Chapter XVIII: Part IV: Linguistic (4)

But how do we bring these into connection with the sentiment of love and its verbal expression? We might indeed seek an illustration of the transfer from classical mythology, and adduce the keen-pointed arrows of Cupid, the darts of love, as pointing out the connection. But I fear this would be crediting the ancient Nahuas with finer feelings than they deserve. I gravely doubt that they felt the shafts of the tender passion with any such susceptibility as to employ this metaphor. Much more likely is it that _tlazótla_, to love, is derived directly from the noun _tlazótl_, which means something strung with or fastened to another. This brings us directly back to the sense of “attached to” in English, and to that of the root _saki_ in Algonkin, the idea of being bound to another by ties of emotion and affection.

But there is one feature in this derivation which tells seriously against the national psychology of the Nahuas; this, their only word for love, is not derived, as is the Algonkin, from the primary meaning of the root, but from a secondary and later signification. This hints ominously at the probability that the ancient tongue had for a long time no word at all to express this, the highest and noblest emotion of the human heart, and that consequently this emotion itself had not risen to consciousness in the national mind.

But the omissions of the fathers were more than atoned for by the efforts of their children. I know no more instructive instance in the history of language to illustrate how original defects are amended in periods of higher culture by the linguistic faculty, than this precise point in the genesis of the Nahuatl tongue. The Nahuas, when they approached the upper levels of emotional development, found their tongue singularly poor in radicals conveying such conceptions. As the literal and material portions of their speech offered them such inadequate means of expression, they turned toward its tropical and formal portions, and in those realms reached a degree of development in this direction which far surpasses that in any other language known to me.

In the formal portion of the language they were not satisfied with one, but adopted a variety of devices to this end. Thus: all verbs expressing emotion may have an intensive termination suffixed, imparting to them additional force; again, certain prefixes indicating civility, respect and affection may be employed in the imperative and optative moods; again, a higher synthetic construction may be employed in the sentence, by which the idea expressed is emphasized, a device in constant use in their poetry; and especially the strength of emotion is indicated by suffixing a series of terminations expressing contempt, reverence or love. The latter are wonderfully characteristic of Nahuatl speech. They are not confined to verbs and nouns, but may be added to adjectives, pronouns, participles, and even to adverbs and postpositions. Thus every word in the sentence is made to carry its burden of affection to the ear of the beloved object!

Add to these facilities the remarkable power of the Nahuatl to impart tropical and figurative senses to words by the employment of rhetorical resources, and to present them as one idea by means of the peculiarities of its construction, and we shall not consider as overdrawn the expression of Professor De la Rosa when he writes: “There can be no question but that in the manifestation in words of the various emotions, the Nahuatl finds no rival, not only among the languages of modern Europe, but in the Greek itself.”[372]

The Nahuatl word for friendship is _icniuhtli_. This is a compound of the preposition _ic_, with; the noun-ending _tli_; and the adverbial _yuh_, or _noyuh_, which means “of the same kind.” The word, therefore, has the same fundamental conception as the Latin _amicus_ and the Cree _inawema_, but it was not developed into a verbal to express the suffering of the passion itself.[373]

III. THE MAYA.

The whole peninsula of Yucatan was inhabited by the Mayas, and tribes speaking related dialects of their tongue lived in Guatemala, Chipapas, and on the Gulf Shore north of Vera Cruz. All these depended chiefly on agriculture for subsistence, were builders of stone houses, and made use of a system of written records. Their tongue, therefore, deserves special consideration as that of a nation with strong natural tendencies to development.

In turning to the word for love in the Maya vocabulary, we are at once struck with the presence of a connected series of words expressing this emotion, while at the same time they, or others closely akin to them and from the same root, mean pain, injury, difficulty, suffering, wounds and misery. Both are formed by the usual rules from the monosyllable _ya_.[374]

Were the ancient Mayas so sensitive to love’s wounds and the pangs of passion as to derive their very words for suffering from the name of this sentiment?

No; that solution is too unlikely for our acceptance. More probable is it that we have here an illustration of the development of language from interjectional cries. In fact, we may be said to have the proof of it, for we discover that this monosyllable _ya_ is still retained in the language as a verb, with the signification “to feel anything deeply, whether as a pain or as a pleasure.”[375] Its derivatives were developed with both meanings, and as love and friendship are the highest forms of pleasure, the word _ya_ in its happier senses became confined to them.

It seems to have sufficed to express the conception in all its forms, for the writers in the language apply it to the love of the sexes, to that between parents and children, that among friends, also to that which men feel toward God, and that which He is asserted to feel toward men.[376]

The Mayas, therefore, were superior to the Nahuas in possessing a radical word which expressed the joy of love; and they must be placed above even the early Aryans in that this radical was in significance purely psychical, referring strictly to a mental state, and neither to similarity nor desire.

It is noteworthy that this interjectional root, although belonging to the substructure of the language, does not appear with the meaning of love in the dialects of the Maya stock. In them the words for this sentiment are derived from other roots.

Thus among the Huastecas, residing on the Gulf of Mexico, north of Vera Cruz, the word for love is _canezal_. It is employed for both human and divine love, and also means anything precious and to be carefully guarded as of advantage to the possessor.[377] There is no difficulty in following its development when we turn to the Maya, which preserves the most numerous ancient forms and meanings of any dialect of this stock. In it we discover that the verb _can_ means “to affect another in some way, to give another either by physical contact or example a virtue, vice, disease or attribute.”[378] Here again we come upon the precise correlative of the Latin _afficio_, from which proceeds our “affection,” etc.

