Читать книгу The Conquest of Mexico - William Hickling Prescott - Страница 23
ОглавлениеFOOTNOTES:
[1] Lewis H. Morgan, Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines, p. 222.
[2] See vol. i. chap, iv., and, for Ximenes, Prescott’s “Ferdinand and Isabella,” part ii. chap. vi.
[3] In this edition placed immediately after the Introduction.
[4] Extensive indeed, if we may trust Archbishop Lorenzana, who tells us, “It is doubtful if the country of new Spain does not border on Tartary and Greenland;—by the way of California, on the former, and by New Mexico, on the latter”! Historia de Nueva-España (México, 1770), p. 38, nota.{*}
{*}[The limits fixed by historical writers to the territories of the Aztec Confederacy vary startlingly. Prescott’s estimate is too large. Lewis H. Morgan (Houses and House Life of the American Aborigines, p. 223) considers its land area to have been about that of Rhode Island—the smallest State in the American Union—i.e., about 1250 square miles. Medio tutissimus ibis. The term Empire is misleading. The states of Querétaro, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Guerrero, and much of La Puebla, in modern Mexico, almost surround the so-called Empire of Montezuma. Possibly the tributary pueblos may have covered an area equal to that of the State of Massachusetts.—M.]
[5] I have conformed to the limits fixed by Clavigero. He has, probably, examined the subject with more thoroughness and fidelity than most of his countrymen, who differ from him, and who assign a more liberal extent to the monarchy. (See his Storia antica del Messico (Cesena, 1780), dissert. 7.) The abbé, however, has not informed his readers on what frail foundations his conclusions rest. The extent of the Aztec empire is to be gathered from the writings of historians since the arrival of the Spaniards, and from the picture-rolls of tribute paid by the conquered cities; both sources extremely vague and defective. See the MSS. of the Mendoza collection, in Lord Kingsborough’s magnificent publication (Antiquities of Mexico, comprising Facsimiles of Ancient Paintings and Hieroglyphics, together with the Monuments of New Spain. London, 1830). The difficulty of the inquiry is much increased by the fact of the conquests having been made, as will be seen hereafter, by the united arms of three powers, so that it is not always easy to tell to which party they eventually belonged. The affair is involved in so much uncertainty that Clavigero, notwithstanding the positive assertions in his text, has not ventured, in his map, to define the precise limits of the empire, either towards the north, where it mingles with the Tezcucan empire, or towards the south, where, indeed, he has fallen into the egregious blunder of asserting that, while the Mexican territory reached to the fourteenth degree, it did not include any portion of Guatemala. (See tom. i. p. 29, and tom. iv. dissert. 7.) The Tezcucan chronicler Ixtlilxochitl puts in a sturdy claim for the paramount empire of his own nation. Historia Chichimeca, MS., cap. 39, 53, et alibi.
[6] Eighteen to twenty thousand, according to Humboldt, who considers the Mexican territory to have been the same with that occupied by the modern intendancies of Mexico, Puebla, Vera Cruz, Oaxaca, and Valladolid. (Essai politique sur le Royaume de Nouvelle-Espagne (Paris, 1825), tom. i. p. 196.) This last, however, was all, or nearly all, included in the rival kingdom of Michoacán, as he himself more correctly states in another part of his work. Comp. tom. ii. p. 164.
[7] [Immediate decay follows death. All traces of a buried corpse vanish in three or four years.—M.]
[8] The traveller who enters the country across the dreary sand-hills of Vera Cruz will hardly recognize the truth of the above description. He must look for it in other parts of the tierra caliente. Of recent tourists, no one has given a more gorgeous picture of the impressions made on his senses by these sunny regions than Latrobe, who came on shore at Tampico (Rambler in Mexico (New York, 1836), chap. 1),—a traveller, it may be added, whose descriptions of man and nature in our own country, where we can judge, are distinguished by a sobriety and fairness that entitle him to confidence in his delineation of other countries.
[9] This long extent of country varies in elevation from 5570 to 8856 feet,—equal to the height of the passes of Mount Cenis or the Great St. Bernard. The table-land stretches still three hundred leagues farther, before it declines to a level of 2624 feet. Humboldt, Essai politique, tom. i. pp. 157, 255.{*}
{*}[“The Continental range of Humboldt does not exist. The Andean system ends in northern Colombia. The Rocky Mountain system ends in the plateau south of the City of Mexico. The system between lies across the trend of the other two systems and differs from them in origin. It belongs to the same chain which crops up in the Antilles, i.e., to the system appearing in Martinique and Santa Lucia.”—Robert T. Hill, of U. S. Geological Survey, in Century Magazine, July, 1902.—M.]
