Aboriginal American Authors
D >>
Daniel G. Brinton >> Aboriginal American Authors
This charmingly naive narrative makes us doubly regret that the editor's
projected _Chrestomathie Algonquine_ has not been carried out in
full.
The southern Atlantic coast of the United States was principally
occupied by the Muskokee or Creek tribe, who occupied the territory as
far west as the Mississippi. Their language was first reduced to writing
in the Greek alphabet, by the Moravian missionaries, about 1733; but at
present a modified form of the English alphabet is in use. They had a
very definite and curious tribal history, full of strange metaphors and
obscure references. It was, according to old authorities, "written in
red and black characters, on the skin of a young buffalo," and was read
off from this symbolic script by their head-chief, Chekilli, to the
English, in 1735, and skin and translation were both sent to London, and
both lost there. But, luckily, the Moravian missionaries preserved a
faithful translation of it, and this, some years ago, I brought to the
notice of students of these matters.[19]
Its authenticity is beyond question, and to this day the chiefs of the
Creeks recollect many of the points it contains, and have repeated it to
the eminent linguist, Mr. A.S. Gatschet, who has taken it down afresh
from their lips, and is preparing it for publication. Collateral
evidence is also furnished by "General" Milfort, a French adventurer,
who lived among the Creeks several years, toward the close of the last
century, and testifies that they preserved, "by beads and belts," the
memory of the adventures of their ancestors, and recited to him a long
account of them, which he repeats with that negligence which everywhere
marks his carelessly prepared volume.[20]
Their northern neighbors, the Cherokees, use an alphabet invented by
Sequoyah, one of themselves, in 1824. It is syllabic, of eighty-five
characters, and is used for printing. Sequoyah had no intention of
aiding the missionaries; he preferred the "old religion," and when he
saw the New Testament printed in his characters, he expressed regret
that he had ever invented them. What he wanted was to teach his people
useful arts, and to preserve the national traditions. I have little
doubt they were written down; but here, again, I have failed of success
in my inquiries.
This is a poor showing of native literature for all the tribes in the
vast area of the United States. But, except some orations and poems,
hereafter to be mentioned, it is almost all that I can name. Passing
southward the harvest becomes richer. When Bishop Landa, in Yucatan, and
Bishop Zumarraga, in Mexico, made bonfires, in the public squares of
Mani and Tlaltilulco, of the priceless literary treasures of the Mayas
and Aztecs, their maps, their parchment rolls, their calendars on wood,
their painted paper books, their inscribed histories, it is recorded
that the natives bewailed bitterly this obliteration of their sciences
and their archives.[21] Some of them set to work to recover the memories
thus doomed to oblivion, and to write them out, as best they could.
Most fertile of these were those who wrote in the Nahuatl tongue,
otherwise known as the Aztec or Mexican, this being most widely spoken
in Mexico, and the first cultivated by the missionaries. Many of these
memoirs were short descriptions of towns or tribes, with their
traditional histories. Others narrated the customs and mythologies of
the race before the arrival of the whites. None were printed, and little
or no care was taken to collect or preserve the manuscripts, so that
probably most of them were destroyed. At length, in 1736-45, an
enthusiastic Italian archaeologist, the Chevalier Lorenzo Boturini
Benaduci, devoted nearly ten years to collecting everything of the kind
which would throw light on ancient Mexican history. He was quite
successful, and his library, had it been preserved intact, would have
been to-day an invaluable source of information. But the jealous Spanish
government threw Boturini into prison; his library was scattered and
partly lost, and he died of chagrin and disappointment. Yet to him we
probably owe the preservation of the writings of Ixtlilxochitl,
Tezozomoc, and others who wrote in Spanish, and whose volumes have since
seen the light in the collections of Bustamente, Lord Kingsborough,
Ternaux-Compans, and elsewhere.
The Nahuatl MSS. have remained unedited. Few took an interest in their
contents, fewer still in the language. The science of linguistics is
very modern, and that even so perfect an idiom as the Nahuatl could
command the attention of scholars for its own sake, had not dawned on
the minds of patrons of learning.
Boturini catalogues some forty or fifty more or less fragmentary
anonymous MSS. in Nahuatl, which he had gathered together.[22] I shall
recall only those whose authors he names. Some three or four historical
works were written in Nahuatl by Don Domingo de San Anton Munon
Chimalpain, whom I have already mentioned as an author in Spanish also.
