Aids to the Study of the Maya Codices Part 1

Aids to the Study of the Maya Codices.

by Cyrus Thomas.

INTRODUCTION.

The object of this paper is to present to students of American paleography a brief explanation of some discoveries, made in regard to certain Maya codices, which are not mentioned in my previous papers relating to these aboriginal ma.n.u.scripts.

It is apparent to every one who has carefully studied these ma.n.u.scripts that any attempt to decipher them on the supposition that they contain true alphabetic characters must end in failure. Although enough has been ascertained to render it more than probable that some of the characters are phonetic symbols, yet repeated trials have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that Landa's alphabet furnishes little or no aid in deciphering them, as it is evidently based on a misconception of the Maya graphic system. If the ma.n.u.scripts are ever deciphered it must be by long and laborious comparisons and happy guesses, thus gaining point by point and proceeding slowly and cautiously step by step. Accepting this as true, it will be admitted that every real discovery in regard to the general signification or tenor of any of these codices, or of any of their symbols, characters, or figures, or even in reference to their proper order or relation to one another, will be one step gained toward the final interpretation. It is with this idea in view that the following pages have been written and are now presented to the students of American paleography.

It is impracticable to present fac simile copies of all the plates and figures referred to, but it is taken for granted that those sufficiently interested in this study to examine this paper have access to the published fac similes of these aboriginal doc.u.ments.

CHAPTER I.

THE NUMERALS IN THE DRESDEN CODEX.

Before entering upon the discussion of the topic indicated it may be well to give a brief notice of the history and character of this aboriginal ma.n.u.script, quoting from Dr. Forstemann's introduction to the photolithographic copy of the codex,[261-1] he having had an opportunity to study the original for a number of years in the Royal Public Library of Dresden, of which he is chief librarian:

"Unfortunately, the history of the ma.n.u.script begins no further back than 1739. The man to whom we owe the discovery and perhaps the preservation of the codex was Johann Christian Gotze, son of an evangelical pastor, born at Hohburg, near Wurzen, in the electorate of Saxony. He became a Catholic, and received his education first at Vienna, then in Rome; became first chaplain of the King of Poland and elector of Saxony; later on, papal prothonotary; presided over the Royal Library at Dresden from 1734, and died holding this position, greatly esteemed for learning and integrity, July 5, 1749. This sketch is taken from his obituary notice in Neue Zeitungen von gelehrten Sachen, Nr. 62, Leipzig, 1749. In his capacity as librarian he went to Italy four times, and brought thence rich collections of books and ma.n.u.scripts for the Dresden library. One of these journeys took place in 1739, and concerning its literary results we have accurate information from a ma.n.u.script, in Gotze's handwriting, which is found in the archives of the Royal Public Library, under A, Vol.

II, No. 10, and bears the t.i.tle: 'Books consigned to me for the Royal Library in January, 1740.' Under No. 300 we read: 'An invaluable Mexican book with hieroglyphic figures.' This is the same codex which we here reproduce.

"Gotze also was the first to bring the existence of the ma.n.u.script to public notice. In 1744 he published at Dresden The Curiosities of the Royal Library at Dresden, First Collection. As showing what value Gotze attributed to this ma.n.u.script, the very first page of the first volume of this work, which is of great merit and still highly useful, begins as follows: '1. A Mexican book with unknown characters and hieroglyphic figures, written on both sides and painted in all sorts of colors, in long octavo, laid orderly in folds of 39 leaves, which, when spread out lengthwise, make more than 6 yards.'

"Gotze continues speaking of this book from page 1 to 5, adding, however, little of moment, but expatiating on Mexican painting and hieroglyphic writing in general. On page 4 he says:

"'Our royal library has this superiority over all others, that it possesses this rare treasure. It was obtained a few years ago at Vienna from a private person, for nothing, as being an unknown thing. It is doubtless from the personal effects of a Spaniard, who had either been in Mexico himself or whose ancestors had been there.'

"On page 5 Gotze says:

"'In the Vatican library there are some leaves of similar Mexican writing, as stated by Mr. Joseph Simonius a.s.seman, who saw our copy four years ago at Rome.'

