V.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON THE MYTHS AND RELIGIONS OF AMERICA.

_By the Editor._

THE earliest scholarly examination of the whole subject, which has been produced by an American author, is Daniel G. Brinton’s _Myths of the New World, a treatise on the symbolism and mythology of the Red Race of America_ (N. Y., 1868; 2d ed., 1876). It is a comparative study, “more for the thoughtful general reader than for the antiquary,” as the author says. “The task,” he adds, “bristles with difficulties. Carelessness, prepossessions, and ignorance have disfigured the subject with false colors and foreign additions without number” (p. 3). After describing the character of the written, graphic, or symbolic records, which the student of history has to deal with in tracing North American history back before the Conquest, he adds, while he deprives mythology of any historical value, that the myths, being kept fresh by repetition, were also nourished constantly by the manifestations of nature, which gave them birth. So while taking issue with those who find history buried in the myths, he warns us to remember that the American myths are not the reflections of history or heroes. In the treatment of his subject he considers the whole aboriginal people of America as a unit, with “its religion as the development of ideas common to all its members, and its myths as the garb thrown around those ideas by imaginations more or less fertile; but seeking everywhere to embody the same notions.”[1894] This unity of the American races is far from the opinion of other ethnologists.

Brinton gives a long bibliographical note on those who had written on the subject before him, in which he puts, as the first (1819) to take a philosophical survey, Dr. Samuel Farmer Jarvis in a _Discourse on the religion of the Indian tribes of North America_, printed in the _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Collections, iii._ (1821). Jarvis confined himself to the tribes north of Mexico, and considered their condition, as he found it, one of deterioration from something formerly higher. There had been, of course, before this, amassers of material, like the Jesuits in Canada, as preserved in their _Relations_,[1895] sundry early French writers on the Indians,[1896] the English agents of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England, and the Moravian missionaries in Pennsylvania and the Ohio country, to say nothing of the historians, like Loskiel (_Geschichte der Mission_, 1789), Vetromile (_Abnakis and their History_, New York, 1866), Cusick (_Six Nations_), not to mention local observers, like Col. Benjamin Hawkins, _Sketch of the Creek Country (Georgia Hist. Soc. Collections_, 1848, but written about 1800).

If the placing of Brinton’s book as the earliest scholarly contribution is to be contested, it would be for E. G. Squier’s _Serpent Symbol in America_ (N. Y., 1851);[1897] but the book is not broadly based, except so far as such comprehensiveness can be deduced from his tendency to consider all myths as having some force of nature for their motive, and that all are traceable to an instinct that makes the worship of fire or of the sun the centre of a system.[1898] With this as the source of life, Squier allies the widespread phallic worship. In Bancroft’s _Native Races_ (iii. p. 501) there is a summary of what is known of this American worship of the generative power. Brinton doubts (_Myths_, etc., 149) if anything like phallic worship really existed, apart from a wholly unreligious surrender to appetite.

Another view which Squier maintains is, that above all this and pervading all America’s religious views there was a sort of rudimentary monotheism.[1899]

When we add to this enumeration the somewhat callow and wholly unsatisfactory contributions of Schoolcraft in the great work on the _Indian Tribes of the United States_ (1851-59), which the U. S. government in a headlong way sanctioned, we have included nearly all that had been done by American authors in this field when Bancroft published the third volume of his _Native Races_. This work constitutes the best mass of material for the student—who must not confound mythology and religion—to work with, the subject being presented under the successive heads of the origin of myths and of the world, physical and animal myths, gods, supernatural beings, worship and the future state; but of course, like all Bancroft’s volumes, it must be supplemented by special works pertaining to the more central and easterly parts of the United States, and to the regions south of Panama. The deficiency, however, is not so much as may be expected when we consider the universality of myths. “Unfortunately,” says this author, “the philologic and mythologic material for such an exhaustive synthesis of the origin and relations of the American creeds as Cox has given to the world in the Aryan legends in his _Mythology of the Aryan Nations_ (London, 1870) is yet far from complete.”

