonetic value--_chi_. As _chii_ signifies "to bite, p.r.i.c.k, to sting as a serpent," and _chan_ denotes "serpent," the true explanation of the name of the day would seem to be "the biting or stinging serpent." This will perhaps justify us in supposing that where the symbol is found on a serpent it must have reference to this characteristic.

I had not observed when the above was written that Bra.s.seur had expressed substantially the same view in regard to the origin of this symbol.

THE SIXTH DAY

Maya, _cimi_; Tzental, _tox_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _camey_; Zapotec, _lana_; Nahuatl, _miquiztli_.

Landa's symbol for this day is shown in plate LXV, 24. The usual form in the Codex Tro. and Cortesian Codex is given in LXV, 25; it is varied frequently by an extension of the line from the mouth, somewhat as in symbol 28 of the same plate, which is the usual form in the Dresden Codex. A variation of this is seen at 29, which seems to have given rise to the unusual form shown in 31. A radical variation is that given at 27. The symbol of the Death G.o.d, 26 and 30, is sometimes, though rarely, subst.i.tuted as the symbol of this day. The closed or dead eye and prominent teeth, as seen in the usual forms, show very clearly that the symbol is simply a conventional representation of the naked skull. The form shown at 27, however, is more difficult to account for; reference to it will be made farther on.

The Maya, Quiche Cakchiquel,[TN-2] and Nahuatl terms signify "death." The Tzental name _tox_, however, presents a difficulty not readily overcome in order to bring its signification into harmony with that of the others. Dr Seler does not attempt an explanation in his paper on the meaning of the day names, and in his subsequent article fails to reach any settled conclusion. Dr Brinton thinks it means something (as a human head) separated, sundered, cut off; "hence _tox-oghbil_, the ax or hatchet; _q-tox_, to split, divide, cut off." In this, he holds, it agrees precisely with the Zapotec _lana_, which, he says, the Zapotec vocabulary renders "a separated thing, like a single syllable, word, or letter." Dr Seler's interpretation of the Zapotec name is wholly different, as he says that the most natural of the various significations given is, in his opinion, "hare;" _pela-pillaana_, "liebre animal;" _too-quixe-pillaana_, or _pella-pillaana_, "red para liebres." I observe, however, that in Fuller's vocabulary _gu-lana_ is "to steal." Other significations are "name," "flesh," "secretly," etc.

The proper interpretation of the Zapotec name therefore appears to be very doubtful. In Cordova's vocabulary, as given by Ternaux-Compans, "fleche" is given as the meaning of _quii-lana_. In Tzotzil _gtox_ signifies "to split, break off, break open, to chop." In Maya we have _tok_; which, as a substantive, Perez explains by "pedernal, la sangria;" as a verb it signifies "to bleed, let blood." In this dialect _tox_ denotes "to drain, draw off liquor, spill, shed."

The usual form of the Mexican symbol for this day is shown in plate LXV, 32. It is also a naked skull.

Like Dr Seler, I am compelled to admit that I can give no satisfactory suggestion as to the origin of the form shown in plate LXV, 27.

According to Colonel Mallery,[232-1] one sign among the Indians for knife is to "cut past the mouth with the raised right hand," which, if figured, would probably bear some resemblance to the marks on this symbol.[232-2]

THE SEVENTH DAY

Maya, _manik_; Tzental, _moxic_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _queh_; Zapotec, _china_; Nahuatl, _mazatl_.

The symbol for this day, shown in plate LXVIII, 31, is without any change worthy of notice, the only difference observable being a greater or less degree of perfection with which it has been drawn by the aboriginal artist. It is found, however, in various combinations where it is subject to variation in form, if these in truth be intended for this symbol. As Bra.s.seur de Bourbourg has suggested, this appears to have been taken from the partially closed hand, where the points of the fingers are brought round close to the tip of the thumb. Whether intended to show the palm or back outward is uncertain, though apparently the latter. The nearest approach I find among the Indian signs figured by Colonel Mallery is that denoting "little, diminutive, small." But the position of the hand in the symbol appears to indicate the act of grasping; either signification gives _ch_ as the chief phonetic element of the Maya word _chan_ and _chichan_, signifying "little," and _chuc_, _chucah_, "to grasp, to seize" ("alcanzar, asir, prender," Perez); or _chuuc_, "to take, grasp, catch, seize,"

Henderson.[232-3] It would seem from this that if the symbol is phonetic in any sense, the chief element of the word indicated is _ch_. The supposition by Drs Sch.e.l.lhas and Seler that this symbol sometimes contains the elements of the sign of the four winds or wind cross, appears to be without any real foundation. The partial cross-shape figure in it is merely the conventional method of drawing the opening between the fingers, and would be just as correctly given as an oval as an inverted _tau_.

