The Origins and Dynamics of

Inequality: Sex, Politics, and Ideology

Jon D. Wisman
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-origins-and-dynamics-of-inequality-sex-politics-an
d-ideology-jon-d-wisman/
The Origins and Dynamics of Inequality
 The Origins and
Dynamics of Inequality
Sex, Politics, and Ideology

J O N D. W I SM A N

1
 3
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2022

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Wisman, Jon D., 1943–​author.
Title: The origins and dynamics of inequality : sex, politics,
and ideology / Jon D. Wisman.
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2022] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021031351 (print) | LCCN 2021031352 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780197575949 (hardback) | ISBN 9780197575963 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Equality—History. | Ideology. | Secularism. | Power
(Social sciences) | Evolutionary psychology. | Sexual selection.
Classification: LCC HM821 .W57 2022 (print) | LCC HM821 (ebook) |
DDC 305. 09—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021031351
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021031352

DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197575949.001.0001

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America
 Contents

Preface  vii

1. Introduction: Inequality, Sex, Politics, and Ideology  1

2. Blame It on Sex  33
3. From Aboriginal Equality to Limited and Unstable Inequality  73
4. The Dynamics of Religious Legitimation  111
5. The State, Civilization, and Extreme Inequality  133
6. The Critical Break: The Bourgeoisie Unchained  187
7. Theological Revolution and the Idea of Equality  237
8. The Shift toward Secular Ideology  273
9. Workers Gain Formal Political Power  299
10. From American Exceptionalism to the Great Compression  323
11. Simon Kuznets’s Happy Prognosis Crushed in an Ideological
Coup  351
12. Inequality, Conspicuous Consumption, and the Growth Trap  389
13. The Problem Is Inequality, Not Private Property and Markets  419
14. What Future for Inequality?  449

References  463
Index  497
 Preface

I came of age in a period of declining inequality and rising optimism that

social and economic justice would continue to expand. It was also an age in
which the extent, pervasiveness, and meanness of inequality was becoming
ever more conspicuous. Television brought poverty, and the civil rights and
women’s movements, into American living rooms, revealing the shocking
unfairness and cruelty of economic, racial, and gender inequality. Why does
it exist? Why, in a democracy, has it been tolerated?
The first of these questions was magnified for me by witnessing extreme
inequality and harsh poverty during youthful visits to Haiti, Mexico, and
closer to home, in remote Appalachian communities. At the same time,
nightly television broadcasts revealed the horrific and murderous war that
the wealthy United States was waging against the relatively impoverished
people of Vietnam, who were seeking their freedom from foreign domina-
tion. Although it would be decades before inequality became a principal
focus of my research, it lingered in my mind as a disquieting reality to which
my thoughts often returned.
The fact that I spent my first 10 years in a happy, loving family in a house
without running water on a farmlet in the Shenandoah Valley undoubtedly
influenced my later thinking on inequality. We were poor, but not “living in
poverty,” in the sense that we were proud and locally esteemed. Moreover,
there were no extreme differences in material well-​being in the broader com-
munity. My boyhood recollections are of people interacting respectfully as
social equals. Much later, reflections on these early childhood experiences
stimulated my thoughts concerning inequality, relative social standing, and
the material and social requisites for happiness.
While still a doctoral student in economics, I testified before Congress and
coauthored an article on wealth taxation. Over the years, I researched and
wrote on several issues related to inequality, but it did not become a prin-
cipal research area until about 15 years ago, as I became increasingly dis-
turbed by its uninterrupted progression since the 1970s. My research became
more focused on inequality when my studies revealed its role in setting the
conditions for the global financial crises of 2008 in real time as well as 1929
viii Preface

in economic history. So too did the difficulties it posed for dealing with the
formidable threat of environmental devastation. As my research progressed,
I also turned my attention to the differing institutional forms that inequality
has taken over the course of time. I started to see an answer to the larger ques-
tion of why inequality exists. It slowly became clear to me that the struggle
over inequality has been the driving force of human history.
It also became increasingly clear that an adequate account of the origins
and dynamics of inequality had yet to be written. But to expound a compre-
hensive explanation would require casting the net far wider than my home
discipline of economics. It has, in fact, entailed drawing upon research not
only in other social sciences and history, but also upon biology and, espe-
cially, evolutionary psychology.
That is a rough sketch of part of the genealogy of this book. The other
part is my indebtedness to so many who have deeply influenced my under-
standing of the world.
It is, of course, impossible to trace the unfolding of one’s ideas and modes
of thinking. Too many influences fuse in mysterious ways. Nevertheless,
Thelma Z. Levine, the professor who mentored me as an undergraduate phi-
losophy major, stands out as a model of the life of the mind. My decades of
friendship and prolonged discussions in a small reading group with philos-
ophy professors Charley Hardwick, Jeffrey Reiman, and Philip Scribner con-
tributed immeasurably to my intellectual development. In social economy,
Professor Charles K. Wilber left an indelible imprint. And then there is my
wife, Josette Andrée Denise Borgniet Wisman, a scholar in medieval French
literature, from whom I have learned so much about scholarly domains well
beyond those of my own research.
More concretely, in terms of the writing of this book, I am especially in-
debted to Charley Hardwick, Philip Lawton, Ugo Pagano, Jeffrey Reiman,
and Josette A. Wisman for reading in full an earlier draft of the manuscript.
They not only challenged interpretations and suggested improvements on
many topics, but also offered detailed suggestions for improving syntax
and style generally. Michael Cauvel, Eric Cheyfitz, Matthew Davis, Dennis
Gilbert, Charles Larson, Jonathan Loesberg, Gabriel Mathy, Marie McGraw,
Sikander Rahim, Nicholas Reksten, Stephanie Seguino, Howard Wachtel,
and John Willoughby generously provided helpful comments on Chapter 1
and various other parts of the early manuscript.
I am also in debt to decades of bright and serious-​minded undergrad-
uate and graduate students at American University. Striving to assist them
 Preface ix

in developing their own understanding of our wonderful, exciting world has

been a deeply rewarding adventure.
I celebrate James Cook, my editor at Oxford University Press, for seeing
promise in this book and shepherding it through the review and acceptance
process. Finally, I am deeply grateful to my dear friend, polymath Philip
Lawton, who took on the editing for OUP as well as creating the index and
assisting me with proofing, while offering incisive comments on the final
version.
The publishers of the journals identified in the following have generously
provided permission to draw upon limited portions of a few of my articles
that reappear in several chapters of this book.

1) Chapters 4, 7, and 8: “Legitimating Inequality: Fooling Most of the

People All of the Time,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology
70(4), October 2011: 974–​1013 (with James F. Smith).
2) Chapter 11: “Government Is Whose Problem?” Journal of Economic
Issues 47(4), 2013: 911–​38.
3) Chapter 12: “Inequality, Social Respectability, Political Power, and
Environmental Devastation,” Journal of Economic Issues 45(4),
December 2011: 877–​900.
4) Chapter 13: “Marx, the Predisposition to Reject Markets and Private
Property, and Attractive Alternatives to Capitalism,” Forum for Social
Economics 48(3), 2019: 281–​98. Published online May 2018.

Jon D. Wisman
Washington, DC
March 2021
 1
Introduction
Inequality, Sex, Politics, and Ideology

Few who consider dispassionately the facts of social history will be dis-
posed to deny that the exploitation of the weak by the powerful, organ-
ized for the purposes of economic gain, buttressed by imposing systems
of law, and screened by decorous draperies of virtuous sentiment and
resounding rhetoric, has been a permanent feature in the life of most
communities that the world has yet seen.
—​R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of
Capitalism (1926, 234)

In all known societies, at all times, the least wealthy half of total pop-
ulation own virtually nothing (generally little more than 5 percent of
total wealth); the top decile of the wealth hierarchy own a clear ma-
jority of what there is to own (generally more than 60 percent of total
wealth and sometimes as much as 90 percent).
—​Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-​First
Century (2014, 336)

The form of law which I propose would be as follows: In a state which

is desirous of being saved from the greatest of all plagues—​not faction,
but rather distraction—​there should exist among the citizens neither
extreme poverty nor, again, excessive wealth, for both are productive
of great evil . . . .
—​Plato, Laws (1988, Book 5)

Many observers of current world problems agree with President Barack

Obama’s statement that inequality is “the defining challenge of our time”
(2013). This book claims more—​that it has been the defining issue of all
2 The Origins and Dynamics of Inequality

human history. The struggle over inequality has always been the underlying
force that drives the history of humanity. Thus, the explosion in inequality in
the United States and Great Britain over the past 45 years, and its less rapid
growth in all other rich countries, has not been an anomaly. It is a return to
the political dynamics by which elites have, since the dawn of civilization,
taken practically everything for themselves and left all others with little more
than the means with which to survive. Even after male workers in advanced
capitalist countries in the nineteenth century gained the franchise and be-
came the overwhelming majority of voters, inequality continued to increase.
The only politically driven decline in inequality occurred over the 40 years
between the 1930s and the 1970s. It is this that has been a historical anomaly.
Why has inequality characterized human societies since the rise of civi-
lization? It is the project of this book to provide a comprehensive answer to
this question. Before examining the explanatory framework of this answer,
however, it is instructive to glance briefly at the history of inequality.
Inequality—​most often, extreme economic and political inequality—​has
characterized human history since the rise of the state and the birth of civ-
ilization about 5,500 years ago, when superior military technology, military
organization, and ideology enabled a few to subjugate all others. Premodern
state societies became about as unequal as they could possibly be, near or
on their “inequality possibility frontier,” a concept developed by economist
Branko Milanovic (2016) to designate an extreme at which elites take abso-
lutely all output except subsistence—​what producers need to barely survive
and reproduce. To take more would be to kill the geese that lay the golden
eggs.1 Political scientist Carles Boix concurs: “By all measures an over-
whelming majority of mankind lived at the margin of subsistence up until
mid-​nineteenth century. . . . Mean life expectancy [even as late as 1820] was
slightly above twenty-​six years. . . .” (2015, 202). A wealthy one percent and
a few percent more of soldiers, administrators, and priests, along with some
merchants, extracted virtually all surplus from an impoverished agrarian
population (Scheidel 2017, 448).
This extreme inequality meant that a very small elite lived in relative
luxury while all others lived at the edge of extreme material privation, often

