Global Intellectual History

ISSN: 2380-1883 (Print) 2380-1891 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgih20

Ethnophilology: two case studies

Carlo Ginzburg

To cite this article: Carlo Ginzburg (2017) Ethnophilology: two case studies, Global Intellectual
History, 2:1, 3-17, DOI: 10.1080/23801883.2017.1332880

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23801883.2017.1332880

Published online: 08 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 161

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rgih20
GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL HISTORY, 2017
VOL. 2, NO. 1, 3–17
https://doi.org/10.1080/23801883.2017.1332880

Ethnophilology: two case studies

Carlo Ginzburg
University of California at Los Angeles

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The paper focuses on two cases, each of them centered on two Translation; translitteration;
individuals, who lived approximately at the same time, between homophony; Garcilaso de la
the 16th and the 17th centuries. The first, Garcilaso de la Vega, el Vega “el Inca”; John David
Rhys
Inca, is famous. The second, John David Rhys, is known only to
scholars. Garcilaso, the son of a Spanish soldier and an Inca
princess, analyzed his mother’s tongue relying upon his father’s
tongue, which he used in his historical writings. John Rhys, born
in Wales, studied medicine in Siena, wrote about the Italian
language (in Latin) and about the Latin language (in Italian); at
the end of his life, he analyzed his mother tongue. A comparison
between the two cases paves the way to some general reflections
on translation and related issues.

Nowadays, anybody working on the history of ideas in a global perpective must take into
account the Dictionnaire des Intraduisibles, either in its original French version or in one
of its multiple translations. This imposing Vocabulaire européen des philosophies, edited
by Barbara Cassin and a group of remarkable scholars, undoubtedly touched a nerve –
which explains, along with the high quality of most of its entries, its huge success. In a
more and more globalized world, the plurality of languages, and their mutual translatabil-
ity, has become an issue – notwithstanding the prevalence of English, or perhaps because
of it.
What is untraslatable is ‘in fact what one cannot refrain from (not) translating)’ Barbara
Cassin wrote in the introduction to the Vocabulaire.1 In other words: since any translation
is inevitably inadequate, the process of translation is endless. But are we allowed to assume,
at some metalinguistic level, that ‘incorrect translations’ also exist? In the domain of every-
day life the answer would be undoubtedly ‘yes’: let us think for a moment at the distinction
between ‘left’ and ‘right’ being misinterpreted by a foreigner with poor English, walking in,
let’s say, New York. May we extend this argument to the domain of the history of ideas?
The answer is, once again, ‘yes’, unless we would assume that ideas are not related to every-
day language – the notion of ‘right’, in different languages, being a blatant disproval of this
argument.2 But if incorrect translations exist, Barbara Cassin’s relativistic assumptions are
untenable.3 The Dictionnaire des intraduisibles survived (and will survive) the ideology
that inspired it.
This paper will focus on incorrect translations from a double, connected perspective,
that the Dictionnaire des Intraduisibles addresses only marginally: (a) translitteration, as

CONTACT Carlo Ginzburg ginzburg@history.ucla.edu University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
4 C. GINZBURG

a preliminary layer of translation; (b) homophony. As one learns from the entry ‘Traduire’,
the word hellenizein, ‘traduire en grec’, was occasionally used for translitteration, as a
passage from Flavius Josephus’s Judaic Antiquities (I, 6, 1) shows.4 This contiguity
works for us as well; in the case of homophony (words having allegedly the same sound
but a different meaning) translitteration can sometimes be misleading. In her introduction
Barbara Cassin dismisses homophony ‘as an extreme case, and a modern caricature, of
homonymy’.5 A puzzling remark, which in the entry ‘Homonyme/synonyme’, written
by Barbara Cassin and Irène Rosier-Catach, is clarified as follows:
[Homophony] presents itself as a marginal phenomenon, connected to the signifiant [i.e. to
the material form of the sign]; it may interest psychoanalysis and the lovers of puns, but its
importance for the analysis of language is only marginal.6

I am interested in psychoanalysis, and only marginally in puns. However, I will argue,

on the basis of the very special case I am going to deal with, that (a) alleged homophony
may be sometimes the result of a wrong translitteration; (b) that this wrong translitteration
may have semantic, as well as ideological and political implications; (c) that the dismissive
reference to homophony should be reexamined in a much larger framework, i.e. the
relationship between the oral and written dimensions.
I will address those issues by comparing two case studies. Each of them deals with one
individual. The first is famous, the other is not – although he also received scholarly atten-
tion. Since both cases involve a comparative approach to linguistic and cultural phenomena,
the comparison between the two cases will pave the way to a second degree comparison.

I
1. Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, who later named himself Garcilaso de la Vega ‘el Inca’, was
born in Cuzco in 1539. His father was a Spanish conquistador, his mother an Inca princess.
He left Cuzco in 1560, after the death of his father, and went to Spain. After an unsuccess-
ful military career he turned to literature, learned Latin and Italian – but he never forgot
his dual ethnic and linguistic background.7 In the front pages of his writings, starting from
his translation from Italian of Leone Ebreo’s (i.e. Jehudah Abravanel’s) Dialoghi d’amore,
published in Madrid in 1590, Garcilaso proudly presented himself as ‘Inga’, ‘el Inca’, i.e.
belonging to the Inca royal family.8 His Comentarios reales de los Incas, whose first part
came out in Lisbon in 1609 (the second appeared posthumously in 1617) are usually
regarded his most ambitious historical work. Garcilaso died in Cordova in 1616.9
Some years ago I came across, by pure chance, a French translation of Garcilaso’s
Comentarios reales, published in Amsterdam in 1715, under the title Histoire des
Yncas.10 Two chapters especially impressed me. Garcilaso remarked that the Spaniards
had taken the word huaca, which they translated as ‘idol’, as evidence of the widespread
idolatry among the Andean indigeneous populations. Garcilaso objected that ‘idol’ was
only one of the manifold meanings attached to the word huaca:
The same name is given to all those things, which for their beauty or excellence, stand above
other things of the same kind, such as a rose, an apple, or a pippin, or any other fruit that is
better or more beautiful than the rest from the same tree, or trees that are better than other
trees of the same kind. (…) On the other hand, they give the name huaca to ugly and mon-
strous things that inspire horror and alarm, or unusual events, like twins, or children born
 GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL HISTORY 5

feet first or doubled up, or with six fingers or toes, or humpbacked, or with any other defect,
great or small, of body or face, such as a harelip, which is very common, or a squint.