As this interpretation of the symbol is quite different from that given by other writers, some evidence to justify it is presented here.

Attention is called first to the symbol for "west," shown in plate LXIV, 53. The lower portion is the recognized symbol for _kin_, "day" or "sun," and the upper portion is beyond question the _manik_ character.

As _chikin_ is the Maya name for "west," we are justified in a.s.suming that here at least this _manik_ symbol is to be interpreted by _chi_, and is in some sense phonetic. As _china_ is the Zapotec name of the day, and signifies "deer," and _chigh_ is the Zotzil name for "deer," it is probable that the symbol preserves the old name, while in Maya this old name has been supplanted for some reason, or through some linguistic process, by _manik_.

Dr Seler calls attention to the character shown in plate LXVIII, 32, from Dres. 13c, which is repeated in the form LXVIII, 33, on plate 21b.

That this refers to the deer figured below must be admitted, as this is clearly shown by the relation of the characters in the adjoining section to the animals figured below the text. Henderson (MS. Lexicon) gives _xolke_ as "the male deer." If this could be considered substantially equivalent to _cholceh_ in sound, our _manik_ symbol would retain its value. The objection to this supposition is that the figure is probably intended for a doe instead of the male. Bra.s.seur gives _chacyuc_ as the name applied to a small species of deer. It is true these interpretations leave out the numeral prefix; nevertheless they serve to show that it is probable the true name is a word which retains the phonetic value of the _manik_ symbol as we have given it. Be the word what it may, two conclusions maybe relied on: First, that it alludes to the deer, and, second, that one of its chief phonetic elements is _ch_.

The character shown in plate LXVIII, 34, from Tro. 11*b, has probably the same element in its phonetic equivalent, for the Maya verb _hax_ (_haxnahi_), "to twist or turn by rolling the thing between the palms of the hand; make cord used for muslin or cloth," etc, gives substantially this phonetic equivalent.

The character shown, in plate LXVIII, 35, from Dres. 10b, is referred to by Seler as indicating an offering to the G.o.ds. In this he is possibly correct. As _tich_, in Maya, signifies an "offering," "a sacrifice," and _tich_ (_tichah_) "to offer, present," etc, it is probable that in this instance also the _manik_ symbol retains _ch_, as its chief phonetic element. However, I am inclined to believe it refers to the collecting or gathering of the ripened fruit. In this case the prefix must be understood as a determinative indicating piling or heaping up, putting together or in a heap, or storing away. Of the Maya words indicating this operation, we note the following: _Chich_ (_chichah_), _hich_, and _hoch_, each of which has _ch_ or _ch_ as its chief consonant element. This interpretation agrees very well with the fact that here, as elsewhere, a date is to be taken into consideration. On such a date, at such a time, the cacao is to be gathered, is to be harvested and stored away. Students of these codices, in their attempts at interpretation, appear, as a general thing, to overlook the fact that almost every paragraph or group of glyphs in the script is accompanied by a date which must be taken into consideration in the interpretation. The symbol which follows immediately to the right, shown in plate LXVIII, 36, may be rendered _cacau_, the "cacao," as the duplicated comb-like character is Landa's _ca_.

As the Quiche-Cakchiquel, Zapotec, and Nahuatl names all signify "deer,"

the difficulty in bringing all into harmony lies in the Maya and Tzental names. Dr Seler's explanation is substantially as follows: That the word _manik_ is from the root _man_ or _mal_, which signifies "to pa.s.s quickly;" _manik_ may therefore mean "that which pa.s.ses by," "that which is fleeting." Dr Brinton gives the same explanation, and concludes that the deer is referred to metaphorically. In regard to the Tzental name _moxic_, Dr Seler suggests that it may be founded on the root _max_, from which is derived _maxan_, "swift." Dr Brinton objects to this derivation, as _maxan_ with the signification "swift" is from _ma_, "not," and _xan_, "slow, tardy," and suggests that the name is probably a corruption of the Nahuatl _mazatl_. However, it may be stated in favor of Seler's explanation, that Henderson gives _moxan_, "quickly, shortly, without hindrance," which is apparently another form of _maxan_. Dr Seler, however, concludes, from a study of the relations in which the character is found in the codices, that it is the symbol of offering, of sacrifice, the deer being esteemed the animal most appropriate for this purpose. Henderson says _manik_ signifies "calm," evidently considering it to be formed of _ma_, negative, and _ik_, "wind."

