of self-defence, or of necessity of any kind, and which must for ever leave a dark spot on the annals of the Conquest. And yet, taken as a whole, the invasion, up to the capture of the capital, was conducted on principles less revolting to humanity than most, perhaps than any, of the other conquests of the Castilian crown in the New World. "Whatever may be thought of the Conquest in a moral view, regarded as a military achievement it must fill us with astonishment. That a handful of adventurers, indifferently armed and equipped, should have landed on the shores of a powerful empire, inhabited by a fierce and warlike race, and, in defiance of the reiterated prohibitions of its sovereign, have forced their way into the interior;-that they should have done this, without knowledge of the language or of the land, without chart or compass to guide them, without any idea of the difficulties they were to encounter, totally uncertain whether the next step might bring them on a hostile nation, or on a desert, feeling their way along in the dark as it were ;-that, though nearly overwhelmed by their first encounter with the inhabitants, they should have still pressed on to the capital of the empire, and, having reached it, thrown themselves unhesitatingly into the midst of their enemies; -that, so far from being daunted by the extraordinary spectacle there exhibited of power and civilization, they should have been but the more confirmed in their original design;-that they should have seized the monarch, have executed his ministers before the eyes of his subjects, and, when driven forth with ruin from the gates, have gathered their scattered wreck together, and, after a system of operations pursued with consummate policy and daring, have succeeded in overturning the capital, and establishing their sway over the country;-that all this should have been so effected by a mere handful of indigent adventurers, is a fact little short of the miraculous,-too startling for the probabilities demanded by fiction, and without a parallel in the pages of history. "Yet this must not be understood too literally; for it would be unjust to the Aztecs themselves, at least to their military prowess, to regard the Conquest as directly achieved by the Spaniards alone. This would indeed be to arm the latter with the charmed shield of Ruggiero and the magic lance of Astolfo, overturning its hundreds at a touch. The Indian empire was in a manner conquered by Indians. The first terrible encounter of the Spaniards with the Tlascalans, which had nearly proved their ruin, did in fact insure their success. It secured to them a strong native support, on which to retreat in the hour of trouble, and around which they could rally the kindred races of the land for one great and overwhelming assault. The Aztec monarchy fell by the hands of its own subjects, under the direction of European sagacity and science. Had it been united, it might have bidden defiance to the invaders. As it was, the capital was dissevered from the rest of the country, and the bolt, which might have passed off comparatively harmless had the empire been cemented by a common principle of loyalty and patriotism, now found its way into every crack and crevice of the ill-compacted fabric, and buried it in its own ruins.-Its fate may serve as a striking proof, that a government which does not rest on the sympathies of its subjects cannot long abide; that human institutions, when not connected with human prosperity and progress, must fall, if not before the increasing light of civilization, by the hand of violence; by violence from within, if not from without. And who shall lament their fall?" It appears to us that no nation has ever been discovered in the same singular stage of society in which the Mexicans were at the time of the Conquest, appearing either barbarous or refined, according to the aspect in which they are viewed. They are described as most ferocious in warfare, yet they never scalped their enemies, as was the custom of the northern tribes. They felt all the intense hatred to their enemies which with every cruel passion belongs to man in his brutal and benighted state, and they united not the delicate and chivalrous feelings of polished and refined nations. While closely besieging a neighbouring city, the Aztec nobles sent presents of fruits and provisions to the chiefs of the forces opposed to them, a species of military gallantry and generosity that we read of in the wars of Louis XIV. but which we should not expect to find among the savage tribes of Anahuac. They were advanced in mathematical science and mechanical arts, and they were also the slaves of a blind, ignorant, fanaticism, and of a loathsome and bloody mythology. With such an enlightened and liberal policy as is not often found in European countries, they allowed success in trade to lead to eminent political power and preferment, while at the same time the taxation of the country was enormous, tyrannical, and unequal. Such are the incongruities to be observed, that, while the general character of the nation is described as one of unmitigated ferocity, yet in domestic or social life the intercourse was regulated with all the ceremonial forms of civilised communities, and accompanied with expressions of polite attention or affectionate regard. The obligation of the marriage vow was sanctified by religion, and fully recognised, and the women partook equally with the men in the festivities and refinements of social intercourse. The discipline of children when under tutelage was severe, but the greatest care of morals and the most blameless deportment were maintained; and the modest Aztec maiden, when grown up, was treated with unreserved tenderness, and all the fulness of a parent's love. There was the same contrast and opposition, it has been observed, in the character of the people as there was in the natural features of the country they possessed; where tracts of hopeless sterility-the bristling peaks of the wild sierra, the burning volcano, the dark range of porphyritic rocks, or mountains clothed with perpetual snow, looked down where, in a soft and genial climate, lay the most lovely valleys at their feet, each a paradise upon earth; where the palm and the banana waved their graceful foliage