Huaca was referred to anomalies – but also to imposing natural phenomena, like the
source of a river, or the great mountain covered by snow which crosses Peru (the
Andes). All these things (Garcilaso went on) ‘were called huaca, not because they were
considered gods and therefore worthy of adoration, but because of their special superioriy
over the common run of things, for which reason they were regarded and treated with
veneration and respect’.11
The Spaniards made another mistake: there is no verb attached to the noun Huaca
which means ‘to idolatrize’.12 But ‘when the last syllable is pronounced deep down in
the throat, [huaca] becomes a verb. It means “to mourn”’.
The difference, as Garcilaso pointed out,
is really shown by the different pronunciation, without changing any letter or accent, the last
syllable being uttered from the top of the palate in one case and from deep down in the throat
in the other (la última sílaba de la una dicción se pronuncia en lo alto del paladar y la de la
otra en lo interior de la garganta). The Spaniards, however diligent (as they ought to be), take
not the slightest notice of this pronunciation or others in the native language, because they do
not exist in Spanish.13

2. Garcilaso has been labelled ‘the first American mestizo, both in a biological and a cul-
tural sense’.14 In the passages I have been commenting, he used his paternal tongue –
Spanish – to defend his maternal tongue – Quechua – from the Spaniards’s distortions.
‘Con la espada, con la pluma’ (with the sword, with the pen): the motto inscribed on Gar-
cilaso’s coat of arms, displayed on the frontispiece of his Comentarios reales, recapitulated
the author’s life trajectory as well as the book’s ambitions. Garcilaso’s aggressive point had
implications which went beyond the linguistic domain. His stress on the complexity of the
word huaca ultimately aimed to efface the stigma of idolatry from the Andean popu-
lations.15 Today, it is tempting to see at Garcilaso as a native-born anthropologist who
exposed the blind arrogance of the colonizers.
This image is attractive but too simple. As soon as I began to work on Garcilaso some
unexpected elements emerged. First of all, I realized that long time ago scholars noted that
Garcilaso had anticipated his remarks on huaca in a long marginal note scribbled on a
copy of López de Gómara’s Historia General de las Indias (the exemplar, which includes
notes written by another hand, is now preserved in the National Library of Lima). José Luis
Rivarola, who edited this marginal note, rightly identified it as the germ which was later
developed in several chapters of the Comentarios Reale de los Yncas.16 But in the final,
printed version an element was left out: a vivid comparison between the two pronuncia-
tions of huaca, and, respectively, the magpie’s and the raven’s caws:
since in Spanish we don’t have the letters which would allow to make those pronunciations, it
occurred to me to compare them to the sounds that the magpie and the raven make in their
cawing; for the magpie pronunces outside the palate, while the raven pronounces outside the
gullet, so that pronouncing as the magpie does it means ‘idol’, and pronouncing as the raven
does it mean ‘ro cry’.17

At first sight, Garcilaso’s comparison with animals looks like a fragment from everyday
life experience, based on an uncanny ability, presumably rooted in the Andean oral culture
in which he grew up, to make fine sound distinctions realated to the natural environment.
6 C. GINZBURG

But a closer look at Garcilaso’s handwritten note unveils a more intricate relationship
between oral and written culture. ‘Since in Spanish we don’t have the letters which
would allow to make those pronunciations … ’: this remark, which may seem obvious
today, was certainly not obvious in Garcilaso’s times. Letters imply a written, alphabetical
language: they could be regarded as a potential bridge between spoken Quechua and
spoken Spanish under two conditions: if Quechua could in principle be translitterated
into Spanish; and if, this was the case, somebody had been able to translitterate
Quechua into Spanish, and how.
I will argue that Garcilaso addressed both issues, relying upon two different intellectual
traditions: on the one hand, the grammatical legacy of Greek and Latin antiquity; on the
other hand, the recent grammatical works produced by Catholic missionaries who worked
in the Andean region. But the two traditions were not indipendent; the former inspired the
latter.18
Let’s open the Institutiones grammaticae written by Priscian of Caesarea, the great Latin
grammarian, who lived between the end of the VIth century and the beginning of the sixth
century. At the very begininng of his imposing treatise, in a chapter entitled ‘De voce’ (On
sounds) Priscian put forward a fourfold distinction: sounds can be (a) meaningful (articu-
lata); (b) meaningless (inarticulata); (c) capable of being transcribed (litterata); (d) unable to
be transcribed (illiterata). These traits, Priscianus went on, could be combined: for instance,
‘there are sounds which, even if they can be transcribed, are meaningless (inarticulatae), like
coax, cra’.19 Both coax and cra were onomatopeic sounds related to animals: frogs in the
former case, ravens in the latter (although cra was later referred to frogs as well). Garcilaso,
following in Priscian’s footsteps, looked at the Quechua word huaca, as a series of transcrib-
able sounds, comparable to raven’s cra. Then, distantiating himself from Priscian, Garcilaso
argued that these sounds were not only transcribable but meaningful: in fact, they implied
different meanings according to different pronunciations, which he compared to crows’s
and ravens’s sounds – a distinction which the Spaniards had missed. We could say, rework-
ing the distinction put forward by Kenneth Pike, the American anthropologist and linguist,
that Garcilaso put himself in an etic perspective (turning himself in an observer) in order to
recover an emic perspective (the actors’s categories).20
Garcilaso was well aware that transcribing Quechua into Latin alphabet was a tricky
issue. In his annotations to López de Gómara’s Historia General de las Indias Garcilaso
(as Aurelio Miró Quesada pointed out) had written ‘guaca’ and ‘guacha’; in his Comentar-
ios Reales, he wrote ‘huaca’, remarking that in the Inca general language there was not ‘g’.21
This shift in transcription had taken into account the spelling ‘huaca’ used by the Spanish
Jesuit Diego Gonzalez de Holguin in his vocabulary the of Quechua language published in
1608: Vocabulario da le lengua general de todo el Peru llamada lengua Qquichua, o del
Jnca. Two entries were devoted to ‘huaca’. Here is the first:
Idols, small images of humans and animals that they [the natives] bring with them.

The second entry read:

‘Man with a split nostril or a split lip’. Then a Quechua expression followed, translated as ‘twins’.22

The two entries recorded some of the meanings of huaca, taken as a noun, which Gar-
cilaso listed in his Comentarios reales, published one year after Gonzalez de Holguin’s
Vocabulario.23 But the transcription provided in the Vocabulario, based on the Latin
 GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL HISTORY 7

alphabet, concealed the difference in pronunciation. In order to advance his argument

against the Spaniards’s misunderstanding of Quechua pronunciation Garcilaso had to
rely upon a different analytic tool, rooted in a more ancient tradition: the alphabet.
3. In a famous passage of his Dialogo dei massimi sistemi Galileo praised the alphabet as
‘the most stupendous’ human invention:
what sublimity of mind must have been his who conceived how to communicate his most
secret thoughts to any other person, though very far distant either in time or place, speaking
with those who are in the Indies, speaking to those who are not yet born, nor shall be this
thousand, or ten thousand years? And with no greater difficulty than the various collocation
of twenty-four little characters upon a paper?24

Invented in the Near East and then reworked in Greece around the eighth century
BCE, the alphabet had become a most effective writing tool by selecting a series of dis-
crete elements from orality.25 But its relationship with orality was not mimetic: the
alphabet provided a model, a maquette, which did not imply instructions for pronuncia-
tion, comparable to those put forward by Garcilaso in his Comentarios Reales. Let read
them again:
when the last syllable is pronounced deep down in the throat, [huaca] becomes a verb. It
means ‘to mourn’.