Of his Nahuatl works his _Cronica Mexicana_, which traces the
history of his nation from 1068 to 1597, would be the most worthy an
editor's labors. It is now in the possession of M. Aubin.
The _Cronica de la muy noble y leal Ciudad de Tlaxcallan_, by Don
Juan Ventura Zapata y Mendoza, cacique of Quiahuiztlan, extends from the
earliest times to the year 1689. A copy of it, I have some reason to
think, is in Mexico. Boturini possessed the original, and it should, by
all means, be sought out and printed.
The ancient history of the same city was also treated of by one of the
earliest native writers, and his work, in Nahuatl, alleged to have been
translated by the interpreter Francisco de Loaysa, was obtained from the
latter by Boturini.
An account of Tezcuco and its rulers, after the Conquest until 1564, was
the work of a native, Juan de San Antonio; while Don Gabriel de Ayala, a
native noble of that city, composed a history of the Tezcucan and
Mexican events, extending from 1243 to 1562.[23]
Of the anonymous MSS. in Boturini's list, I shall mention only one, as
it alone, of all his Nahuatl records, has succeeded in reaching
publication. He called it a _History of the Kingdoms of Culhuacan and
Mexico_. A copy of it passed to Mexico, where it was translated by
the Licentiate Faustino Chimalpopocatl Galicia, but in a very imperfect
and incorrect manner. The Abbe Brasseur de Bourbourg copied the original
and the translation, and bestowed on the document both a new name,
_Codex Chimalpopoca_, and a whimsical geological signification. In
1879, the Museo Nacional of Mexico began in their _Anales_ the
publication of the original text, this time under still another title,
the _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_, with two translations, that of
Galicia, and a new one by Profs. G. Mendoza and Felipe Sanchez Solis. Up
to the present time, 1883, the work is not completed; but its signal
importance to ancient history and mythology is amply indicated by the
part in type.
Doubtless there were many MSS. which Boturini did not find, and there
are, probably, to this day, going to dust in private and public
libraries in Spain, valuable documents in the Nahuatl tongue.[24] For a
long time it was supposed that the Nahuatl original of Father Bernardino
de Sahagun's _History of New Spain_ was lost; but at the meeting of
the _Congres des Americanistes_, in Madrid, in 1881, a part of it,
at least, was exhibited. This work almost belongs to aboriginal
literature, for a considerable portion of it, notably the third, sixth
and twelfth books, treating, respectively, of the origin of the gods,
the Aztec oratory, and their ancient history, are mainly native
narratives and speeches, taken down, word for word, in the original
tongue. Spanish scholars could not render a greater service to American
ethnology and linguistics than in the publication of this valuable
monument.
There is, also, or, at any rate, there was, in the Royal Library at
Madrid, a Mexican hieroglyphic work, "all painted," with a translation
apparently into the Nahuatl tongue.[25] I would inquire of the learned
linguists of Spain whether that document cannot be unearthed. And
further, I would ask whether all trace has been lost of the writings of
Don Gabriel Castaneda, Chief of Colomocho, who wrote, in Nahuatl, an
account of the conquest of the Chichimecs by the Viceroy Antonio de
Mendoza, in 1541. That Manuscript was last heard of in the library of
the Convent of San Ildefonso, in Mexico.[26] Perhaps it would tell us who
the Chichimecs were, about which there is disagreement enough among
ethnologists.
Of the strictly hieroglyphic records I shall not take account. Their
interpretation is yet uncertain, and, as linguistic monuments, they
have, at present, no standing.
Equal, or superior, in culture, to the Aztecs were the Maya tribes.
Their chief seat was in Yucatan, but they extended thence southwardly to
the shores of the Pacific, and westward along the Gulf coast to the
River Panuco. The language numbered about sixteen dialects, none very
remote from the parent stem, which linguists identify as the Maya proper
of the Yucatecan peninsula. While there are a number of verbal
similarities between Maya and Nahuatl, the radicals of the two idioms
and their grammatical structure are widely asunder. The Nahuatl is an
excessively pliable, polysyllabic and highly synthetic tongue; the Maya
is rigid, its words short, of one or two syllables generally, and is
scarcely more synthetic than French. This contrast is carried out in the
style of their writers. Those in Nahuatl were lovers of amplification,
of flowing periods, of Ciceronian fullness; the Mayas cultivated
sententious brevity, they are elliptical, often to obscurity, and may be
compared rather to Tacitus, in his _Annals_, than to Cicero.
