Fearing that we will be misunderstood in the last statement, we will state to whom it applies. The Christian world hold that G.o.d revealed himself to his chosen people, and that we draw from his Word what is permitted mortals to know of his government and the future world. We make no question but that this is true. But long before there was a Hebrew people there was a Paleolithic race, who doubtless had some vague, shadowy, ill defined idea of supernatural power, and sought, in some infantile way, to appease the same. Afterwards, but long before the glories of Solomon, a Neolithic people were living in Palestine, and the same culture was wide-spread over the world. To this day a large part of the world's inhabitants have never so much as heard of the Christian religion. It is to such people that we especially refer.

The religious beliefs of the Indians have not been fully studied as yet; but, until that is done, it is scarcely possible to understand and fully weigh what is said as to the religious beliefs of the Mexicans. What we can discern of the religion of the Nahua and Maya tribes shows us that it is not at all probable they had reached a stage of development in which they had any idea of One Supreme, Over-ruling Power. But our scholars differ on that point, many contending that the Mexicans distinctly affirmed the existence of such a G.o.d.<48> To form such conceptions implies a power of reasoning on abstract topics that is vain to expect of a people in their state of development. We think, therefore, that the idea that they had such a belief, arises from a misconception. Let us see if we can discover how that was.

Nearly all of the North American tribes had some word to express supernatural power. The Iroquois used for this purpose the words "oki"

and "otkon."<49> The first meaning of these words is "above." As used by these Indians, however, they expressed the working of any unseen, mysterious, and, therefore, to them, supernatural power. There was, however, no idea of personality or of unity about it. Other Indian tribes had words to express the same meaning. The English and French explorers translated these words into their languages in various ways.

The most common is the rather absurd one of "medicine," which has pa.s.sed into common use. Thus, to mention one in very frequent use, we have the expression "Medicine-men"--meaning their priests and conjurers. The same custom prevailed among the higher cla.s.s of sedentary Indians of Mexico and Central America. The Aztecs used the word "teotl" to express the name meaning; the Mayas, the word "ku;" the Peruvians, "huaca." But the word used, in each case, meant not so much a personal supreme-being as it did an ill-defined sense of supernatural, mysterious power. This point not being clearly understood, it was quite natural that the early writers understood by these various expressions their name of the First Cause.

In the present state of our knowledge, it is certainly very hard to give an intelligent statement of the religious conceptions of the Maya and Nahua tribes. Among the Nahuas, their conception of creative power was that of a pair--a man and wife. These were not the active agents, however--they engendered four sons, who were the creators. This seems to be a widely extended form of tradition. Two authors, writing about fifty years after the conquest, speak of the four princ.i.p.al deities and statues. They had a great many idols besides--but four were the princ.i.p.al ones.

It would be very satisfactory could we frame some theory to account for this state of things. If we could only be sure that each G.o.d was symbolic of some of the elements--or, if we could only say that this was but another instance of the use of the number "four"--and thus connect them with the cardinal points, it would be very satisfactory to many.

The amount of study that has been bestowed on this question is very great, and it is very far from being settled. Each of these four was the princ.i.p.al, or guardian, deity of a particular tribe.<50> All of these appear in native traditions as historical personages, as well as deities. It is for this reason that Mr. Bandelier concludes that the "four princ.i.p.al G.o.ds were deified men, whose lives and actions became mixed up with the vague ideas of natural forces and phenomena."<51>

As prominent a figure as any in Central American Mythology is Quetzalcohuatl; and we can form a good idea of the force of the preceding remarks by considering this case. The name is a compound of two words, "quetzal-cohuatl"--and is, says Mr. Bandelier, a fair specimen of an Indian personal name. He tells us that the meaning is "bright," or "shining snake." Others have translated it, "feathered serpent." We have referred to the attempt to show that the tablet of the cross, at Palenque, had reference to him. Those who think he was the nature-G.o.d of the Nahuas find a great deal of significance in the name.<52> Mr. Bandelier, after carefully considering all reference to him by the early writers, shows that it is quite as likely that Quetzalcohuatl "was a man of note, whose memory was afterward connected with dim cosmological notions." It is plain that our idea of the culture of the Mexicans will vary according as we consider the base of this myth to be a man, or the forces in nature producing the fertilizing summer rain.<53>

The worship of Quetzalcohuatl was very widely extended; but it was mostly confined to the Nahua tribes. But there are somewhat similar traditions among the Maya tribes; and this is one of those few points which, like the similarity of their calendar systems, seems to point to a close connection in early times. The Quiches have a very similar myth.