The difference between the two words, the noun and the verbe, Garcilaso went on,
is really shown by the different pronunciation, without changing any letter or accent, the last
syllable being uttered from the top of the palate in one case and from deep down in the throat
in the other (la última sílaba de la una dicción se pronuncia en lo alto del paladar y la de la
otra en lo interior de la garganta). The Spaniards, however diligent (as they ought to be), take
not the slightest notice of this pronunciation or others in the native language, because they do
not exist in Spanish.26

What allowed Garcilaso, the mestizo, to compare his father tongue and his mother
tongue? I will try to address this question later. But first, let us look at the precedents
of the detailed language, based on the body, he used in order to describe Quechua
pronunciation.
4. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the Greek historian and teacher of rhetoric, was born
in 60 BCE and died after 7 CE. He wrote many works, including Roman Antiquities
and The Arrangement of Words (translated into Latin as De compositione verborum).
In the latter he described at length how words should be pronunced, focusing on
each letter of the Greek alphabet. In the case of double consonants he wrote:
They are severally pronounced somewhat as follows: λ, by the tongue rising to the palate, and
by the windpipe helping the sound; μ by the mouth being closed tight by means of the lips,
while the breath is divided and passes through the nostrils; ν by the tongue intercepting the
current of the breath, and diverting the sound towards the nostrils; ρ by the tip of the tongue
sending forth the breath in puffs and rising to the palate near the teeth; and σ by the entire
tongue being carried up to the palate and by the breath passing between tongue and palate,
and emitting, round about the teeth, a light, thin hissing.27

This long citation was needed in order to show how Greek grammarians were able to
provide a detailed and subtle description of the way of pronouncing their own language.
8 C. GINZBURG

Mediated by Latin grammarians, then reworked by (mostly) missionaries, this technology

was applied to a variety of languages all over the world, from Asia to Africa to the Amer-
icas, producing a huge amount of grammars, dictionaries, translations of the Bible.28 An
incredibly ambitious enterprise, whose success was ensured by features, either potential or
actual, shared by all humans: the language and the body.
Garcilaso’s disproval of the Spaniards’s misinterpretation of huaca, based on its differ-
ent pronunciations, and different meanings attached to them, must be inscribed in this
context. It is a tiny fragment of his imposing work: but he regarded it as extremely impor-
tant, to the point of enouncing it as the first in a short series of linguistic rules which intro-
duce his Comentarios Reales.29

II
1. The case I am going to compare with Garcilaso’s will bring us in a largely different
world. As always, a comparative experiment involves both divergences and convergences;
we must learn from both of them.
John David Rhys belonged to Garcilaso’s generation: he was born in Anglesey, Wales, in
1534 and died in, or some time after, 1619. Rhys studied medicine in Siena, where he took
his degree; then taught Latin in Pistoia. During his stay in Italy he published a work in
Italian, on Latin (Regole della costruttione latina, Venezia 1567) and a work in Latin, on
Italian (Perutilis exteris nationibus de Italica pronunciatione et orthographia libellus,
Padova 1569).30 The latter was, as its title announced, addressed to foreigners who
wanted to learn how to pronounce, and to write, the Italian language. Those foreigners
are repeatedly evoked: Germans, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Poles, Portuguese.
Rhys dealt with the letters of the Italian alphabet, one by one, analysing the pronunciation
of each of them in a comparative perspective, often recording regional Italian nuances, and
then placing them in a wider linguistic perspective. Let us take for instance the letter ‘n’:
All people, either Tuscans or other populations, mostly converge in the way of pronouncing
this letter. Everybody, with no exception, shapes it in the mouth’s inner cavity, joining the
lips, applying the tongue’s tip to the roots of the upper incisive teeth, expelling the breath
and the sound from both the mouth and the nostrils.

Here is Rhys, the physician, speaking. He goes on and on. Then, having described the
way in which the related sound should ‘gn’ must be pronounced, the comparative gram-
marian comes to the forefront (it must be noted that some of his examples sounds unfa-
miliar, being related to a more ancient layer of each language:
Frenchmen associate this sound with the same letter used by Tuscans, that is gn, as in com-
pagnon; Spaniards do the same with ñ, that is ña, ñe, ñi, ño, ñu, as in caña, ‘dog’, hazaña,
‘crime’; Portuguese do the same with nha, nho, nhi, nho, nhu, as in amenham [amanhã],
‘tomorrow’, ponho, ‘I put’, nenhua [nenhuma] ‘nothing’. Poles express a sound similar to
this with the letter n before i, followed immediately by another vowel: nia, nie, nij, nio,
niu. See for instance niemasz, ‘it’s not there’, which is pronounced more or less as if it were
written, in Tuscan, gnemasz. All this refers to the first syllable. When a vowel is not following,
the sound is not soft, as for instance in nicz, ‘snow’, which must be pronounced as it is written,
rather than gnicz. Welshmen, Germans and Englishmen do not have a sound like this; there-
fore they most follow as closely as possible the sound’s description, until a teacher will come
to help them with his own voice, rescuing them from fatigue and boredom.31
 GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL HISTORY 9

2. Rhys ‘understood [Italian] as well as any native’ wrote Anthony Wood in his Athenae
Oxonienses (1691–1692).32 But this practical knowledge was inscribed, as has been
remarked, in a rigorous scientific perspective.33 Rhys descriptions are much more
nuanced and detailed than Garcilaso’s, but a kind of family resemblance between them
is undeniable. Can this resemblance be explained by a common reference to the intellec-
tual legacy of Greek and Latin grammarians, which Rhys reinforced and reworked relying
upon his knowledge of medicine? Or should we also consider the possibility that Garcilaso
read Rhys’s booklet on the pronunciation of Italian, addressed to foreigners?
In introducing his Comentarios Reales Garcilaso remarked that ‘in many other respects
the [Indian] language differs from Castilian, Italian, and Latin’.34 Italian, Spanish and
Quechua were the languages he knew. In fact, in the introduction to his first literary endea-
vour, the translation of Leone Ebreo’s Dialoghi d’amore, Garcilaso put his relationship
with Italian and Spanish, paradoxically, on the same level:
because neither Italian, the language in which it [Dialoghi d’amore] was written, nor Spanish,
in which I have put it, is my native tongue … 35