"Gotze therefore received the ma.n.u.script as a present on his journey to Italy at Vienna and took it with him to Rome. Unfortunately we know nothing concerning its former possessor. A more accurate report of the journey does not seem to exist; at least the princ.i.p.al state archives at Dresden contain nothing concerning it, nor does the General Directory of the Royal Collections. As appears from the above note, Gotze did not know that the Vatican Codex was of an entirely different nature from the Dresden Codex.

"In spite of the high value which Gotze set upon the ma.n.u.script, it remained unnoticed and unmentioned far into our century. Even Johann Christoph Adelung, who as head librarian had it in his custody and who died in 1806, does not mention it in his Mithridates, of which that part which treats of American languages (III, 3) was published only in 1816, after Adelung's death, by J. S. Vater. This would have been a fitting occasion to mention the Dresden Codex, because in this volume (pp. 13 et seq.) the Maya language is largely treated of, and further on the other languages of Anahuac. Of course it was not possible at that time to know that our ma.n.u.script belongs to the former.

"After Gotze, the first to mention our codex is C. A. Bottiger, in his Ideas on Archaeology (Dresden, 1811, pp. 20, 21), without, however, saying anything that we did not already know from Gotze. Still Bottiger rendered great and twofold service: first, as we shall see presently, because through him Alexander von Humboldt obtained some notice of the ma.n.u.script, and, second, because Bottiger's note, as he himself explains in the Dresden Anzeiger, No. 133, p. 5, 1832, induced Lord Kingsborough to have the ma.n.u.script copied in Dresden.

"We now come to A. von Humboldt. His Views of the Cordilleras and the Monuments of the Indigenous Peoples of America bears on the t.i.tle page the year 1810, which certainly means only the year in which the printing was begun, the preface being dated 1813. To this work, which gave a mighty impulse to the study of Central American languages and literatures, belongs the Atlas pittoresque, and in this are found, on page 45, the reproductions of five pages of our ma.n.u.script. They are Nos.

47, 48, 50, 51, and 52 of Lord Kingsborough. In the volume of text belonging to this atlas Humboldt discusses our ma.n.u.script on pp. 266, 267. When he began his work he knew nothing as yet of the existence of the ma.n.u.script. It was brought to his knowledge by Bottiger, whose above named work he cites. Here we learn for the first time that the material of the ma.n.u.script consists of the plant metl (_Agave Mexicana_,) like other ma.n.u.scripts that Humboldt had brought from New Spain. Furthermore, he correctly states the length of leaf as 0.295 and the breadth 0.085 meter. On the other hand, he commits two mistakes in saying that there are 40 leaves and that the whole folded table forming the codex has a length of almost 6 meters, for there are only 39 leaves and the length in question is only 3.5 meters, as calculation will approximately show, because the leaves are written on both sides. Humboldt's other remarks do not immediately concern our problem.

"In 1822 Fr. Ad. Ebert, then secretary and later head librarian, published his History and Description of the Royal Public Library at Dresden. Here we find, as well in the history (p. 66) as in the description (p. 161), some data concerning this 'treasure of highest value,' which indeed contain nothing new, but which certainly contributed to spread the knowledge of the subject among wider circles. We may remark right here that H. L. Fleischer, in his Catalogue of Oriental Ma.n.u.script Codices in the Royal Library of Dresden, p. 75, Leipzig, 1831, 4^o, makes but brief mention of our codex, as 'a Mexican book of wood, ill.u.s.trated with pictures, which awaits its dipus;' whereupon he cites the writing of Bottiger. The signature of the ma.n.u.script here noted, E 451, is the one still in use.

"Between the above mentioned notices by Ebert and Fleischer falls the first and so far the only complete reproduction of the ma.n.u.script.

Probably in 1826, there appeared at Dresden the Italian Augustino Aglio, a master of the art of making fac similes by means of tracing through transparent substances. He visited the European libraries, very probably even at that time under orders from Lord Kingsborough, to copy scattered ma.n.u.scripts and pictures from Mexico or seemingly from Mexico.

"Now there arises the question, all important for interpretation, In which shape did the ma.n.u.script lie before Aglio? Was it a strip only 3.5 meters in length or did it consist of several pieces?

"To render clear the answer which we proceed to give, it is first necessary to remark that of the 39 leaves of the codex 35 are written on both sides and 4 on one side only, so that we can speak only of 74 pages of ma.n.u.script, not of 78. These 74 pages we shall in the following always designate by the numbers which they bear in Lord Kingsborough, and it is advisable to abide by these numbers, for the sake of avoiding all error, until the ma.n.u.script can be read with perfect certainty; the 4 empty pages I shall designate with 0 when there is need of mentioning them expressly.