In 1882 Brinton, after riper study, again recast his views of a leading feature of the subject in his _American hero-myths; a study in the native religions of the western continent_ (Philad., 1882), in which he endeavored to present “in a critically correct light some of the fundamental conceptions in the native beliefs.” His purpose was to counteract what he held to be an erroneous view in the common practice of considering “American hero-gods as if they had been chiefs of tribes at some undetermined epoch,” and to show that myths of similar import, found among different peoples, were a “spontaneous production of the mind, and not a reminiscence of an historic event.” He further adds as one of the impediments in the study that he does “not know of a single instance on this continent of a thorough and intelligent study of a native religion made by a Protestant missionary.”[1900] After an introductory chapter on the American myths, Brinton in this volume takes up successively the consideration of the hero-gods of the Algonquins and Iroquois, the Aztecs, Mayas, and the Quichuas of Peru. These myths of national heroes, civilizers, and teachers are, as Brinton says, the fundamental beliefs of a very large number of American tribes, and on their recognition and interpretation depends the correct understanding of most of their mythology and religious life,—and this means, in Brinton’s view, that the stories connected with these heroes have no historic basis.[1901]

The best known of the comprehensive studies by a European writer is J. G. Müller’s _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_ (Basle, 1855; again in 1867), in which he endeavors to work out the theory that at the south there is a worship of nature, with a sun-worship for a centre, contrasted at the north with fetichism and a dread of spirits, and these he considers the two fundamental divisions of the Indian worship. Bancroft finds him a chief dependence at times, but Brinton, charging him with quoting in some instances at second-hand, finds him of no authority whatever.

One of the most reputable of the German books on kindred subjects is the _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_ (Leipzig, 1862-66) of Theodor Waitz. Brinton’s view of it is that no more comprehensive, sound, and critical work on the American aborigines has been written; but he considers him astray on the religious phases, and that his views are neither new nor tenable when he endeavors to subject moral science to a realistic philosophy.[1902]

In speaking of the scope of the comprehensive work of H. H. Bancroft we mentioned that beyond the larger part of the great Athapascan stock of the northern Indians his treatment did not extend. Such other general works as Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, the sections of his _American Hero-Myths_ on the hero-gods of the Algonquins and Iroquois, and the not wholly satisfactory book of Ellen R. Emerson, _Indian myths; or, Legends, traditions, and symbols of the aborigines of America, compared with those of other countries, including Hindostan, Egypt, Persia, Assyria, and China_ (Boston, 1884), with aid from such papers as Major J. W. Powell’s “Philosophy of the North American Indians” in the _Journal of the Amer. Geographical Society_ (vol. viii. p. 251, 1876), and his “Mythology of the North American Indians” in the _First Annual Rept. of the Bureau of Ethnology_ (1881), and R. M. Dorman’s _Origin of primitive superstition among the aborigines of America_ (Philad., 1881), must suffice in a general way to cover those great ethnic stocks of the more easterly part of North America, which comprise the Iroquois, centred in New York, and surrounded by the Algonquins, west of whom were the Dacotas, and south of whom were the Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, sometimes classed together as Appalachians.[1903]

The mythology of the Aztecs is the richest mine, and Bancroft in his third volume finds the larger part of his space given to the Mexican religion.

Brinton (_Amer. Hero Myths_, 73, 78), referring to the “Historia de los Méxicanos por sus Pinturas” of Ramirez de Fuenleal, as printed in the _Anales del Museo Nacional_ (ii. p. 86), says that in some respects it is to be considered the most valuable authority which we possess,[1904] as taken directly from the sacred books of the Aztecs, and as explained by the most competent survivors of the Conquest.[1905]

We must also look to Ixtlilxochitl and Sahagún as leading sources. From Sahagún we get the prayers which were addressed to the chief deity, of various names, but known best, perhaps, as Tezcatlipoca; and these invocations are translated for us in Bancroft (iii. 199, etc.), who supposes that, consciously or unconsciously, Sahagún has slipped into them a certain amount of “sophistication and adaptation to Christian ideas.” From the lofty side of Tezcatlipoca’s character, Bancroft (iii. ch. 7) passes to his meaner characteristics as the oppressor of Quetzalcoatl.