Briefly, it is to the effect that four princ.i.p.al G.o.ds created the world.

One of these was named Guc.u.matz--meaning, also, shining, or brilliant snake. Some think that this is the same personage as Quetzalcohuatl, and from this fact show how true it is that the operations of the forces of nature everywhere affect the minds of men in a similar manner.<54> Others will not, however, go as far as this, and will only say there is a similarity between the two characters. The tribes in Yucatan also have a tradition of Cuculcan, whose name means the same as the two already mentioned. The authority who refers to him speaks of him only as a man.

The Quiche legend, already referred to, speaks of Guc.u.matz only as a G.o.d. The Nahua traditions of Quetzalcohuatl, as we have seen, are confused accounts of a man and a G.o.d.

The traditions having reference to the earthly career of Quetzalcohuatl represent him as having considerable to do with Tulla and Cholula. At Tulla he appears in the light of a great medicine-man, or priest; at Cholula, as a sachem. Still other traditions represent him as a great and successful warrior. None of these characters are incompatible with the others, from an Indian point of view. These traditions are so hopelessly confused, that it is doubtful if any thing of historical value can be gained from them. As a deity, he was worshiped as G.o.d of the air or wind. Why he should be so considered is answered in various ways. If, reasoning from his name, we choose to believe he is a nature-G.o.d--as such standing for the thunder-storm, clouds of summer--then, as the winds "sweep the path for the rain-clouds," he would be considered their G.o.d. Also, following out this line of thought, we can see how, as the G.o.d which brings the fertilizing summer rain, he would be considered the G.o.d of wealth, and the patron deity of traders.

We must not lose sight of the fact that all these traditions are most woefully mixed; that, since the conquest, many ideas from other than native sources have been engrafted on them; and, furthermore, that other explanations that are worth considering can be presented. The horticultural tribe located at Cholula had Quetzalcohuatl for their tutelar deity. Their crops depend upon the timely descent of the rain.

What more natural than that they should regard such rains as sent by him? This pueblo was also famous for its fairs. "By its geographical position, its natural products, and the industry of its people," it became a great trading market. Near it was raised cochineal dye, in large quant.i.ties. This was eagerly sought after by traders from a distance. Cholula was also famous for its pottery. The Tlaxcaltecos told Cortez that the inhabitants of Cholula were a tribe of traders; what more natural, then, than that their tutelar deity should become, in the eyes of foreign tribes, the G.o.d of traders.<55>

Quetzalcohuatl was but one of the four princ.i.p.al G.o.ds. The tutelar deity of the Mexicans was Huitzilopochtli. His altars were almost daily wet with the blood of sacrificed victims. No important war was undertaken, except with many ceremonies he was duly honored. If time were so short that proper care could not be bestowed on the ceremonies, then there was a kind of deputy G.o.d that could be served in a hurried manner that would suffice.<56> After a successful battle, the captives were conducted at once to his temple, and made to prostrate themselves before his image.

In times of great public danger, the great drum in his temple was beaten. The Spaniards, by dire experience, knew well the meaning of that awful sound.

Ill.u.s.tration of Huitzilopochtli.------------

The plate represents what was probably the idol of Huitzilopochtli. "It was brought to light in grading the Plaza Mayor in the City of Mexico in August, 1790. It was near the place where the great Teocalli stood, and where the princ.i.p.al monuments of Mexico were. They were thrown down at the time of the conquest and buried from sight. It is an immense block of bluish-gray porphyry, about ten feet high and six feet wide and thick, sculptured on front, rear, top and bottom, into a most complicated and horrible combination of animal, human, and ideal forms."<57> This idol is generally stated to be that of the G.o.ddess of death. But Mr. Bandelier, after carefully reviewing all the authorities, concludes that it represents the well-known war-G.o.d of the Mexican tribe.<58>

To properly conduct the services in honor of these various G.o.ds, required established rites and a priesthood. What we call "Medicine men"

wizards, and names of similar import among the northern tribes, were more correctly priests. There was no tribe of Indians so poor but what they had these priests. But we would expect this office to increase more in power and importance among the southern Indians. Among the Iroquois, we are told each gens elected certain "keepers of the faith." These included persons both male and female. Their princ.i.p.al duty was to see that the feast days were properly celebrated. From what we know of the gens we feel confident that they would be perfectly, independent in religious matters as well as in other respects. Consequently it is not probable that there was even in Mexico any hereditary caste of priests.<59>

However set aside, or chosen, or elected, we have every reason to believe that the organization of the priesthood was systematic. The aspirant for the office had to acquaint himself with the songs and prayers used in public worship, the national traditions, their principles of astrology, so as to tell the lucky and unlucky days.

