When a renowned captain or noble was made prisoner, the right of fighting for his liberty was granted him—an honor not permitted to warriors of an inferior rank. Near the temple was an open space capable of containing a large multitude; in the middle was a circular mound built of stone and mortar, about eight feet high, with steps leading to the top, where was fixed a large round stone, three feet high, smooth, and adorned with figures. This stone was called the temalacatl; upon it the prisoner was placed, tied at the ankle with a cord, which passed through a hole in the centre of the stone. His weapons consisted of a shield and macana.[469] He who had taken him prisoner then mounted the stone, better armed, to combat with him. Both the combatants were animated with the strongest motives to fight desperately. The prisoner fought for his life and liberty, and his adversary to sustain his reputation. If the former was conquered, a priest, called chalchiuhtepehua, immediately seized him, hurried him dead or alive to the sacrificial stone and tore out his heart. The victor was then publicly congratulated and rewarded with military honors. If, however, the prisoner vanquished his first opponent and six others, by whom, in succession, he was attacked, he was granted his freedom, all spoil taken from him in battle was restored to him, and he returned to his country covered with glory. A notable violation of this law is recorded of the Huexotzincas. In a battle between them and the Cholultecs, the leader of the latter nation became separated from his own people during the heat of battle, and was, after a gallant resistance, made prisoner and conducted to the capital. Being placed on the gladiatorial stone he conquered the seven adversaries that were brought against him, but the Huexotzincas, dreading to liberate so famous a warrior, contrary to their universal law, put him to death, and thereby covered themselves with ignominy.[470]
PRISONERS OF WAR.
If the prisoner was a person of very high rank, he was taken before the king, who ordered that he should be sumptuously fed and lodged for forty days. At the end of that time he was accorded the right of combat, and if conquered, after the usual sacrificial ceremonies the body was cut into small pieces; these were sent to the relations and friends of the deceased, who received them as relics of great value and acknowledged the favor by returning gold, jewels, and rich plumes.[471] If we are to believe Gomara and others, the number of victims, chiefly prisoners of war, sacrificed at some of the festivals, was enormous. The historians relate that in front of the principal gate of the temple there was a mound built of stone and lime with innumerable skulls of prisoners inserted between the stones. At the head and foot of the mound were two towers built entirely of skulls and lime; on the top of the mound were seventy or more upright poles, each with many other sticks fastened crossways to it, at intervals, from top to bottom; on the points of each cross stick were five skulls. They go on to say that two soldiers of Cortés counted these skulls and found them to amount to one hundred and thirty-six thousand. Those that composed the towers they could not count.[472]
The nations contiguous to the Mexicans imitated to a great extent their manner of disposing of prisoners of war, and kept them to be sacrificed at their festivals. The first prisoner taken in battle by the Tlascaltecs was flayed alive and he who captured him dressed himself in the horrid trophy, and so covered served the god of battles during a certain number of days. He paraded from one temple to another followed by a crowd that shrieked for joy; but had, however, to run from his pursuers, for if they caught him they beat him till he was nearly dead. This ceremony was called exquinan, and was sometimes observed by two or three at the same time.[473] At one of their festivals they bound their prisoners to high crosses and shot them to death with arrows; at other times they killed them with the bastinado. They had also solemn banquets, at which they ate the flesh of their prisoners. At the taking of Mexico, the Tlascaltec soldiery feasted upon the bodies of the slain Mexicans, and Cortés, although shocked at the revolting practice, was unable to prevent it.[474]
The Mexicans, Tlascaltecs, and neighboring nations always made the return of a successful army the occasion of great festivity and rejoicing; the loud sound of drums and musical instruments greeted the entry of the victorious troops into the capital; triumphal arches were erected in the streets and the houses decorated with flowers; an abundance of copal was burned and sumptuous banquets were prepared; all were dressed in their gayest attire, and the warriors put on all the insignia of their rank; gifts were distributed to those who had performed any deed of gallantry, and minstrels sung or recited poems in their praise. Many went to the temples to observe especial acts of devotion to the gods, and numbers of the prisoners were then sacrificed. All these ceremonies tended to inspire the youths with courage and make them ambitious to gain distinction in war.[475]
CHAPTER XIV.
NAHUA LAWS AND LAW COURTS.
General Remarks—the Cihuacoatl, or Supreme Judge—the Court of the Tlacatecatl—Jurisdiction of the Tecuhtlis—the Centectlapixques and Topillis—Law Courts and Judges of Tezcuco—Eighty-Day Council—Tribunal of the King—Court Proceedings—Lawyers—Witnesses—Remuneration of Judges—Justice of King Nezahualpilli—He orders his Son's Execution—Montezuma and the Farmer—Jails—Laws against Theft, Murder, Treason, Kidnapping, Drunkenness, Witchcraft, Adultery, Incest, Sodomy, Fornication, and other Crimes—Story of Nezahualcoyotl and the Boy.
It has already been stated that among the Nahuas the supreme legislative power belonged to the king; the lawful share that he took in the administration of justice we shall see as we examine the system of jurisprudence adopted by them.
When treating of the Nahua judiciary the majority of historians have preferred to discuss almost exclusively the system in vogue at Tezcuco, partly, perhaps, because it presents a nicer gradation of legal tribunals, and consequently a closer resemblance to European institutions than did the more simple routine of the Mexicans, but mainly because the materials of information were more accessible and abundant. Many writers, however, have not followed this rule, but throwing all the information they could obtain into a general fund, they have applied the whole indiscriminately to the 'Mexicans,' by which term they mean all the inhabitants of the regions conquered by Cortés. Las Casas, speaking of the allied kingdoms of Mexico, Tezcuco, and Tlacopan, says that "their government and laws scarcely differed, so that whatever may be said of those parts concerning which the most information can be obtained, may be understood, and perhaps it is best to say it, as applying to all."[476] Although the number and jurisdiction of the law-courts of Mexico and Tezcuco differed, there is reason to believe that the laws themselves and the penalties inflicted were the same, or nearly so.