The most salient features of the mythology of the Aztecs arise from the long contest of Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl, the story of which modified the religion of their followers, and, as Chavero claims, greatly affected their history.[1906] This struggle, according as the interpreters incline, stands for some historic or physical rivalry, or for one between St. Thomas and the heathen;[1907] but Brinton explains it on his general principles as one between the powers of Light and Darkness (_Am. Hero Myths_, 65).

The main original sources on the character and career of Quetzalcoatl are Motolinía, Mendieta, Sahagún, Ixtlilxochitl, and Torquemada, and these are all summarized in Bancroft (iii. ch. 7).

It has been a question with later writers whether there is a foundation of history in the legend or myth of Quetzalcoatl. Brinton (_Myths of the New World_, 180) has perhaps only a few to agree with him when he calls that hero-god a “pure creature of the fancy, and all his alleged history nothing but a myth,” and he thinks some confusion has arisen from the priests of Quetzalcoatl being called by his name.

Bandelier (_Archæol. Tour_) takes issue with Brinton in deeming Quetzalcoatl on the whole an historical person, whom Ixtlilxochitl connects with the pre-Toltec tribes of Olmeca and Xicalanca, and whom Torquemada says came in while the Toltecs occupied the country. Bandelier thinks it safe to say that Quetzalcoatl began his career in the present state of Hidalgo as a leader of a migration moving southward, with a principal sojourn at Cholula, introducing arts and a purer worship. This is substantially the view taken by J. G. Müller, Prescott, and Wuttke.

[Illustration: QUETZALCOATL.

After a drawing in Cumplido’s Mexican ed. of Prescott’s _Mexico_, vol. iii. Images of him are everywhere (Nadaillac, 273-74). Cf. Eng. transl. of Charnay, p. 87.]

Bancroft (iii. 273) finds the _Geschichte der Amer. Urreligionen_ (p. 577) of Müller to present a more thorough examination of the Quetzalcoatl myth than any other,[1908] but since then it has been studied at length by Bandelier in his _Archæological Tour_ (p. 170 etc.), and by Brinton in his _Amer. Hero Myths_, ch. 3.[1909]

* * * * *

What Tylor (_Primitive Culture_, ii. 279) calls “the inexplicable compound, parthenogenetic deity, the hideous, gory Huitzilopochtli” (Huitziloputzli, Vitziliputzli), the god of war,[1910] the protector of the Mexicans, was considered by Boturini (_Idea_, p. 60) as a deified ancient war-chief. Bancroft in his narrative (iii. 289, 294; iv. 559) quotes the accounts in Sahagún and Torquemada, and (pp. 300-322) summarizes J. G. Müller’s monograph on this god, which he published in 1847, and which he enlarged when including it in his _Urreligionen_.

Acosta’s description of the Temple of Huitzilopochtli is translated in Bancroft (iii. 292). Solis follows Acosta, while Herrera copies Gomara, who was not, as Solis contends, so well informed.

As regards the Votan myth of Chiapas, Brinton tells us something in his _American Hero Myths_ (212, with references, 215); but the prime source is the Tzendal manuscript used by Cabrera in his _Teatro Critico-Americano_.[1911] No complete translation has been made, and the abstracts are unsatisfactory. Bancroft aids us in this study of worship in Chiapas (iii. 458), as also in that of Oajaca (iii. 448), Michoacan[1912] (iii. 445), and Jalisco (iii. 447).

[Illustration: THE MEXICAN TEMPLE.

Reduced from a drawing in Icazbalceta’s _Coleccion de Documentos_, i. p. 384. There were two usual forms of the Mexican temple: one of this type, and the other with two niche-like pavilions on the top. Cf. drawings in Clavigero (Casena, 1780), ii. 26, 34; Eng. tr. by Cullen, i. 262, 373; Stevens’s Eng. tr. Herrera (London, 1740, vol. ii.).]