It is evident, therefore, that the authorities are at sea in regard to the signification of the Maya and Tzental names. If the symbol is used, as Seler claims, to indicate offerings or sacrifices, this may be readily explained on the supposition that it is used ikonomatically because of the phonetic value I have a.s.signed it; but otherwise it is difficult, if not impossible, to see any relation between the symbol and the name given it. So far I have found it used in no place, in combination, where the value _manik_ will give a satisfactory interpretation.

The following additional renderings are added here as tending to confirm the phonetic value a.s.signed the _manik_ character.

The character shown in plate LXVIII, 37, is from Tro. 20*c, where it is repeated four times. The figures below the text show women in the act of sprinkling or pouring water on children. Whether this be considered a religious ceremony or not, it is probably intended to denote purifying or cleansing, and not baptism in the modern acceptation of the term. As _choah_, according to Perez, signifies "to cleanse, purify, scour," and _choich_ "to clean, scour, or wash the face," we have therein a quite appropriate interpretation of the symbol. The presence of the cardinal-point symbols renders it probable that the scene refers to a religious ceremony of some kind. The strict regard paid to the position relative to the cardinal points by savage and semicivilized people is too well known to require any proof here.

On Tro. 34*c two individuals are engaged in some work which we might suppose to be weaving but for the fact that there is no cord or thread to be seen. Over each is the character shown in plate LXVIII, 38. This is evidently an incomplete _manik_ symbol. As the supposed aspirate sign is present, it is probable that _hooch_, "to pare off, to sc.r.a.pe," or _hoochci_, "to pare off, or sc.r.a.pe the hennequin," will furnish an appropriate rendering.

THE EIGHTH DAY.

Maya, _lamat_; Tzental, _lambat_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _canel_ or _kanel_; Zapotec, _lapa_ or _laba_; Nahuatl, _tochtli_.

The various forms of the symbol of this day are shown in plates LXV, 33 to 37, and LXVIII, 39-40. That given by Landa is seen in LXV, 33; it is also found very frequently in the codices as LXV, 34. The three other forms found in the codices are shown in LXV, 35, 36, 37. The form on the Palenque Tablet is given in LXVIII, 40; that of the Tikal inscription is similar to Landa's figure, if we are correct in our determination, of which there is some doubt, as the dots are effaced.

A comparison of plate LXV, 36, with the symbol of the day _Ahau_, shown in LXVIII, 5, leads at once to the impression that the former was derived from the latter, and that, if in any sense phonetic, the equivalents of the two are closely related. As will be shown hereafter, the _Ahau_ symbol has _l_ as its chief phonetic element, if it be considered in any sense phonetic. We should therefore expect to find, in the verbal equivalent of this _Lamat_ symbol, _l_ as a prominent element. In the form shown at LXV, 33, it would seem that we see an effort to intimate by the character itself the presence of the _b_ element. That the symbol shown in plate LXV, 38, has _b_ as its chief element is shown elsewhere. It is possible, therefore, that this _Lamat_ symbol had no original signification purely its own, but that it is a composite derived from the _Ahau_, and what I have termed the _b_ symbol. Without antic.i.p.ating the proof that the _Ahau_ symbol has _l_ as its chief phonetic element, I call attention to the fact that it is the upper character in the symbol for _likin_, "east" (plate LXVIII, 12). As the lower character is the well-known symbol for _kin_, "day" or "sun,"

we must a.s.sume that the value of our _Ahau_, in this case at least, is _li_. As another suggestion, I would add that it may have been derived from a figure used in some game. As the figure is usually divided into apartments or cells, most of which inclose a dot, the Maya word _lem_, _lemah_, "meter, encajar, poner dentro, introducir" (Perez), would not inappropriately express the idea. Its use as a day symbol would then be simply for its phonetic value. This is based, of course, on the derivation. I suggest below. Nevertheless it must be admitted that these are but mere guesses.