1 It should be noted that workers can be left with the wherewithal to survive and reproduce without

being able to do so robustly or in good health. Economist and Nobel Laureate Angus Deaton reports
that even with the enormous wealth being produced by the rise of industrialization in the eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries, in England working-​class families had inadequate calories available
for adults to maintain healthy bodily functioning and for their children to grow to their full potential
(2013, 91).
 Introduction 3

falling from that precarious ledge into starvation when afflicted by poor
harvests, natural catastrophes, social dysfunction, or war. At times producers
lived above mere survival and reproduction, due to demographic collapses
or increases in the demand for labor. Over the long haul, however, popula-
tion growth and elites’ political power pushed them inexorably back toward
subsistence.
To understand this extreme economic and political inequality, it must
first be recognized that it came quite late, only 5,500 years ago, and thus has
existed for but a very short span, only the last 2 to 3 percent of the human
story. Thus, contrary to widely held opinion, extreme material inequality
cannot be claimed to be a naturally necessary part of the human condition.
Our species—​ Homo sapiens—​ has been in existence for about
200,000 years, and until the rise of the state and civilization, humans lived
in relative political and economic equality. Before the adoption of agricul-
ture about 10,000 years ago, practically all humans lived in nomadic forager
societies,2 finding food by hunting and gathering, as did other animal spe-
cies, and living with high levels of economic and political equality. This was
enforced by stone weapons technology that was relatively inexpensive and
available to all, and to their ability to socially coordinate in coalitions against
bullies. Leaders only existed during crises such as war, folding back among
equals when calm returned.
Only with agriculture and eventually denser population concentrations
did the need arise for more formal modes of social coordination, creating
the social conditions in which chiefs could come forth. Chiefs bid for excep-
tional privileges by claiming special access and favor with spiritual or celes-
tial forces. This ideological ruse provided them with certain privileges, most
notably greater access to mates. However, it did not permit them to acquire
significant wealth or even substantial political power. Indeed, their special
status was fragile. A disastrous harvest could reveal the fraudulence of their
claim of favor with divine powers, leading their societies to revert to a high
degree of equality (Flannery and Marcus 2012).
Inequality gained permanence and completeness—​on or approaching its
inequality possibility frontier—​with the rise of states and civilization. This
occurred when elites could benefit from most, if not all, of three conditions.
First, new, scarce, and expensive metal-​based weapons and modes of martial
organization and strategy provided them with sufficient military advantage

2 The exceptions, as will be seen in Chapter 3, were a few sedentary fishing communities.
4 The Origins and Dynamics of Inequality

to demand tribute from producers and quell any resistance, even in the wake
of failed harvests. Second, a sufficiently powerful ideology could convince
most if not all members of society that inequality was the will of the gods, as
it must be, and thus fair. Third, producers faced geographic or sociopolitical
barriers that impeded escape, giving them little choice but to submit to their
subservience. They essentially had nowhere to flee, all options being less at-
tractive than that of their subservience. They were “caged.”
Of these three conditions, ideology has received the least attention from
historians and social scientists, even though it has been ever present and
generally the most continuously commanding force maintaining social or-
ders of inequality. What typically makes ideology sufficiently powerful for
maintaining inequality is a deference to the views held by elites and fear that
any substantial change would be for the worse. A powerful modern example
makes this clear. Once the franchise became democratized and each adult
member of society gained an equal voice, the ballot box could have been used
to implement policies that would reduce or even eliminate inequality. That
voters did not substantially do so is traceable to the superior power of the
elite’s ideology that unequivocally portrayed egalitarian measures as destruc-
tive of economic growth, social order, and freedom, and therefore in no one’s
interest.
However, it is possible that an elite’s ideology can be delegitimated or seri-
ously weakened. This occurred when chiefs, claiming special privileges due
to a pretense of special favor with the gods, lost legitimacy in the wake of
famines or other catastrophes. A more modern example is the heavy hit the
ideology of elites took as a result of widespread suffering during the Great
Depression of the 1930s. In this unique instance, in the United States and
Europe, 40 subsequent years of democratically enacted policies substantially
decreased inequality in income, wealth, and privilege. The uniqueness of this
period is highlighted by the fact that the ideology underlying the policies
that led to the financial crash of 2008 and the resulting “Great Recession”
has not been seriously challenged. As this book goes to press, the explosion
in inequality that dates to the late 1970s continues unabated. Whether it will
be halted or reversed by the severe coronavirus pandemic that is currently
ravaging economies and dramatically increasing the suffering and socioeco-
nomic dysfunction caused by inequality remains to be seen.
 Introduction 5

Explaining the Origins and Dynamics of Inequality

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems in every age of the
world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
—​Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776, 388–​89)

The contemporary explosion in inequality has not gone unnoticed. It

has drawn the attention of a growing number of citizens, politicians, and
scholars. Students of inequality are creating a sort of inequality-​research in-
dustry, generating a swelling number of books and articles providing better
statistical data, historical analyses, causal explanations, and studies of its
consequences for human welfare. Because noting all would almost be itself a
book, mention here will be restricted to a few select works.
Notable books offering statistical studies of inequality include Thomas
Piketty’s two recent tomes, Capital in the Twentieth Century (2014a) and
Capital and Ideology (2020), and Branko Milanovic’s Global Inequality: A
New Approach for the Age of Globalization (2016). Rich historical studies have
appeared in Bos van Bavel’s The Invisible Hand (2016), Carles Boix’s Political
Order and Inequality (2015), Kent Flannery and Joyce Marcus’s The Creation
of Inequality (2012), James C. Scott’s Against the Grain (2017), and Walter
Scheidel’s The Great Leveler (2017). Among books that address inequality’s
consequences for human welfare are Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s
The Spirit Level (2009) and The Inner Level (2019), and Andrew Sayer’s Why
We Can’t Afford the Rich (2015).
Although these works and very many others have greatly enriched our un-
derstanding of inequality, they have not provided an adequate theoretical ac-
count of its origins and dynamics. What they have most pointedly lacked is:

1) An understanding that the struggle over inequality has been the

driving force of human history, even prior to the rise of substantial po-
litical and material inequality;
2) A grounding of the ultimate force generating inequality in human
biology;
3) Recognition that politics, not economics, determines the degree of
inequality;
4) An adequately detailed analysis of how elites’ ideology legitimates
inequality.
6 The Origins and Dynamics of Inequality

In contrast, the present book constructs a more complete explanatory

framework for understanding why extreme economic and political ine-
quality did not exist for the first 97 to 98 percent of human history but has
characterized the human condition since the rise of states and civilization.
Its central thesis is that the struggle over inequality has been the underlying
force driving human history. This may partially appear obvious. People
compete to be better and have more than others. Yet historians and social
scientists have generally identified other forces as primary in driving history,
such as technological advances, demographics, class conflict, war, religion, or
the pivotal effects of great men. Whatever their validity, these other forces are
proximate causes. As will be demonstrated as this book unfolds, the struggle
over inequality is the ultimate causal force behind them.
This book’s argument that the struggle over inequality has been the under-
lying force driving human history is built upon three key supporting claims.
First, the ultimate driving force for inequality is found in our biology: the
decisive competition that counts for sexually reproducing animal species is
success in mating and thereby sending one’s unique set of genes into future
generations. This dynamic of sexual selection was extensively developed by
Charles Darwin in his second major book, The Descent of Man and Selection
in Respect to Sex (1871), and subsequently elaborated by evolutionary
biologists. Regrettably, it has been largely ignored by historians and social
scientists (excepting evolutionary psychologists). Yet this dynamic is critical
for understanding social dynamics and history.
Among humans, coevolving with this dynamic of sexual selection has
been resistance to inequality, expressing itself in an insistence on fairness.
Until the rise of the state, this sense of fairness served as a constraint on
sexual competition, preventing alpha males from monopolizing reproduc-
tive rights, as is the case with other primates. However, although humans ap-
pear to be hardwired with a sense of fairness, what is specifically understood
as fair is culturally malleable. For instance, if a dominant ideology claims that
another race or gender is innately inferior, and people embrace this ideology,
then inequality between races and genders might be perceived as fair.
Biologically-​driven to reproduce, humans compete for status that will
make them attractive to potential mates. If properly channeled socially, this
competition is positive. For instance, it can stimulate invention and innova-
tion, generating technological change. But it might be channeled negatively
such that some go to war to capture women or fame, or accumulate wealth
and political power with which to exploit the weaker. Competition also
 Introduction 7

occurs for excellence in knowledge, arts, sports, and even generosity. Those
who excel in any of these domains are typically more attractive as mates.
With appropriate social institutions, competition fuels human progress.
The second supporting claim for the thesis that the struggle over inequality
has been the underlying force driving human history is that, because ine-
quality is ultimately driven by the dynamics of sexual selection, and because
humans are social and therefore political beings, inequality underlies all pol-
itics. Politics refers to how humans organize their relationships within and
among groups. Politics always involves power, even when power is merely
exercised through persuasiveness. The tension between sexual competition,
on the one hand, and a sense of fairness, on the other, expresses itself through
politics.
Although generally camouflaged by ideology, the struggle over shares
of income, wealth, and privilege has, since the rise of states, been the prin-
cipal defining issue of politics. Politics produces laws and social institutions
to resolve tensions between competition and fairness. Although economists
and other social thinkers typically locate the source of inequality in eco-
nomic forces, ultimately the expression of these forces takes place in political
contexts where the rules of the game are established. Politics can neutralize
the distributional consequences of economic forces.
The third supporting claim is that, although physical violence remains the
trump card in creating, maintaining, or increasing inequality, ideology has
consistently been the most important inequality-​sustaining political weapon
on a day-​to-​day basis. Ideology almost makes it true that the pen (or the
word) is mightier than the sword. The weaker must be led to believe that in-
equality is in their interest, and thus fair. Manipulating the strong sense of
fairness is the essence of ideology. Ideology hoodwinks the losers into seeing
fairness in conditions that in fact are contrary to their best interests. Like
sexual selection, the concept of ideology has received inadequate attention
from social scientists studying inequality.
Ideology justifies the gains of the stronger at the expense of the weaker.
It is possible because humans, as reflective beings, must give meaning to
their existence. This meaning is socially generated, and the component
that legitimates inequality is ideology. The camouflage that masks the cen-
trality of the struggle over inequality has been provided by dominant
ideologies. Until modern times, they depicted inequality as some combina-
tion of the will of the gods, a celestial mandate, or in accordance with nat-
ural law. In modern times, inequality is principally legitimated as necessary
8 The Origins and Dynamics of Inequality