and spread their cooling shade; where, knitting branch to branch, flowers of surpassing beauty waved in bright festoons and garlands, filling the air with fragrance; where, partially seen through the openings of the forests, extended the blue lake, whose waters, like a polished mirror, seemed to tremble in the light; where birds and insects of the richest plumage and most dazzling colours glittered in the sun; and where a carpet of perpetual verdure was spread, enamelled with the brightest hues of spring, and glowing with all the splendour of tropical vegetation. To reconcile such striking opposition of character and habits, we must fix an attentive look on history, where she tells us that the Aztec nation, as seen by the Spaniards, was formed from the conjunction of two; that on the mild and civilised character of their predecessors, the polished Toltecs, they had grafted their own fiercer and more warlike virtues, even as, in their religious ceremonies, they mixed beautiful flowers with their bloody rites. From long familiarity with a licentious and predatory warfare, they had become a cruel people in their nature, and cruelty is ever allied to superstition. Upon this was founded the supreme power, the uncontrolled authority, of the priesthood, who nurtured it by a rigid system of superstitious terror, by human sacrifices, and butchery of the most brutal kind : add to this, that the throne of Mexico at the time of the invasion of the Spaniards was filled by a monarch who, though of a brave and warlike character in youth, had become effeminate and luxurious in his habits, and tyrannical in his rule,-had oppressed his subjects and offended his nobles, * See a very interesting document, "Advice of an Aztec mother to her daughter," translated in the Appendix to Mr. Prescott's history, vol. iii. p. 373–376. The translator mentions the moral sublimity of it, and that it is the product of the true light of civilization. We can see very little childishness in it. Modest reserve in behaviour and chastity are the two virtues it chiefly inculcates. It ends with these remarkable words," May God prosper you, my first-born, and may you come to God, who is in every place." but was still regarded, like the Eastern despots, with feelings of awe and admiration by the people. Such was the state of things at that time; and the existence of much discontent and disaffection throughout the empire, and among the higher ranks, showed that it was not a state likely to be permanent-that internal divisions and troubles would probably have taken place, and that in some revolution or change an injured and indignant people might have thrown off at once the yoke of a bloody superstition and a tyrannic despotism, and, under some fortunate and favourite chieftain, have gone out again to conquer, and founded an empire which might have spread over remote countries to the Atlantic shore, and have rivalled in extent and in opulence the glory of the ancient dynasties of the Eastern World. It pleased Providence to order things otherwise. The right of conquest over the infidel and heathen was a thing acknowledged and assumed; a holy duty not to be disclaimed or even avoided; a mission to an inferior race ignorant of God, neither worthy of the name nor entitled to the rights of men.* The cross of Christ was planted in the battle field. The champion of Christ was he in whose dark and frowning lineaments the destined destroyer might he imagined; the book of God lay beside the battered cuirass and the bruised and blood-stained sword; the religion of Christ came into the land accompanied with carnage, and famine, and desolation; the consuming fire of the conqueror's breath alone could cleanse the pollution of the land;† and the idolatrous nation was baptized, not in the waters of their own rivers, but in the blood of themselves and of their children. Thus terminated the history of a people who seemed to bear in the pensive and melancholy expression of their features too sure a prognostic of the darkness of their coming destiny, and who all perished, after a vain and fruitless resistance, beneath a power mysterious, irresistible, and unknown. Yet the historian, who surveyed with the clear and comprehensive glance of a philosopher the institutions and influencing principles of the people, and fixed his attention on the great results to be drawn from the discoveries, has pronounced his important judgment, not criticising the means, but looking to the end, "That the empire of the Aztecs did not fall before its time." * Bernal Diaz's language, on being seized by the Indians, is one that would apply to beasts as much as to men,- "When this mob had their claws on me." Vide Hist. p. 291. The Pope Paul III. in his bull, 1537, declared them to be rational creatures, but not to be admitted to the communion. In the city of Cholula alone it is computed that above 6000 victims were annually offered up at the sanguinary shrines. vol. ii. p. 8. When Cortés was there, a great sacrifice of children was offered up. p. 14. The Spaniards, when they entered the great temple, saw three human hearts smoking and almost palpitating, as if recently torn from the victims and lying on the altar. The stench, says Bernal Diaz, was more intolerable than all the slaughter-houses of Castile, and the frantic forms of the priests, with their dark robes clotted with blood as they flitted to and fro, seemed to the Spaniards to be those of the very ministers of Satan. ii. p. 138. Thousands and thousands of miserable victims were yearly fattened in cages, sacrificed on the altars, and served at the banquets. The whole land was converted into vast human shambles! iii. p. 192. MR. URBAN, Birmingham, Aug. 15. WILL you allow me to make known to your readers an instance of the utter neglect with which our ecclesiastical edifices are treated, even within these few last years, and by the sanction of those whose duty and pleasure it should be to preserve and beautify them. The publication of such facts will, I trust, tend to render persons more alive to the value of the smallest relic of antiquity, and haply be the means of preserving some time-hallowed monument of our fathers from suffering from the rude hand of innovation, an object which has ever been forwarded by your earnest