[10] About 62° Fahrenheit, or 17° Réaumur. (Humboldt, Essai politique, tom. i. p. 273.) The more elevated plateaus of the table-land, as the Valley of Toluca, about 8500 feet above the sea, have a stern climate, in which the thermometer, during a great part of the day, rarely rises beyond 45° F. Idem (loc. cit.), and Malte-Brun (Universal Geography, Eng. trans., book 83), who is, indeed, in this part of his work, but an echo of the former writer.
[11] The elevation of the Castiles, according to the authority repeatedly cited, is about 350 toises, or 2100 feet above the ocean. (Humboldt’s Dissertation, apud Laborde, Itinéraire descriptif de l’Espagne (Paris, 1827), tom. i. p. 5.) It is rare to find plains in Europe of so great a height.
[12] Archbishop Lorenzana estimates the circuit of the Valley at ninety leagues, correcting at the same time the statement of Cortés, which puts it at seventy, very near the truth, as appears from the result of M. de Humboldt’s measurement, cited in the text. Its length is about eighteen leagues, by twelve and a half in breadth. (Humboldt, Essai politique, tom. ii. p. 29.—Lorenzana, Hist. de Nueva-España, p. 101.) Humboldt’s map of the Valley of Mexico forms the third in his “Atlas géographique et physique,” and, like all the others in the collection, will be found of inestimable value to the traveller, the geologist, and the historian.
[13] Humboldt, Essai politique, tom. ii. pp. 29, 44-49.—Malte-Brun, book 85. This latter geographer assigns only 6700 feet for the level of the Valley, contradicting himself (comp. book 83), or rather Humboldt, to whose pages he helps himself plenis manibus, somewhat too liberally, indeed, for the scanty references at the bottom of his page.
[14] Torquemada accounts in part for this diminution by supposing that, as God permitted the waters, which once covered the whole earth, to subside after mankind had been nearly exterminated for their iniquities, so he allowed the waters of the Mexican lake to subside, in token of good will and reconciliation, after the idolatrous races of the land had been destroyed by the Spaniards! (Monarchía Indiana (Madrid, 1723), tom. i. p. 309.) Quite as probable, if not as orthodox, an explanation, may be found in the active evaporation of these upper regions, and in the fact of an immense drain having been constructed, during the lifetime of the good father, to reduce the waters of the principal lake and protect the capital from inundation.
[15] [It is perhaps to be regretted that, instead of a meagre notice of the Toltecs with a passing allusion to earlier races, the author did not give a separate chapter to the history of the country during the ages preceding the Conquest. That history, it is true, resting on tradition or on questionable records mingled with legendary and mythological relations, is full of obscurity and doubt. But whatever its uncertainty in regard to details, it presents a mass of general facts supported by analogy and by the stronger evidence of language and of the existing relics of the past. The number and diversity of the architectural and other remains found on the soil of Mexico and the adjacent regions, and the immense variety of the spoken languages, with the vestiges of others that have passed out of use,—all perhaps derived originally from a common stock, but exhibiting different stages of development or decay, and capable of being classified into several distinct families,—point to conclusions that render the subject one of the most attractive fields for critical investigation. These concurrent testimonies leave no doubt that, like portions of the Old World similarly favored in regard to climate, soil, and situation, the central regions of America were occupied from a very remote period by nations which made distinct advances in civilization, and passed through a cycle of revolutions comparable to that of which the Valley of the Euphrates and other parts of Asia were anciently the scene. The useful arts were known and practised, wealth was accumulated, social systems exhibiting a certain refinement and a peculiar complexity were organized, states were established which flourished, decayed,—either from the effects of isolation or an inherent incapacity for continuance,—and were finally overthrown by invaders, by whom the experiment was repeated, though not always with equal success. Some of these nations passed away, leaving no trace but their names; others, whose very names are unknown, left mysterious monuments imbedded in the soil or records that are undecipherable. Of those that still remain, comprising about a dozen distinct races speaking a hundred and twenty different dialects, we have the traditions preserved either in their own records or in those of the Spanish discoverers. The task of constructing out of these materials a history shorn of the adornments of mythology and fable has been attempted by the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg (Histoire des Nations civilisées du Mexique et de l’Amérique-Centrale, durant les Siècles antérieurs à Christophe Colomb, 4 vols., Paris, 1857-59), and, whatever may be thought of the method he has pursued, his research is unquestionable, and his views—very different from those which he has since put forth—merit attention. A more practical effort has been made by Don Manuel Orozco y Berra to trace the order, diffusion, and relations of the various races by the differences, the intermixtures, and the geographical limits of their languages. (Geografía de las Lenguas y Carta etnográfica de México, precedidas de un Ensayo de Clasificacion de las mismas Lenguas y de Apuntes para las Inmigraciones de las Tribus, México, 1864.)—K.]