When admitted to the priesthood, their rank was doubtless determined by meritorious actions. Successes in war would contribute to this result as well as sanct.i.ty, a priest who had captured several prisoners ranking higher than one who had captured but one, and this last higher than the unfortunate who had taken none.<60> We must not forget that war was the duty of all among the Mexicans. The priests were not in all cases exempt; part of their duties may have been to care for the wounded. It is not likely that the priests of any one G.o.d ranked any higher than the priests of others, or had any authority over them.

This body of priests of whom we have just treated concerned themselves a great deal with the social life of the Mexicans, and their power was doubtless great. Their duties commenced with the birth of the child, and continued through life. No important event of any kind was undertaken without duly consulting the priests to see if the day selected was a lucky one. The Nahuas were, like all Indians, very superst.i.tious, so there was plenty of work cut out for the priests. Into their hands was committed the art of explaining dreams, fortune-telling, astrology, and the explanation of omens and signs. Such as the flight and songs of birds, the sudden appearance of wild animals; in short, any unexpected or unusual event, was deemed of sufficient importance to require in its explanation priestly learning. In addition there was the regular routine of feasts.<61> We have seen what a mult.i.tude of G.o.ds the Nahuas worshiped. Like all Indian people, they were very fond of feasts and gatherings of that character; therefore feast days in honor of some one of the numerous deities were almost constantly in order, and every month or two were feasts of unusual importance. The most acceptable sacrifice to these G.o.ds, and without which no feast of any importance was complete, was human life.

This introduces us to the most cruel trait of their character. It was not alone true of the Mexicans, but of all the Nahua tribes and of the Mayas, though in a less degree. On every occasion of the least importance victims were sacrificed. Any unusual event was celebrated in a similar manner. Before the departure of a warlike expedition, the favor of Huitzilopochtli was sought by the sacrifice of human life; on the return of the same, similar scenes were enacted. On all such occasions the more victims the better. These victims were mostly captives taken in war, and wars were often entered into for the express purpose of procuring such victims. They were even made a subject of tribute. Devout people sometimes offered themselves or their children for the sacrifice. The number of victims, of course, varied from year to year, but it is possible that it counted up into the thousands every year.

What we are able to gather from the religious beliefs of the civilized nations sustains the conclusions we have already arrived at in reference to their culture. We can but believe this had been greatly overrated.

It is the religion of barbarians, not of a cultivated and enlightened people the historians would have us believe in. It is a religion in keeping with the character of the people who had confederated together for the purpose of compelling unwilling tribute from weaker tribes. It is in keeping with what we would expect of a people still in the Stone Age, who still practised communism in living, and whose political and social organization was founded on the gens as a unit.

It will not be out of place to devote some s.p.a.ce to a consideration of their advance in learning; and first of all let us see about their system of counting or numeration. This knowledge, as Mr. Gallatin remarks, must necessarily have preceded any knowledge of astronomy, or any effort to compute time. They must have known how to count the days of a year before they knew how many days it contained. We all know how natural it is for a child to count by means of his fingers. This was undoubtedly the first method employed by primitive man. Proof of this is found in the wide extended use of the decimal system. Among the civilized nations, traces of this early custom are still preserved in the meaning of the words used to express the numbers.

To express the numbers up to twenty, small dots or circles were used--one for each unit. For the number twenty they painted a little flag, for the number four hundred, a feather; and for eight thousand, a purse or pouch. The following table represents the method of enumeration employed by the Mexicans. But it is necessary to remark they used different terminations for different objects.<62>

Ill.u.s.tration of Mexican System of Numeration.----------

Substantially the same system of numeration prevailed among all the Nahua tribes and the Mayas. It will be seen from this table that the only numbers having simple names are one, two, three, four, five, ten, fifteen, twenty, four hundred, and eight thousand. The other names are compounds of these simple names. It is also easy to understand their method of pictorial representation. In reference to the flag, the feather, and the purse, we must remark that, when these were divided into four parts, only the colored parts were counted. The collective number, used among them much as we use the word dozen, was always twenty; but queerly enough their word for twenty varied according to the object to be counted. The regular word given in the table was "pohualli." In counting thin objects that could be arranged one above the other, the word twenty was "pilli." Objects that were round and plump and thus resembling a stone, were counted with "tetl" for twenty, and other words for different objects.<63>

