Content area
Full text
MATTHEW RESTALL, Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Pp. x + 218. $28.00.
Matthew Restall wants to debunk the myths that have grown up around the Spanish Conquest. By "myth," he means "something fictitious that is commonly taken to be true, partially or absolutely" (xvi). In place of these myths he seeks to provide more accurate stories of what happened when Old World and New World peoples encountered each other. Not all of his arguments are fully persuasive, but he does offer a stimulating reflection on the notion that "things are not how we see them, but how we remember them" (xvii).
Restall begins by attacking the notion that the Conquest was the work of a few exceptional men, specifically Columbus, Cortes, and Pizarro. He does a good job demythologizing Columbus, noting that Columbus's critics didn't really believe that the earth is flat and had a better idea of its size than he did. Columbus, it turns out, was more lucky than good. Restall's discussion of Cortes is less satisfactory because the criteria are much more subjective. He claims that much of Cortés's reputation for greatness rests on his own letters to Charles V. These were "probanzas"-formulaic conquest reports that by their very nature were designed to "puff" the contribution of the writer and enlarge the significance of his conquest so that a grateful king would respond with honors and rewards. Taking them as an accurate account of events is like accepting a real estate promoter's prospectus at face value. In reality, writes Restall, there was nothing special about Cortés's actions, they were standard practice for Spaniards venturing into as yet unclaimed territory, I think Restall is trying too hard here. A mere recital of the events surrounding the conquest of the Aztecs suggests that...