Objectivity in de Leon's Account

After reading the introduction to Cieza de Leon’s writings, I began contemplating the idea of objectivity in the readings for Monday’s class. Mancall writes “According to one of [de Leon’s] modern translators, his book ‘possesses the greatest objectivity of any history ever written about the Incas” (248). In a class that began with an investigation of “imagined cartographies,” it seems only fair to interrogate the objectivity of all texts. What characteristics of de Leon’s writings prompted his translator, Harriet de Onis, to announce the text’s relative objectivity?

When analyzing the text, one should keep in mind that it’s not solely meant as an account of Peru but also as a persuasive text. De Leon, in his correspondence with Europe, is required to write in such a way that his account seems reliable. Columbus faces the same challenge, but to legitimate his findings he announces the appropriation of his geographical findings for the Spanish crown—it is specifically the rhetoric of conquest. From a twentieth century perspective, I would imagine that de Onis would classify de Leon’s writings as “objective” for several reasons. Firstly, de Leon relies on logos to legitimate his claims. He seems to be dedicated to compiling an objective image of Peru, and we, in turn, read his account as such. His rhetorical “mapping” of the city of Cuzco seems scientific because of its citation of the cardinal directions and other specific geographical markers (rough terrain,” “between two small brooks,” and “mountains of the Andes)” (248). If we consider de Leon’s writing as a map, its centrality focuses on the city of Cuzco and Peru itself. This is in contrast to Columbus who seems to remain focused on Spain even while describing the Americas. Spain is still important to de Leon, but he uses his reader’s knowledge of Spain to help them in understanding Peru. For example, de Leon writes, “Thus, just as in Spain the early inhabitants divided it all into provinces, so these Indians, to keep track of their wide-flung possessions, used the method of highways.” Of course, comparisons do not always function to create an accurate understanding of the other, but de Leon seems dedicated to making Peru accessible to Europeans.

Even with his somewhat objective viewpoint regarding Peru, de Leo remains aware of his authorial power. Writing, like mapping, is a form of worldmaking, and de Leon reminds us that he has the power to determine what picture of Peru’s world he wishes to share with us. He admits that he makes “no mention of the silverwork, beads, golden feathers and other things” because Europeans would not believe these things. This comment fascinates me for its various implications. First, De leon’s intentional omissions may underscore his dedication to maintaining his credibility regarding his other testimonies. Such a dedication could stem from his desire to accurately portray other aspects of Peruvian culture or from his desire to maintain authorial power. Additionally, his comment suggests that the world of Peru had already been introduced to Europeans, and consequently, they’ve already developed panoptic vision—previous images of Peru disallow them from imagining Peru in a drastically different fashion.