[16] [The uncertainty is not diminished by our being told that Tollan, Tullan, Tulan, or Tula (called also Tlapallan and Huehuetlapallan) was the original seat of this people, since we are still left in doubt whether the country so designated—like Aztlan, the supposed point of departure of the Aztecs—is to be located in New Mexico, California, the northwestern extremity of America, or in Asia. M. Brasseur de Bourbourg (whose later speculations, in which the name plays a conspicuous part, will be noticed more appropriately in the Appendix) found in the Quiché manuscripts mention of four Tollans, one of them “in the east, on the other side of the sea.” “But,” he adds, “in what part of the world is it to be placed? C’est là encore une question bien difficile à résoudre.” (Hist. des Nations civilisées du Mexique, tom. i. pp. 167, 168.) Nor will the etymology much help us. According to Buschmann, Tollan is derived from tolin, reed, and signifies “place of reeds,”—“Ort der Binsen, Platz mit Binsen gewachsen, juncetum.” (Über die aztekischen Ortsnamen, S. 682.) He refers, however, to a different derivation, suggested by a writer who has made it the basis of one of those extraordinary theories which are propounded from time to time, to account for the first diffusion of the human race, and more particularly for the original settlement of America. According to this theory, the cradle of mankind was the Himalayan Mountains. “But the collective name of these lofty regions was very anciently designated by appellations the roots of which were Tal, Tol, Tul, meaning tall, high, ... as it does yet in many languages, the English, Chinese, and Arabic for instance. Such were Tolo, Thala, Talaha, Tulan, etc., in the old Sanscrit and primitive languages of Asia. Whence came the Asiatic Atlas and also the Atlantes of the Greeks, who, spreading through the world westerly, gave these names to many other places and notions.... The Talas or Atlantes occupied or conquered Europe and Africa, nay, went to America in very early times.... In Greece they became Atalantes, Talautians of Epirus, Aetolians.... They gave name to Italy, Aitala meaning land eminent, ... to the Atlantic Ocean, and to the great Atlantis, or America, called in the Hindu books Atala or Tala-tolo, the fourth world, where dwelt giants or powerful men.... America is also filled with their names and deeds from Mexico and Carolina to Peru: the Tol-tecas, people of Tol, and Aztlan, Otolum near Palenque, many towns of Tula and Tolu; the Talas of Michuacan, the Matalans, Atalans, Tulukis, etc., of North America.” (C. S. Rafinesque, Atlantic Journal, Philadelphia, 1832-33.) It need hardly be added that Tula has also been identified with the equally unknown and long-sought-for ultima Thule, with the simplifying effect of bringing two streams of inquiry into one channel. Meanwhile, by a different kind of criticism, the whole question is dissipated into thin air, Tollan and Aztlan being resolved into names of mere mythical import, and the regions thus designated transferred from the earth to the bright domain of the sky, from which the descriptions in the legends appear to have been borrowed. See Brinton, Myths of the New World, pp. 88, 89.—K.]
[17] Anahuac, according to Humboldt, comprehended only the country between the fourteenth and twenty-first degrees of north latiude. (Essai politique, tom. i. p. 197.) According to Clavigero, it included nearly all since known as New Spain. (Stor. del Messico, tom. i. p. 27.) Veytia uses it, also, as synonymous with New Spain. (Historia antigua de Méjico (Méjico, 1836), tom. i. cap. 12.) The first of these writers probably allows too little, as the latter do too much, for its boundaries. Ixtlilxochitl says it extended four hundred leagues south of the Otomi country. (Hist. Chichimeca, MS., cap. 73.) The word Anahuac signifies near the water. It was, probably, first applied to the country around the lakes in the Mexican Valley, and gradually extended to the remoter regions occupied by the Aztecs and the other semi-civilized races. Or possibly the name may have been intended, as Veytia suggests (Hist. antig., lib. 1, cap. 1), to denote the land between the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific.{*}
{*} [This suggestion of Veytia is unworthy of attention,—refuted by the actual application and appropriateness of the name, and by the state of geographical knowledge and ideas at the period when it must have originated. A modern traveller, describing the appearance of the great plains as seen from the summit of Popocatepetl, remarks, “Even now that the lakes have shrunk to a fraction of their former size, we could see the fitness of the name given in old times to the Valley of Mexico, Anahuac, that is, By the water-side.” Tylor, Anahuac; or Mexico and the Mexicans, Ancient and Modern (London, 1861), p. 270.—K.]