for economic dynamism and therefore in everyone’s interest, or attention

has been deflected to other concerns such as foreign threats or cultural
issues. Where substantial inequality exists, those with the most control
over material and social assets possess determining advantages in gen-
erating and maintaining meaning systems or ideologies that justify their
privileges.
These three claims in support of the thesis that the struggle over ine-
quality is the driving force of history are set forth at greater length in the
following sections. Then, Chapter 2 develops the theory of sexual selection
and its importance for understanding the biological grounding of inequality.
Chapters 4, 7, and 8 explore the dynamics of legitimation and especially
its subcategory of ideology. Chapter 4 addresses legitimation theory, and
Chapters 7 and 8 explore how it evolved, first at the end of the Middle Ages,
and then with the maturation of economic science in the modern era. The
claim that inequality is always political is demonstrated throughout the en-
tire book.

The Dynamics of Sexual Selection

I don’t know a single head of state who hasn’t yielded to some kind of
carnal temptation, small or large. That in itself is reason to govern.
—​François Mitterand, quoted in Bobbi S. Low, Why Sex Matters
(2001, 57)

This book begins its exploration of the origins and dynamics of inequality by
drawing upon the dynamics of sexual selection first noted in 1859 by Darwin
in The Origin of Species, greatly elaborated in 1871 in his The Descent of Man
and Selection in Relation to Sex, and further developed since that time within
the disciplines of evolutionary biology and psychology. Thus “sex” is in the
title of this book not explicitly to draw readers’ attention, although all authors
keenly hope their titles will do just that. Rather, it is to punctuate the central
role of sex in the human story. At some level, everyone instinctively knows
this. Sexuality saturates culture, although this same culture trains us to turn
our attention most frequently in other directions. The critical importance
of sex for understanding human history is the fact that sexual competition
resides deep beneath politics. It propels competitive human action, and poli-
tics influences how this rivalry, countered by a sense of fairness, is expressed.
 Introduction 9

Understanding sexual selection and a sense of fairness in the human species

is key for understanding our species’ history.
Natural selection, through the competitive struggle for survival in the
face of limited resources, is ultimately in service of reproductive success.
Individual humans, like all sexually reproducing animals, must successfully
compete for mates if their unique set of genes is to survive into the future.
This competition for sexual selection is the ultimate driver of all expressions
of competition. Saint Augustine characterized the three principal sins of
fallen man to be lust for money, lust for power, and sexual lust. It took Darwin
to make clear that the first two are driven by the third.
Humans strive to stand out, to be better than others, if not the best
among them, so as to be attractive to the opposite sex. But, until recently
in the human story, this competition was not expressed in the accumula-
tion of wealth and political power. Instead, humans competed by being good
hunters and gatherers, by being good warriors, or by being cooperative, gen-
erous, smart, artistic, humorous, and fun. However, following the rise of
the state and civilization a mere 5,500 years ago, wealth, and especially po-
litical power, came to serve as the most potent magnets for sexual success.
Their possession promised greater potential for mating and greater chances
that resulting offspring would survive. Humans have, of course, continued
to compete sexually through means that predated civilization. However,
significant wealth and political power became capable of outplaying these
earlier modes of competition. The reason, to repeat, is clear: choosing a
mate possessing wealth or political power improves the likelihood that
children will survive. Political power became a powerful aphrodisiac. As
anthropologists Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox remark, “The political system is
a breeding system. When we apply the word ‘lust’ to both power and sex, we
are nearer the truth than we imagine” (1997, 182).
Humans evolved as a social species with a keen sense of fairness, and this
provided them with a strong tendency to prefer equality.3 Throughout most
of human history—​the period prior to civilization—​the stone-​age weapons
technology for inflicting physical harm on others was equally available to
all. Consequently, combined with the ability to form coalitions against po-
tential alpha males, members of these societies could block anyone from

3 Behavioral economists Ernst Fehr, Helen Bernhard, and Bettina Rockenback have found that

aversion to inequality develops strongly between the ages of three and eight. Whereas between ages
three and four, most children still behave selfishly, by the age of seven or eight, most prefer resource
allocations that are more egalitarian (2008).
10 The Origins and Dynamics of Inequality

overzealously competing for sexual advantage through socially censured

modes of behavior such as accumulating material wealth or seeking polit-
ical power. They punished, even murdered, those who were boastful or who
too blatantly asserted their own importance. Political power and the accu-
mulation of material wealth were proscribed by their sense of fairness from
the playing field for sexual competition. An imperative for food sharing also
served as a powerful leveling mechanism. Sexual competition would have to
be channeled through other forms of socially approved behavior that were
generally in the best interest of the group. The behavior that provided status,
making individuals attractive as mates and boosting the probability that
their genes would make it into posterity, was that behavior which benefited
the community and was therefore socially approved. In this manner, the
genes that favored these modes of status-​enhancing behavior were selected
in human evolution.
Although competition is driven by the dynamics of sexual selection, po-
litical institutions channel this competition into specific expressions. It is in
this sense that social inequality is political. How sexual competition unfolds
and the character it takes are significantly determined politically.
All living things evolve within given environments to become equipped
with the specific guidance mechanisms that are critical to their survival and
reproduction. But even humans are not generally aware that their behavior
is being steered toward these specific ends. For instance, humans intention-
ally eat to satisfy hunger and know that they must eat to survive. But they are
not so keenly aware that their specific taste preferences evolved as guidance
mechanisms to promote their good health for survival and reproduction.
When people suffer the pain of loneliness, they are unlikely to realize that
the reason they evolved to do so was to motivate them to seek the company
of other members of their group, among whom they would be safer and thus
better able to survive and reproduce. Likewise, although humans are aware
that they compete for the attention and favors of mates and that they seek to
satisfy their sexual urges, they are less aware, if aware at all, that the reason
they possess these urges and compete with others to satisfy them is to enable
their genes to survive into the future. As neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp notes,
“It is a remarkable feat of nature to weave powerful sexual feelings and desire
in the fabric of the brain without revealing the reproductive purpose of these
feelings to the eager participant” (2004, Ch. 12).
Although physical characteristics substantially determine sexual attrac-
tiveness, culturally produced behavioral traits do so as well, the more so as
 Introduction 11

humans mature into adults. These traits are especially valued to the extent
that they provide status or certification of value. And because excellence in
many socially approved arenas can provide this status, competition occurs in
all of them. But participants are generally unaware that the dynamic of sexual
selection lies behind this competition.
Although sexual competition ultimately drives inequality, the cultural dy-
namics generated by this competition established the conditions that even-
tually made humanity increasingly wealthy and free. In this, humans differed
from all other animals. Sexual competition among male peacocks resulted
in huge and elaborate tail feathers that increased the mating success of the
most ostentatious but decreased their gender’s actual physical fitness. Sexual
competition among humans, by contrast, increasingly took cultural turns,
manifesting itself in domains that increased humanity’s success as a species.
This competition generated knowledge, invention, innovation, cooperation,
and generosity, which created the conditions for improving human welfare.
Evidence of this progress is strikingly apparent practically everywhere in
modern life. For instance, violence of humans against humans has declined
throughout the human story; and in very recent times, extreme material pri-
vation has declined, average life expectancy has dramatically expanded, and
more and more people are living in material affluence and political freedom.
Until recent centuries, the rise of states and the extreme inequality that
accompanied them dramatically debased the lives of the overwhelming
majority of humans. Due principally to poorer diets and social crowding,
humans became shorter, more disease ridden, and shorter-​lived than their
pre-​civilized predecessors. Most also became far less socially free. From a re-
productive point of view, this situation was especially severe for low-​status
males. Elites acquired disproportionate sexual access to females, often in
harems. This deprived the least privileged males of access to females and thus
the possibility of sending their genes into the future.
Philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett claims that Darwin’s
breakthrough in evolutionary biology has been the greatest scientific ad-
vance in history, surpassing in importance even Isaac Newton’s much ear-
lier breakthrough in physics (1995). Yet, as anthropologist John Tooby and
psychologist Leda Cosmides lament, “nearly a century and a half after The
Origin of Species was published, the psychological, social, and behavioral sci-
ences remain largely untouched by these implications” (2005, 5). Instead,
they have been captured by the Standard Social Science Model whereby “the
mind is blank-​slate like, and lacks specialized circuits that were designed by
12 The Origins and Dynamics of Inequality

natural selection to respond differentially to inputs by virtue of their evolved

significance” (2005, 6). The blank slate metaphor presumes that experience
writes the full script for human behavior. Fortunately, in recent decades, psy-
chology has substantially moved beyond behavioralism, whereby behavior
was viewed exclusively as socially determined, to recognize what Darwin
had made so clear: behavior is substantially guided by inherited traits that
were selected in the course of evolution. Unfortunately, most other social sci-
ences have been slow to follow.
Social sciences and human history necessarily concern human beha-
vior, and it is imperative that scholars in these domains explicitly artic-
ulate what they take to be human nature. Yet rarely is this understanding
made explicit. Presumably, these remiss scholars either see no need to do
so, or they lack clear understanding of the deep forces steering the beha-
vior of the actors they describe. Either is a mistake. It is imperative that
works in social science and history come clean on what is understood as
human nature. Further, only if human behavior were fully plastic, capable
of being entirely directed by culture, might it be appropriate to ignore
human biology. But, as cognitive scientist Steven Pinker (2002) and many
others have made clear, this is not a tenable position. As biological beings,
at the most fundamental level, how humans behave is a product of gene-​
culture coevolution, whereby changes in genes can lead to changes in cul-
ture and vice versa.4
For a work in social science or history to have adequate explanatory
coherence, ultimately the biological character of humans must be rec-
ognized and made explicit. To be scientific, the social sciences should
conform with the findings of the biological sciences that seek an under-
standing of what humans are first and foremost as living beings. It is for
this reason that this study of inequality begins with the biological fact
that humans are competitive because, as a sexually reproducing species,
they must be. Biologically, sexual competition is the competition that ul-
timately counts. To ignore this is to condemn social and historical under-
standing to inadequacy.