The Guatemalan tribes, the principal of which were and are the Quiches and Cakchiquels, did not accept either _ya_ or _can_ as the root from which to build their expressions for the sentiment of love. In both these dialects the word for to love is _logoh_. It also means “to buy,” and this has led a recent writer to hold up to ridicule the Spanish missionaries who chose this word to express both human and divine love. Dr. Stoll, the writer referred to, intimates that it had no other meaning than “to buy” in the pure original tongue, and that the only word for the passion is _ah_, to want, to desire.[379] In this he does not display his usual accuracy, for we find _logoh_ used in the sense “to like,” “to love,” in the _Annals of the Cakchiquels_, written by a native who had grown to manhood before the Spaniards first entered his country.[380]

That the verb _logoh_ means, both in origin and later use, “to buy,” as well as “to love,” is undoubtedly true. Its root _logh_ is identical with the Maya _loh_, which has the meanings “to exchange, to buy, to redeem, to emancipate.” It was the word selected by the Franciscan missionaries to express the redemption of the world by Christ, and was applied to the redemption of captives and slaves. It might be suggested that it bears a reference to “marriage by purchase;” but I think that “to buy,” and “to love,” may be construed as developments of the same idea of _prizing highly_. When we say that a person is _appreciated_, we really say that he has had a proper price put upon him. The Latin _carus_, which Cicero calls _ipsum verbum amoris_,[381] means costly in price as well as beloved; and the tender English “dear” means quite as often that the object is expensive to buy, as that we dote very much upon it. Nor need we go outside of American languages for illustrations; in Nahuatl _tlazóti_ means to offer for sale at a high price; and in Huasteca _canel_, from the same root as _canezal_, to love, means something precious in a pecuniary sense, as well as an object of the affections. Other instances will present themselves when we come to examine some of the South American tongues. But from what I have already given, it is evident that there is nothing contradictory in the double meaning of the verb _logoh_.

IV. THE QQUICHUA.

The ancient Peruvians who spoke the Qquichua language had organized a system of government and a complex social fabric unsurpassed by any on the continent. The numerous specimens of their arts which have been preserved testify strongly to the licentiousness of their manners, standing in this respect in marked contrast to the Aztecs, whose art was pure. It must be regarded as distinctly in connection with this that we find a similar contrast in their languages. We have seen that in the Nahuatl there appears to have been no word with a primary signification “to love” or any such conception. The Qquichua, on the contrary, is probably the richest language on the continent, not only in separate words denoting affection, but in modifications of these by imparting to them delicate shades of meaning through the addition of particles. As an evidence of the latter, it is enough to cite the fact that Dr. Anchorena, in his grammar of the tongue, sets forth nearly six hundred combinations of the word _munay_, to love![382]

The Qquichua is fortunate in other respects; it has some literature of its own, and its structure has been carefully studied by competent scholars; it is possible, therefore, to examine its locutions in a more satisfactory manner than is the case with most American languages. Its most celebrated literary monument is the drama of _Ollanta_, supposed to have been composed about the time of the conquest. It has been repeatedly edited and translated, most accurately by Pacheco Zegarra.[383] His text may be considered as the standard of the pure ancient tongue.

Of Qquichua words for the affections, that in widest use is the one above quoted, _munay_. It is as universal in its application as its English equivalent, being applied to filial and parental love as well as to that of the sexes, to affection between persons of the same sex, and to the love of God. No other word of the class has such a wide significance. It ranges from an expression of the warmest emotion down to that faint announcement of a preference which is conveyed in the English, “I should prefer.”[384]

On looking for its earlier and concrete sense, we find that _munay_ expressed merely a sense of want, an appetite and the accompanying desire of satisfying it, hence the will, or the wish, not subjectively, but in the objective manifestation.[385] Therefore it is in origin nearly equivalent to the earliest meaning of “love,” as seen in the Sanscrit and the Coptic.

While _munay_ is thus to love on reasonable grounds and with definite purpose, blind, unreasoning, absorbing passion is expressed by _huaylluni_. This is nearly always confined to sexual love, and conveys the idea of the sentiment showing itself in action by those sweet signs and marks of devotion which are so highly prized by the loving heart. The origin of this word indicates its sentient and spontaneous character. Its radical is the interjection _huay_, which among that people is an inarticulate cry of tenderness and affection.[386]

The verb _lluylluy_ means literally to be tender or soft, as fruit, or the young of animals; and applied to the sentiments, to love with tenderness, to have as a darling, to caress lovingly. It has less of sexuality in it than the word last mentioned, and is applied by girls to each other, and as a term of family fondness. It is on a parallel with the English “dear,” “to hold dear,” etc.[387]

In the later compositions in Qquichua the favorite word for love is _ccuyay_. Originally this expression meant to pity, and in this sense it occurs in the drama of Ollanta; but also even there as a term signifying the passion of love apart from any idea of compassion.[388] In the later songs, those whose composition may be placed in this century, it is preferred to _munay_ as the most appropriate term for the love between the sexes.[389] From it also is derived the word for charity and benevolence.

As _munay_ is considered to refer to natural affection felt within the mind, _mayhuay_ is that ostentatious sentiment which displays itself in words of tenderness and acts of endearment, but leaves it an open question whether these are anything more than simulated signs of emotion.[390]

This list is not exhaustive of the tender words in the Qquichua; but it will serve to show that the tongue was rich in them, and that the ancient Peruvians recognized many degrees and forms of this moving sentiment.