[18] Clavigero talks of Boturini’s having written “on the faith of the Toltec historians.” (Stor. del Messico, tom. i. p. 128.) But that scholar does not pretend to have ever met with a Toltec manuscript himself, and had heard of only one in the possession of Ixtlilxochitl. (See his Idea de una nueva Historia general de la América Septentrional (Madrid, 1746), p. 110.) The latter writer tells us that his account of the Toltec and Chichimec races was “derived from interpretation” (probably of the Tezcucan paintings), “and from the traditions of old men;” poor authority for events which had passed centuries before. Indeed, he acknowledges that their narratives were so full of absurdity and falsehood that he was obliged to reject nine-tenths of them. (See his Relaciones, MS., no. 5.) The cause of truth would not have suffered much, probably, if he had rejected nine-tenths of the remainder.{*}
{*} [Ixtlilxochitl’s language does not necessarily imply that he considered any of the relations he had received as false or absurd, nor does he say that he had rejected nine-tenths of them. What he has written is, he asserts, “the true history of the Toltecs,” though it does not amount to nine-tenths of the whole (“de lo que ello fué”), i.e., of what had been contained in the original records; these records having perished, and he himself having abridged the accounts he had been able to obtain of their contents, as well for the sake of brevity as because of the marvellous character of the relations (“son tan estrañas las cosas y tan peregrinas y nunca oidas”). The sources of his information are also incorrectly described; but a further mention of them will be found in a note at the end of this Book.—K.]
[19] Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 2.—Idem, Relaciones, MS., no. 2.—Sahagun, Historia general de las Cosas de Nueva-España (México, 1829), lib. 10, cap. 29.—Veytia, Hist. antig., lib. 1, cap. 27.
[20] Sahagun, Hist. de Nueva-España, lib. 10, cap. 29.
[21] Sahagun, ubi supra.—Torquemada, Monarch. Ind., lib. 1, cap. 14.
[22] Description de l’Égypte (Paris, 1890), Antiquités, tom. i. cap. 1. Veytia has traced the migrations of the Toltecs with sufficient industry, scarcely rewarded by the necessarily doubtful credit of the results. Hist. antig., lib. 2, cap. 21-33.
[23] Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 73.
[24] Veytia, Hist. antig., lib. 1, cap. 33.—Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., MS., cap 3.—Idem, Relaciones, MS., nos. 4, 5.—Father Torquemada—perhaps misinterpreting the Tezcucan hieroglyphics—has accounted for this mysterious disappearance of the Toltecs by such fee-faw-fum stories of giants and demons as show his appetite for the marvellous was fully equal to that of any of his calling. See his Monarch. Ind., lib. 1, cap. 14.
[25] [This supposition, neither adopted nor rejected in the text, was, as Mr. Tylor remarks, “quite tenable at the time that Prescott wrote,” being founded on the statements of early writers and partially supported by the conclusions of Mr. Stephens, who believed that the ruined cities of Oaxaca, Chiapas, Yucatan, and Guatemala dated from a comparatively recent period, and were still flourishing at the time of the Spanish Conquest; and that their inhabitants, the ancestors, as he contends, of the degenerate race that now occupies the soil, were of the same stock and spoke the same language as the Mexicans. (Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan.) But these opinions have been refuted by later investigators. Orozco y Berra, in an elaborate and satisfactory examination of the question, discusses all the evidence relating to it, compares the remains in the southern provinces with those of the Valley of Mexico, points out the essential differences in the architecture, sculpture, and inscriptions, and arrives at the conclusion that there was “no point of contact or resemblance” between the two civilizations. He considers that of the southern provinces, though of a far higher grade, as long anterior in time to the Toltec domination,—the work of a people which had passed away, under the assaults of barbarism, at a period prior to all traditions, leaving no name and no trace of their existence save those monuments which, neglected and forgotten by their successors, have become the riddle of later generations.{*} Geografía de las Lenguas de México, pp. 122-131. See also Tylor, Anahuac, p. 189, et seq.—K.