zeal and influence, The church of Leominster, co. Hereford, is well known to lovers of architecture by the striking peculiarities of its Norman and Decorated work; the former still remains entire, being confined to the lower stage of the tower and the north aisle, if I may apply that term to a portion which seems to have been the nave of the original church, (built probably by Henry I. A.D. 1125,)* which is separated from the later additions. The Decorated parts, which are as highly ornamented as the style will allow, have experienced a far different fortune. Several windows which were once filled with elegant tracery, as profusely studded with the ballflower as those in the nave of Gloucester cathedral, have been "beautified" by the insertions of new mullions, which are perfectly plain, and evince nocare to attain to elegance even by graceful proportions. In this possibly the crippled funds of our modern restorer may have prevented him from rivalling the magnificence of olden days. But the chief instance of destruction, and that, too, perfectly wanton, to which I wish to call your attention, is the mutilation of the sedilia, by a wall built so as to form a portion of the south aisle into a vestry; two, together with the piscina, are tolerably perfect, though degraded to unworthy uses, as you will see by the accompanying sketch; the third is destroyed, and this was done in 1840. I have seen instances of similar mutilation at Dursley, (Gloucestershire,) where some fine Decorated sedilia were nearly destroyed to give room for a family pew; and at Ludlow (Salop), where a hideous monument has filled the place of one; but this was done long before the time of our architectural societies-when the revival of Gothic architecture was not even thought of. The latter church would well repay a most careful examination, and, if it would not be trespassing on your space, I should be pleased to bring some of its features under the notice of your readers at a future time. Can you give me any account of the arches which are found frequently in the exterior of the south aisle of churches in the Decorated style? I am not aware that their character has been clearly ascertained. Yours, &c. B. F. W. * Cf. Dugdale's Monasticon, iv. 51. ON THE FEODALITY OF THE ANGLO-SAXONS. THE existence of feodality in this country before the Norman Conquest has been denied by most of our historians, but they have in no instance entered into the real merits of the question, by an investigation of its details or an appeal to the Anglo-Saxon remains, which, it is obvious, can supply the only evidence on the subject.* Under these circumstances, the following observations, though meagre and incomplete, have been hazarded by the writer under the impression that they may in some degree assist to clear up in the mind of the general reader a point of indisputable interest, not only to English but to European antitiquities in general. I wish it however to be clearly understood that by feodality I do not mean to assert that, at any period before the epoch I have mentioned, exactly the same regular machinery in this respect (so far as mere details or minor incidents are concerned,) was found in England as in France or in Lombardy; but only that, from a similar application to the fiscal land of this country of a principle common to all the Germanic nations, there was deve loped a corresponding system, which in its generic and essential characteristics agreed with that which flou rished in the before-mentioned coun.. tries, the alleged incunabula of feuds. It will be proper in the first place to explain what that original principle * The denial of Mr. Hallam is qualified and guarded. He says, (History of the Middle Ages, Vol. I. c. 2,) "The regular machinery and systematic establishment of feuds, in fact, may be considered as almost confined to the dominions of Charlemagne, and to those countries which afterwards derived it from thence. In England it can hardly be thought to have existed in a complete state before the conquest." M. Thierry (Recits Merovingiens, vol. I. ch. 5) says, "Le berceau de la feodalité Européenne fut la France, et la Lombardie. Bienqu'il n'y eut dans le système feodale autre chose que le pur developement d'une certaine fase des moeurs Germaniques, ce système ne s'y implanta dans la Germanie que par l'imitation d'une maniere tardive et incom. plete." GENT. MAG. VOL. XXII. was, and then to proceed to the consideration of the land in which it was eventually comprised. The principle alluded to was vassalage, or simple homage,t the origin and primitive existence of which amongst the ancient Germans it was reserved for the acumen of Montesquieu to discover, and in his hands it furnished a complete clue to the otherwise inexplicable mazes of feodality. The words of Tacitus, which supplied the authority for this fact, are so familiar that quotation is unnecessary. They express, under the names of princeps and comes the relative and mutual dependence for service and protection of a superior and inferior, i. e. in the language of the feudalists, of a lord and his vassal.§ This relation was transplanted into Britain by the Jutes, the Saxons, and the Angles. Along with it they also imported the system which had regulated the occupation of lands in their native soil. This system of primitive law recognised the collective nation as the proprietor of the territory which it occupied, and the whole of the corn-lands were public. From this rule were excepted only the cabin and surrounding plot of ground of each freeman.¶ The occupation of Britain in the fifth century presents in a general view many points of intimate resemblance to that of Gaul by the Franks.** Unlike Burgundy, there was no compact or convention, which should to some extent respect the rights of the old inhabitants; but both the before-men ti. e. Homage, unconnected with a tenement of land. Montesq. L'Esprit des Lois, liv. 30, ch. 3. § Tacit. de M. G. c. 13. Cæs. de B. G. l. 16, c. 22. Tacit. de M. G. c. 16. The latter says (ibid.) " Suam quisque domum spatio circumdat." This land when appropriated could never have been recalled by the state. It was the asylum of the family when the father was absent on the wars of the nation. **Montesq. liv. 30, ch. 7 and 8. 3 A |