What is also noteworthy is the presence in this language of the most philosophical term for friendship in its widest sense that can be quoted from any American language. It is _runaccuyay_, compounded of _ccuyani_, mentioned above, and _runa_, man—the love of mankind. This compound, however, does not occur in the Ollanta drama, and it may have been manufactured by the missionaries. The usual term is _maciy_, which means merely “associate,” or _kochomaciy_, a table-companion or _convive_.

V. THE TUPI-GUARANI.

The linguistic stock which has the widest extension in South America is that which is represented in Southern Brazil by the Guarani, and in Central and Northern by the Tupi or Lingoa Geral. The latter is spoken along the Amazon and its tributaries for a distance of twenty-five hundred miles. It is by no means identical with the Guarani, but the near relationship of the two is unmistakable. The Guarani presents the simpler and more primitive forms, and may be held to present the more archaic type.

The word for love in the Guarani is _aihu_, in another form _haihu_, the initial _h_ being dropped in composition. This expression is employed for all the varieties of the sentiment, between men, between the sexes, and for that which is regarded as divine.[391] For “a friend,” they have no other term than one which means a visitor or guest; and from this their expression for “friendship” is derived, which really means “hospitality.”[392]

Verbal combinations in Guarani are visually simple, and I do not think we can be far wrong in looking upon _aihu_ as a union of the two primary words _ai_ and _hu_. The former, _ai_, means self or the same; and the latter, _hu_, is the verb to find, or, to be present.[393] “To love,” in Guarani, therefore, would mean, “to find oneself in another,” or, less metaphysically, “to discover in another a likeness to one’s self.” This again is precisely the primary signification of the Latin _amare_; and if the sentiment impressed in that way the barbarous ancient Aryans, there is no reason why it would not have struck the Guaranis in the same manner.

In the Tupi or Lingua Geral the word for love is evidently but a dialectic variation of that in Guarani. It is given by some authors as _çaiçu_, plainly a form of _haihu_; and by others as _çauçu_.[394] These forms cannot be analyzed in the Tupi itself, which illustrates its more modern type.

There are other dialects of this widespread stem, but it would not be worth while to follow this expression further in its diverse forms. It is interesting, however, to note that which appears in the Arawack, spoken in Guiana. In that tongue to love is _kanisin_, in which the radical is _ani_ or _ansi_. Now we find that _ani_ means “of a kind,” peculiar to, belonging to, etc. Once more it is the notion of similarity, of “birds of a feather,” which underlies the expression for the conception of love.[395]

CONCLUSIONS.

If, now, we review the ground we have gone over, and classify the conception of love as revealed in the languages under discussion, we find that their original modes of expression were as follows:

1. Inarticulate cries of emotion (Cree, Maya, Qquichua).

2. Assertions of sameness or similarity (Cree, Nahuatl, Tupi, Arawack).

3. Assertions of conjunction or union (Cree, Nahuatl, Maya).

4. Assertions of a wish, desire or longing (Cree, Cakchiquel, Qquichua, Tupi).

These categories are not exhaustive of the words which I have brought forward, but they include most of them, and probably were this investigation extended to embrace numerous other tongues, we should find that in them all the principal expressions for the sentiment of love are drawn from one or other of these fundamental notions. A most instructive fact is that these notions are those which underlie the majority of the words for love in the great Aryan family of languages. They thus reveal the parallel paths which the human mind everywhere pursued in giving articulate expression to the passions and emotions of the soul. In this sense there is a oneness in all languages, which speaks conclusively for the oneness in the sentient and intellectual attributes of the species.

We may also investigate these categories, thus shown to be practically universal, from another point of view. We may inquire which of them comes the nearest to the correct expression of love in its highest philosophic meaning. Was this meaning apprehended, however dimly, by man in the very infancy of his speech-inventing faculty?

In another work, published some years ago, I have attempted a philosophic analysis of the sentiment of love. Quoting from some of the subtlest dissectors of human motive, I have shown that they pronounce love to be “the volition of the end,” or “the resting in an object as an end.” These rather obscure scholastic formulas I have attempted to explain by the definition: “Love is the mental impression of rational action whose end is in itself.”[396] As every end or purpose of action implies the will or wish to that end, those expressions for love are most truly philosophic which express the will, the desire, the yearning after the object. The fourth, therefore, of the above categories is that which presents the highest forms of expression of this conception. That it also expresses lower forms is true, but this merely illustrates the evolution of the human mind as expressed in language. Love is ever the wish; but while in lower races and coarser natures this wish is for an object which in turn is but a means to an end, for example, sensual gratification, in the higher this object is the end itself, beyond which the soul does not seek to go, in which it rests, and with which both reason and emotion find the satisfaction of boundless activity without incurring the danger of satiety.

THE LINEAL MEASURES OF THE SEMI-CIVILIZED NATIONS
OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA.[397]

Positive progress in constructive art can be accurately estimated by the kind and perfection of the instruments of precision employed by the artists. A correct theory of architecture or of sculpture must have as its foundation a correct system of weights and measures, and recognized units and standards of gravity and extension. Where these are not found, all is guess-work, and a more or less haphazard rule-of-thumb.

In a study of the art-products of Mexico and Central America, it has occurred to me that we may with advantage call linguistics to our aid, and attempt to ascertain, by an analysis of the words for weights and measures, what units, if any, were employed by those who constructed the massive works in that region, which still remain for our astonishment. The tongues I shall examine are the Maya of Yucatan, its related dialect the Cakchiquel of Guatemala, and the Nahuatl or Aztec of Mexico. The most striking monuments of art in North America are found in the territories where these were spoken at the time of the Conquest. The Cakchiquel may be considered to include the Quiche and the Tzutuhil, both of which are closely associated to it as dialects of the same mother tongue.