{*} [Charnay (Ancient Cities of the New World) holds that both Mitla and Palenque are of Toltec origin. He has no doubt whatsoever concerning Palenque. This he thinks was a Holy City whose inhabitants dispersed at the first alarm of the Conquest (p. 245). (See, further, p. 246.) Dr. Brinton holds that Father Duran, Historia de las Indias de Nueva España, Tezozomoc, Croníca Mexicana, and the Codex Ramirez identify the Toltecs with the Aztecs. As John Fiske puts it, “it is well to beware, however, about meddling much with these Toltecs.” Mr. Fiske urges like caution concerning the Chichimecs. Bandelier (Archæological Tour, p. 192) points out that Ixtlilxochitl, the historian of the Chichimecs, “wrote for an interested object, and with a view of sustaining tribal claims in the eyes of the Spanish government.”—M.]
[26] Tezcuco signifies “place of detention;” as several of the tribes who successively occupied Anahuac were said to have halted some time at the spot. Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 10.{*}
{*} [“Über die Etymologie lässt sich nichts sicheres sagen,” says Buschmann, “so zuversichtlich auch Prescott, wohl nach Ixtlilxochitl, den Namen durch place of detention übersetzt.” Uber die aztekischen Ortsnamen, S. 697.—K.]
[27] [It is difficult to reconcile the two statements that the Toltecs “were the true fountains of the civilization which distinguished this part of the continent in later times,” and that they “disappeared from the land as silently and mysteriously as they had entered it,” leaving an interval of more than a century before the appearance of the Aztecs and the Acolhuans. If the latter received from the former the knowledge of those arts in which they speedily rivalled them, it must have been by more direct communication and transmission than can be inferred from the mention of a small fraction of the Toltec population as remaining in the country,—a fact which has itself the appearance of having been invented to meet the difficulty. Orozco y Berra compares this transitional period with that which followed the overthrow of the Roman Empire; but if in the former case there was, in his own words, “no conquest, but only an occupation, no war because no one to contend with,” the analogy altogether fails. Brasseur de Bourbourg reduces the interval between the departure of the Toltecs and the arrival of the Chichimecs to a few years, and supposes that a considerable number of the former inhabitants remained scattered through the Valley. If, however, it be allowable to substitute probabilities for doubtful relations, it is an easier solution to believe that no interval occurred and that no emigration took place.—K.]
[28] The historian speaks, in one page, of the Chichimecs burrowing in caves, or, at best, in cabins of straw, and, in the next, talks gravely of their señoras, infantas, and caballeros!{*} Ibid., cap. 9, et seq.—Veytia, Hist. antig., lib. 2, cap. 1-10.—Camargo, Historia de Tlascala, MS.
[29] Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 9-20.—Veytia, Hist. antig., lib. 2, cap. 29-54.
[30] [Some recent writers have contended that Mexico must have been peopled originally by migrations from the South. Aztec names and communities, and traces of Toltec settlements long anterior to the occupation of Anahuac by the same people, are found in several parts of Central America. The most primitive traditions, as well as the remains of the earliest civilization, belong also to the same quarter. This latter fact, however, is considered by Orozco y Berra as itself an evidence of the migrations having been from the North, the first comers having been naturally attracted southward by a warmer climate and more fertile soil, or pushed onward in this direction by successive invasions from behind. Contradictory inferences have in like manner been drawn from the existence of Aztec remains and settlements in New Mexico and Arizona. All that can be said with confidence is that neither of the opposing theories rests on a secure and sufficient basis.—K.]
[31] These were the Colhuans, not Acolhuans, with whom Humboldt, and most writers since, have confounded them.{*} See his Essai politique, tom. i. p. 414; ii. p. 37.
{*} [Humboldt, strictly speaking, has not confounded the Colhuans with the Acolhuans, but has written, in the places cited, the latter name for the former. “Letzterer Name,” says Buschmann, “ist der erstere mit dem Zusatz von atl Wasser,—Wasser Colhuer.” (Uber die aztekischen Ortsnamen, S. 690.) Yet the two tribes, according to the same authority, were entirely distinct, one alone—though which, he is unable to determine—being of the Nahuatlac race. Orozco y Berra, however, makes them both of this stock, the Acolhuans being one of the main branches, the Colhuans merely the descendants of the Toltec remnant in Anahuac.—K.]