Here a short digression is needed. Many years ago Carlo Dionisotti argued that the Italian
text of Dialoghi d’amore, published in Rome in 1535, had been presumably translated from
an original written in Hebrew – possibly mediated by a Latin translation.36 In the introduc-
tion to his translation of Leone Ebreo’s Dialoghi d’amore Garcilaso (as Barbara Garvin
recently noted) alluded to a passage from Alessandro Piccolomini’s Della institution
morale (Venezia 1575), criticizing the unnamed person who had clumsily translated the Dia-
loghi ‘from Hebrew into Italian’.37 Garcilaso dismissed Piccolomini’s remark, insofar as a
translator of such an important work would have mentioned his own name; he also referred
to the authority of Jeronimo of Prado, a very learned Jesuit who knew Hebrew, and regarded
the concise character of Hebrew language incompatible with the florid style of the Dialoghi.
Garcilaso himself confidently insisted on the Italian features of Leone Ebreo’s text.38 Garci-
laso’s dismissal of Piccolomini’s allusion has been endorsed by Barbara Garvin in her recent
article. The debate is possibly open.39 In any case, Garcilaso had no doubts: Leone Ebreo’s
Dialoghi d’amore had been originally written in Italian.
Translating Dialoghi d’amore into Spanish must have involved an enormous work – a
full immersion into a foreign language. Rhys’s booklet on the pronunciation and orthogra-
phy of Italian, addressed to foreigners, may have attracted Garcilaso’s attention. It has
been suggested that Garcilaso’s marginal notes to López de Gómara’s Historia General
de las India were possibly written when the translation of Dialoghi d’amore was pub-
lished.40 Garcilaso’s passage on the different pronunciations of huaca, related to the
palate and the gullet, may have been inspired by Rhys’s descriptions of the bodily
organs involved in the act of pronouncing a specific letter.41
3. This is a mere hypothesis, which would need more evidence to be proven. But a com-
parison between Garcilaso de la Vega ‘el Inca’ and John David Rhys, who latinized his
name as Johannes David Rhoesus, may turn out to be fruitful on another level. These
two individuals, who lived more or less at the same time in different places, were able
to look at languages (including their own native tongue) in a comparative perspective,
taking advantage of their own marginal position. In his introduction to Comentarios
Reales Garcilaso noted that in the Indian language ‘six letters of the Spanish ABC’s are
10 C. GINZBURG

missing, and we might say eight’ (in a passage I already mentioned, Rhys made a similar
remark comparing different languages).
‘The Spaniards’ Garcilaso went on
add these lettera to the detriment and corruption of the language; and as the Indians do not
have them, they usually mispronounce Spanish words where they occur. To avoid further
corruption, I may be permitted, since I am an Indian, to write like an Indian in this
history, using the letters that should be used in these words. Let none who read take exception
to this novelty in opposition to the incorrect usage that is usually adopted: they should rather
be glad to be able ro read the words written correctly and with purity. As I have to quote
much from Spanish historians in support of what I say, I shall copy their words as they
write them with their corruptions; and I must warn the reader that it does not seem to me
inconsistent to write the letters I have mentioned which do not appear in the Indian language,
since I only do so to quote faithfully what the Spanish author has written.42

This striking passage shows that Garcilaso’s defense of the purity of his mother tongue
was inscribed in a detached philological attitude. His emphasis on keeping the original
spelling of Quechua and Spanish names may have been reinforced by the concern for
orthographic accuracy advanced by Rhys his De Italica pronunciatione et orthographia
libellus. Whether Garcilaso read it, we don’t know – but we do know that Garcilaso
learned Italian and spent years in translating Leone Ebreo’s Dialoghi d’amore. A foreign
language like Italian gave Garcilaso a vantage point to look at his father tongue and
mother tongue from a distance, in a comparative perspective.43
4. One could argue that Rhys’s trajectory was somewhat similar. He left Wales and went
to Italy; learned Italian and analysed the structure of Latin language in Italian, from an
Italian point of view; then committed himself to a different experiment, analysing
Italian language in Latin. In the second part of his life, having come back (we do not
know exactly when) to the British Isles, Rhys decided to publish a grammar of Welsh,
his own native language: Cambrobrytannicae Cymrecaeve linguae institutiones et rudi-
menta, London 1592. Carlo Dionisotti forcefully stressed the relationship between
Rhys’s Italian experience and this late work – connection announced in its front page,
in which Rhys labelled himself ‘Sienese physician’.44 Comparative philology had
allowed Rhys to commit himself to a detached, passionate analysis of his mother
tongue. Likewise, for Garcilaso, comparison paved the way not to identity (a fashionable,
utterly misleading word) but to self-identification.
5. Two chapters of Mercedes López-Baralt’s book El Inca Garcilaso, traductor de cul-
turas, are entitled, respectively, ‘Etnólogo avant la lettre’, ‘Un Inca filólogo’.45 The word
‘ethnophilogy’ I used in the title of my presentation seems, in the case of Garcilaso, unpro-
blematic. I extended it to John David Rhys, on the basis of his bold comparative approach
to Italian pronunciation and orthography. Philology, far from being incompatible with a
comparative approach, can be one the best instruments of it.
This conclusion may seem obvious, but it is not – for several reasons. First of all, the
meaning of ‘ethnophilology’ is not self-evident. The word has been used by some Amer-
ican anthropologists, in a rather restricted sense, as related to the reconstruction of some
oral marginal traditions.46 More misleadingly, it has been used in order to oppose written
documents, as expression of the elites, and oral traditions, as expression of subaltern
groups: in other words, to reject philology in the name of comparative ethnology.47
 GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL HISTORY 11

Argument like these do not deserve to be taken seriously. To oppose written and oral
evidence is simplistic: even the two case studies I have analysed show how intricate their
relationship can be. Since a long time historians have been used to interpret evidence
(including written evidence) against the intentions of those who produced it.48 If, follow-
ing in the footsteps of Giambattista Vico, we would take the word ‘philology’ in a broad
sense, its ultimate convergence with ‘ethnology’ would be obvious. The word ‘ethnophi-
lology’ may effectively emphasize the interaction of the two traditions. What we call
‘belief’ – for instance, the idolatrous beliefs that the Spaniards attributed to Anadean
populations – is trasmitted by words, by objects, by gestures whose meaning is not
self-evident. Garcilaso, ethnographer and philologist, had fully understood this.