THE MAYAS.

The generic word in Maya for both measuring and weighing, and for measures and weights, is at present _ppiz_, the radical sense of which is “to put in order,” “to arrange definite limits.” Its apparent similarity to the Spanish _pesar_, French _peser_, etc., seems accidental, as it is in Maya the root of various words meaning battle, to fight, etc., from the “order of battle,” observed on such occasions. Any weight or measure is spoken of as _ppizib_, to measure land is _ppiz-luum_, a foot measure _ppiz-oc_ etc. But I am quite certain that the original scope of the word did not include weight, as there is no evidence that the ancient Mayas knew anything about a system of estimating quantity by gravity. If the word is not from the Spanish _pesar_, it has extended its meaning since the conquest.

The Maya measures are derived directly, and almost exclusively, from the human body, and largely from the hand and foot.

_Oc_, the foot; _chekoc_, the footstep, the print or length of the foot, is a measure of length. Other forms of the same are _chekel_, _chekeb_, _chekeb-oc_, etc.; and this abundance of synonyms would seem to show that the measure of a foot was very familiar and frequent. The verb is _chekoc_ (_tah_, _té_), as in the phrase:

_Chekoctè y-otoch Ku._
He measured by feet His house God.

_i. e._ He measured by feet the church. From this was distinguished—

_Xukab_, paces or strides, a word confined to the paces of man. The verb is _Xukab_ (_tah_, _té_), to step off, to measure by paces.

Quite a series of measures were recognized from the ground (or, as some say, from the point of the foot) to the upper portions of the body.

_Hun cal coy u-xul_ (one to the neck of the ankle its-end), extending from the ground to the narrowest portion of the ankle.

_Hun ppuloc u-xul_ (one calf-of-the-leg its-end), from the ground to the highest portion of the calf of the leg. The word _xul_ means end or limit, and is used often adverbially, as in the phrase _uay u-xul_, literally “here its end,” or “thus far” (Span. _hasta aqui_).

_Hun pixib_, the distance from the ground (or point of the toes) to the knee-cap, from _piix_, the knee. Also called _hun hol piix_, from _hol_, head, the knee-cap being called “the knee-head.”

_Hun hachabex_, one girdle, from the ground to the belt or girdle, to which the skirt was fashioned (from _hach_, to tie, to fasten). The same measure was called _hun theth_, the word _theth_ being applied to the knot of the girdle.

_Hun tanam_, from the ground to the border of the true ribs; from _tanam_, the liver. The _Diccionario de Motul_ gives the example, _hun tanam in ual_, one _tanam_ (is) my corn, _i. e._, my corn reaches to my chest. It adds that the measure is from the point of the foot to the chest.

_Hun tzem_, a measure from the ground to a line drawn from one mamma to the other.

_Hun cal u-xul_, one neck its-end, from the ground to the border (upper or lower) of the neck.

_Hun chi_, from the mouth, _chi_, to the ground.

_Hun holom_, one head, from the top of the head to the ground. This is also called _hun uallah_, one time the stature or height of a man, from a root meaning “to draw to a point,” “to finish off.” The Spanish writers say that one _uallah_ was equal to about three _varas_, and was used as a square measure in meting corn fields.[398] The Spanish _vara_ differed as much as the English ell, and to the writer in question could not have represented quite two feet. Elsewhere he defines the _vara_ as half a _braza_ or fathom. (See below, _betan_.)

The hand in Maya is expressed by the word _kab_, which also means the arm, and is more correctly therefore translated by the anatomical term “upper extremity.” This is not an uncommon example in American tongues. When it is necessary to define the hand specifically the Mayas say _u cheel kab_, “the branch of the arm,” and for the fingers _u nii kab_, “the points (literally, noses) of the arm” or upper extremity.

The shortest measurements known to them appear to have been finger-breadths, which are expressed by the phrase _u nii kab_. The thumb was called _u nā kab_, literally “the mother of the hand” or arm, and as a measure of length the distance from the first joint to the end of the nail was in use and designated by the same term.

With the hand open and the fingers extended, there were three different measures or spans recognized by the Mayas.

1. The _nāb_, from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the middle finger.

2. The _oecnab_, or little _nāb_, from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the index finger. This is the span yet most in use by the native inhabitants of Yucatan (Dr. Berendt).

3. The _chi nāb_, or the _nāb_ which extends to the edge, from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the little finger (Pio Perez).

The _kok_ was a hand measure formed by closing the fingers and extending the thumb. Measuring from the outer border of the hand to the end of the thumb, it would be about seven inches.

The _cuc_ or _noch cuc_ (_noch_ is a term applied to a bony prominence, in this instance to the olecranon) was the cubit, and was measured from the summit of the olecranon to the end of the fingers, about eighteen inches.

The most important of the longer measures was the _zap_ or _zapal_. It was the distance between the extremities of the extended arms, and is usually put down at a fathom or six feet.

The half of it was called _betan_ or _pātan_, meaning “to the middle of the chest.” Canes and cords were cut of the fixed length of the _zap_ and bore the name _xapalche_, _zap_sticks, as our _yard-stiçk_ (_che_ == stick), and _hilppiz_, measuring rods (_hil_, a species of cane, and _ppiz_, to measure, _Dicc. Motul_).