The division of time or their calendar system, is one that was thought to show great advance in astronomical learning, but of late years it has been shown that this also was overrated. This question of how to keep a record of time was a difficult one for primitive man to solve; that is, when he began to think about it at all. A long while must have elapsed, and considerable advance in other respects been made before the necessity of such a thing occurred to them. The increase and decrease of the moon would form a natural starting point. It is well known that this is about as far as the knowledge of the Indians extended. The Maya word for month means also moon, showing this was their earliest system of reckoning time.<64>

Ill.u.s.tration of Table of Days.--------------------

The various Nahua and Maya tribes of Mexico and Central America had reached about the same stage of development. But their calendar system is so similar that it affords a strong argument of the original unity of these people.<65> All of the civilized tribes had months of twenty days each, and each of these days had a separate name, which was the same for every month of the year. This period of twenty days was properly their unit of time reckoning. It is true they had smaller divisions,<66> but for all practical purposes, they were ignored. As none of these tribes possessed the art of writing, they had to represent these days by means of hieroglyphics. The following table shows the Mexican and Maya days, the meaning of each, and the pictorial sign by which they were represented. We must notice that the Maya hieroglyphics look more arbitrary, more conventional than the Mexican. This is interesting, because some of our scholars now believe the Mayas were the inventors of the calendar. Their hieroglyphics, therefore, as being the older of the two, should appear more conventional. In the Mexican hieroglyphics for the days, we can still trace a resemblance to the natural objects they represent; in the Maya hieroglyphics, this resemblance has disappeared.

It is not out of place to theorize as to the facts already mentioned.

The first thing that strikes us is that they should have chosen twenty days for a unit of time. There must have been some reason lying back of this selection. It would have been more natural for them to have chosen a number of days (say thirty) more nearly corresponding to the time from one new moon to another. Whether we shall ever learn the reason for choosing this number of days is doubtful; but Mr. Bandelier has given us some thoughts on this subject, which, though he is careful to state are not results, but mere suggestions, seem to us to have some germs of truth, the more so as it is fully in keeping with Indian customs.

He points out that many of the names for these days mean the same as the names of the gens in the more northern Indian tribes. Thus seven of the days have the same meaning as the names of seven of the nine gens of the Moqui tribe in Arizona. He, therefore, suggests that the names of these twenty days are the names of the twenty gens of the aboriginal people from whom have descended the various civilized tribes under consideration. Indeed, this is expressly stated to be the method of naming the days adopted by the Chiapanecs, one of the tribes in question.<67>

As soon as the people commenced to take any observation at all, they would perceive that it took just about eighteen of these periods of twenty days to make a year. So the next step appears to have been the division of the year into eighteen months. These months received each a name, and were of course designated by a hieroglyphic. The names of the Mexican months seem to have been determined by some of the feasts happening therein. There is great diversity among the early writers both as to the names of these months, and the order in which they occur, as well as by the hieroglyphics by which they are represented.<68> It does not seem worth while to give their names and meaning. We give a plate showing the name, order in which they occur, and hieroglyphic symbol of the Maya months. In point of fact, the months were very little used, as we shall soon see it was not necessary to name the month to designate the day; but of that hereafter.

Ill.u.s.tration of Maya Months.---------

But it would not take these people very long to discover that they had not hit on the length of a year. Eighteen months, of twenty days each, make only three hundred and sixty days; so the next step would be to add on five days to their former year. As these days do not make a month, they were called the nameless days. They were considered as being unlucky--no important undertaking could be commenced on one of them.

The child born therein was to be pitied. But we will see that the expression, "nameless days" was hardly the case among the Mayas, though it was among the Mexicans.

Perhaps this will be as good a place as any to inquire whether they had exact knowledge of the length of the year. As every one knows, the length of the year is three hundred and sixty-five and one quarter days, or very nearly; and for this reason we add an extra day to every fourth year. We would not expect to find this knowledge among tribes no farther advanced than we have found these to be. If, as our scholars suspect, the Maya be the one from which the others were derived, they would be apt to possess this knowledge, if known. Perez, however, could find no trace of it among them.<69> Many authors have a.s.serted that the Mexicans knew all about it. Some say they added a day every four years; others, that they waited fifty-two years, and then added thirteen days; and some, even, give them credit for still closer knowledge, and say they added twelve and one-half days every fifty-two years.<70> Prof.

