William Hickling Prescott - History of the Conquest of Mexico (Vol. 1-4)

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.

[43]This was an exception.—In Egypt, also, the king was frequently taken from the warrior caste, though obliged afterwards to be instructed in the mysteries of the priesthood: ὁ δὲ ἐκ μαχίμων ἀποδεδειγένος εὐθὺς ἐγίνετο τῶν ίέρων. Plutarch, de Isid. et Osir., sec. 9.

[44]Torquemada, Monarch. Ind., lib. 2, cap. 18; lib. 11, cap. 27.—Clavigero, Stor. del Messico, tom. ii. p. 112.—Acosta, Naturall and Morall Historie of the East and West Indies, Eng. trans. (London, 1604).—According to Zurita, an election by the nobles took place only in default of heirs of the deceased monarch. (Rapport, p. 15.) The minute historical investigation of Clavigero may be permitted to outweigh this general assertion.

[45][“Chief of men.”—M.]

[46]Sahagun, Hist. de Nueva-España, lib. 6, cap. 9, 10, 14; lib. 8, cap. 31, 34.—See, also, Zurita, Rapport, pp. 20-23.—Ixtlilxochitl stoutly claims this supremacy for his own nation. (Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 34.) His assertions are at variance with facts stated by himself elsewhere, and are not countenanced by any other writer whom I have consulted.

[47][The spacious palace in which the “chief of men” lived was the chief communal house of the clan. The “privy council” was made up of the clan officers specified on page 33.—M.]

[48]Sahagun, who places the elective power in a much larger body, speaks of four senators, who formed a state council. (Hist. de Nueva-España, lib. 8, cap. 30.) Acosta enlarges the council beyond the number of the electors. (Lib. 6, ch. 26.) No two writers agree.

[49][There was, according to Bandelier, no such thing as a “body-guard.” Guards were unknown. This was evidenced when Montezuma was captured. No “body-guard” attempted his rescue. Bandelier’s conclusions should be kept steadily in mind in reading this chapter. The “distinct class of nobles, with large landed possessions,” were only the principal officers of the tribe, who were of course of the same “kin” as the so-called Aztec monarch. The great caciques, with thousands of vassals, were tribal officers leading tribal warriors. The “estates” were all held by the tribe, and were all subject to tribute.—M.]

[50]Zurita enumerates four orders of chiefs, all of whom were exempted from imposts and enjoyed very considerable privileges. He does not discriminate the several ranks with much precision. Rapport, p. 47, et seq.

[51]See, in particular, Herrera, Historia general de los Hechos de los Castellanos en las Islas y Tierra firme del Mar Océano (Madrid, 1730), dec. 2, lib. 8, cap. 12.

[52]Carta de Cortés, ap. Lorenzana, Hist. de Nueva-España, p. 110.—Torquemada, Monarch. Ind., lib. 2, cap. 89; lib. 14, cap. 6.—Clavigero, Stor. del Messico, tom. ii. p. 121.—Zurita, Rapport, pp. 48, 65.—Ixtlilxochitl (Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 34) speaks of thirty great feudal chiefs, some of them Tezcucan and Tlacopan, whom he styles “grandees of the empire”! He says nothing of the great tail of 100,000 vassals to each, mentioned by Torquemada and Herrera.

[53] Macehual ,—a word equivalent to the French word roturier . Nor could fiefs originally be held by plebeians in France. See Hallam’s Middle Ages (London, 1819), vol. ii. p. 207.

[54]Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., MS., ubi supra.—Zurita, Rapport, ubi supra.—Clavigero, Stor. del Messico, tom. ii. pp. 122-124.—Torquemada, Monarch. Ind., lib. 14, cap. 7.—Gomara, Crónica de Nueva-España, cap. 199, ap. Barcia, tom. ii.—Boturini (Idea, p. 165) carries back the origin of fiefs in Anahuac to the twelfth century. Carli says, “Le système politique y étoit féodal.” In the next page he tells us, “Personal merit alone made the distinction of the nobility”! (Lettres Américaines, trad. Fr. (Paris, 1788), tom. i. let. 11.) Carli was a writer of a lively imagination.

[55][There was no such thing as feudalism among the Aztecs. There could not be where the communism which the clan system implies prevailed. Feudalism was a social-political system based upon land. Under it there was a well-defined gradation of ranks, and each lower was bound to the next higher order by protection given in return for service rendered. Moreover, where feudalism prevailed the ownership of the land was vested in one person while the occupancy belonged to another. Feudalism exalted the individual and assured to each man his rights . The clan knew nothing whatever of individual rights. When the conception of personal ownership was developed, and kinship ceased to be the bond which held men together, the clan system of communal living of necessity passed away. But among the Aztecs the feudal conception of personal property never was developed. The Spaniards, knowing no civilization but their own, naturally supposed that the Aztec institutions were similar to the Spanish, and historians generally accepted that view.—M.]

[56][See summary of Bandelier’s studies, p. 36.—M.]

[57]This magistrate, who was called cihuacoatl ,{*} was also to audit the accounts of the collectors of the taxes in his district. (Clavigero, Stor. del Messico, tom. ii. p. 127.—Torquemada, Monarch. Ind., lib. 11, cap. 25.) The Mendoza Collection contains a painting of the courts of justice under Montezuma, who introduced great changes in them. (Antiq. of Mexico, vol. i., Plate 70.) According to the interpreter, an appeal lay from them, in certain cases, to the king’s council. Ibid., vol. vi. p. 79.

{*} [This word, a compound of cihuatl , woman, and coatl , serpent, was the name of a divinity, the mythical mother of the human species. Its typical application may have had reference to justice, or law, as the source of social order.—K.]

[58]Clavigero, Stor. del Messico, tom. ii. pp. 127, 128.—Torquemada, Monarch. Ind., ubi supra.—In this arrangement of the more humble magistrates we are reminded of the Anglo-Saxon hundreds and tithings, especially the latter, the members of which were to watch over the conduct of the families in their districts and bring the offenders to justice. The hard penalty of mutual responsibility was not known to the Mexicans.

[59]Zurita, so temperate, usually, in his language, remarks that, in the capital, “Tribunals were instituted which might compare in their organization with the royal audiences of Castile.” (Rapport, p. 93.) His observations are chiefly drawn from the Tezcucan courts, which in their forms of procedure, he says, were like the Aztec. (Loc. cit.)