All the Maya tribes had strong literary tastes, but with characteristic
tenacity they clung entirely to their native tongues; and I know not a
single instance where one has left compositions in Spanish. Their
language is easy to learn; to a stranger to both, Maya comes easier than
Spanish, as intelligent writers in Yucatan have testified; and this
aided its survival. Their passion for learning to read and write was
strong, and had it been fed, instead of rigidly suppressed, there is
little doubt but that they would have become a highly enlightened
nation. The wretched system which smothered free thought in Spain killed
it in Yucatan.[27]
The principal literary monument in the pure Maya is the collection known
as "The Books of Chilan Balam." I have described this collection at
length in previous publications, and shall content myself with a brief
reference to it.[28] The title "Chilan Balam" means, in this connection,
"the interpreting priest;" that is, the sacred official who, in the
ancient religion, revealed the will of the gods. There are at least
sixteen collections under this name in Maya, copies, probably, in part,
of each other. Their contents may be classified under four headings:--
1. Chronology, calendars, and history, before and after the Conquest.
2. Prophecies and astrology.
3. Medical recipes and directions.
4. Christian narratives.
Of these, the last two are modern. The Christian portions are lives of
saints, and prayers. The medical directions are often found separate,
under the title "The Book of the Jew." Its language is modern and
corrupt--_mestizado_, as the Spaniards express it.
The "Prophecies" are alleged to have been delivered one or several
generations before the Conquest. Their style is extremely obscure, and
many of the forms are archaic. If not genuine originals, they are
unquestionably very early and faithful imitations of the oracular
deliveries of the ancient Maya priests.
The historical portions include rude annals since the Conquest, and a
series of Chronicles, extending back to about the third century of the
Christian era. There are five versions of these, all of which I have
published, with translations and copious notes, as the first volume of
my "Library of Aboriginal American Literature."
Another class of Maya historical documents embraces the surveys and land
titles, many of which date from the sixteenth century. I have in my
possession a copy of one as far back as 1542, unquestionably the oldest
monument of the Maya language extant. Sometimes these titles were
accompanied by a family history. Such is "The Chronicle of Chac Xulub
Chen," written by the Chief Nakuk Pech, in 1562, which I have published.
It gives, in a confused style, a history of the Conquest, and throws
light on the methods by which the Spaniards succeeded in overcoming the
various native tribes.[29]
We owe the preservation of most of the Maya MSS. to the enlightened
labors of Don Juan Pio Perez, a distinguished Yucatecan scholar, and the
compiler of the best printed dictionary of the Maya tongue.[30] The most
complete collection now in existence is that of the Canon Crescencio
Carrillo y Ancona, a learned archaeologist, and author of an excellent
history of Maya literature.[31]
After the Maya, the most important of these associated dialects was the
Cakchiquel. It was, and still is, spoken in Guatemala; and the Kiche
(Quiche), also current there, is so nearly allied to it that they may be
treated as one idiom. The Cakchiquel possesses an extensive Christian
literature, as it was cultivated assiduously by the early missionaries.
Indeed, there was, for many years, a chair in the University of
Guatemala created for teaching it, and it is often referred to as the
_lengua metropolitana_, Guatemala having been the see of an
archbishop. There are in existence extensive lexicons of Cakchiquel, and
in it, besides various collections of sermons, was written the once
celebrated work of Father Domingo de Vico, the _Theologia Indorum_,
probably the most complete theological treatise ever produced in a
native American tongue.[32]
The most notable aboriginal production in Cakchiquel is one frequently
referred to by the Abbe Brasseur de Bourbourg as the _Memorial de
Tecpan Atitlan_, The Records from Tecpan Atitlan.[33] It is an
historical account of his family and tribe, written in the sixteenth
century by a member of the junior branch of the ruling house of the
Cakchiquels. His name was Don Francisco Ernantez Arana Xahila, and a
passage of the MS. informs us that he was writing in 1581. After his
death the work was continued by Don Francisco Tiaz Gebuta Queh. The
style is familiar and often vivid, and the work is addressed to his
children. It begins with the earliest myths and traditions of the tribe,
and follows their fortunes to the lifetime of the writer. In respect
both to mythology, history and language, it is one of the most
noteworthy monuments of American antiquity. A loose paraphrase of it was
made by Brasseur de Bourbourg, based upon which, a Spanish rendering was
published by the "Sociedad Economica de Guatemala," under the auspices
of Senor Gavarrete. Neither the original nor any correct translation has
been printed.