[32] [This is not quite correct, since the form used in the letters of Cortés and other early documents is Temixtitan, which is explained as a corruption of Tenochtitlan. The letters x and ch are convertible, and have the same sound,—that of the English sh. Mexico is Mexitl with the place-designation co, tl final being dropped before an affix.—K.]
[33] Clavigero gives good reasons for preferring the etymology of Mexico above noticed, to various others. (See his Stor. del Messico, tom. i. p. 168, nota.) The name Tenochtitlan signifies tunal (a cactus) on a stone. Esplicacion de la Col. de Mendoza, apud Antiq. of Mexico, vol. iv.
[34] “Datur hæc venia antiquitati,” says Livy, “ut, miscendo humana divinis, primordia urbium augustiora faciat.” Hist. Præf.—See, for the above paragraph, Col. de Mendoza, plate 1, apud Antiq. of Mexico, vol. i.,—Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 10,—Toribio, Historia de los Indios, MS., Parte 3, cap. 8,—Veytia, Hist. antig., lib. 2, cap. 15.—Clavigero, after a laborious examination, assigns the following dates to some of the prominent events noticed in the text. No two authorities agree on them; and this is not strange, considering that Clavigero—the most inquisitive of all—does not always agree with himself. (Compare his dates for the coming of the Acolhuans, tom. i. p. 147, and tom. iv., dissert. 2:)—
| A. D. | |
| The Toltecs arrived in Anahuac | 648 |
| They abandoned the country | 1051 |
| The Chichimecs arrived | 1170 |
| The Acolhuans arrived about | 1200 |
| The Mexicans reached Tula | 1196 |
| They founded Mexico | 1325 |
See his dissert. 2, sec. 12. In the last date, the one of most importance, he is confirmed by the learned Veytia, who differs from him in all the others. Hist. antig., lib. 2, cap. 15.
[35] [In a somewhat similar way was founded the Italian Venice. It was the fear of death at the hands of Attila and his Huns that caused the peopling of the islands among the lagoons of the Adriatic. It was the easy subsistence the lagoons afforded that caused the steady growth of the Italian village.—M.]
[36] [This confederacy occupied one of the strongest defensive positions ever held by Indians. It gradually extended its sway over a large part of the Mexican territory. This “sway,” however, as Fiske points out, was not a military occupation of the country. It was a “system of plunder enforced by terror.”—M.]
[37] The loyal Tezcucan chronicler claims the supreme dignity for his own sovereign, if not the greatest share of the spoil, by this imperial compact. (Hist. Chich., cap. 32.) Torquemada, on the other hand, claims one-half of all the conquered lands for Mexico. (Monarch. Ind., lib. 2, cap. 40.) All agree in assigning only one-fifth to Tlacopan; and Veytia (Hist. antig., lib. 3, cap. 3) and Zurita (Rapport sur les différentes Classes de Chefs de la Nouvelle-Espagne, trad. de Ternaux (Paris, 1840), p. 11), both very competent critics, acquiesce in an equal division between the two principal states in the confederacy. An ode, still extant, of Nezahualcoyotl, in its Castilian version, bears testimony to the singular union of the three powers:
“solo se acordarán en las Naciones
lo bien que gobernáron
las tres Cabezas que el Imperio honráron.” Cantares del Emperador
[38] See the plans of the ancient and modern capital, in Bullock’s “Mexico,” first edition. The original of the ancient map was obtained by that traveller from the collection of the unfortunate Boturini; if, as seems probable, it is the one indicated on page 13 of his Catalogue, I find no warrant for Mr. Bullock’s statement that it was the one prepared for Cortés by the order of Montezuma.
[39] [The first man chosen to be the chief of men (tlacatecuhtli), or superior officer of the confederacy, was Acamapichtli. His election took place in 1375, and he is sometimes called by European writers the “founder of the confederacy.” His name, translated, was “Handful of Reeds.” The succession of “chiefs of men” was as follows:
| 1. | Acamapichtli (Handful of Reeds) | 1375 |
| 2. | Huitzilihuitl (Humming Bird) | 1403 |
| 3. | Chimalpopoca (Smoking Shield) | 1414 |
| 4. | Izcoatzin (Obsidian Snake) | 1427 |
| 5. | Montezuma I (Angry Chief) | 1436 |
| 6. | Axayacatl (Face in the Water) | 1464 |
| 7. | Tizoc (Wounded Leg) | 1477 |
| 8. | Ahuitzotl (Water Rat) | 1486 |
| 9. | Montezuma II | 1502 |
| 10. | Cuitlahuatzin | 1520 |
| 11. | Guatemotzin | 1520 |
M.]