On this as a unit, the customary land measure was based. It was the _kaan_, one shorter, _hun kaan tah ox zapalche_, a _kaan_ of three _zap_, and one longer, _hun kaan tah can zapalche_, a _kaan_ of four _zap_. The former is stated to be thirty-six fathoms square, the latter forty-eight fathoms square. Twenty _kaan_ made a _vinic_, man, that amount of land being considered the area requisite to support one family in maize.

The uncertainty about this measure is increased by the evident error of Bishop Landa, or more probably his copyist, in making the _vinic_ equal to 400 square feet, which even in the most favored soils would never support a family. He probably said “400 feet square,” which in that climate would be sufficient. The _kaan_ is said by Spanish writers to be equal to the Mexican _mecate_, which contains 5184 square feet. I acknowledge, however, that I have not reconciled all the statements reported by authors about these land measures.

Greater measures of length are rarely mentioned. Journeys were measured by _lub_, which the Spaniards translated “leagues,” but by derivation it means “resting places,” and I have not ascertained that it had a fixed length.

The Mayas were given to the drawing of maps, and the towns had the boundaries of their common lands laid out in definite lines. I have manuscripts, some dated as early in 1542, which describe these town lands. In most of them only the courses are given, but not the distances. In one, a title to a domain in Acanceh, there are distances given, but in a measure quite unknown to me, _sicina_, preceded by the numeral and its termination indicating measures, _hulucppiz sicina_, eleven sicinas.[399]

The maps indicate relative position only, and were evidently not designed by a scale, or laid off in proportion to distance. The distinguished Yucatecan antiquary, the Rev. Don Crescencio Carrillo, in his essay on the cartography of the ancient Mayas,[400] apparently came to the same conclusion, as he does not mention any method of measurement.

I do not know of any measurements undertaken in Yucatan to ascertain the metrical standard employed by the ancient architects. It is true that Dr. Augustus LePlongeon asserts positively that they knew and used _the metric system_, and that the metre and its divisions are the only dimensions that can be applied to the remains of the edifices.[401] But apart from the eccentricity of this statement, I do not see from Dr. LePlongeon’s own measurements that the metre is in any sense a common divisor for them.

From the linguistic evidence, I incline to believe that the _oc_, the foot, was their chief lineal unit. This name was also applied to the seventh day of the series of twenty which made up the Maya month; and there may be some connection between these facts and the frequent recurrence of the number seven in the details of their edifices.[402]

THE CAKCHIQUELS.

The root-word for measuring length is, in Cakchiquel, _et_. Its primitive meaning is, a sign, a mark, a characteristic. From this root are derived the verbal _etah_, to measure length, to lay out a plan, to define limits; _etal_, a sign, mark, limit; _etabal_, measuring field; _etamah_, to know, _i. e._, to recognize the signs and characters of things; _etamanizah_, to cause to know, to teach, to instruct, etc.

My authorities do not furnish evidence that the Cakchiquels used the foot as the unit of measurement, differing in this from the Mayas. They had, however, like the latter, a series of measurements from the ground to certain points of the body, and they used a special terminal particle, _bem_ (probably from _be_, to go), “up to” to indicate such measurements, as _vexibem_, up to the girdle (_vex_, girdle, _i_, connective, _bem_, up to, or “it goes to”).

These body measures, as far as I have found them named, are as follows:

_quequebem_, from the ground to the knee.

_ru-vach a_, from the ground to the middle of the thigh; literally “its front, the thigh,” _ru_, its, _vach_, face, front, _a_, the muscles of the thigh.

_vexibem_, from the ground to the girdle, _vex_.

_qaalqaxibem_, from the ground to the first true ribs.

_kulim_, from the ground to the neck (_kul_).

The more exact Cakchiquel measures were derived from the upper extremity. The smallest was the finger breadth, and was spoken of as one, two, three, four fingers, _han ca_, _cay ca_, _ox ca_, _cah ca_ (_ca_=finger). This was used in connection with the measure called _tuvic_, the same that I have described as the Maya _kok_, obtained by closing the hand and extending the thumb. They combined these in such expressions as _ca tuvic raqin han ca_, two _tuvics_ with (plus) one finger breadth.[403]

The span of the Cakchiquels was solely that obtained by extending the thumb and fingers and including the space between the extremities of the thumb and _middle_ finger. It was called _qutu_, from the radical _qut_, which means to show, to make manifest, and is hence akin in meaning to the root _et_, mentioned above.

The cubit, _chumay_, was measured from the point of the elbow to the extremities of the fingers. We are expressly informed by Father Coto that this was a customary building measure. “When they build their houses they use this cubit to measure the length of the logs. They also measure ropes in the same manner, and say, _Tin chumaih retaxic riqam_, I lay out in cubits the rope with which I am to measure.”

The different measures drawn from the arms were:

_chumay_, from the elbow to the end of the fingers of the same hand.

_hahmehl_, from the elbow to the ends of the fingers of the opposite hand, the arms being outstretched.

_telen_, from the point of the shoulder of one side to the ends of the fingers of the outstretched arm on the other side.

_tzam telen_, from the point of the shoulder to the ends of the fingers on the same side. _Tzam_ means nose, point, beak, etc.

_ru vach qux_, from the middle of the breast to the end of the outstretched hand.

_hah_, from the tips of the fingers of one hand to those of the other, the arms outstretched.

Another measure was from the point of the shoulder to the wrist.