A copy of this MS. is in my collection, and both the original and a
second copy are in Europe; but there were a number of similar historical
accounts, committed to writing by this people and their immediate
neighbors, of which we know little but the titles and a few extracts.
Thus, the historian of Guatemala, Don Domingo Juarros, quotes from the
MSS. of Don Francisco Gomez, _Ahzib Kiche_, or Chief Scribe of the
Kiches, of Don Francisco Garcia Calel Tzumpan, of Don Juan Macario,
nephew, and Don Juan Torres, son, of the Chief Chignavincelut, and "the
histories written by the Quiches, Cakchiquels, Pipils, Pocomans, and
others, who learned to write their tongues from their Spanish teachers."
These MSS. gave the genealogies of their families and the migrations of
their ancestors "from the time when the Toltecs, from whom they trace
descent, first entered the territory of Mexico, and found it inhabited
by the Chichimecs."[34]
One of the motives prompting to the composition of these works was to
vindicate the claims of families to the sovereignty, or to the
possession of land. They were, in fact, a sort of briefs of titles to
real estate. One such is preserved, in the original, in the Brasseur
collection, and is catalogued as "The Royal Title of Don Francisco
Izquin, the last Ahpop Galel, or King, of Nehaib, granted by the lords
who invested him with his royal dignity, and confirmed by the last King
of Quiche, with other sovereigns, November 22, 1558."[35] A Spanish
translation of the title of a female branch of this same family was
printed at Guatemala in 1876, but the original text has never been put
to press, although it is said to be still preserved in one of the
ancient families of the Province of Totonicapam.[36]
Another Kiche work, which has excited a lively but not very intelligent
interest among European scholars, is the _Popol Vuh_, National
Book, a compendious account of their mythology and traditional history.
A Spanish translation of it by Father Francisco Ximenez was edited in
Vienna, in 1857, by Dr. Carl Scherzer.[37] The Abbe Brasseur followed, in
1861, by a publication of the original text, and a new translation into
French.[38] This text fills 173 octavo pages, so that it will be seen
that it offers an ample specimen of the tongue.
Neither of these translations is satisfactory. Ximenez wrote with all
the narrow prejudices of a Spanish monk, while Brasseur was a Euhemerist
of the most advanced type, and saw in every myth the statement of a
historical fact. There is need of a re-translation of the whole, with
critical linguistic notes attached. A few years ago, I submitted the
names and epithets of the divinities mentioned in the Popol Vuh to a
careful analysis, and I think the results obtained show clearly how
erroneous were the conceptions formed regarding them by both the
translators of the document.[39] I shall not here go into the question of
its age or authorship, about which diverse opinions have obtained; but I
will predict that the more sedulously it is studied, the more certainly
it will be shown to be a composition inspired by ideas and narratives
familiar to the native mind long before the advent of Christianity.
I have been told that there are other versions of the _Popol Vuh_
still preserved among the Kiches, and it were ardently to be desired
that they were sought out, as there are many reasons to believe that the
copy we have is incomplete, or, at any rate, omits some prominent
features of their mythology.
One branch of the Maya race, the Tzendals, inhabited a portion of the
province of Chiapas. One of their hero-gods bore the name of
_Votan_, a word from a Maya root, signifying the breast or heart,
but from its faint resemblance to "Odin," and its still fainter
similarity to "Buddha," their myth about him has given rise to many
whimsical speculations. This myth was written down in the native tongue
by a Christianized native, in the seventeenth century. The MS. came into
the possession of Nunez de la Vega, Bishop of Chiapas, who quotes from
it in his _Constituciones Diocesanas_, printed in Rome, in 1702.
The indefatigable Boturini tells us that he tried in vain to find it,
about 1740, and supposed it was lost.[40] But a copy of it was seen and
described by Dr. Paul Felix Cabrera, in 1790.[41] Possibly it is still in
existence, and there are few fragments of American literature which
would better merit a diligent search. As to the meaning of the Votan
myth, I have ventured an explanation of it in another work.[42]
In South America, the only native historical writers who employed their
own tongue appear to have been of the Peruvian Qquichua stock. None of
their productions have been published, but one or more are in existence
and accessible. Prominent among them and deserving of early editing by
competent hands, is an anonymous treatise, partly translated by Dr.