[40] Clavigero, Stor. del Messico, tom. i. lib. 2.—Torquemada, Monarch. Ind., tom. i. lib. 2.—Boturini, Idea, p. 146.—Col. of Mendoza, Part 1, and Codex Telleriano-Remensis, apud Antiq. of Mexico, vols. i., vi.—Machiavelli has noticed it as one great cause of the military successes of the Romans, “that they associated themselves, in their wars, with other states, as the principal,” and expresses his astonishment that a similar policy should not have been adopted by ambitious republics in later times. (See his Discorsi sopra T. Livio, lib. 2, cap. 4, apud Opere (Geneva, 1798).) This, as we have seen above, was the very course pursued by the Mexicans.
[41] Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 36.
[42] [Robertson, in his History of America, was the first man to question the correctness of the judgment passed by the Spanish chroniclers upon the Aztec institutions. Subsequent American writers gave louder expression to his doubts. As has been said in the notes upon the preceding chapter, Mr. Morgan proved conclusively that the so-called “empire” was no empire at all, but only a confederacy of three tribes. Mr. Morgan, however, was sometimes led into inaccuracy and extravagance of statement because of his desire to place all the American aborigines on the same institutional plane.
Adolf Bandelier, pupil and disciple of Morgan, persevering and accurate scholar, investigated the subject in an entirely unprejudiced way and with a thoroughness which forces men to place almost implicit confidence in his conclusions. It is well here to summarize those conclusions.
The Mexican confederacy was made up of three tribes, the Aztecs, the Tezcucans, and the Tlacopans, who dwelt in neighboring pueblos.
Of these tribes the Aztecs and Tezcucans were superior to the Tlacopans. Spoils of war were always divided into five portions. The Tlacopans took one, their allies shared equally the other four parts. The Indian pueblos generally were designed to withstand a protracted siege, but the Mexican pueblos were almost impregnable. It is not likely that any other Indian tribes could have captured them. Dwelling securely in these great communal houses, which were also fortresses, the Aztec confederacy held many other tribes in subjection. It was only necessary for it to send its agents to other pueblos to secure at once the specified tribute. Failure to pay this tribute brought summary punishment at the hands of the warriors of the confederacy. The “empire” was “only a partnership formed for the purpose of carrying on the business of warfare, and that intended, not for the extension of territorial ownership, but only for an increase of the means of subsistence.” The subject peoples were never incorporated into the confederacy. The tribe remained intact. The houses the tribe occupied were common property, and so was the land cultivated. Neither land nor houses could be sold, and as the tribe increased in numbers new communal houses were built to accommodate the increase. The great fortress-dwellings in a, for savages, well-cultivated land prevented the subdivision of tribes which was constantly taking place in wilder North America.
Twenty clans, organized into four phratries, made up of the Aztec tribe. The clans were called “calpullis.” They were governed by a council of chiefs, “tecuhtli,” elected by the clan. There was an official head, the “calpullac,” whose duties were mainly civil, and also a military leader, the “ohcacautin” (“elder brother”). Painful religious ordeals accompanied the initiation of these men into office. Clan officers held their places during good behavior. Medicinemen, or priests, were members of the clan council. To the four phratries into which the clan was divided four quarters of the city of Mexico, each under its own captain, were assigned. Their titles were “man of the house of darts,” “chief of the eagle and cactus,” “blood-shedder,” and “cutter of men.” Of these captains the “chief of the eagle and cactus” was chief executioner. Their principal duty was to maintain order both within and without the pueblo. In each of these four quarters was an armory (“house of darts”), in which the weapons of the phratry were kept when its warriors were not engaged in warfare. The phratry was in Mexico primarily a military organization.
Twenty members, one from each clan, made up the tribal council which exercised supreme control over the Aztec tribe. The member who was chosen to represent the clan was called “tlatoani,” the “speaker,” and the council was called “tlatocan,” the “place of speech.” Sessions of the council were regularly held every ten days, and every eighty days an extra session was convened, to which the twenty “ohcacautins,” the four captains of the phratries, the two civil executives of the tribe, and some others were summoned. Its decisions were final.