“The religion of the Mayas,” says Bancroft (iii. ch. 11), “was fundamentally the same as that of the Nahuas, though it differed somewhat in outward forms. Most of the gods were deified heroes.... Occasionally we find very distinct traces of an older sun-worship which has succumbed to later forms, introduced according to vague tradition from Anahuac.” The view of Tylor (_Anahuac_, 191) is that the “civilization,” and consequently the religions, of Mexico and Central America were originally independent, but that they came much into contact, and thus modified one another to no small extent.”

Modern scholars are not by any means so much inclined as Las Casas and the other Catholic fathers were to recognize the dogma of the Trinity and other Christian notions, which have been thought to be traceable in what the Maya people in their aboriginal condition held for faith.

The most popular of their deified heroes were Zamná and Cukulcan, not unlikely the same personage under two names, and quite likely both are correspondences of Quetzalcoatl. We can find various views and alternatives on this point among the elder and recent writers. The belief in community of attributes derives its strongest aid from the alleged disappearance of Quetzalcoatl in Goazacoalco just at the epoch when Cukulcan appeared in Yucatan. The centres of Maya worship were at Izamal, Chichen-Itza, and the island of Cozumel.

The hero-gods of the Mayas is the topic of Brinton’s fourth chapter in his _American Hero Myths_, with views of their historical relations of course at variance with those of Bancroft. As respects the material, he says that “most unfortunately very meagre sources of information are open to us. Only fragments of their legends and hints of their history have been saved, almost by accident, from the general wreck of their civilization.” The heroes are Itzamná, the leader of the first immigration from the east, through the ocean pathways; and Kukulcan, the conductor of the second from the west. For the first cycle of myths Brinton refers to Landa’s _Relation_, Cogolludo’s _Yucatan_, Las Casas’s _Historia Apologética_, involving the reports of the missionary Francisco Hernandez, and to Hieronimo Roman’s _De la Republica de las Indias Occidentales_.

[Illustration: THE TEMPLE OF MEXICO.

After plate (reduced) in Herrera.]

The Kukulcan legends are considered by Brinton to be later in date and less natural in character, and Hernandez’s Report to Las Casas is the first record of them. Brinton’s theory of the myths does not allow him to identify the Quetzalcoatl and Kukulcan hero-gods as one and the same, nor to show that the Aztec and Maya civilizations had more correspondence than occasional intercourse would produce; but he thinks the similarity of the statue of “Chac Mool,” unearthed by Le Plongeon at Chichen-Itza, to another found at Tlaxcala compels us to believe that some positive connection did exist in parts of the country (_Anales del Museo Nacional_, i. 270).[1913] “The Nahua impress,” says Bancroft (iii. 490), “noticeable in the languages and customs of Nicaragua, is still more strongly marked in the mythology. Instead of obliterating the older forms of worship, as it seems to have done in the northern parts of Central America, it has here and there passed by many of the distinct beliefs held by different tribes, and blended with the chief elements of a system which is traced to the Muyscas in South America.”

The main source of the Quiché myths and worship is the _Popul Vuh_, but Bancroft (iii. 474), who follows it, finds it difficult to make anything comprehensible out of its confusion of statement. But prominent among the deities seem to stand Tepeu or Gucumatz, whom it is the fashion to make the same with Quetzalcoatl, and Hurakan or Tohil, who indeed stands on a plane above Quetzalcoatl. Brinton (_Myths_, 156), on the contrary, connects Hurakan with Tlaloc, and seems to identify Tohil with Quetzalcoatl. Bancroft (iii. 477) says that tradition, name, and attributes connect Tohil and Hurakan, and identify them with Tlaloc.

[Illustration: TEOYAOMIQUI.