Francisco de Avila, in 1608, on the "Errors, False Gods, Superstitions
and Diabolical Rites" of the natives of the provinces of Huarochiri,
Mama and Chaclla. The original text is in Madrid, and Avila's
translation, as far as it goes, has been rendered into English by Mr.
Clements R. Markham, and published in one of the Hackluyt Society's
volumes.[43]
A member of the Inca family, already referred to, Don Luis Inca, is
reported to have written a series of historical notes, _Advertencias_,
"with his own hand and in his own tongue;" but what became of his
manuscript is not known.[44]
There is another class of historical documents, which profess to be the
production of native hands, and which are moderately numerous. These are
the official letters and petitions drawn up by the chiefs in their own
tongues, and forwarded to the Spanish authorities. Of these, two
interesting specimens, one in the "Abolachi" tongue (a dialect of
Muskokee), and the other in Timucuana, were published in fac-simile by
the late Mr. Buckingham Smith, but in a very limited number of copies
(only fifty in all). Others in Nahuatl and Maya, also in fac-simile,
appear in that magnificent volume, the _Cartas de Indias_, issued
by the Spanish Government in 1880. Doubtless more examples could be
found in the public Archives in Spain, and they should all be collected
into one volume. They were probably prompted by the Spanish local
authorities; but it is likely that they show the true structure of the
language, and, of course, they have a positive historical value.
It is related in the Proceedings of the Municipal Council of Guatemala
that, in 1692, the Captain Antonio de Fuentes y Guzman laid before the
Council seven petitions, written in the native language, on the bark of
trees.[45] Whatever of interest they contained was, no doubt, extracted
by that laborious but imaginative writer, and included in his
_History_, which has never been published, though several
manuscript copies of it are in existence.
It will be seen that some of the so-called historical literature I have
mentioned rests uncertain on the border line between fact and fancy.
These old stories may be vague memories of past deeds, set in a frame of
mythical details; or they may be ancient myths, solar or meteorological,
which came to receive credence as actual occurrences. The task remains
for special students of such matters to sift and analyze them, and
settle this debateable point.
There is another class of narrations, about which there can be no doubt
as to their purely imaginative origin. These are the animal myths, the
fairy stories, the fireside tales of giants and magicians, with which
the hours of leisure are whiled away. Several collections of these have
been made, the words and phrases taken down precisely as the native
story-teller delivered them, and thus they come strictly within the
lines of aboriginal literature. They are the spontaneous outgrowth of
the native mind, and are faithful examples of native speech.
Over a hundred such tales have been collected by Dr.
Couto de Magalhaes, as narrated by the Tupis of Brazil, and
many of them have been published with all desirable fidelity,
and with a philosophical introduction and notes, in a volume
issued by the Brazilian government, under his editorial care.[46]
A similar collection of Tupi stories was made by the late Prof. Charles
F. Hartt, whose early death was a loss to more than one branch of
science. It was his intention to edit them with the necessary notes and
vocabularies; but, so far as I know, the only specimens which appeared
in print were those he laid before the American Philological
Association, in 1872.[47] The inquiries I have instituted about his MSS.
have not been successful.
Numerous texts of this description have been obtained from the Klamath
Indians by Mr. A.S. Gatschet, and from the Omaha by the Rev. J. Owen
Dorsey, both of which collections are in process of publication by the
Bureau of Ethnology at Washington. Scattered specimens of stories of
this kind have also been obtained by a number of travelers, and they are
always a welcome aid to the study both of the psychology and language of
a tribe.
Section 4. _Didactic Literature_.
The more civilized American tribes had made considerable advances in
some of the natural sciences, and in none more than in practical
astronomy. By close observation of the heavenly bodies they had
elaborated a complicated and remarkably exact system of chronology. They
had determined the length of the year with greater accuracy than the
white invaders; and the different cycles by which they computed time
allowed them to assign dates to occurrences many hundreds of years
anterior.
Although there are local differences, the calendars in use in Central
and Southern Mexico and in Central America were evidently derived from
one and the same original. A great deal has been written upon them, but
for all that many questions about them remain unanswered. We do not know
the Maya method of intercalation; we do not understand the uses of the
shorter Mexican year, of 260 days; we are at a loss to explain the
purpose of doubling the length of certain months, as prevailed among the
Cakchiquels; we are in the dark about the significance of the names of
many days and months; we cannot see why the nations chose to begin the
count of the year at different seasons; and there are ever so many more
knotty problems about this remarkable system and its variations.