The _hah_, or fathom, was one of the units of land measure, and the corn fields and cacao plantations were surveyed and laid out with ropes, _qam_, marked off in fathoms. The fields are described as of five ropes, ten ropes, etc., but I have not found how many fathoms each rope contained.

Another unit of land measure in frequent use was the _maaoh_. This was the circumference of the human figure. A man stood erect, his feet together, and both arms extended. The end of a rope was placed under his feet and its slack passed over one hand, then on top of his head, then over the other hand, and finally brought to touch the beginning. This gives somewhat less than three times the height. This singular unit is described by both Varea and Coto as in common use by the natives.

There were no accurate measures of long distances. As among the Mayas, journeys were counted by resting places, called in Cakchiquel _uxlanibal_, literally “breathing places,” from _uxla_, the breath, itself, a derivative of the radical _ux_, to exist, to be, to live, the breath being taken as the most evident sign of life.

There was originally no word in Cakchiquel meaning “to weigh,” as in a balance, and therefore they adopted the Spanish _peso_, as _tin pesoih_, I weigh. Nor, although they constructed stone walls of considerable height, did they have any knowledge of the plumb line or plummet. The name they gave it even shows that they had no idea what its use was, as they called it “the piece of metal for fastening together,” supposing it to be an aid in cementing the stone work, rather than in adjusting its lines.[404]

THE AZTECS.

In turning to the Mexicans or Aztecs, some interesting problems present themselves. As far as I can judge by the Nahuatl language, measures drawn from the upper extremity were of secondary importance, and were not the bases of their metrical standards, and, as I shall show, this is borne out by a series of proofs from other directions.

The fingers, _mapilli_, appear to have been customary measures. They are mentioned in the early writers as one equal to an inch. The name _mapilli_, is a synthesis of _maitl_, hand, and _pilli_, child, offspring, addition, etc.

The span was called _miztetl_ or _miztitl_, a word of obvious derivation, meaning “between the finger nails,” from _iztetl_, finger nail. This span, however, was not like ours, from the extremity of the thumb to the extremity of the little finger, nor yet like that of the Cakchiquels, from the extremity of the thumb to that of the middle finger, but like that now in use among the Mayas (see above), from the extremity of the thumb to that of the index finger.[405]

There were four measures from the point of the elbow; one to the wrist of the same arm, a second to the wrist of the opposite arm, a third to the ends of the fingers of the same arm, and the fourth to the ends of the fingers of the opposite arm, the arms always considered as extended at right angles to the body. The terms for these are given somewhat confusedly in my authorities, but I believe the following are correct.

1. From the elbow to the wrist of the same arm; _cemmat__zotzopatzli_, “a little arm measure,” from _ce_, a, one, _ma_ from _maitl_, arm or hand, _tzotzoca_, small, inferior, _patzoa_, to make small, to diminish.

2. From the elbow to the wrist of the opposite arm, _cemmitl_, an arrow, a shaft, from _ce_, and _mitl_, arrow, this distance being the approved length of an arrow. We may compare the old English expression, a “cloth-yard shaft.”

3. From the elbow to the ends of the fingers of the same arm, _cemmolicpitl_, one elbow, _ce_, one, _molicpitl_, elbow. This is the cubit.

4. From the elbow to the ends of the fingers of the opposite arm.

The following were the arm measures:

_Cemaçolli_, from the tip of the shoulder to the end of the hand (_ce_, one, _maçoa_, to extend the arm).

_Cemmatl_, from the tip of the fingers of one hand to those of the other. Although this word is apparently a synthesis of _ce_, one, _maitl_, arm, and means “one arm,” it is uniformly rendered by the early writers _una braza_, a fathom.

_Cenyollotli_, from the middle of the breast to the end of the fingers (_ce_, one, _yollotl_, breast).

It is known that the Aztecs had a standard measure of length which they employed in laying out grounds and constructing buildings. It was called the _octacatl_, but neither the derivation of this word, nor the exact length of the measure it represented, has been positively ascertained. The first syllable, _oc_, it will be noticed, is the same as the Maya word for foot, and in Nahuatl _xocopalli_ is “the sole of the foot.” This was used as a measure by the decimal system, and there were in Nahuatl two separate and apparently original words to express a measure of ten foot-lengths. One was:

_Matlaxocpallatamachiualoni_, which formidable synthesis is analyzed as follows: _matla_, from _matlactli_, ten, _xocpal_, from _xocpalli_, foot-soles, _tamachiuia_, to measure (from _machiotl_, a sign or mark, like the Cakchiquel _etal_) _l_, for _lo_, sign of the passive, _oni_, a verbal termination “equivalent to the Latin _bilis_ or _dus_.”[406] Thus the word means that which is measurable by ten foot-lengths.

The second word was _matlacyxitlatamachiualoni_.

The composition of this is similar to the former, except that in the place of the perhaps foreign root _xoc_, foot, _yxitl_, foot, is used, which seems to have been the proper Nahuatl term.

As these words prove that the foot-length was one of the standards of the Aztecs, it remains to be seen whether they enlighten us as to the _octacail_. I quote in connection an interesting passage by the native historian, Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl in his _Historia Chichimeca_, published in Lord Kingsborough’s great work on Mexico (Vol. ix., p. 242). Ixtlilxochitl is describing the vast communal dwelling built by the Tezcucan chieftain Nezahualcoyotl, capable of accommodating over two thousand persons. He writes: “These houses were in length from east to west four hundred and eleven and a half [native] measures, which reduced to our [Spanish] measures make twelve hundred and thirty-four and a half yards (_varas_), and in breadth, from north to south three hundred and twenty-six measures, which are nine hundred and seventy-eight yards.”