III
Which kind of provisional conclusions may be drawn from those two case studies, and their
comparison? I would tentatively advance two of them. The first is, in a broad sense, political.
Both Garcilaso de la Vega and John Rhys ultimately defended their marginalized mother
tongue (Quechua and Welsh, respectively) through a long itinerary, which involved a
full immersion in a third, international language: at that time it was Italian; today it
would be English.49 The second conclusion is historical – but with theoretical implications.
The case of Garcilaso de la Vega – a native speaker who was able to point out, using a tech-
nical language, the different pronunciations of a word like huaca, is certainly unusual, if not
exceptional. But the notion of ‘eccezionale normale’ (normal exceptional) put forward
many years ago by Edoardo Grendi, one of the founders of microhistory, may prove to
be helpful in this context. An exceptional case from the point of view of the evidence,
like Garcilaso’s, may point at much more widespread phenomenon in reality. A reminder
for linguists, who inevitably, in dealing with languages of the past, rely upon written texts
that, in some cases, may have involved inadequate translitterations.50 But also a reminder
for those who have been reflecting on translation in a broad theoretical persepctive. One
may regret the absence in the Dictionnaire des intraduisibles of an entry devoted to the
dichotomy ‘etic/emic’. The asymmetrical relationship between the observer’s (or should
we say ‘the translator’s?’) categories and the actors’ categories does not seem irrelevant to
a reflection on translations and their relative inadequacies. On a more general level, one
may regret that an imposing work like the Dictionnaire des intraduisibles paid little atten-
tion to the asymmetrical context in which translations most often take place.51
All languages are equal but some languages are more equal than others. Asymmetry
never prevented either translations or their necessary prerequisite – translitterations.
On the contrary: everybody will recall the extraordinary effectiveness of so many language
translitterations performed by (mostly Jesuit) missionaries. Two elements made those
translitterations possible: force (i.e. European colonial expansion) and skill – i.e. the
duly reworked legacy of Greek and Roman grammarians. A troubling combination, an
astonishing success.

Notes
1. Cassin, ed., Vocabulaire européen des philosophies, XVII: ‘l’intraduisible, c’est plutôt ce qu’on
ne cesse pas de (ne pas) traduire’.
12 C. GINZBURG

2. See the entry ‘Right’ (by C. Audard) in Vocabulaire européen des philosophies, 1088–1091.
3. See Cassin, ed., Philosopher en langues.
4. See Vocabulaire, entry ‘Traduire’, 1307, referring to Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, I, 6, 1:
For such names are pronounced here after the manner of the Greeks, to please my
Readers. For our own country language does not so pronounce them. But the
names in all cases are of one and the same ending: for the name we here pronounce
Noeus, is there Noah; and in every case retains the same termination.
5. See Vocabulaire, introduction, XX: ‘homonymie (…) dont l’homophonie (le vert et le verre)
n’est qu’un cas extrême et une caricature moderne’.
6. Vocabulaire, entry ‘Homonye/Synonyme,’ 571: ‘Elle [l’homophonie] se présente alors comme
un phénomène marginal, lié au signifiant, pouvant intéresser la psychoanalyse et les amateurs
de mots d’esprit, mais d’une importance sécondaire pour l’analyse du langage’. Cassin’s retro-
spective evaluation strikes a different, not to say incompatible, note: ‘ … le dictionnaire des intra-
duisibles vient après coup confirmer combien performance et signifiant ont partir liée avec la
sophistique, qu’Aristote accuse de vouloir profiter de ‘ce qu’il y a dans les sons de la voix et
dans les mots’ pour refuser la décision du sens, l’univocité, la prohibition de l ‘homonymie
qui font le nerf du principe de contradiction [Aristotle, Met., IV, 5, 1009°20-22]’ (Cassin, intro-
duction to Philosopher en langues, 11). The distinction between homonymy and homophony
was insufficiently clarified in an essay which can be regarded as the starting point of Dictionnaire
des intraduisibles (Cassin, “Homonymie et amphibolie, ou le mal radical en traduction,” 71–8).
7. See Durand, “La Biblioteca del Inca,” 239–64; Migliorini et al., “Sobre La Biblioteca del Inca,”
166–70.
8. La traduzion del Indio de los tres Dialogos de amor de Leon Hebreo, hecha de Italiano en
español por Garcilasso Inga de la Vega, natural de la gran ciudad de Cuzco, Madrid 1590. I
consulted the anastatic reproduction with an introduction by De Burgos Núñez, Sevilla 1989.
9. Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, Comentarios Reales de los Incas. A few suggestions, in a huge bib-
liography: Miró Quesada, El Inca Garcilaso; El Inca Garcilaso de la Vega: entre varios mundos,
Morales Saravia and Penzkofer, eds.
10. Histoire des Yncas, rois du Perou.
11. Garcilaso de la Vega, Royal Commentaries of the Incas and General History of the Peru, I, 77
(Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, Comentarios Reales, I, 127).
12. Garcilaso de La Vega, Royal Commentaries, I, 76 (Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, Comentarios
Reales, I, 124).
13. Garcilaso de La Vega, Royal Commentaries, I, 79 (book II, ch. V) (Inca Garcilaso de la Vega,
Comentarios Reales, I, 130).
14. López-Baralt, “La traducción come etnografía en los Andes,” 119–46; Gruzinski, La pensée
métisse.
15. C. Brosseder’s important work (The Power of Huacas) does not mention Garcilaso’s remarks.
(Many thanks to Martin Mulsow for having brought Brosseder’s book to my attention).
16. Rivarola, “La génesis de los Comentarios Reales,”75–91, especially 85–6. See also Durand, “La
Biblioteca del Inca,” 253–4. I have not seen Rivarola, “Para la génesis de Comentarios Reales,”
59–141 (on huaca, see, 87–8).
17.
[pues] que no tenemos le[tras] en la len[gua] española co[mo] hazer las t[ales] pronun-
ciaciones me parecio compararlas a las [que] hazen la urraca y el cuervo en sus graz-
nidos: que la urraca pronuncia afuera en el paladar: y el cuerv[o] dentro en las fauc[es]
pues prounciando como la urraca un […] ydolo. Y pronunciando como el cuer[v]o
significa [llo]rar. (Rivarola, “La génesis,” 85)
I used the translation provided by Zamora, Language, Authority and Indignenous
History, 71. See also Miró Quesada, “Las ideas lingüisticas del Inca Garcilaso,” 27–64,
especially 30–2; López de Gómara, Historia General de las Indias, introduction and
fo. LVI r.
 GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL HISTORY 13