The idol dug up in the Plaza in Mexico is here presented, after a cut, following Nebel, in Tylor’s _Anahuac_, showing the Mexican goddess of war, or death. Cf. cut in _American Antiquarian_, Jan., 1883; Powell’s _First Rept. Bur. Ethn._, 232; Bancroft, iv. 512, 513, giving the front after Nebel, and the other views after Léon y Gama. Bandelier (_Arch. Tour_, pl. v) gives a photograph of it as it stands in the court-yard of the Museo Nacional.

Gallatin (_Am. Ethn. Soc. Trans._, i. 338) describes Teoyaomiqui as the proper companion of Huitzilopochtli: “The symbols of her attributes are found in the upper part of the statue; but those from the waist downwards relate to other deities connected with her or with Huitzilopochtli.” Tylor (_Anahuac_, 222) says: “The antiquaries think that the figures in it stand for different personages, and that it is three gods: Huitzilopochtli the god of war, Teoyaomiqui his wife, and Mictlantecutli the god of hell.” Léon y Gama calls the statue Teoyaomiqui, but Bandelier, _Archæol. Tour_, 67, thinks its proper name is rather Huitzilopochtli. Léon y Gama’s description is summarized in Bancroft, iii. 399, who cites also what Humboldt (_Vues_, etc., ii. 153, and his pl. xxix) says. Bancroft (iii. 397) speaks of it as “a huge compound statue, representing various deities, the most prominent being a certain Teoyaomiqui, who is almost identical with, or at least a connecting link between, the mother goddess” and Mictlantecutli, the god of Mictlan, or Hades. Cf. references in Bancroft, iv. 515.]

Brinton’s _Names of the gods in the Kiché myths, a monograph on Central American mythology_ (Philad. Am. Philos. Soc., 1881), is a special study of a part of the subject.

Brinton (_Myths_, etc., 184) considers the best authorities on the mythology of the Muyscas of the Bogota region to be Piedrahita’s _Historia de las Conquistas del Nuevo Reyno de Granada_ (1668, followed by Humboldt in his _Vues_) and Simm’s _Noticias historiales de las Conquistas de Tierra Firme en el Nuevo Reyno de Granada_, given in Kingsborough, vol. viii.

The mythology of the Quichuas in Peru makes the staple of chap. 5 of Brinton’s _Amer. Hero-Myths_. Here the corresponding hero-god was Viracocha. Brinton depends mainly on the _Relacion Anónyma de los Costumbres Antiguos de los Naturales del Piru, 1615_ (Madrid, 1879); on Christoval de Molina’s account of the fables and religious customs of the Incas, as translated by C. R. Markham in the Hakluyt Society volume, _Narratives of the Rites and Laws of the Yncas_ (London, 1873); on the _Comentarios reales_ of Garcilasso de la Vega; on the report made to the viceroy Francisco de Toledo, in 1571, of the responses to inquiries made in different parts of the country as to the old beliefs which appear in the “Informacion de las idolatras de los Incas é Indios,” printed in the _Coleccion de documentos ineditos del archivo de Indias_, xxi. 198; and in the _Relacion de Antigüedades deste Reyno del Piru_, by Juan de Santa Cruz Pachicuti.

[Illustration: ANCIENT TEOCALLI, OAXACA, MEXICO.

After a cut in Squier’s _Serpent Symbol_, p. 78.]

Brinton dissents to D’Orbigny’s view in his _L’homme Américaine_, that the Quichua religion is mainly borrowed from the older mythology of the Aymaras.

Francisco de Avila’s “Errors and False Gods of the Indians of Huarochiri” (1608), edited by Markham for the Hakluyt Society in the volume called _Narratives of the Rites and Laws of the Yncas_, is a treatment of a part of the subject.

Adolf Bastian’s _Ein Jahr auf Reisen—Kreuzfahrten zum Sammelbehuf aus Transatlantischen Feldern der Ethnologie_, being the first volume of his _Die Culturländer des Alten America_ (Berlin, 1878), has a section “Aus Religion and Sitte des Alten Peru.”