4 Biologist E. O. Wilson describes gene-​culture coevolution more fully as follows: “Genetic evolu-

tion . . . affects cultural evolution. Conversely, cultural evolution affects biological evolution, by cre-
ating the environment in which the genes (the ones prescribing epigenetic rules) are tested through
natural selection. Genes and culture are in fact inseparably linked. Changes in one inevitably force
changes in the other, resulting in what has come to be called gene-​culture coevolution” (1989, 37).
 Introduction 13

Pace Economists, Inequality Is

Always Political

There’s class warfare all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making
war, and we’re winning.
—​Warren Buffett (quoted in Stein 2006)

This book, in its exploration of the origins and dynamics of inequality, reveals
the political maneuvers that have, since the rise of civilization, permitted elites
to command most, if not all, of society’s surplus by extracting virtually all
output beyond that required for the producers’ subsistence. This extraction of
surplus was made possible by the fact that elites controlled political power that
enabled them to hold the producers in various forms of bondage such as slavery,
serfdom, and indebtedness. Although workers were no longer held in bondage
by overt force under capitalism, until quite recently in rich countries, because
they generally lacked ownership, control, or ready access to tools and resources,
they had to pay most, if not all, of their surplus output to the capitalist owners
for the right to work, and so survive. Thus, since the rise of the state and civi-
lization, the basic dynamic of inequality has always been the same. Elites have
held ownership or control over productive wealth such that workers were caged.
They had no option short of starvation but to work for and render their surplus
to elites.
Against this historical backdrop, as noted earlier, something unique occurred
in the mid-​twentieth century. Between the 1930s and the 1970s inequality sig-
nificantly declined in today’s rich countries, leading many to believe that the
historical legacy of extreme inequality had come to an end and that the future
promised ever-​greater equality in wealth, income, and privilege. But then the
trend unexpectedly reversed. Over the past 45 years inequality has exploded,
especially in the United States and Great Britain, but significantly in virtually all
countries around the world, including even the more socialized Scandinavian
countries (Piketty 2020, 420–​23).
This reversal crushes the optimistic expectations of those who believe that
more equal societies are superior in virtually all respects. What has driven
it? The current discourse typically identifies the causes as economic, due to
some combination of technological change, globalization, inadequate ed-
ucation, and demographics. But these are proximate causes. They all take
place within political frameworks that enable them to increase inequality.
14 The Origins and Dynamics of Inequality

Thus, these proximate causes could in principle be politically altered, or their

effects could be politically neutralized.5
This mistake of focusing on proximate causes while ignoring under-
lying political forces is itself political. It masks the true cause of inequality
and presents it as if it is natural, due to the forces of progress, just as in pre-​
modern times it was the will of gods. The science of economics has played
a principal role in generating and disseminating this view that the ultimate
causes of inequality are economic. This book is in agreement with economists
Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson’s observation that “while economic
institutions are critical for determining whether a country is poor or pros-
perous, it is politics and political institutions that determine what economic
institutions a country has.” They rightly state, “Traditional economics has
ignored politics, but understanding politics is crucial for explaining world
inequality” (2006, 43, 68.)
Understanding the ultimate causes and dynamics of inequality requires
moving beyond the narrow focus on economic forces that dominates con-
temporary mainstream economics. It requires the broader focus implicit
in Marx’s work whereby the development of an adequate understanding of
social phenomena needs to search for the manner in which the scarcity-​
compelled struggle with nature for scarce resources influences and is in turn
influenced by social relations, and the manner in which both are related to
social consciousness (Wisman 2013c).6

Mainstream Economics Overlooks the Political

Economics has gained the title of Queen of the Social Sciences by

choosing solved political problems as its domain.
—​Abba Lerner, “The Economics and Politics of
Consumer Sovereignty” (1972, 259)

In his 1955 presidential address to the American Economic Association,

economist Simon Kuznets offered support for the hope that the historical

5 Continental European workers have also faced the challenges of technological change and glob-

alization. Thanks to compensatory government actions, however, they have suffered considerably
less increased inequality than their American and British counterparts.
6 Non-​mainstream or heterodox economists have given due attention to the central importance of

politics in accounting for inequality. However, their minority voices have been drowned out by main-
stream economics’ hegemonic dominance of the discipline.
 Introduction 15

pattern of extreme inequality had been broken and that growing equality
would characterize humanity’s future. In a conjecture he characterized as
“perhaps 5% empirical information and 95% speculation, some of it pos-
sibly tainted by wishful thinking” (1955, 26), he surmised that, although
inequality increases in the early stages of economic development,7 at some
more advanced level, inequality begins decreasing—​an inverted U curve.
Kuznets’s reflections went public at about the midpoint of that unique period
between the 1930s and the 1970s when inequality was declining. The science
of economics thereby appeared to validate the hope and expectation that, in
the end, economic growth would deliver lessened inequality. His conjecture
came to be seen as “conventional wisdom” (Lantican, Gladwin, and Seale
1996, 243), “some sort of ‘iron law’ of development” (Srinivasan 1977, 15),
“one of the most enduring and remarkable arguments in the history of the
social sciences . . . [such that] by the end of the 1970s, the inverted U-​curve
process was universally considered a general statement of the historical and
universal relationship between income inequality and economic growth”
(Moran 2005, 209, 218).
Kuznets, however, did not believe that the shift toward greater equality
would be driven by purely economic forces. He held that political and social
forces are important, that political pressure for greater equality comes forth
as the lower classes achieve greater social and political organization such that
redistributive government intervention plays a role. However, he limited his
analysis to mostly economic variables because “space does not permit the
discussion of demographic, political, and social consideration that could be
brought to bear . . .” (1955, 17–​18). In closing his address, Kuznets noted that
“it is inevitable that we venture into fields beyond those recognized in re-
cent decades as the province of economics proper. . . . Effective work in this
field necessarily calls for a shift from market economics to political and social
economy” (1955, 28). Generally, political and social economists recognize
that the economic is embedded in the political.
Apparently, few practitioners or anyone else paid much attention to
Kuznets’s concluding reflection.8 As a consequence, the hypothesis that

7 If worker wages are held at subsistence, or if workers do not share proportionately in the fruits of

economic growth, then greater inequality necessarily accompanies economic growth.

8 The misreading of Kuznets is widespread. Even economist Thomas Piketty, who has done so

much to draw attention to inequality and who generally recognizes the importance of politics, mis-
takenly wrote in Capital in the Twenty-​First Century, “According to Kuznets’s theory, income ine-
quality would automatically decrease in advanced phases of capitalist development, regardless of
economic policy choices . . .” (2014b, 11).
16 The Origins and Dynamics of Inequality

rising inequality is a temporary side effect of economic growth came to serve

as an ideology, justifying the conclusion that nothing really need be done
to limit or reverse inequality. Morphed into “iron law,” Kuznets’s conjecture
suggested that rising inequality in developing countries need not be of much
concern since it is merely part of the story of successful economic develop-
ment. This conveniently fit with the views of those who claim that inequality
is positive for growth prospects: “Since only capitalists save and invest (at
least to a significant degree), economic growth requires a change in the class
distribution of control over these resources; hence, the wealth-​generating
advantages of inequality are not only to be expected, but inequality is actually
seen as a necessary precondition to growth” (Moran 2005, 217). Notably, as if
anticipating such arguments, Kuznets wrote of the need to “avoid the fatally
simple remedy of [using] the population as cannon-​fodder in the fight for ec-
onomic achievement” (1995, 25).
Despite Kuznets’s entreaty, cannon-​fodder they were to be. It is ironic that
a conjecture that Kuznets viewed as felicitous would support a passive atti-
tude toward inequality. But that was clearly a consequence. As for the rich
countries, because economic forces were presumably at work that will lead
inequality continually to decline, vigorous redistribution measures can be
viewed as less urgent or even unnecessary. Due to economic dynamics, in-
equality would “naturally” decline in due course with continued economic
growth. Indeed, insofar as greater equality was viewed as a byproduct of ec-
onomic forces in rich countries, then it might be concluded that there was in
fact no redistributive role for public policy. The general view of economists
has been that distribution, whether of income, wealth, or privilege, is a con-
sequence of economic forces, not political policy. Kuznets’s felicitous hy-
pothesis wound up justifying leaving inequality off the economics research
agenda as a problem that would solve itself.
Even in those rare instances when economists recognize a political di-
mension to inequality, they do so in a manner that continues to view eco-
nomic forces as somehow or somewhat independent of the political world.
Economist Joseph Stiglitz has written, “Markets, by themselves, even when
they are stable, often lead to high levels of inequality” (2012, xiii). But
markets are never to any substantial extent “by themselves.” Substantial
markets cannot exist and function without government provision of public
goods such as law and order, security of private property, and legal sanctity of
contract. Note, for example, that during the so-​called Dark Ages in Europe,
 Introduction 17