This passage has been analyzed by the learned antiquary, Señor Orozco y Berra.[407] The native measure referred to by Ixtlilxochitl was that of Tezcuco, which was identical with that of Mexico. The yard was the _vara de Burgos_, which had been ordered to be adopted throughout the colony by an ordinance of the viceroy Antonio de Mendoza. This vara was in length 0.838 metre, and, as according to the chronicler, the native measurement was just three times this (411½ x 3 = 1234½, and 326 x 3 = 978), it must have been 2.514 metre. This is equal in our measure to 9.842 feet, or, say, nine feet ten inches.

This would make the _octacatl_ identical with those long-named ten-foot measures, which, as I have shown, were multiples of the length of the foot, as is proved by an analysis of their component words.

This result is as interesting as it is new, since it demonstrates that the metrical unit of ancient Mexico was the same as that of ancient Rome—the length of the foot-print.

Some testimony of another kind may be brought to illustrate this point.

In 1864, the Mexican government appointed a commission to survey the celebrated ruins of Teotihuacan, under the care of Don Ramon Almaraz. At the suggestion of Señor Orozco, this able engineer ran a number of lines of construction to determine what had been the metrical standard of the builders. His decision was that it was “about” met. 0.8, or, say, 31½ inches.[408] This is very close to an even third of the _octacatl_, and would thus be a common divisor of lengths laid off by it.

I may here turn aside from my immediate topic to compare these metrical standards with that of the Mound-Builders of the Ohio valley.

In the _American Antiquarian_, April, 1881, Prof. W. J. McGee applied Mr. Petrie’s arithmetical system of “inductive metrology” to a large number of measurements of mounds and earthworks in Iowa, with the result of ascertaining a common standard of 25.716 inches.

In 1883, Col. Charles Whittlesey, of Cleveland, analyzed eighty-seven measurements of Ohio earthworks by the method of even divisors and concluded that thirty inches was about the length, or was one of the multiples, of their metrical standard.[409]

Moreover, fifty-seven per cent of all the lines were divisible without remainder by ten feet. How much of this may have been owing to the tendency of hurried measurers to average on fives and tens, I cannot say; but leaving this out of the question, there is a probability that a ten foot-length rule was used by the “mound-builders” to lay out their works.

It may not be out of place to add a suggestion here as to the applicability of the methods of inductive metrology to American monuments. The proportions given above by Ixtlilxochitl, it will be noted, are strikingly irregular (411½, 326). Was this accident or design? Very likely the latter, based upon some superstitious or astrological motive. It is far from a solitary example. It recurs everywhere in the remarkable ruins of Mitla. “Careful attention,” says Mr. Louis H. Aymé, “has been paid to make the whole asymmetrical. * * * This asymmetry of Mitla is not accidental, I am certain, but made designedly. M. Desiré Charnay tells me he has observed the same thing at Palenque.” These examples should be a warning against placing implicit reliance on the mathematical procedures for obtaining the lineal standards of these forgotten nations.[410]

Whatever the lineal standard of the Aztecs may have been, we have ample evidence that it was widely recognized, very exact, and officially defined and protected. In the great market of Mexico, to which thousands flocked from the neighboring country (seventy thousand in a day, says Cortes, but we can cut this down one-half in allowance for the exaggeration of an enthusiast), there were regularly appointed government officers to examine the measures used by the merchants and compare them with the correct standard. Did they fall short, the measures were broken and the merchant severely punished as an enemy to the public weal.[411]

The road-measures of the Aztecs was by the stops of the carriers, as we have seen was also the case in Guatemala. In Nahuatl these were called _neceuilli_, resting places, or _netlatolli_, sitting places; and distances were reckoned numerically by these, as one, two, three, etc., resting places. Although this seems a vague and inaccurate method, usage had attached comparatively definite ideas of distance to these terms. Father Duran tells us that along the highways there were posts or stones erected with marks upon them showing how many of these stops there were to the next market-towns—a sort of mile-stones, in fact. As the competition between the various markets was very active, each set up its own posts, giving its distance, and adding a curse on all who did not attend, or were led away by the superior attractions of its rivals.[412]

So far as I have learned, the lineal measures above mentioned were those applied to estimate superficies. In some of the plans of fields, etc., handed down, the size is marked by the native numerals on one side of the plan, which are understood to indicate the square measure of the included tract. The word in Nahuatl meaning to survey or measure lands is _tlalpoa_, literally “to count land,” from _tlalli_ land, _poa_ to count.

The Aztecs were entirely ignorant of balances, scales or weights. Cortes says distinctly that when he visited the great market of Mexico-Tenochtitlan, he saw all articles sold by number and measure, and nothing by weight.[413] The historian Herrera confirms this from other authorities, and adds that when grass or hay was sold, it was estimated by the length of a cord which could be passed around the bundle.[414]

The plumb-line must have been unknown to the Mexicans also. Their called it _temetztepilolli_, “the piece of lead which is hung from on high,” from _temetzli_, lead, and _piloa_, to fasten something high up. Lead was not unknown to the Aztecs before the conquest. They collected it in the Provinces of Tlachco and Itzmiquilpan, but did not esteem it of much value, and their first knowledge of it as a plummet must have been when they saw it in the hands of the Spaniards. Hence their knowledge of the instrument itself could not have been earlier.