18. L’héritage des grammairiens latins de l’antiquité aux Lumières; Durston, Pastoral Quechua.
19. Priscianus grammaticus Caesariensis, Libri omnes, Venetiis, in aedibus Aldi et Andreae
Asulani soceri, 1527, 2 v; Lyon et l’illustration de la langue française à la Renaissance, sous
la direction de G. Défaux, avec la collaboration de B. Colombat, Lyon 2003, 186–7. See R.
H. Robins, “Priscian and the Context of His Age,” 49–55.
20. I reworked Pike’s distinction in Ginzburg, “Our Words, and Theirs,” 97–119.
21. Garcilaso de la Vega, Comentarios Reales, ed. by Miró Quesada, 67, note 1.
22. Gonzalez Holguin, Vocabulario de la lingua general de todo el Peru llamada lengua Qquichua
o del Inca.
23. This has been noted by Zamora, Language, 177 note 12; on huaca see also 71–6. Cerrón-Palo-
mino, “Los fragmentos de gramática quechua del Inca Garcilaso,” 219–57; su huaca, 231–2.
24. Galilei, Dialogue concerning the Two World Systems, p. 88.
25. Catoni, Bere vino puro. Immagini del simposio, 154–65; Diringer, The Alphabet.
26. Garcilaso de La Vega, Royal Commentaries, I, 79 (book II, ch. V). (Inca Garcilaso de la Vega,
Comentarios Reales, I, 130).
27. Dyonisius of Halicarnassus, On Literary Composition, ch. XIV, 143–5. See also Matthews,
“Greek and Roman Linguistics,” 13. Garcilaso, who knew Latin, may have consulted De com-
positione seu orationis partium apta inter se collocatione, Lutetiae 1547.
28. Percival, “Nebrija’s Linguistic Oeuvre as a Model for Missionary Linguists.”
29. Garcilaso de la Vega, Royal Commentaries:, I, 5: ‘Certain syllables are pronounced on the lips,
others on the palate, and others in the lower part of the throat, as we shall show later by
examples as they occur’.
30. Maraschio, ‘Sulla formazione italiana del grammatico gallese Joannes David Rhaesus (Rhys)’,
5–18; Maraschio, ed., Trattati di fonetica del Cinquecento, XL–XLIX, 93–264, are fundamen-
tal. See also Gwynfor Griffith, “De Italica Pronunciatione … .,” 72–82; Dionisotti, Gli uma-
nisti e il volgare, 37; Lepschy, Saggi di linguistica italiana, 217–99, in particular, 219–20;
Izzo, “Phonetics in Sixteenth Century Italy,” 335–59; Tavoni, “La linguistica rinascimentale,”
193; De Clercq and Swiggers, “Le De Italica pronunciatione et orthographia libellus (1569) de
John David Rhys,” 147–61. On the date of Rhys’s death, I follow Maraschio, ‘Sulla forma-
zione’, 6 note 3 (last news about him in 1619) rather than De Clercq and Swiggers, “Le De
Italica pronunciatione,” 47 (‘il est mort vers 1610–1615)’.
31. Joannes David Rhoesus (John David Rhys), De Italica pronunciatione et orthographia, in
Maraschio (ed.), Trattati di fonetica del Cinquecento, 217–8.
32. Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, 304 (n. 381).
33. Trabalza, Storia della grammatica italiana, 207–9; Dionisotti, review of T.G. Griffith, Avven-
ture linguistiche del Cinquecento, 451–8; Maraschio, “Sulla formazione italiana.”
34. Garcilaso de la Vega, Royal Commentaries, I, 6.
35. I use Zamora’s translation (Language, 50).
36. Dionisotti, “Appunti su Leone Ebreo [1959],” 315–32. Recent bibliography is mentioned in
Gilbhard, ‘Bibliografia degli studi su Leone Hebreo (Jehudah Abravanel)’, 113–34; Nelson
Novoa, “New Documents Regarding the Publication of Leone Ebreo’s Dialoghi d’amore,”
271–82. See especially Bellinotto, ‘Un nuevo documento sobre los ‘Dialoghi d’amore’ de
Leone Ebreo’, 399–409.
37. Garvin, “The Language of Leone Ebreo’s Dialoghi d’amore,” 181–210; La traduzion … , intr.
3 pp. r-v:
Alexandro Picolomini (…) en la institucion moral que compuxo, hablando de la
amistad, reprehende al tradutor, que el dize, que lo traduxo de Hebreo in Italiano,
sin dezir quien es: a mi me parece, que lo haze por reprehender en tercera persona
el mismo autor, porque si alguno lo traduxera de lo Hebreo a lo Italiano, dee creer
es, que no callara su nombre en hecho tan famoso.

Cfr. Piccolomini, Della institution morale libri XII, 429:

14 C. GINZBURG

… agevolmente si può vedere quanto errasse quel dottissimo Ebreo, il qual compose i
dialoghi di Filone e di Sofia, dicendo egli nel dialogo della communità che l’amicitia dif-
ferisca dall’amore non per altro, se non perché essa si considera nell’amato, et l’amore
nell’amante. La qual cosa, oltra che non è a pena intelligibile, ella ancor né in Platone,
né in Aristotele, né in altro buono scrittore si potrà trovar mai (…) Ma vada questo
fallo con alcuni altri che in quei dialoghi ultimi si ritrovano, là onde Filone insegna a
Sofia alcune cose, che né platoniche né aristoteliche si possano stimare: se già (come
io credo) in molte cose non si dee dar la colpa a chi quella opera di ebreo in lingua
nostra tradusse.

A copy of Piccolomini’s Della institution morale is listed among the books owned by Garci-
laso: see Durand, “La Biblioteca del Inca,” 256, n. 132.
38. La traduzion … : The jesuit Jeronimo de Prado was the author, along with Juan Bautista Vil-
lalpando, of a huge antiquarian work: In Ezechielem explanationes et apparatus urbis ac
templi Hierosolymitani, commentariis et imaginibus illustratus, 3 vols., Romae 1596.
39. In a letter dated ‘1 July 1543’ Claudio Tolomei wrote that Leone Ebreo’s Dialoghi d’amore had
been ‘tradotto in lingua Toscana’ from an original written ‘in lingua sua’ – Hebrew, according
to both Dionisotti and Isaiah Sonne (cfr. Dionisotti, ‘Appunti’, 324, 326). Garvin (‘The
Language’, 186–7) interprets ‘in lingua sua’ as a reference to Leone Ebreo’s style. But it
seems unlikely that Piccolomini (also from Siena, as Tolomei) would have meant to silently
contradict the statement made by his well-known fellow-citizen. More probably, he was
alluding to an oral tradition which Tolomei also shared. It must be noted that the earliest,
partial edition of Leone Ebreo’s Dialoghi d’amore (Roma, per Antonio Blado, 1535) included
a dedicatory letter to a member of the Piccolomini family.
40. López-Baralt, El Inca Garcilaso, traductor de culturas, 313.
41. Maraschio, “Sulla formazione,” 18: ‘In nessun’altra opera italiana sulla pronuncia, gramma-
tica o altro, si trova una esattezza in qualche modo avvicinabile a quella del Rhys nella descri-
zione del processo articolatorio’.
42. Garcilaso de la Vega, Royal Commentaries, I, 5.
43. On the scarcity of Spanish books and the abundance of Italian books in Garcilaso’s library see
Durand, ‘La Biblioteca del Inca’, 239 ff.
44. C. Dionisotti, review of T.G. Griffith, Avventure linguistiche del Cinquecento, 451–8.
45. López-Baralt, El Inca Garcilaso, traductor de culturas, chapters 3 and 4.
46. Tangherlini, “Afterword: Performing through the Past: Ethnophilology and Oral Tradition,”
143–9.
47. Benozzo, “Etnofilologia,” 208–30; Benozzo, Etnofilologia. Un’introduzione. See also, Benozzo,
Appello all’UNESCO per liberare Dante dai dantisti, 14–5 (a jocular pamphlet, with a serious
– in my view unacceptable – content).
48. See my essay ‘Revelaciones involuntarias. Leer la historia a contrapelo’, 127–68.
49. Berman, Jacques Amyot, traducteur français, 37:

Contrairement à ce que l’on pense encore, la traduction n’est pas un processus qui joue
simplement entre deux langues face à face. Ou, plus précisement, pour qu’un tel face à
face fonctionne, il faut une tierce langue qui, en tant que langue-de-traduction, joue le
rôle de médiatrice entre les deux autres … . (many thanks to Martin Rueff for having
brought this passage to my attention)
50. Crickmay, “Many Ways of Saying, One Way of Writing,” 53–66; Calvo Pérez, “Fonología y
ortografía de las lenguas indígenas de America del Sur a la luz de los primeros misioneros
gramáticos,” 137–70 (but the entire volume is relevant). See also Hanzeli, Missionary Linguis-
tics in New France, 72–81.
51. Among the exceptions, see the entry ‘Heimat’ (by Marc Crépon), Dictionnaire des intradui-
sibles, 546–9.
 GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL HISTORY 15

Acknowledgements
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Sorbonne (June 2016) and at the University of
Erfurt (July 2016). I am grateful to Maria Luisa Catoni, Giulio Lepschy, Martin Mulsow and Martin
Rueff for their bibliographical suggestions; to Henry Monaco for his linguistic revision.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Carlo Ginzburg (1939) has taught at the University of Bologna, at UCLA, at the Scuola Normale of
Pisa. His books, translated into more than twenty languages, include The Night Battles; The Cheese
and the Worms; Clues, Myths, and the Historical Method; The Enigma of Piero della Francesca;
History, Rhetoric, and Proof; The Judge and the Historian; Wooden Eyes; No Island is an
Island; Threads and Traces; Fear Reverence Terror: Five Essays in Political Iconography. He
received the Aby Warburg Prize (1992), the Humboldt-Forschungs Prize (2007), the Balzan
Prize for the History of Europe, 1400-1700 (2010) and sixteen honorary degrees from various
universities.

Bibliography
Bellinotto, E. O. “Un nuevo documento sobre los ‘Dialoghi d’amore’ de Leone Ebreo.” Arquivos do
Centro Cultural Português VII (1973): 399–409.
Benozzo, F. “Etnofilologia.” Ecdotica 4 (2007): 208–230.
Benozzo, F. Etnofilologia. Un’introduzione. Napoli: Liguori, 2010.
Benozzo, F. Appello all’UNESCO per liberare Dante dai dantisti. Edizioni dell’Orso: Alessandria,
2013.
Berman, A. Jacques Amyot, traducteur français. Essai sur les origines de la traduction en France.
Paris, 2012.
Brosseder, C. The Power of Huacas. Change and Resistance in the Andean World of Colonial Peru.
Austin: University of Texas Press, 2014.
Calvo Pérez, J. “Fonología y ortografía de las lenguas indígenas de America del Sur a la luz de los
primeros misioneros gramáticos.” Missionary Linguistics II / Lingüística misionera II,
Orthography and Phonology, Selected Papsrs from the Second International Conference on
Missionary Linguistics, São Paulo, 10–13 March 2004, 137–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 2005.
Cassin, B. “Homonymie et amphibolie, ou le mal radical en traduction.” Revue de Métaphysique et
de Morale 94 (1989): 71–78.
Cassin, B., ed. Vocabulaire européen des philosophies. Dictionnaire des intraduisibles, Paris: Le
Robert - Seuil, 2004.
Cassin, B, ed. Philosopher en langues. Les intraduisibles en traduction. Paris: Editions rue d‘Ulm,
2014.
Catoni, M. L. Bere vino puro. Immagini del simposio. Milano: Feltrinelli, 2010.
Cerrón-Palomino, R. “Los fragmentos de gramática quechua del Inca Garcilaso.” Lexis, XVII, no. 2
(1993): 219–257.
Crickmay, L. “Many Ways of Saying, One Way of Writing. European Registration of Andean
Languages in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” In Languages Different in all Their
Sounds… Descriptive Approaches to Indigenous Languages of the Americas 1500 to 1850, edited
by E. Nowak, 53–66. Münster: Nodus Publikationen, 1999.
De Burgos Núñez, M., ed. La traduzion del Indio de los tres Dialogos de amor de Leon Hebreo, hecha
de Italiano en español por Garcilasso Inga de la Vega, natural de la gran ciudad de Cuzco. Sevilla:
Padilla Libros, [1989] Pedro Madrigal [1590].
16 C. GINZBURG