markets virtually disappeared because no states were powerful enough to de-

fine and enforce property rights.
An especially curious example is economist Thomas Piketty’s thinking.
Piketty peppers his influential book, Capital in the Twenty-​First Century,
with statements that distribution is ultimately an issue of politics. For in-
stance, early in the book, he writes, “The history of the distribution of wealth
has always been deeply political, and it cannot be reduced to purely economic
mechanism. . . .” Later in the same book, he states, “In every country the his-
tory of inequality is political—​and chaotic” (2014a, 20, 286). Yet he bases
most of his theoretical analysis and much of his historical analysis, as well
as his prediction of greater future inequality, on the rate of return on capital
exceeding the rate of economic growth (r > g). He announces that this “fun-
damental inequality . . . sums up the overall logic of my conclusions” (2014a,
25). And this “fundamental inequality” appears to be what most reviewers
and commentators have taken from his work, leaving them with the impres-
sion that, for this foremost authority on inequality, distribution is the conse-
quence not of politics, but of pure economic dynamics.9
Likewise, taking their cue from mainstream economists, many other social
thinkers give little or no role to politics in determining inequality. Political
historian Jerry Muller, for instance, claims that the most recent surge in ine-
quality “is not the result of politics, nor is politics likely to reverse it, for the
problem is more deeply rooted and intractable than generally recognized.
Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity . . .” (2013). Muller
appears not to recognize that “capitalist activity” takes place within political
states that determine the rules of the game. Similarly, sociologist Peter Berger
claims that “income distribution is a function of modern economic growth
and is affected to only a limited degree by the institutional arrangements and
policies of a society” (1986, 219).
The views of most contemporary economists have a parallel in the
nineteenth-​century belief in natural laws. It was common, as will be explored
more fully in Chapter 8, for many earlier economists to view the distribu-
tion of income as a result of a natural law. Notable among them is John Bates

9 In his more recent book, Capital and Ideology, Piketty makes his position clear: “Inequality is

above all ideological.” In another passage, he writes: “Inequality is neither economic nor techno-
logical; it is ideological and political.” However, he continues by asserting: “I insist that the realm
of ideas, the political-​ideological sphere, is truly autonomous” (2020, 711, 7). This assertion cannot
be correct. The spheres of material production, social relations, and social consciousness are always
intertwined. To survive, ideas must be nested in nourishing social environments. This issue will be
explored further in Chapters 4 and 7.
18 The Origins and Dynamics of Inequality

Clark, who wrote: “. . . the distribution of the income of society is controlled

by a natural law, and that this law, if it worked without friction, would give
to every agent of production the amount of wealth which that agent creates”
(1908, v).
Curiously, when economists and historians examine pre-​capitalist soci-
eties, the fact that those who labor are forced to give up their surplus to a
ruling elite is generally understood in political terms. Thus, they take ex-
treme inequality to be politically based. Slavery is due to the political power
of slave-​owners, and feudalism to the political power of landlords. However,
when these scholars examine the same phenomenon within capitalism, they
most frequently ignore political forces and ground inequality in economic
dynamics. This tendency flows from a proclivity to see capitalism as a self-​
directing economic system wherein the political domain principally serves
the function of the constable maintaining security and enforcing the laws.
It ignores the distributional impact of the legal structure. Consequently, as
economists Sam Bowles and Herbert Gintis put it, “. . . with some notable
exceptions . . . economists have treated power as the concern of other discip-
lines and extraneous to economic explanation” (2007, 2).10
In a parallel manner, Karl Marx criticized classical economists for viewing
all pre-​capitalist societies as artificial, as human constructs, but capitalism
as natural.11 Yet, ironically, whereas Marx clearly understood the extent to
which elites write the script within all societies, he frequently depicted them
within capitalism as subject to its inherent laws of economic development.
This suggests that even unconventional economists, like their mainstream
counterparts, are so driven by the search for “universal laws” of economics

10 Some social thinkers lodge the cause of inequality in neither the economic nor the political, but

instead in the virtues of the rich and the personal failings of the less well-​off. For instance, political
scientist Ron Haskins claims that “. . . opportunity in America depends largely on decisions made by
people who are free actors. . . . Unless young Americans begin making better decisions, the nation’s
problems with poverty and inequality will continue to grow. . . .Yes, the nation needs its safety net, but
improvements in personal responsibility would have a greater and more lasting impact on poverty
and opportunity” (2012, A15).
Chapter 3 will explore in detail how the tendency to fault individuals rather than social
institutions evolved within our species.
11 Marx wrote of the “singular manner” in which, for classical economists, there were “only two