As the clan had its civil head, or calpullac, so the tribe had a corresponding officer, the cihuacoatl, or “female snake.” The “snake woman” was always a man. He was chief judge of the clan and was elected for life by the tribal council. The “snake woman” was second in command to the “chief of men,” or tlacatecuhtli, the head war chief. While at first head war chief of the Aztecs, about the year 1430 the tlacatecuhtli was made head war chief and commander of the confederacy. Montezuma was “chief of men,” and the Spaniards saw him surrounded with such state that they not unnaturally supposed him to be king of the Aztecs. Montezuma’s position, however, was not at all that of a king, and most of the royal functions fell to the lot of the “snake woman.” Bandelier thinks the “chief of men” was only the chief military officer. He was elected by the “elder brothers” (ohcacautins) of the clans, the tribal council, and the leading priests, sitting in assembly. A principle of succession seems to have confined the election to members of a special clan. Moreover, from four officers—namely, a member of the priesthood called the “man of the dark house,” and the phratry captains called respectively “man of the house of darts,” “blood-shedder,” and “cutter of men”—the “chief of men” was always chosen. He exercised certain priestly functions after his election. His first official act was to offer incense to the war god Huitzilopochtli.{*} Montezuma was “priest commander” as well as “chief of men.”
{*} [Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States, vol. ii. p. 145.]
The “chief of men” held office during good behavior. He was, ex officio, a member of the tribal council, but he had little to do within the tribe limits. His functions were exercised outside the confederacy, and his special duty was to superintend the collection of tribute. His agents, called “crop-gatherers” (calpixqui), were appointed by the tribal council. It was their duty to visit the subject pueblos and to gather the tribute—maize, weapons, pottery, feather-work, female slaves, victims for sacrifice, or anything else which suited the victor’s fancy. The prisoners were forced to carry the other tribute to the tecpan, or tribal house, and were accompanied by couriers who saw that the tribute was duly delivered according to the directions given in picture-writing by the “crop-gatherers.” The office of calpixqui was most dangerous, being practically that of spy. All these institutions the Spanish historians noted without understanding. They supposed that there was a standing army; but every male was born a warrior, and so the people were the army. There was no nobility of any kind in Mexico. Merit alone determined the appointment to office. “No office whatever, no kind of dignity, was among the Mexicans transmissible by inheritance.”
Above the common warriors of the clan were two higher classes, the “distinguished braves” and the war chiefs proper. Among the “distinguished braves” were three classes, arranged according to attainments, none of the braves being elected, but all winning their place by valor. The war chiefs were elected. The “snake woman,” or “female snake,” acted as a check upon the head war chief, or “chief of men.” The two alternately took charge of forays. The elaborate decorations which adorned the “chief of men” in his official capacity may be seen represented in the sculptures at Palenque, especially upon the “tablet of the cross.”
The Aztecs conducted no long campaigns, and were not successful in protracted sieges, while they were always able to make a successful defence against enemies of their own class. Their pyramidal temples—teocalli—were admirable fortresses. In Mexico itself the causeways were essentially military constructions, and not simply roads to connect the city with the mainland. Captives taken in forays were “collared,” that is, they were secured by wooden collars fastened upon their necks. If they were specially unruly, and were continually striving to escape, the tendons of their feet were cut.
As the tribes increased new “calpullis” were formed and new communal houses were built. The Spaniards took it for granted that the tribal government which exercised authority over tribal soil could alienate that soil, but this was not the case. It was not until communal soil was done away with that private ownership was established.
Mr. Bandelier reaches the following conclusions:
1. Abstract ownership either by the state or the individual was unknown.
2. Right of possession was vested in the kin, or clan. The idea of alienation was never entertained.
3. Individuals only held the right to use certain lots.
4. No rights of possession were attached to any office or chieftaincy.
5. For tribal business certain lands were set apart independent of persons.
6. Conquest was followed not by annexation or apportionment, but by tribute.
7. Feudalism could not prevail under these conditions.
Of the kin, or clan, it should be noted that, first, the kin claimed the right to name its members; second, it was the duty of the kin to educate its members; third, it was accustomed to regulate marriage; fourth, one attribute of the kin was the right of common burial; fifth, the kin had to protect its members; sixth, it exercised the right of electing its officers and of deposing them. (Montezuma, “chief of men,” was deposed before he died.)—M.
