Is Cusco Really Rome?
This week, I found Garcilaso de la Vega to be a fascinating contrast to Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala. The tone in which the two writers presented their narratives is very different despite covering similar subject matter. The Guaman Poma reading took on a critical and confrontational tone that focused heavily on the abuses and exploitation suffered by the Inca during the Spanish colonial project. Garcilaso’s narrative on the other hand offered a more romanticized perspective than Guaman Poma. Garcilaso’s writing seemed to aim to create harmony between Spanish and Inca culture by way of emphasizing the achievements of the Inca in a manner that would resonate with European readers (perhaps with less guilt?). I feel the difference in tone can in large part be attributed to the respective author’s backgrounds. What makes Guaman Poma’s writings so invaluable is the fact that they come from a firsthand Indigenous perspective. Garcilaso’s writing on the other hand which wrote from a mestizo viewpoint and seemed to be a plea for validation from European standards, whereas Guaman Poma’s work is a direct plea for justice and recognition of Indigenous rights.
I think that it is fair to say that Garcilaso’s view is romanticized, presenting an idealized depiction of Inca society (idealized from a European point of view at least). A part of Garcilaso’s reading that I found particularly intriguing was the direct comparison drawn between Cusco and Rome.
“For Cusco about its empire was like Rome to the Roman empire, and the two can be compared with one another, for they resembled one another in their nobler aspects.”
Garcilaso makes multiple connections between these two. For instance, the fact that both cities were founded by their first kings, which sets a mythical and royal precedent for their creation. He also cites the strength and excellence of the two empire’s laws and governance among other similarities. So this raises the question, why don’t we remember the Inca Empire the same way we remember the Roman Empire? Garcilaso’s answer to this is the fact that the Inca lacked written language and thus a written history to document their many achievements.
“Rome had the advantage over Cusco, not because she reared her sons better, but because she was more fortunate in having attained the art of letters, whereby she perpetuated the fame of her offspring.”
While I do think this is a fair enough assessment, I also feel like it, perhaps deliberately, downplays/ignores the role that Spanish colonizers played in destroying Inca history and tradition. Do not forget that Inca artifacts were burned, and that Indigenous languages and practices were severely suppressed. It is misguided to solely attribute the lack of attention that is given to the Inca empire rather than the Roman empire solely on the fact that they lacked written language.
“Indigenous languages and practices were severely suppressed”
Yes and no. As Garcilaso himself notes, the Spanish in fact *encouraged* the spread of Quechua! He even quotes a Spanish priest saying that “the general language of Peru [i.e. Quechua] should not be allowed to disappear, for once it is forgotten it will be necessary for preachers to learn many languages to preach the gospel, which is impossible.”
I think Ben meant Indigenous languages and practices “in general” and how they contributed to the loss of other aspects of their culture. Quechua seems to be a special case since we have not heard about other Indigenous languages being preserved as rigorously.
Hi Ben, thank you for sharing your insights, I really agree with what you said. Espcially since Rome partly led its own downfall, I think your highlight of the domination of the Spanish really incapsulates my discomforts with Garcilaso. I think by using Rome as the gold standard we’re really just reinforcing the colonial ideal of an empire and justifying Spanish conquest.
Hi Ben, great insights! I agree that we have to consider how Spanish colonialists deliberately tried to destroy parts of Incan history and were selective about which aspects to preserve. Garcilaso’s framing neglects to account for the disruption caused by the Spanish, but perhaps that is to be expected considering the audience that they are writing for.
I think Ben meant Indigenous languages and practices “in general” and how they contributed to the loss of other aspects of their culture. Quechua seems to be a special case since we have not heard about other Indigenous languages being preserved as rigorously.