kinds of institutions, those of art and those of nature. Feudal institutions are artificial institutions,
those of the bourgeoisie are natural institutions. In this they resemble the theologians, who also es-
tablish two kinds of religion. Every religion but their own is an invention of men, while their own
religion is an emanation from God. In saying that existing economic conditions—​the conditions of
bourgeois production—​are natural, the economists give it to be understood that these are the re-
lations in which wealth is created and the productive forces developed conformably to the laws of
nature. . . . They are eternal laws which must always govern society. Thus there has been history, but
there is no longer any” (1847, 147).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
be brought from a vessel which had recently reached the coast. A
great event was the arrival of three vessels with two hundred
Spaniards, eighty horses, and a full complement of arms,
ammunition, and other effects, partly bought and partly enlisted by
the agents whom Cortés had despatched to the Islands during the
previous autumn. Among the new-comers were Julian de Alderete of
Tordesillas, appointed royal treasurer for New Spain, and the
Franciscan Pedro Melgarejo de Urrea of Seville, bearing a supply of
papal indulgences for the men who had been engaged in the
crusade. That the soldiers were conscious of frequent transgressions
may be judged from the suggestive and not wholly reverential
observation of Bernal Diaz, that “after patching their defects the friar
returned to Spain within a few months, a rich man.”[1075]
Cortés was cheered by offers of submission and alliance, owing
partly to the good offices of Tezcucans and other allies. Some came
from places quite distant, such as Nautla and Tuzapan, on the coast
north of Villa Rica, laden as usual with presents.[1076] Another
pleasing evidence of still more devoted loyalty came not long after
from the south, from the country of the valiant Chinantecs, of the
long pikes. During the great uprising, when Spaniards in small or
straggling parties had everywhere been slaughtered, this people
faithfully protected the two soldiers who happened to be with them,
and were in return aided by their prowess and advice to achieve
victories over adjoining tribes. One of these men, Captain Hernando
de Barrientos, sent two natives in April with a letter to his
countrymen imparting the assurance that Chinantla and its six sub-
towns were loyal.[1077]
The recent successes and the arrival of the two hundred men
induced Cortés once more to propose peace to Quauhtemotzin. To
this end, during passion week, he bade some of the captured nobles
proceed to Mexico with a letter as a symbol of their commission, and
impress upon their master the superiority in arms and skill of the
Spanish forces, their constant and large reinforcements, and their
unvarying success in the field. They must point out the generous and
humane treatment of the provinces which had submitted, and assure
the Aztec leaders that equal forgiveness would be accorded them.
Refusal to return to their allegiance would lead to the destruction of
themselves and their city. Only two of the captives ventured to
accept the commission, for according to Aztec articles of war any
noble who returned to his country after having been captured by an
enemy was doomed to decapitation unless he had performed some
extraordinary deed.[1078]
No answer came from Mexico, and it was afterward learned that
the messengers had suffered death. The Aztec ruler had not even
given a thought to peace. He was watching his opponents, prepared
to take advantage of any neglect or relaxation in their effort. No
sooner had Sandoval been induced by peaceful appearances to
retire from Chalco than Aztec forces again prepared to invade the
province. The Chalcans had due warning, and close upon the heels
of Sandoval came two messengers lamenting louder than ever, and
exhibiting a painting wherein were named the many towns whose
forces were coming upon them, fully fifty thousand strong. These
constant menaces and movements were exasperating, and Cortés
resolved personally to inflict a lesson which might be lasting. At the
same time he proposed to complete his reconnoissance of the lake
region and encourage his troops with spoils from hostile localities
whereon the Aztecs yet relied for support.[1079]
Cortés selected thirty horse, three hundred infantry, a number of
Tlascaltecs, and over twenty thousand Tezcucans, under Prince
Ixtlilxochitl, to which twice that number of other allies were added on
the way. A large proportion of archers and aquebusiers were taken,
together with Alvarado, Olid, Alderete, Melgarejo, and others, while
Sandoval was left in charge of Tezcuco, with instructions to watch
and promote the completion of the brigantines against which several
incendiary attempts had been made.
The expedition left Friday, the 5th of April, and passed through
Chalco, Tlalmanalco, and Chimalhuacan,[1080] and crossing in a
south-westerly direction into the Totolapan province, they entered the
hills which form the southern border of the Mexican valley. By this
time the forces had assumed proportions hardly inferior to those of
the Iztocan campaign, when over one hundred thousand moved
against the foe. Highly picturesque was the spectacle of this army, its
naked hordes of warriors relieved by plumage and glittering iztli
points which rose above the broad line of gaudy shields; its white
adventurers in mail of cotton and metal, surmounted by bright
helmets, and armed knights on proudly stepping steeds: picturesque
in particular as it wound in almost endless line along the rounded
slopes of the cliffs, or climbed in clearly defined file across the hill-
tops, only to descend again into gulches gloomy as their own sinister
purpose.
Alarmed by the invasion, the inhabitants had abandoned their
valley homes, and had sought refuge on the summits, whence they
hurled missiles at the passing lines. Little attention was paid these
irregular bands, composed as they were to a great extent of women
and children. On entering the Tlayacapan Valley, however, and
observing on the craggy sides of an almost perpendicular isolated
rock, perched there like an eagle’s nest, a place of refuge peopled
with more pretentious opposers, in a fit of insensate folly Cortés
ordered the place to be assailed. He seemed to think the honor of
the army demanded it, and was ready to stake the lives of valuable
men on its destruction.
Orders were given to attack from three several sides, the
steepest being assigned to Alférez Corral, a brave and spirited
leader. Verdugo and Villafuerte were given another side, and Ircio
and Monjaraz the third. Each party consisted of about threescore
men, and included archers and arquebusiers. At a given signal all
rushed forward to the ascent. Soon they were on hands and knees,
crawling over projections and pulling themselves up by means of
shrubs. All the while stones and darts rattled on helmet and
breastplate; and huge rocks came rolling down upon them. In vain
they sought shelter in crevices and under crags; they must face the
storm. Bernal Diaz followed Corral, and after receiving many a hard
knock they gained what was called two turns of the rock. There they
paused and looked around, wondering at their success thus far.
Supporting himself against a small tree, his face bathed in blood, his
banner rent, Corral said, “Señor Diaz, it is useless to advance
farther; not a man will survive.” Then they shouted a warning to
Pedro Barba, at the head of his archers, not to climb farther. “The
order is to advance!” was the reply. The next moment Barba was
wounded by a stone, and a soldier at his side was killed. Cortés then
sounded the recall, but not until eight brave men had laid down their
lives, victims of their commander’s puerility, and of the rest most of
them returned wounded.[1081]
The recall was likewise prompted by the approach of a
considerable force in the valley. This the cavalry charged and quickly
routed, following in close pursuit, though the broken ground soon
enabled the fugitives to gain shelter. During this ride some of the
horsemen came, a league beyond, to another hill fortress, strong in
its natural features, and held by a large force. Near by were some
springs. The need of water was pressing, which afforded a plausible
excuse for abandoning the scaling of Tlayacapan, and the whole
force was moved to the springs. Early next morning Cortés
examined the approaches to the new stronghold. It extended over
three hills, the central one exceedingly steep and held by the largest
force; the others easier of ascent, though higher, and occupied by
smaller numbers. In reconnoitring, Cortés advanced toward the
centre. This movement led the occupants of the other hills to infer an
attack on the central height, and they began to abandon their
positions with a view to reënforce the threatened point. Observing
this, Cortés ordered Barba to occupy the most commanding
elevation with some fifty arquebusiers and archers, while he himself
continued to scale the centre as a feint, for there was little hope of
capturing a point so steep and strongly held. The stones and darts
rained here as previously, and man after man was struck down,
some bleeding freely from the wounds sustained.[1082]
Meanwhile Barba’s sharp-shooters had made so effective a use
of their weapons that within half an hour the volleys from the fortress
ceased, and the women began to wave their robes in token of truce,
shouting their submission. Cortés graciously met the advances, and
extended full pardon. He also prevailed on the chiefs to induce the
Tlayacapans to submit. On the extensive surface of the rock were
collected all the inhabitants of the neighborhood, with their effects,
which Cortés ordered not to be touched.[1083]
The army remained encamped for two days to refresh
themselves after their arduous march, and after sending the
wounded to Tezcuco, Cortés proceeded to Huastepec. The report of
the clemency extended to preceding settlements had a reassuring
effect on this town, whose cacique came forth to welcome them, and
tender his palace for their entertainment. This was situated in a
garden, celebrated throughout New Spain for its beauty and extent,
and the immense variety of its plants, collected partly for scientific
purposes. A river with tributary canals flowed through its grounds,
which extended over a circuit of nearly two leagues, murmuring its
melody in unison with winged songsters hidden in arbors or playing
between bush and hedge, mingling their bright color with the green
expanse. Adjacent were steep rocks, on whose smooth surface were
sculptured the portraits of noted warriors, statesmen, and orators,
with hieroglyphic inscriptions of their fame. It was a paradise formed
equally for student and idler, and to the weary soldiers no spot could
perhaps have proven so grateful. Cortés certainly grows ecstatic in
describing it, declaring it “the largest, most beautiful, and freshest
garden ever seen.”[1084] Tempting as was the retreat, Cortés tore
himself from it the following day, and proceeded in a south-westerly
direction to Yauhtepec. Although many warriors were gathered there,
they fled on the approach of the Spaniards, and were chased, with
some slaughter, for about two leagues, into the town of Xiuhtepec.
[1085] The women and effects there found were appropriated as
spoils, and rendered agreeable the two days’ stay. The ruler failing to
appear, the place was fired, and terrified by this warning the lord of
Yauhtepec hastened to proffer submission.
After a day’s hard march the army came in sight of
Quauhnahuac,[1086] capital of the Tlahuicas. They were one of the
Nahuatlaca tribes, which according to tradition had entered the
Anáhuac country to supplant the Toltecs. Coming rather late, they
found their brethren already in possession of the lake region, and so
they crossed the range to seek a home on the headwaters of the
Zacatula, where soon a number of settlements rose round
Quauhnahuac. They afterward fell under the sway of the
Chichimecs, and finally the Aztecs took advantage of internal discord
to establish sovereignty,[1087] maintaining it by a garrison in the
capital. This was a natural stronghold, situated on a tongue of land
between two steep ravines over forty feet in depth, and through
which ran a little stream during the rainy season. It was further
protected by strong walls, particularly on the side where a strongly
guarded gate opened to a fine stretch of country. Two other
entrances faced the ravines, sometimes spanned by bridges, which
were now removed.
Situated at the gateway to the tropical southern valleys, between
which and the colder lake region interposed a range of mountains,
the spot stood as a new Eden in its manifold beauties. A sight even
of the pine-fringed mountains that rolled off toward the north, with
their green slopes shaded by oak and birch, and bathed in soft
though bracing airs, was refreshing to the indolent inhabitants of the
burning plain beyond. On the other hand the sturdy toilers of the
northern plateaux might in this sunny south seek relaxation in the
varied charms of a softer air balmy with the incense of a more
lustrous vegetation.[1088]
It was an opulent community that of Quauhnahuac, surrounded
as it was by endless resources and advantages, and the people
were in no mood tamely to yield their wealth to invaders. And in this
determination they were sustained by their lord, Yohuatzin,[1089] who
was not only a vassal but a relative of Quauhtemotzin. Confident in
the impregnable position of his city, in which supplies were ample, he
replied with volleys to the demands of the Spanish forces as they
appeared on the other side of the ravines. It seemed almost
impossible to effect a crossing and climb the steep wall of the ravine
to the city; nevertheless Cortés selected a position and began to
open fire so as to occupy the attention of the garrison and cover the
scaling parties.
While they were thus busied a brave Tlascaltec reconnoitred and
came to a point half a league beyond, where the ravine was steepest
and narrowed to an abyss. On the two sides grew two large trees,
which inclined toward each other, with branches intertwined, forming
a sort of natural bridge, though by no means secure. He called the
attention of his party to this and led the way across, followed by
several Spaniards. The natives, who were more accustomed to this
kind of tactics, found comparatively little difficulty in swinging
themselves across; but to the soldiers it was far from easy, and three
of them, overcome by dizziness or weight of armor, slipped and fell.
[1090]
 The attention of the inhabitants being attracted elsewhere, a
number of the invaders had gained a secure foothold within the city
before they were observed. Even now a few resolute men might
have driven them back, but such were wanting, and the sudden
appearance of the dreaded white men, as if indeed they had
dropped into the stronghold from some cloud made radiant by the
sun whose reputed children they were, struck terror to the hearts of
the poor natives. All impotent and nerveless, they permitted the
daring strangers to lower the drawbridge, and turned to spread the
panic. Meanwhile the reports of a formidable army advancing from
the rear so wrought on the fears of the garrison that, when the
handful who had crossed on the bushy bridge fell on them, they
offered no resistance. This also allowed the scaling forces to pour in,
so that within a short time the siege was turned into a rout, wherein
the cavalry played a prominent part. The zeal of the allies was
already indicated by smoky columns in different parts of the city, and
the foot-soldiers hastened to share in the rich plunder and intercept
the women.
Most of the fugitives had gathered on an adjacent height, and
though no attempt was made that day to molest them, yet they
began to fear that men who could so readily capture one of the
strongest fortresses in the country, would find no difficulty in reaching
them anywhere; therefore, after listening to the advice of
messengers sent by Cortés, Yohuatzin concluded to surrender, and
presented himself on the following day with a large retinue and rich
presents. The Mexicans were as usual blamed for the opposition
offered. He would have submitted before, but thought it best to
expiate the fault of resistance by allowing the Spaniards to pursue,
so that after spending their fury they might be more ready to forgive.
[1091]

