Talk:Ixtlilton

Rewrite needed

The present contents of the article appear to be a word-for-word reproduction of the entry on this deity in a section of Lewis Spence's The Myths of Mexico and Peru, see this online version] of Spence's work. Since this work was published in 1913 and is now a PD work, I gather, there is probably no copyright concern here- however, it's really preferable not to reproduce the text holus-bolus, and Spence's information and expertise in the area is a little questionable, and certainly dated. Needs to be rewritten.--cjllw | TALK 08:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On re-reading the text taken from Spence have decided to remove it for now, it really doesn't seem that reliable an account. For the record, the text was

In Aztec mythology, Ixtlilton (The Little Black One) was the Mexican god of medicine and healing, and therefore was often alluded to as the brother of Macuilxochitl, the god of well-being or good luck. He is also associated, possibly via siblingship, with the Centzontotochin. From the account of the general appearance of his temple-in edifice of painted boards-it would seem to have evolved from the primitive tent or lodge of the medicine-man, or shaman. It contained several water-jars called tlilatl, the contents of which were administered to children in bad health. The parents of children who benefited from the treatment bestowed a feast on the deity, whose idol was carried to the residence of the grateful father, where ceremonial dances and oblations were made before it. It was then thought that Ixtlilton descended to the courtyard to open fresh jars of pulque liquor provided for the feasters, and the entertainment concluded by an examination by the Aztec Æsculapius of such of the pulque jars dedicated to his service as stood in the courtyard for everyday use. Should these be found in an unclean condition, it was understood that the master of the house was a man of evil life, and he was presented by the priest with a mask to hide his face from his scoffing friends.

Perhaps there are some things here which could be verified. See however this assessment on the unreliable nature of Spence's views.--cjllw | TALK 09:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)