In his article so frequently referred to Dr Seler has little to say in regard to the signification of the names of this day. He remarks that "the word _kanel_ is given by Ximenes--with what authority I know not--with the signification 'rabbit,' thus corresponding to the Mexican name for this character (Tochtli)." He says he is unable to interpret the words _lambat_ and _lamat_. In his subsequent article he interprets the Zapotec word by "to divide, to break into pieces," and remarks "that the concept of something divided, broken in pieces, lies at the foundation of the delineation of this day character is also proved by the Maya hieroglyph for the same [see plate LXV, 33 and 36], in which something divided or broken up is undoubtedly indicated." He adds that "perhaps also the terms _lambat_ and _lamat_, used in Tzental-Zoztzil and in Maya for the day character, and which are hardly explainable from the well-known Maya, are derived from the Zapotec word _lapa_." Dr Brinton's explanation is as follows:

The Maya _lamat_ is evidently a shortened form of the Tzental _lambat_, which is composed of _lam_, to sink into something soft ("hundirse in cosa blanda," like light loam), and _bat_, the grain, the seed, and the name refers to the planting of the crops. The Quiche-Cakchiquel _kanel_ is the name of the Guardian of the Sown Seed, probably from _kan_, yellow, referring to the yellow grains or maize. The Zapotec _lapa_ or _laba_ means a drop, and a crown or garland; here probably the latter, in reference to the products of the fields. The rabbit, in Nahuatl, is the symbol of ease and intoxication.

Thus, while Dr Brinton explains the name by "sinking in the mud or soil," Bra.s.seur explains it by "sinking in the water."

It is much more likely that the Maya name is but a modification of _lemba_, which, as a verb, according to Henderson, signifies "to flash, to shine, etc;" and as a noun, according to Perez, "resplendor, brillo, relampago." I have no Tzental vocabulary at hand, but observe that in the closely allied Zoztzil, "relampagear" is given as the equivalent of _lemlaghet_.

It is a coincidence worthy of a pa.s.sing notice that in Hawaiian _lama_ and _pu-lama_ signify "a torch;" _au-lama_, "to give light;" _malama_, "light from the sun or moon;" in Samoan, _lama_, "the candle-nut tree, and a torch made of the nuts;" in Tonga, _mama_, "light, a flambeau;"

New Zealand, _rama_, "candle, light;" Tahaitan, _rama_, "a torch."

It is somewhat singular that Dr Brinton, after his interpretation of the Maya name of the fourth day heretofore given, should in this instance derive _kanel_--the Quiche-Cakchiquel name of this day--from lean, "yellow," referring to the yellow grains of maize. However, it is quite probable that the reference to the color in this explanation is correct.

The traditions of the Indians in which the rabbit is brought into relation with the sun are well known. Dr Brinton has shown in his work on "American Hero Myths" that the Rabbit or Great Hare in the Algonquian myths symbolized "light." He remarks in "The Lenape and their Legends"

that--

The familiar Algonkin myth of the "Great Hare," which I have elsewhere shown to be distinctively a myth of Light, was also well known to the Delawares, and they applied to this animal, also, the appellation of the "Grandfather of the Indians." Like the fire, the hare was considered their ancestor, and in both instances the Light was meant, fire being its symbol, and the word for hare being identical with that of brightness and light.[236-1]

It is possible that the Mexicans selected the rabbit for this day as a known symbol of light, thus bringing it into correspondence with the signification of the day names of the other calendars. The method by which Drs Seler and Brinton try to bring the Maya and Zapotec names into harmony with the Mexican appears to me to be in the wrong direction.

It is therefore quite probable, from what has been shown, that the Maya, Tzental, and Quiche-Cakchiquel names refer to light, flame, or the lightning flash, and that the rabbit was selected because of some mythological relation it was supposed to bear to the sun, or light.[237-1] As this character is seldom found in combination, or used otherwise than as a day symbol, it is probable that the signification is represented by some other symbol, or is not referred to in the text.

THE NINTH DAY

Maya, _muluc_; Tzental, _molo_ or _mulu_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _toh_; Zapotec, _niza_ or _queza_; Nahuatl, _atl_.

There are but few and slight variations in the form of the symbol of this day. That given by Landa is shown in plate LXV, 39. The usual forms in the codices are seen at 40-42 of the same plate. Symbol 43, which is an important variation, is from the Cortesian Codex.

The addition of the little circle and loop in example LXV, 43, from the Cortesian Codex, is important, as it possibly indicates that the simple forms given in plate LXV, 40-42, are incomplete, and may be a slight indication of phoneticism. If the latter supposition be correct, it is probable that in this additional feature we find the element _'c_ of the word. It is one of the characteristics of the _manik_ symbol, which, as heretofore shown, has, in some instances at least, _ch_ as one of its phonetic elements, whether considered truly phonetic or not.