There was no time at present to extend the reconnoissance

farther in this direction, and after a brief rest Cortés turned northward
to the lakes. The route over the mountains proved far more difficult
than before, and after issuing from the pine forest the army entered a
desert country terminating in a three-league pass through the Ajuzco
Mountains. Here thirst became so intense that several natives
succumbed.[1092] This suffering was relieved in a hamlet not far from
the pass.
On the following day they passed through a fine and cultivated
country toward Xochilmilco, that is to say, Field of Flowers, aptly
named, for round almost every house, particularly on the outskirts,
was a flower-garden enclosed by canals. Many of them were of the
chinampa class, or floating gardens,[1093] the outgrowth of early
Aztec weakness, now forming a picturesque border to the lake
towns. Altogether the aspect was most pleasing, while the buildings
of the central parts were artistic and striking. Besides the strength
added by canals and moats, pile buildings were frequent, and
intrenchments had been thrown up and drawbridges raised to defend
the approach against any enemy of the Aztecs, for its loyalty to the
queen city was fully as great as that of Iztapalapan. It was the most
important place on the thickly settled fresh-water lake. Bishop
Garcés relates that angels were heard to sing praises in the Mexican
tongue when it was converted.[1094] The usual summons was issued
by the Spaniards, and no heed being given, they attacked in three
divisions by different approaches. The enemy fell back behind the
raised bridges and intrenchments, whence they kept up a steady
volley. The archers and arquebusiers replied briskly, and covered the
van as it plunged into not very deep water and waded across to
capture the fortifications. This effected, the foe was driven from one
retreat to another. Seeing how affairs went, they sought to parley, but
the pursuers paid no heed, regarding it as a trick to gain time for the
removal of their families and property. Within half an hour the greater
part of the city was won, and soldiers and allies were sacking as they
advanced. The foe rallied now and then to cover their retreat, and in
one instance managed to despatch two soldiers who had allowed
avarice to overcome prudence.
Not long after, a body of some ten thousand warriors, reënforced
by fugitives from the city, was seen advancing from the rear as if to
cut off retreat. They were already close at hand when first observed,
and without losing a moment Cortés charged them at the head of a
body of cavalry.[1095]
At first they boldly faced the animals, and fought so well as to
severely wound four, besides several riders; but the mounted body
kept breaking through their ranks and then turned to fall on the rear.
This movement proved decisive, and the enemy dispersed in flight,
the horsemen scattering in pursuit. Already weakened by the severe
march across the mountains, the horse of Cortés became quite
exhausted, and while its rider was striking right and left into a large
body of fugitives, it fell. No other horseman being near, the enemy
gathered courage and rushed upon the general, who had risen to his
feet and stood with sword in hand to defend himself. It was a critical
moment, and had not a brave Tlascaltec warrior come to his rescue
thus opportunely, the career of the Estremaduran would have ended
there; for he had already received a severe blow on the head and
was about to be dragged away when thus rescued. The general’s
body-guard then came up and cut in pieces his late stupid assailants
—stupid because they might so easily have killed him, and did not.
[1096]
The pursuit was not long maintained, tired as the horses were,
and remounting his steed Cortés led the way back to camp in the
square.
Late as it was he superintended the filling of all the channels
which broke the causeways, and the erection of defences, and
ordered the soldiers to put in order their arms and prepare arrows.
The forces were distributed at three points, and extra guards were
posted for the night, together with bodies of troops at probable
landing-points. These precautions were prompted chiefly by the
evident effort of the last body of the enemy to shut up the army
within the city, a movement which boded other attempts, as Cortés
rightly supposed.
When Quauhtemotzin heard that the Spaniards had marched
against Xochimilco he called a council to consider the course to
adopt, and the result was the despatch of reënforcements. Finding
that the city had so easily fallen, he became furious. The gods were
indignant at the outrages of the strangers. Arms must be employed
more manfully, and, these failing, the loyal ones must let their nails
grow, as the last means of protection. The first step should be the
recovery of Xochimilco. That very night two thousand canoes were
sent with some twelve thousand warriors, and a similar force by land,
all approaching stealthily, without music.[1097]
The rumor of a probable night attack kept the Spanish camp on
the alert, and advised of this, the enemy made no attack. At dawn
their canoes were already swarming round the city, the inmates
rending the air with loud and repeated shouts, and brandishing their
weapons, those of the chiefs being captured Spanish swords. “With
your own arms you shall be killed, and we will eat you!” they cried.
“We fear you not, for Montezuma is dead!” At the same time the land
forces were seen approaching, evidently to assist the fleet in
besieging the Spaniards within the city, which would give the
Mexicans greater advantage, as they had well learned during the
siege of Mexico. Cortés understood the manœuvre, and leaving the
greater part of the infantry and allies to guard the city, he sallied with
most of the horse, in three parties, a few of the infantry and several
hundred Tlascaltecs, breaking through the enemy’s ranks and
gaining the foot of a hill in their rear, the Tepechpan.
While the enemy were rallying, Cortés led the horse round to
their denser flank, and gave orders to the infantry to allure the
Mexicans by climbing the steepest part of the hill and pretending to
escape. This succeeded, and the next moment they were attacked in
several directions with such effect as to cause a panic and drive
them in flight toward a quarter where one division of horse had taken
a stand. Five hundred Mexicans covered the field and five leaders
were among the captured, while the Spanish loss was only one
soldier and a few allies, including three Tlascaltec chiefs, although a
number were wounded. During the pursuit the foremost division of
horse came upon a further Mexican reënforcement, estimated at ten
thousand, which rallied the fugitives and caused the pursuers to halt.
Soon, however, the remaining force came up, the charge was
continued, and the Mexicans routed.[1098]
Too tired for long pursuit, the Spaniards returned by ten o’clock
in the morning to Xochimilco, where their garrison had repulsed the
lake force. The fight had been fierce, and the soldiers had exhausted
all their ammunition, capturing in return two Spanish swords. These
victories brought little satisfaction, however, for the captives gave
information that the forces so far sent were but detachments of the
armies destined for Xochimilco, which must be recovered, and the
Spaniards driven forth, if it cost the lives of all the men in Mexico.
The Spaniards might defeat force after force, but even victory must
so weaken them that the Mexicans would finally triumph. This
seemed to be confirmed by the movements of the fleet, which,
though repulsed, was still hovering thereabout.
Cortés now gave orders to burn the city, as a warning to the
wilful inhabitants and preparatory to its evacuation. The soldiers,
who had been interrupted in their plundering the day before, obeyed
with alacrity. Xochimilco was a wealthy city, and not a Spaniard or
ally but obtained an abundance of robes, feathers, and other effects,
and even some gold, which helped to cheer those whom ordinary
merchandise and slaves did not satisfy. The enemy had been
watchful, however, and in their canoes they flitted round the city to
cut off stragglers. At one point quite a charge was made, wherein
several Spaniards were wounded and four carried off alive. This
event did more to cast a gloom over the army than many defeats, for
all knew the fate of prisoners.[1099]
After a stay of three days, all fraught with hard fighting, the army
filed out from Xochimilco, presenting the appearance of a dilapidated
caravan rather than of a reconnoitring and fighting expedition, so
much so that Cortés thought it necessary to remonstrate, but in vain.
The enemy hovered about like vultures, to harass them in what they
regarded as a retreat. The march was made in regular fighting order,
with cavalry distributed in three sections, in van, rear, and on flank.
In order to complete the reconnoissance, a north-westerly route was
taken to Coyuhuacan, the centre of a series of inner towns which lay
clustered within a radius of a league and a half, along the shores or
upon islands in the lake, all picturesque in their pyramidal temples
and their white walls, which gleamed amidst blooming orchards and
shady groves. Coyuhuacan itself was a beautiful town, and Cortés
felt so captivated with it that he afterward made it for some time his
favorite residence.[1100] It had been evacuated, but toward and
beyond Mexico the lake teemed with canoes, while in every direction
spread one continuous extent of farms and hamlets, connected by
causeways and roads with busy traffic. To Alderete and friar
Melgarejo this was a novel scene, and they could not refrain from
expressing their admiration at the enterprise and prowess of Cortés
and his followers in undertaking so vast a conquest. God’s aid alone
could have enabled them to succeed as they had done.[1101]
The army remained here over the following day, chiefly to
examine the place as intended head-quarters of a besieging force. It
was found satisfactory; and while arrows were prepared and the
wounded tended, the general advanced along the causeway leading
to Mexico and expended his remaining ammunition in the useless
capture of the temple fortress of Xoloc,[1102] during which a number
of soldiers were wounded, though the enemy suffered considerably.
After offering to heaven the fiery sacrifice of pagan temple, the army
proceeded through Tlacopan without halting, for they had no
ammunition, and this place had been examined on the previous
expedition. This unexpected haste encouraged the Mexicans to
come forth in great numbers and attack the baggage train and rear.
Owing to the level nature of the ground the cavalry found no difficulty
in repelling them, yet they caused more trouble, and succeeded
even in carrying off two of the favorite equerries[1103] of Cortés. He
was deeply grieved at the loss, and partly with a view to avenge
them, partly to inflict a lesson which should save the army from such
annoyance, he formed an ambuscade beside the road with twenty
horse. Seeing the other ten horses engaged as formerly in covering
the rear, the Mexicans continued their pursuit. At a favorable
moment the hidden horsemen appeared, and soon over a hundred
of the flower of the Mexicans lay dead upon the ground,[1104] their
rich panoplies, dresses, and arms offering a pleasing addition to the
already heavy plunder. Freed from further molestation, the army
proceeded through Azcapuzalco and Tenayocan to Quauhtitlan, all
deserted. Here the army clustered round camp fires of green wood,
wet from a recent shower and supperless. Next morning they
followed the route already pursued during the flight from Mexico,
round Zumpango Lake through Citlaltepec, and thence through
Acolman to Tezcuco.[1105]
A mass of booty and slaves being now at hand, a general
distribution was ordered, the second in Tezcuco. Again, says Bernal
Diaz, Cortés disregarded his promises and secured not only for
himself the objectionable fifth, but allowed his favorites to carry off
the prettiest women before they were brought forward at auction.
Many who remembered the former tricks hid their women and said
they had escaped, or they declared them free servants from allied
tribes; while a few managed to obtain a private branding, paying the
fifth required. A large proportion of the soldiers were so heavily in
debt for stores and fifths that their booty left them no surplus.[1106]
While the reconnoitring expeditions had on the whole been
fraught with pecuniary benefit and glory, they had nevertheless
served to open the eyes of many to the difficulty of the great
purpose, the capture of Mexico. This was particularly the case with
the Velazquez party, whose adhesion before the Tepeaca campaign
had been compulsory, and after it mercenary in its motives. Every
obstacle to them appeared terrible, magnified through constant fear
of the dreaded stone of sacrifice, on which so many comrades had
already been laid. And this they were encountering for what? the
advancement of an envied usurper and a pecuniary reward far
beneath their expectations. The failure at Iztapalapan, the repeated
inroads of the Mexicans, unabashed by constant repulses, and the
hardships of the campaigns, particularly the last, all tended to
support their arguments against Cortés’ plans as chimerical,
involving long delays, constant toil, and waste of life, and with poor
recompense save for Cortés and his favorites.
Presently the affair assumed the color of conspiracy, headed by
Antonio de Villafañe, a common soldier from Zamora, who is claimed
by Herrera to have had the active or passive sympathy of some
three hundred malcontents, nearly one third of the army. The
professed object was to secure a pliable leader who would consult
the wishes of the soldiers, even those desirous of returning. Such a
man, and withal of great influence and valor, was Verdugo, the
brother-in-law of the all-powerful patron Velazquez, and him the
conspirators chose as the new captain-general, unknown to himself,
since he might prove too honorable to engage in plots against the
commander. As a reward for his own efforts Villafañe claimed the
position of alguacil mayor, while other friends and influential men of
Narvaez were assured of the remaining offices, from alcalde mayor
and maestre de campo downward, now held by the retainers of
Cortés, as well as a share in the arms and other effects of the
doomed number.[1107] It was arranged that when Cortés was seated
at table with his intimate friends, as Alvarado, Sandoval, Olid, and
Tápia, a letter was to be handed him, as if coming from his father,
and while he was reading, the conspirators should fall on and stab
him and his supporters, since all must be removed who might prove
troublesome. The new officers were thereupon to be proclaimed,
together with the liberal plan agreed on, by which it was hoped to
allure even the friends of Cortés.
There were too many in the secret, however, and Cortés was a
man of magnetic influence. At the eleventh hour, two days after the
return from Xochimilco, says Diaz, an accomplice, struck with
compunction, rushed distractedly to the feet of Cortés and implored
pardon for having even dared to listen to the vile machinations. He
thereupon revealed the plot and stated that Villafañe carried the
names and details on a list in his breast-pocket. Cortés quietly
summoned his captains. He represented the need for a “remedy,
since, besides the scandal, it was evident that all the Spaniards must
perish if once they turned one against the other; and to this end not
only declared foes but allies would join.”[1108]
Attended by Sandoval and others, Cortés hastened to the house
of the accused and found several persons assembled. Some were
secured as they sought escape. Villafañe found time to take a paper
from his breast and tear it in pieces, but Cortés gathered and
arranged them,[1109] and was grieved to read the names of quite a
number of promising persons whom he had honored and regarded
as friends. Villafañe confessed the details of the plot, which had
been forming since the Tepeaca campaign. A court-martial was held,
presided over by Cortés himself, and there being no doubt of his
guilt, the accused was condemned to death and promptly hanged
from the window of his dwelling.[1110]
Cortés had probably no doubt regarding the guilt of the persons
named on the list, but the prosecution of so many notable men might
not be prudent, and would only widen the breach between himself
and the malcontents and gain them sympathy. The day following the
execution the general called a meeting. Many were the consciences
that pricked their possessors to trembling on that occasion. But the
sage Cortés preferred the traitors should risk their necks in winning
for him Mexico, rather than himself to break them with a rope.
Napoleon, who in national warfare could open with his sword the
veins of the people until there poured forth torrents of blood, shrank
in horror from blood shed in civil broils. It was policy with Cortés,
however. So, after finishing his narration of the conspiracy, he coolly
informed them that Villafañe had refused to reveal his accomplices,
and he could not therefore name the guilty. There were no doubt
men amongst them with real or fancied grievances which may have
induced them to harbor resentment; but let them frankly state their
wrongs and he would seek to right them. If he had erred, let the error
be named. The conclusion of the affair created general satisfaction.
Thankful for their escape, the guilty sought both by words and deeds
to prove their devotion, and although Cortés kept his eye upon them,
there was no indication that he suspected any. He rather sought to
win them back with favors.[1111] So impressed were his intimate
followers by the risk to which so valuable a life had been exposed
that they insisted on his accepting a body-guard of twelve select
men, under the command of Antonio de Quiñones, an hidalgo of
Zamora,[1112] who watched over him day and night.