"Furthermore it is necessary to state which of these pages so numbered belong together in such way that they are the front and back of the same leaf. This condition is as follows: One leaf is formed of pages 1 45, 2 44, 3 43, 4 42, 5 41, 6 40, 7 39, 8 38, 9 37, 10 36, 11 35, 12 34, 13 33, 14 32, 15 31, 16 30, 17 29, 18 0, 19 0, 20 0, 21 28, 22 27, 23 26, 24 25, 46 74, 47 73, 48 72, 49 71, 50 70, 51 69, 52 68, 53 67, 54 66, 55 65, 56 64, 57 63, 58 62, 59 61, 60 0. [That is to say, each pair of this series forms one leaf, one page on one side and the other on the reverse side of the leaf.]

"But now we are justified in the a.s.sumption, which at least is very probable, that neither did Aglio change arbitrarily the order of the original, nor Lord Kingsborough the order of Aglio. Consequently Aglio must already have had the ma.n.u.script before him in two pieces, be it that the thin pellicles by which the single leaves are connected were loosened in one place or that the whole was separated only then in order not to be obliged to manipulate the whole unwieldy strip in the operation of copying. A third possibility, to which we shall presently return, is that of a.s.suming two separate pieces from the beginning; in this case Gotze and the others must be supposed to have seen it in this condition, but to have omitted the mention of the circ.u.mstance, believing that the original unity had been destroyed by tearing.

"Of the two pieces one must have comprised 24, the other 15 leaves. But Aglio copied each of the two pieces in such way as to trace first the whole of one side and then the other of the entire piece, always progressing from left to right, in European style. Therefore Aglio's model was as follows:

"_First piece_:

"Front (from left to right): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.

"Back (from right to left): 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 0, 0, 0, 28, 27, 26, 25.

"_Second piece_:

"Front (from left to right): 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60.

"Back (from right to left): 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 0.

"In considering this, our attention is attracted by the position of the four blank pages, three of which are together, the fourth alone. It might be expected that the separate blank page began or concluded the second piece and was purposely left blank, because in the folding of the whole it would have lain outside and thus been exposed to injury; the other three would be expected at the end of the first piece. The former, as is easily seen, was quite possible, but the latter was not, unless we a.s.sume that even at the time Aglio took his copy the original order had been entirely disturbed by cutting and st.i.tching together again. The four blank pages show no trace of ever having contained writing; the red brown spots which appear on them are to be found also on the sides that contain writing. Perhaps, therefore, those three continuous pages indicate a section in the representation; perhaps it was intended to fill them later on; in a similar way also page three has been left unfinished, because the lower half was only _begun_ by the writer.

"I do not wish to conceal my view that the two pieces which Aglio found were separated from the beginning; that they belong even to two different ma.n.u.scripts, though written in the same form; but, since it is human to err, I will here and there follow custom in the succeeding pages in speaking of one codex.

"My conviction rests especially on the fact that the writer of ma.n.u.script A (pp. 1-45) endeavors to divide each page by two horizontal lines into three parts, which the writer of ma.n.u.script B (pp. 46-74) rarely does.

The more precise statement is as follows: In A, pp. 1-23 and 29-43 always show two such lines in red color; pp. 25-28 have no red lines, but clearly show a division into three parts; p. 24 is the only one of this ma.n.u.script that has only writing and no pictures and where the greater continuity of the written speech forbids tripart.i.tion (here ends one side of the ma.n.u.script); finally, p. 45 seems to be marked as the real end of the whole by the fact that it contains three very light lines, dividing it into four parts; moreover, everything on this page is more crowded, and the figures are smaller than on the preceding pages, just as in some modern books the last page is printed more closely or in smaller type for want of s.p.a.ce. In the same manner I suspect that p. 1 is the real beginning of the ma.n.u.script. This is indicated by the bad condition of leaf 2 44, which has lost one corner and whose page 44 has lost its writing altogether. For, if in folding the codex leaf 1 45 was turned from within outward, somewhat against the rule, leaf 2 44 was the outer one, and p. 44 lay above or below, and was thus most exposed to injury. I will not omit mentioning that my attention has been called by Dr. Carl Schultz-Sellack, of Berlin, to the possibility of leaves 1 45 and 2 44 having been fastened to the rest in a reversed position, so that 43, 1 and 2 and on the other side 44, 45, 3 were adjoining; then the G.o.ds would here be grouped together, which follow each other also on pages 29 and 30. It cannot be denied that this supposition explains the bad condition of leaf 2 44 still better, because then it must have been the outermost of the ma.n.u.script; 44 would be the real t.i.tle page, so to say, and on p.