Valentine, who has made their calendar system a special study, concludes that they knew nothing at all about the matter.<71>

The beginning of the year is variously stated. Among the Mexicans it seems that, while the authors differ very much, all but one places it on some day between the second day of February and the tenth of April. As their word for year means "new green," it is probable they placed its commencement about the time new gra.s.s appeared. The Mayas are said to have placed the commencement of the year about the sixteenth of July. As this happens to be just about the time that the sun is directly overhead in Yucatan, it has been surmised that the natives took astronomical observations, and tried to have their year commence at that time. But it must be manifest that, if they did not possess a knowledge of the true length of the year, and so make allowance for the leap-year, in the course of a very few years they would have to revise this date.

Refer once more to the Maya table of days. Suppose the first day of the year to commence with the day Kan. As there are twenty days in a month, we see that the second month would also commence with Kan. In like manner, Kan would be the first day of every month of that year. When the eighteen months were past, there would still remain the five days to complete the year. Now, although they were said to be nameless days, the Mayas gave them names. The first day was Kan, the second day Chichan, the third day Quimij, the fourth day Manik, the fifth day Lamat. The regular order of days we see. They were now ready to commence a new year.

The next day in the list is Muluc. This becomes the first day of the first month of the new year. But, being the first day of the first month, it was the first day of every month of that year. At the end of the eighteen months of that year, the five days would have to be named in their order again, which would carry us down to Gix, the first day of the first month of the third year. It would also be the first day of every month of that year. Similarly we see that Cavac would be the first day of every month of the fourth year. The fifth year would commence again with Kan. So we see that four of these twenty days became of more importance than the others. The years were named after them. The year in which the month commenced with Kan was also called Kan. The same way with the other days. So the name of the year was either Kan, Muluc, Gix, or Cavac. These four days were called "carriers of the year;" because they not only gave the name to the year, but because the name of the year was also the name of the first day of every month of that year.

The foregoing will help us to understand the Mexican method. Let us refer now to the list of Mexican days. The first day of the first month was c.i.p.ac. For the same reason as above set forth, this would be the first day of every month of the year. The five extra days either were not named at all, or at any rate they were not counted off in the table of days. The consequence was that c.i.p.ac was the first day of every month; for we have just seen that it was the first day of every month of the first year. At the end of the eighteen months the five nameless days would come in; but, as they did not form part of a month, were not named. The first day of the first month of the next year would be named as if they had not occurred.<72> But, when they came to name the years, we find they proceeded on exactly the same principle as the Mayas. Thus four of the twenty days, occurring just five days apart, were taken to name the years. These days were Tecpatl, Calli, Tochtli, and Acatl.<73>

Mr. Bandelier, who made the valuable suggestion in regard to the origin of the names of the days, has also suggested that, inasmuch as there are four of the days more prominent than the others, they may signify four original gentes, from which the others have come. It seem to us, however, when we notice they are just five days apart, that the system pursued by the Mayas in naming their years explains the whole matter.

Before we mention the longer periods of time in use among them we must refer to another mode of reckoning time, and trace the influence of this second method on the one already named. The method already explained seems to have been a perfectly natural one--the second method is founded on superst.i.tion. A large part of the duties of the priests, we remember, was to determine lucky and unlucky days, and in soothsaying. For this purpose they made a peculiar division of time, which we will now try and explain.

For some cause or other, thirteen was a number continually recurring in their calendar. We can perceive no reason why it should have been chosen. It has been suggested that it was just about the time from the appearance of a new moon to its full. Be that as it may, the number of days thirteen comes very near to what we would call a week. Among the Mexicans, and probably among the Mayas, these thirteen days were divided into lucky, unlucky, and indifferent days, and were supposed to be under the guidance of different G.o.ds. The priests had regularly painted lists of them, with the deities which governed them. These lists were used in fortune telling.

We must now inquire as to how they kept track of the years. The Mayas named their next longer period of time an ahau. There is some dispute as to what number of years it meant. Most of the early writers decide that it was twenty years;<74> but Perez, whose work we have already referred to, contends that it was twenty-four years. And this conclusion seems to be confirmed by a careful study of some of their old ma.n.u.scripts.<75> Thirteen of these ahaus embraced their longest period of time, known as an ahau-katun. It had a length of either two hundred and sixty or three hundred and twelve years, according as we reckon either twenty or twenty-four years to an ahau. It may be that the length of an ahau varied among the different tribes of the Mayas.

The Mexicans also had this week of thirteen days. Twenty of these weeks, or two hundred and sixty days, formed that part of the year they called the moon-reckoning; the remainder of the year was the sun-reckoning.