Aztec Aesthetics?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Aesthetics
  3. » Aztec Aesthetics?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 08:21 am
I was recently reading 1491 by Charles Mann when I came across this interesting section dealing with what appears to be a developing form of philosophy in the Aztec Empire. Not only that, but it seems to be suggesting a wholly new idea in philosophy: that artistic inspiration is truth.
C. Mann, '1491,' pp. 191-3 wrote:
(?) In their penchant for ceremonial public slaughter, the Alliance and Europe were more alike than either side grasped. In both places the public death was accompanied by the reading of ritual scripts. And in both the goal was to create cathartic powers of loyalty to the government-in the Mexica case, by recalling the spiritual justification for the empire; in the European case, to reassert the sovereign's divine power after it had been injured by a criminal act. Most important, neither society should be judged-or in the event judged each other-entirely by its brutality. Who today would want to live in the Greece of Plato and Socrates, with its slavery, constant warfare, institutionalized pederasty, and relentless culling of surplus population? Yet Athens had a coruscating tradition of rhetoric, lyric drama, and philosophy. So did Tenochtitl?n and the other cities of the Triple Alliance. In fact, the corpus of writings in classical Nahuatl, the language of the Alliance, is even larger than the corpus of texts in classical Greek.


The Nahuatl word tlamatini (literally, 'he who knows things') meant something akin to 'thinker-teacher'-a philosopher, if you will. The tlamatini, who 'himself was writing and wisdom,' was expected to write and maintain the codices and live in a way that set a moral example. 'He puts a mirror before others,' the Mexica said. In what may have been the first large-scale compulsory education program in history, every male citizen of the Triple Alliance, no matter what his social class, had to attend one sort of school or another until he was sixteen. Many tlamatine (the plural form of the word) taught at elite academies [i.e., like the French 'grandes ?coles'] that trained the next generation of priests, teachers, and high administrators.


Like Greek philosophy, the teachings of the tlamatine were only tenuously connected to the official dogma of Tlaca?lel. (True, Plato does have Socrates subtly 'correct' Homer, because the gods supposedly couldn't have behaved in the immoral way described by the poet. But by and large the Greek pantheon on Mount Olympus plays no role in either Plato or Aristotle.) But the tlamatine shared the religion's sense of the evanescence of existence. 'Truly do we live on Earth?' asked a poem or song attributed to Nezahualc?yotl (1402-72), a founding figure in Mesoamerican thought and the tlatoani [one of the leaders] of Texcoco, one of the other two members of the Triple Alliance. His lyric, among the most famous in the Nahuatl canon, answers its own question:


[quote]Not forever on earth; only a little while here.
Be it jade, it shatters.
Be it gold, it breaks.
Be it a quetzal feather, it tears apart.
Not forever on earth; only a little while here.
[/I]


In another verse assigned to Nezahualc?yotl this theme emerged even more baldly:


[quote]Like a painting, we will be erased.
Like a flower, we will dry up here on earth.
Like plumed vestments of the precious bird,
That precious bird with the agile neck,
We will come to an end.[/quote]


Contemplating mortality, thinkers in many cultures have drawn solace from the prospect of life after death. This consolation was denied to the Mexica, who were agonizingly uncertain about what happened to the soul. 'Do flowers go to the region of the dead?' Nezahualc?yotl asked. 'In the Beyond, are we still dead or do we live?' Many if not most tlamatine saw existence as Nabokov feared: 'a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.'



In Nahuatl rhetoric, things were frequently represented by the unusual device of naming two of their elements-a kind of doubled Homeric epithet. Instead of referring directly to his body, a poet might refer to 'my hand, my foot' (noma nocxi), which the savvy listener would know was a synecdoche, in the same way that readers of English know that writers who mention 'the crown' are actually talking about the entire monarch, and not just the headgear. Similarly, the poet's speech would be 'his word, his breath' (itlatol ihiyo). A double-barreled term for 'truth' is neltilitztli tzintliztli, which means something like 'fundamental truth, true basic principle.' In Nahuatl, the words almost shimmer with connotation: what was true was well grounded, stable and immutable, enduring above all.