De Clercq, J., and P. Swiggers. “Le De Italica pronunciatione et orthographia libellus (1569) de John
David Rhys.” In Italia ed Europa nella linguistica del Rinascimento: confronti e relazioni, edited
by M. Tavoni, II, 147–161. Ferrara Modena, F. C. Panini:, 1996.
de Prado, Jeronimo, and Juan Bautista Villalpando. In Ezechielem explanationes et apparatus urbis
ac templi Hierosolymitani, commentariis et imaginibus illustratus. 3 vols. Romae: Luigi Zanetti,
1596.
Dionisotti, C. “Appunti su Leone Ebreo [1959].” In Scritti di storia della letteratura italiana, I,
(1935-1962), edited by T. Basile, V. Fera and S. Villani, 315–332. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e
Letteratura, 2008.
Dionisotti, C. Gli umanisti e il volgare. Firenze: F. Le Monnier, 1968.
Dionisotti, C. Review of T. G. Griffith, Avventure linguistiche del Cinquecento, Firenze, 1961, in
Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 138 (1961): 451–458.
Diringer, D. The Alphabet: A Key to the History of Mankind, 3. ed. revised with the collaboration of
R. Regensburger. London: Hutchinson, 1968.
Durand, J. “La Biblioteca del Inca.” Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 2 (1948): 239–264.
Durston, A. Pastoral Quechua. The History of Christian Translation in Colonial Peru, 1550–1650.
Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007.
Dyonisius of Halicarnassus. De compositione seu orationis partium apta inter se collocatione,
Lutetiae: Robert Estienne, 1547.
Dyonisius of Halicarnassus. On Literary Composition, edited by W. Rhys Roberts. London:
Macmillan, 1910.
Galilei, Galileo. Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems, translated by S. Drake. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1967.
Garcilaso de la Vega, El Inca. Histoire des Yncas, rois du Perou; contenant leur origine, depuis le
premier Ynca Manco Capac, leur etablissement, leur idolatrie … Avec une description des ani-
meaux, des fruits, des mineraux, des plantes, &c. Traduite de l’espagnol de l’Ynca Garcilasso de
la Vega, par Jean Baudoin. Tome premier –second. Amsterdam: Jacques Desbordes, 1715.
Garcilaso de la Vega, El Inca. Comentarios Reales de los Incas, edited by A. Miró Quesada. Lima:
Banco de Crédito del Perú, 1985.
Garcilaso de la Vega, El Inca. Royal Commentaries of the Incas and General History of the Peru,
translated by. H. V. Livermore, introduction by. A. Toynbee. 2 vols. Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1966.
Garvin, B. “The Language of Leone Ebreo’s Dialoghi d’amore”. Italia. Studi e ricerche sulla storia, la
cultura e la letteratura degli Ebrei d’Italia 13–15 (2001): 181–210.
Gilbhard, T. “Bibliografia degli studi su Leone Hebreo (Jehudah Abravanel).” Accademia. Revue de
la Société Marsile Ficin VI (2004): 113–134.
Ginzburg, C. “Our Words, and Theirs: A Reflection on the Historian’s Craft, Today.” In Historical
Knowledge. In Quest of Theory, Method and Evidence, edited by S. Fellman and M. Rahikainen,
97–119. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2012.
Ginzburg, C. “Revelaciones involuntarias. Leer la historia a contrapelo.” In Cinco Reflexiones sobre
Marc Bloch, C. Ginzburg, intr. E. Cifuentes Medina, 127–168. Guatemala: Universidad de San
Carlos de Guatemala, 2015.
Gonzalez Holguin, D. Vocabulario de la lingua general de todo el Peru llamada lengua Qquichua o
del Inca, edición facsimilar de la versión de 1952, incluye addenda. Presentación R. Matos
Mendieta, prólogo de R. Porros Barrenechea. Lima, 1989.
Gruzinski, S. La pensée métisse. Paris: Fayard, 1999.
Gwynfor Griffith, T. “De Italica Pronunciatione … ..” Italian Studies VIII (1953): 72–82.
Hanzeli, V. E. Missionary Linguistics in New France. A Study of Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-
Century Amercian Indian Langiages. The Hague-Paris, 1969.
Izzo, H. J. “Phonetics in 16th-Century Italy: Giorgio Bartoli and John David Rhys.” Historiographia
Linguistica 9, no. 3 (1982): 335–359.
Lepschy, G. C. Saggi di linguistica italiana. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1978.
 GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL HISTORY 17

López de Gómara, F. Historia General de las Indias, [Saragoça 1555], edited by A. Miró Quesada.
Lima: Comisión nacional del V Centenario del Descubrimiento de América-Encuentro de dos
Mundo, 1993.
López-Baralt, M. “La traducción come etnografía en los Andes: el Inca Garcilaso.” In Para decir el
Otro. Literatura y antropología en nuestra America, edited by M. López-Baralt, 119–146. Madrid:
Iberoamericana, 2005.
López-Baralt, M. El Inca Garcilaso, traductor de culturas. Madrid: Iberoamericana, 2011.
Lyon et l’illustration de la langue française à la Renaissance, sous la dir. de G. Defaux, avec la collab.
de B. Colombat, Lyon, éd. SNS.
Maraschio, N. “Sulla formazione italiana del grammatico gallese Joannes David Rhaesus (Rhys).”
Studi di grammatica italiana IX (1980): 5–18.
Maraschio, N., ed. Trattati di fonetica del Cinquecento. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca, 1992.
Matthews, P. “Greek and Roman Linguistics.” In History of Linguistics, edited by G. Lepschy,
Classical and Medieval Linguistics, II. London: Longman, 1994.
Migliorini, B., G. C. Olschki, and J. Durand. “Sobre La Biblioteca del Inca.” Nueva Revista de
Filología Hispánica 3 (1949): 166–170.
Miró Quesada, A. “Las ideas lingüisticas del Inca Garcilaso.” Boletin de la Accademia Peruana de la
lengua 9 (1974): 27–64.
Miró Quesada, A. El Inca Garcilaso, Lima 1994 (2nd., revised ed.; 1st ed., Madrid 1948).
Morales Saravia, J., and G. Penzkofer, eds. El Inca Garcilaso de la Vega: entre varios mundos. Lima
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos:, 2011.
Nelson Novoa, J. “New Documents Regarding the Publication of Leone Ebreo’s Dialoghi d’amore.”
Hispania Judaica Bulletin, 5 (5767/2007): 271–282.
Percival, W. K. “Nebrija’s Linguistic Oeuvre as a Model for Missionary Linguists” [1999], in Id.,
Studies in Renaissance Grammar. Aldershot, 2004.
Priscianus of Caesarea, Libri omnes, Venice, in aedibus Aldi et Andreae Asolani soceri, 1527.
Rivarola, J. L. “La génesis de los Comentarios Reales. Examen de algunas apostillas del Inca a la
Historia de Gómara.” In El Inca Garcilaso de la Vega: entre varios mundos, edited by
J. Morales Saravia and G. Penzkofer, 75–91. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos, 2011.
Rivarola, J. L. “Para la génesis de los Commentarios Reales. Edición y comentario de las apostillas del
Inca Garcilaso (y otros) a la Historia general de las Indias.” Nueva Revista de Filologia Hispanica
50 (2002): 59–141.
Robins, R. H. “Priscian and the Context of his Age.” In L’héritage des grammairiens latins de
l’antiquité aux Lumières. Actes du colloque de Chantilly, 2–4 septembre 1987, edited by I.
Rosier-Catach, 49–55. Louvain: Société pour l’information grammaticale, 1988.
Rosier-Catach, I. L’héritage des grammairiens latins de l’antiquité aux Lumières. Actes du colloque de
Chantilly, 2-4 septembre 1987 … . Louvain: Société pour l’information grammaticale, 1988.
Tangherlini, T. R. “Afterword: Performing through the Past: Ethnophilology and Oral Tradition.”
Western Folklore 62, no. 1/2, Models of Performance in Oral Epic, Ballad, and Song (2003):
143–149.
Tavoni, M. “La linguistica rinascimentale.” In Storia della linguistica, edited by G. C. Lepschy, II.
Bologna: Il Mulino, 1990.
Trabalza, C. Storia della grammatica italiana. Milano: Hoepli, 1908.
Wood, Anthony. Athenae Oxonienses. London: Thomas Bennet, 1691–1692.
Zamora, M. Language, Authority and Indignenous History in the Comentarios Reales de los Incas.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.