Response
3: Primary
One paragraph summary
of issue
From the opening of The
Island Princess, conversion is referred to by Pedro, “But where no faith
is, there’s no trust” (I:I, 28), thus revealing the standard
conversion-marriage pairing that we see so often in early modern drama. As with
other plays we’ve read, love and conversion are conflated, although in The Island Princess, there’s the
underlying implication that both must be forced. At first, the audience is led
to believe that the romantic pairing will be between Rui Dias, the Portugese
(Catholic) Christian and the pagan princess, Quisara. However, once Rui Dias
proves himself to be a man that values counsel over his own heart and takes his
time making a decision, Quisara deserts him, and her apparent love for him, for
Armusia. Armusia proves himself a better man and Christian by rescuing the
King, Quisara’s brother to prove his worth, but more importantly for the issue
of conversion, by being willing to suffer torture and death for his faith. One
of the unique things about conversion in The
Island Princess is the conflation of Fortune/Fame with conversion. Quisara
is viewed as a prize for the suitors/princes to win, and as Sousa states,
“Fortune looks fair on those make haste to win her” (I:iii, 241). The
conflation of wealth, or material possessions with conversion is an odd one,
but in support of the globalization lens through which we’ve viewed our texts.
Detailed analysis
The
language used to describe both is that of possession, most often with a
variation of the phrase “Take her” (I:I, 78), although there is some push back
from other characters, “For ‘tis not a compelled or forced affection” (I:I,
81). The Governor tries to convince Armusia that they way to acquire Quisara’s
love is by forcing her, to rape her (1:iii, 187-191).
Quisara
calls into question the idea that any man can “examine” (I:ii, 6) her or by
extension her beliefs. The choice of examination is a strange one, as for me it
called to mind the Inquisition examining heresy. Quisara standing up for
herself against the princes, and setting the circumstances of her own marriage
can be seen as a counter of patriarchal authority and to the idea that she is a
commodity to be traded to the highest bidder. Quisara’s quest for the suitors
of setting her brother free is one that requires courage and strength, not
wealth. Rui Dias proves he doesn’t possess these qualities, and therefore is
unfit for her. On the other hand, the Governor frames his discussion about
Quisara with the King in Act II through fortune and Fame. “Couldst not though
wish her/A bastard or a whore- Fame might proclaim her,/Black, ugly Fame-“
(II:I, 68-70). The Governor identifies Quisara as both a prize, associated with
Fame, but also the negative aspects of Fame.
The
idea of conversion, or religion as a form of deceit is seen in the Governor’s
disguise as a native holy man. While in disguise, the Governor warns the King
to beware of the “Portugals” (IV:i, 33), representing the dangers of conversion
in this case from Protestant to Catholic, not Christian to pagan. Later, the
Governor warns Quisara that the reason the Portugese are a threat is because of
the “mighty hand they bear upon our government” (IV:ii, 161). The idea that
religion could contaminate politics and culture is the real fear here. It is of
note that these conversations take place in Act IV, because while the
groundwork for conversion as a theme in the play has been laid since the
beginning of Act I it is not until Act IV when it becomes the center of the
play’s action. It is at the end of Act IV that Quisara tells Armusia that a
condition of their love/marriage is that he must convert to her (pagan) faith.
Armusia vehemently refuses. When Quisara makes these demands of her, she becomes just another object to him, which
he must somehow possess, but under his conditions: “Yet I must have ye-/Have ye
of my faith too” (Act IV: v, 102-103). It is only once Armusia is to be
tortured and killed that Quisara relents, seemingly accepting her place as
object and replies “Your faith and your religion must be like ye” (V:ii, 117) and
“I do embrace your faith, sir, and your fortune” (V:ii, 121). Here, fortune is
not capitalized, implying that it refers to Armusia’s fate of torture and death
as a Christian who has offended the King, but to an audience, given the
multiple references throughout the play, it would be understood both ways. The
lesson seems to be that it is only after Quisara accepts her place, as an
object and subordinate to Armusia, that she can have the love she wants.
From
subtle conversion references in Act I-III, to the focus on the conflation of
romance and conversion in Act IV, Act V suddenly has a plethora of conversions.
Pinheiro speaks to Panura about converting her (V:iv, 14), the Governor’s
impersonation of a native holy man, which can be read as a false conversion, is
revealed (V:v, 53), and the King implies he is ready to convert; “Take her,
friend-/You have half persuaded me to be a Christian-“ (V:v, 67-68). I think
it’s important that the last reference to conversion in the play stresses the
taking of property-conversion connection. This signals to me the relationship
between conversion and material things/wealth. In the play, Fortune favors the
bold- Armusia in rescuing the King and earning Quisara’s love through his
strength of character. If we substitute conversion in this formula, Armusia is
rewarded in the same way- he tempts the King to conversion and gets Quisara to
convert. The play seems to state that Fortune and conversion are the same, that
the same actions that earn Fortune will earn converts. In this way, Armusia is
presented as model for the perfect venturer/merchant and Christian. It also
seems to argue that the way to earn converts is to create an in through
mercantilism, which is in keeping with the globalization lens through which
we’ve viewed the class, and is an interesting commentary on the early modern
period c. 1619-1621.
No comments:
Post a Comment