The conclusions to which the above facts tend are as follows:

1. In the Maya system of lineal measures, foot, hand, and body measures were nearly equally prominent, but the foot unit was the customary standard.

2. In the Cakchiquel system, hand and body measures were almost exclusively used, and of these, those of the hand prevailed.

3. In the Aztec system, body measurements were unimportant, hand and arm measures held a secondary position, while the foot measure was adopted as the official and obligatory standard both in commerce and architecture.

4. The Aztec terms for their lineal standard being apparently of Maya origin, suggest that their standard was derived from that nation.

5. Neither of the three nations was acquainted with a system of estimation by weight, nor with the use of the plumb-line, nor with an accurate measure of long distances.

THE CURIOUS HOAX OF THE TAENSA LANGUAGE.

One might think it a difficult task to manufacture a new language “from the whole cloth;” but, in fact, it is no great labor. We have but to remember that within the last dozen years more than a dozen “world-languages” have been framed and offered for acceptance, and we at once perceive that a moderate knowledge of tongues and some linguistic ingenuity are all that is required.

It is an innocent amusement so long as no fraudulent use is made of the manufactured product; but the temptation to play a practical joke, and to palm off a deception on overeager linguists, is as great in languages as it is in archæology—and every antiquary knows how suspiciously he has to scrutinize each new specimen.

A curious hoax, which deceived some of the best linguists of Europe and America, was perpetrated about a decade ago by two young French seminarists, Jean Parisot and A. Dejouy. Interested by reading Châteaubriand, and by various publications on American languages which appeared in France about that time, they made up a short grammar and a list of words of what they called the _Tansa_ language, from a name they found in Châteaubriand’s _Voyage en Amerique_, and into this invented tongue they translated the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, an Algonkin hymn published in Paris, and other material.

At first, the two students pursued this occupation merely as an amusement, but it soon occurred to them that more could be made of it; so M. Parisot sent a batch of the alleged “fragments” of the “Tansa” to the publishers, Maisonneuve et Cie, Paris, for publication. The manuscripts were passed over to M. Julien Vinson, editor of the _Révue de Linguistique_, who addressed the young author for further particulars. M. Parisot replied that these pieces were copies of originals obtained many years before by his grandfather, from what source he knew not, and on the strength of this vague statement, they duly appeared in the _Révue_.

Their publication attracted the attention of the eminent French linguist, M. Lucien Adam, who had long occupied himself with American tongues, and he entered into correspondence with M. Parisot. The latter’s stock meanwhile had considerably increased. He and his friend had published at Epinal, apparently privately, a small pamphlet, with an introductory note in bad Spanish, containing a number of “songs” in the “Taensa,” as they now called their language. They claimed in the note that the songs had been obtained by a traveler in America, in the year 1827 or 1828, “in the Taensa town, on the banks of the Mississippi or the Alabama”(!)[415]

With this abundant material at hand, young Parisot replied cheerfully to M. Adam, and supplied that scientist with “copy” from the alleged ancestral MSS. quite enough to fill a goodly volume of grammar, songs, lexicon, and the various paraphernalia of a linguistic apparatus, all of which eager M. Adam and his collaborator, Mr. A. S. Gatschet, the expert linguist attached to our Bureau of Ethnology, received in good faith and without a suspicion of the joker who victimized them; and what is more singular, without having a doubt excited by the many and gross blunders of the young seminarist.

Their joint work reached the United States in 1883, and for two years was received both here and in Europe as a genuine production. My attention was first attracted to it in 1883, and then I referred to it as a “strange” production; but I did not give it a close examination until the close of 1884. This examination led me to prepare the following article, which was published in the _American Antiquarian_ for March, 1885:

THE TAENSA GRAMMAR AND DICTIONARY.

_A Deception Exposed._

The student of American languages is under many obligations to the editors and publishers of the _Bibliothéque Linguistique Américaine_, nine volumes of which have been issued by the firm of Maisonneuve et Cie., Paris. Most of these contain valuable authentic original material, from approved sources, and edited with judgment. The exception to this rule is the volume last issued, which from its character deserves more than a passing criticism.

This volume bears the following title: _Grammaire et Vocabulaire de la Langue Taensa, avec Textes Traduits et Commentés par J. D. Haumonté, Parisot, L. Adam_. Pp. 19, III. It contains what professes to be a grammar of the Taensas Indians, who lived near the banks of the lower Mississippi, in the parish of that name in Louisiana, when it was first discovered, but who have long since become extinct. Following the grammar are the “Texts,” a remarkable series of native songs in the alleged Taensa tongue, with a French translation, accompanied by a commentary and a vocabulary.

All this array has been received by scholars without question. It looks so extremely scientific and satisfactory that no one has dared assail its authenticity. Moreover, the book appears with an historical introduction by Mr. Albert S. Gatschet, of our Bureau of Ethnology, and one of the editors is M. Lucien Adam, a gentleman who stands at the head of European Americanists. Mr. Gatschet, moreover, fully recognizes the authenticity of the whole in his latest work, and up to the present I know of no one who has doubted it, either in this country or in Europe.

It is, therefore, only after a great deal of consideration and hesitation that I now give publicity to the opinion I have long entertained, that a gross deception has been somewhere practiced in the preparation of this book, and that it is not at all what it purports to be. Let it be understood that I distinctly exculpate the gentlemen I have named from any share in this; they can only be charged with the venial error of allowing their enthusiasm for knowledge to get the better of their critical acumen.

I shall proceed to give with as much brevity as possible the reasons which have led me to reject the pretended character of this work.