FOOTNOTES
[1062] This is according to Cortés; others differ slightly, and Ixtlilxochitl increases
the Tezcucan force to 60,000. Hor. Crueldades, 13.

[1063] From tocatl and xal, spider and sand. Chimalpain, Hist. Conq., ii. 29. The
lake in which it lies is divided about the centre by an artificial causeway about one
league long, running from east to west, the southern water being now known as
San Cristóbal Ecatepec, from the town of that name, and the northern water as
Xaltocan or Tomanitla, San Cristóbal being also the general term for both waters.

[1064] See Native Races, ii. v.

[1065] Bachiller Alonso Perez, afterward fiscal of Mexico. Bernal Diaz, Hist.
Verdad., 135.

[1066] This incident was commemorated by some poetic follower in a ballad which
became a favorite with the conquerors:

En Tacuba está Cortés,

Con su esquadron esforçado,
Triste estaua, y muy penoso,
Triste, y con gran cuidado,
La vna mano en la mexilla,
Y la otra en el costado.

Which may be translated literally:

In Tacuba stands Cortés,

With his troopers strong and brave:
Sad he was and deeply grave;
Sad, and heavily oppressed.
With one hand his cheek he pressed;
Against his side, the other.

[1067] So runs Bernal Diaz’ account, which appears a little exaggerated, for
recently Cortés had shown the greatest caution, and would hardly have allowed
himself to be so readily trapped on so memorable a spot. Hist. Verdad., 126.
Cortés states that not a Spaniard was lost, though several Mexicans fell. Cartas,
187.

[1068] Herrera, dec. iii. lib. i. cap. vii.

[1069] They begged permission to return home, says Chimalpain, Hist. Conq., i.
31. Herrera relates that the efforts of Ojeda, by Cortés’ order, to take from the
Tlascaltecs the gold part of their booty so offended them that they began to desert.
The extortion was accordingly stopped, dec. iii. lib. i. cap. vii. Clavigero doubts the
story. Prescott regards the departure of the allies as distasteful to Cortés; but we
have seen that he did not care at present to encumber himself with too many
unruly auxiliaries to prey upon the peaceful provinces. The Tlascaltecs would
willingly have remained to share in raiding expeditions.

[1070] Including 8000 Tezcucans under Chichinquatzin. Ixtlilxochitl, Hor.

Crueldades, 15. On March 12th, says Vetancurt, Teatro Mex., pt. iii. 154.

[1071] Also known as Chimalhuacan-Chalco, to distinguish it from Chimalhuacan

on Tezcuco Lake.

[1072] Lorenzana inspected the position in later times. Cortés, Hist. N. Esp., 214.

[1073] ‘Que todos los que allí se hallaron afirman.’ Cortés, Cartas, 190. The
general lauds the achievement with rare fervor for him. Bernal Diaz sneers at the
river of blood story; but then he was not present to share the glory. The Roman
Mario was less dainty than these Spaniards under a similar circumstance,
commemorated by Plutarch; or as Floro more prosaically puts it: ‘Ut victor
Romanus de cruento flumine non plus aquæ biberit quam sanguinis barbarorum.’
Epitome, lib. iii. cap. iii.

[1074] Fifteen, says Bernal Diaz. Chimalpain, the Chalcan narrator, states that his
tribe lost 350 men, but killed 1500 foes, capturing the captain-general,
Chimalpopocatzin, a relative of the emperor, who now became a captain among
the Tezcucans, and was killed during the siege. Hist. Conq., ii. 34. Some of these
facts are evidently not very reliable. He also assumes that Sandoval lost eight
soldiers on again returning to Tezcuco.

[1075] The ‘comissario’ or clerk in charge of the bulls was Gerónimo Lopez,
afterward secretary at Mexico. Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 129. This author names
several of the arrivals, some of whom became captains of vessels. A number also
arrived during the following week, he adds, notably in Juan de Búrgos’ vessel,
which brought much material.

[1076] Gomara mentions also Maxcaltzinco as a distant place. Hist. Mex., 186.

[1077] The chiefs were awaiting orders to appear before Cortés. The general told
them to wait till tranquillity was more fully restored. The name of the other soldier
was Nicolás. Cortés, Cartas, 203-5. Herrera assumes that Barrientos arrived in
camp during the late Tepeaca campaign, dec. ii. lib. x. cap. xvii.
[1078] Of the rank and file none suffered penalty on returning, for captivity was
regarded as disgraceful only to a noble. Native Races, ii. 419.

[1079] Bernal Diaz states that the soldiers were tired of these repeated calls, many
being also on the sick-list, but Cortés had now a large fresh force only too eager
for a fray attended with spoliation.

[1080] According to a native painting the army entered here April 5th, which is a
day or two too early, and received a reënforcement of 20,000. See copy in
Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., ii. 523.

[1081] So says Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 130, who names four. Cortés allows
only two killed and twenty wounded; how many fatally so, he carefully omits to
mention. Cartas, 194.

[1082] Twenty fell, says Bernal Diaz. He speaks of two futile attempts on the
previous evening to scale the central hill. It seems unlikely for soldiers, tired by
repulse and march, to undertake so difficult a feat, and that at the least assailable
point.

[1083] Yet Bernal Diaz relates a story to show that the order was a mere pretence.

[1084] Cartas, 196; Torquemada, i. 536.

[1085] Some write Xilotepec. Bernal Diaz mentions Tepoxtlan, which may have
been visited by a detachment.

[1086] Place of the Eagle. Corrupted into the present Cuernavaca, which
singularly enough means cow’s horn.

[1087] See Native Races, v.

[1088] Cortés was so captivated by the alluring clime and scenery that he made
the town his favorite residence in later years. It was included in the domains
granted to him, and descended to his heirs. Madame Calderon speaks of his
ruined palace and church. Life in Mexico, ii. 50.

[1089] Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., 311. Brasseur de Bourbourg calls him Yaomahuitl.

[1090] ‘El vno se quebró la pierna ... y se me desvanecia la cabeça, y todavia

pasè yo, y otros veinte, ô trienta soldados.’ Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 132. Solis
misinterprets the passage, and gives this author credit for leading the party. Hist.
Mex., ii. 362. Vetancurt calls the district toward this spot Amanalco. Teatro Mex.,
pt. iii. 155.