Because we human beings are transitory, our lives as ephemeral as dreams, the tlamatine suggested that immutable truth is by its nature beyond human experience. On the ever-changing earth, wrote Le?n-Portilla, the Mexican anthropologist, 'nothing is "true" in the Nahuatl sense of the word.' Time and again, the tlamatine wrestled with this dilemma. How can beings of the moment grasp the perduring? It would be like asking a stone to understand mortality.


According to Le?n-Patilla, one exit from this philosophical blind alley was seen by the poet Ayocuan Cuetzpaltzin, who described it metaphorically, as poets will, by invoking the coyolli bird, known for its bell-like song:


[quote]He goes his way singing, offering flowers.
And his words rain down
Like jade and quetzal plumes.
Is this what pleases the Giver of Life?
Is that the only truth on earth?[/quote]


Ayocuan's remarks cannot be fully understood out of the Nahuatl context, Le?n-Portilla argued. 'Flowers and song' was a standard double epithet for poetry, the highest art; 'jade and quetzal feathers' was a synecdoche for great value, in the way that Europeans might refer to 'gold and silver.' The song of the bird, spontaneously produced, stands for aesthetic inspiration. Ayocuan was suggesting, Le?n-Portilla said, that there is a time when humankind can touch the enduring truths that underlie our fleeting lives. That time is at the moment of artistic inspiration. 'From whence come the flowers [the artistic creations] that enrapture man?' asks the poet. 'The songs that intoxicate, the lovely songs?' And he answers, 'Only from His [that is, Om?teotl's] home do they come, from the innermost part of heaven.' Through art alone, the Mexica said, can human beings approach the real.


Cut short by Cort?s, Mexica philosophy did not have the chance to reach as far as Greek or Chinese philosophy. But surviving testimony intimates that it was well on its way. The stacks of Nahuatl manuscripts in Mexican archives depict the tlamatine meeting to exchange ideas and gossip, as did the Vienna Circle and the French philosophers and the Taisho-period Kyoto school. Their [sic] musings of the tlamatine occurred in the intellectual neighborhoods frequented by philosophers from Brussels to Beijing, but the mix was entirely Mexica's own. Voltaire, Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes never had a chance to speak with these men or even know of their existence-and here, at last, we begin to appreciate the enormity of the calamity, for the disintegration of native America was a loss not just to those societies but to the human enterprise as a whole. (?)[/quote]
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 10:41 am
@hammersklavier,
Hi,

It is an interesting viewpoint. I never much studies Aztec society but then again I haven't touched the Egyptian much either.

But the nice thing is that old ideas tend to be re-discovered, since they are all based upon observation of life and the universe - which changes but still seems to manifest from the same source.

Jung would use the Mandela as a source for inspiration in the discovery of Self.

d'Espagnat remarked that some part of the Veiled Reality can be seen by artists.

As for me, I take a much more egalitarian view of life. I think that it is all there to see, but it takes time to become aware of it. It reminds me of the old game show Camouflage, where a contestant had to find the tracing of a figure that is buried within a camouflage of random lines that were hiding it. It's like Where's Waldo? He is there, but it takes a while to see it.

Maybe artists are simply more evolved and more sensitive to the outlines of the puzzle. I am open to the possibility.

Rich
 
Sorryel
 
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 07:41 am
@hammersklavier,
A few quick notes: the Aztecs/Mexica definitely had some kind of complex set of ways to evaluate things "aesthetically"...what exactly it might have been is hard to figure out since everybody tends to focus on that Philosopher King of Texcoco (Nezahualcoyotl) and the thrust of his work might have been more a matter of revising things after the conquest to make the descendents of the ruling house of Texcoco look better or at least proto-Christian. As far as I know, all the post-conquest semi-official Nahuatl histories and texts stem from the relatively peripheral Kingdom of Texcoco and not from whoever was running things at the Imperial center of Tenochitlan.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Aesthetics
  3. » Aztec Aesthetics?
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/10/2026 at 07:37:26