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