45 the writer began, not ended, his representation, with the closer writing of which I have spoken, and only afterward pa.s.sed on to a more splendid style; and this a.s.sumption tallies very well with some other facts. But all this can only be cleared up after further progress has been made in deciphering the ma.n.u.script.

"In two places, moreover, this first ma.n.u.script shows an extension of the drawings from one page over to the neighboring one, namely, from 4 to 5 and from 30 to 31. This is not found on the second ma.n.u.script. From continuity of contents, if we are allowed to a.s.sume it from similarity of pictures and part.i.tion, we may suppose this ma.n.u.script to be divided into chapters in the following manner: pp. 1-2 (then follows the unfinished and disconnected page 3), 4-17, 18-23 (here follows p. 24, without pictures), 25-28, 29-33, 34-35, 36-41.

"Compared with this, ma.n.u.script B rarely shows a tripart.i.tion, but on pp.

65-68 and 51-57 a bipart.i.tion by one line. A further difference is this, that A out of 45 pages has only one (p. 24) without pictures, while B out of 29 pages has 9 without pictures (51, 52, 59, 63, 64, 70, 71, 72, 73), nothing but writing being found on them. Page 74, differing from all others, forms the closing tableau of the whole; and, similarly, p. 60, the last of the front, shows a peculiar character. A closer connection of contents may be suspected between pp. 46-50, 53-58, 61-62, 65-68.

"The two ma.n.u.scripts also differ greatly in the employment of the sign, or rather signs, differing little from each other, which resemble a representation of the human eye and consist of two curves, one opening above and the other below and joined at their right and left ends. These signs occur only on 5 out of the 45 pages of Codex A (1, 2, 24, 31, 43), while they occur on 16 pages out of the 29 of Codex B (48, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 70, 71, 72, 73).

"I believe that the differences above mentioned, to which others will probably be added, are sufficient to justify my hypothesis of the original independence of the two codices. Whoever looks over the whole series of leaves without preconception cannot escape the feeling, on pa.s.sing from leaf 45 to leaf 46, that something different begins here.

"Thus the copy of Aglio has made it possible to venture a hypothesis bordering on certainty concerning the original form of this monument.

Five years after Aglio had finished the copying there appeared, in 1831, the first volumes of Lord Kingsborough's Mexican Antiquities. The work in the trade cost 175_l_.; the expense of publication had been over 30,000_l_. The eighth and ninth volumes followed only in 1848. The ponderous work has undoubtedly great value from its many ill.u.s.trations of old monuments of Central American art and literature, which in great part had never been published. As regards the Spanish and English text, it is of much less value. We may pa.s.s in silence over the notes added by Lord Kingsborough himself, in which he tries to give support to his favorite hypothesis that the Jews were the first settlers of America. Whoever wishes to obtain exact information concerning the character and contents of the whole work and dreads the labor of lifting and opening the volumes, may find a comprehensive review of it in the Foreign Quarterly Review, No. 17, pp. 90-124, 8vo, London, January, 1832, where he will also find a lucid exposition of the history of the literature of Mexican antiquarian studies.

"In the middle of the third volume of the Mexican Antiquities (side numbers are here absent) there is found the t.i.tle 'Fac simile of an original Mexican painting preserved in the Royal Library at Dresden, 74 pages.' These 74 pages are here arranged on 27 leaves in the following manner:

Codex A. Codex B.

1, 2, 3, 46, 47, 48, 4, 5, 6, 49, 50, 51, 7, 8, 9, 52, 53, 54, 10, 11, 55, 56, 57, 12, 13, 14, 58, 59, 60, 15, 16, 17, 61, 62, 63, 18, 19, 64, 65, 66, 20, 67, 68, 69, 21, 22, 23, 70, 71, 72, 24, 25, 73, 74.

26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45.