The Island Princess

by John Fletcher

New RSC Classics series highlights rarely performed Tudor and Jacobean plays.

Genres: Classics, Plays, Drama, Theatre, Fiction, School, Renaissance

128 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 1647

About the author

born December 1579
died August 1625

English playwright John Fletcher collaborated with Francis Beaumont on romantic comedies, including Philaster (1610) and The Maid's Tragedy (1611).

John Fletcher identified as a Jacobean. He followed William Shakespeare as house for the men of the king among the most prolific and influential dramatists of his day; during his lifetime and in the early Restoration, his fame rivaled that of his predecessor.

In 1606, he began to appear as an author for the Children of the Queen's Revels, then performing at the Blackfriars theater. Commendatory verses by Richard Brome in the Fletcher 1647 folio place Fletcher in the company of Ben Jonson; a comment of Jonson's to Drummond corroborates this claim, although it is not known when this friendship began. At the beginning of his career, his most important association. The two together for close to a decade, first for the children and then for the King's Men. According to a legend transmitted or invented by John Aubrey, they also lived together (in Bankside), sharing clothes and having "one wench in the house between them." This domestic arrangement, if it existed, was ended by marriage in 1613, and their dramatic partnership ended after fell ill, probably of a stroke, the same year.

Though Fletcher's reputation has been eclipsed since, he remains an important transitional figure between the Elizabethan popular tradition and the popular drama of the Restoration.

Reviews

[carol]

i can't believe i actually finished this

[Joules · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thank you to John Fletcher for proving you can be horny and Christian at the same time

[Jacky Chan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Critically pertinent and interesting WHILE being readable. Good job Fletcher

[Aisling · Rating 1 out of 5]

1 and a half stars i guess? as quite a fan of renaissance / jacobean era plays this really was a personal let down. i think it’s a given to expect elements of colonialism/racism/sexism within plays from this period but that quite literally is the entire purpose of the play - a theatric acceptance and encouragement of expansion and colonialism. the plot of the second half of the play is very heavily rushed, and whilst the first plot of armusia breaking a king out of imprisonment is fun and interesting to consider how the performance would’ve been constructed, i just didn’t really enjoy anything beyond that? armusia has (from a christian perspective) a perfect level of righteousness and essentially has no flaws, and his absolute slander of the religion of tidore is just so unnecessary and intense - and then of course his perfection inspired the princess to leave behind all her own religious beliefs and morals as she converts to christianity and wow i guess colonialism is a good thing because it means we can convert others to christianity !! i’m sure that’s definitely what they want and it should become our goal as britain to expand our empire, profit off of those we colonise, and inflict our religion upon them because what they currently have is “barbaric” 🥰. yeah didn’t really fw this play.

[isa lim · Rating 1 out of 5]

garbage book. do not read

[Izzy Beer · Rating 2 out of 5]

kinda hard to get through. can’t find a play for it to watch anywhere online so clearly it’s not that good as no one wants to watch it

[Tom Caskie]

so many sexual references (apparently). Silly and then sudden religious fanaticism and fighting. Love that

[suna · Rating 1 out of 5]

bad

[Noah McCluskey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short Review for this one. This is Fletcher's attempt at the Tempest, this play provides a vignette of a colonial encounter in which the Portuguese colonisers battle for the love of the titular Island Princess Quisara.

Quisara the object of everyone's affection is a metaphor for the island itself, to win her affection is to succeed in owning the Island. They duel, have prison breaks and scheme against each other to curry favour with her. but when Quisara makes a final ask of the leading suitor, Armusia all hell breaks loose. She asks the Christian Portuguese man to convert to Islam this is too far and we get multiple scenes of Armusia having some of the feistiest pro Christianity monologue you may see, I would guess the zeal and over the top nature is Fletcher poking fun but still these were some beautiful monologues.

The rest of the play has some Fletcher sex jokes and lots of interesting depictions of women, too much to possibly cover in this review. Overall I thought it was very good, an early modern piece that introduced themes of colonialism and religion in a careful manner and has monologues and scenes that at times surpass that of Shakespeare. Considering it's a play there are of course compromises to the necessity for it to be staged and there are potentially many redundant characters. In addition the humour doesn't always hit but the twists, writing and suspense makes it an enjoyable read.

[Honah · Rating 2 out of 5]

Keeping with the Christian theme, no plot point “begat” another

[Richard · Rating 3 out of 5]

In her introduction to the Arden edition of this play, Clare McManus observes that twenty-first century readers and audiences might well be surprised to discover "that such a location was even available for dramatization by a Jacobean writer". I count myself amongst them: despite having read a fair number of early modern plays (most of them a very long time ago), I can't think of many with anything resembling such a setting, and The Island Princess itself is wholly new to me. The critical consensus links Fletcher's play to The Tempest. but to my eyes it has more affinity with All's Well That Ends Well or The Merchant of Venice (both in its Portia and its Shylock plots): as much as a tragicomedy, it feels like a semi-anti-romance, or perhaps a parodic romance, although the degree of semi-/anti-/parody could probably only really be appreciated in performance—or, more accurately, this degree could vary according to the production. On the page, it's not entirely clear whether we are meant to stand with the characters or cast a more critical eye on them: for example, in the Portuguese settlers' scoffing at the pursuits of Malukan noblemen in 1.1, or Quisara's discomforture at the failure of Rui Dias to perform the task (quest) set up for him in 2.6. I'm not if this is subtlety or fence-sitting, but it continues right to the end of the play: it's not hard to imagine that the reaction of a Jacobean audience to the juxtaposition of Quisara's and Armusia's attitudes to religious conversion might have been quite different to our own, but what would they made of the King of Tidore's professed "half" persuasion in favour of Christianity in the final scene, and what are we to make of it? It's either deliberately ambiguous or a fudge; given that Fletcher ducks some potential edginess by making the "Moor priest" just the Governor of Ternate in a false beard, I'm inclined to think the latter. All of this makes The Island Princess an interesting play, but not a neglected masterpiece.

[Marnie Cannon · Rating 4 out of 5]

What I liked about The Island Princess is we are FINALLY given a female character during this time frame who has her own voice. #FemaleEmpowerment -- am I right?! In the class I've been reading this play for, the readings before now have continually focused on male characters who just walk all over the female characters and brutally control the female identity. Except The Sea Voyage, but even in that play there is still a drastic change when the right guy comes along and all thoughts of independence by the female is shot down.
In this play the main female character is very strong and independent with a dominant leader identity. And even in the end, when she is married off, she doesn't fully lose that controlling and dominating (I use this word A LOT for her btw...) identity. Which is very refreshing for a time frame where the female and their identity is frequently controlled and dominated by man. In the end her husband takes control of her independence, but it's a weird half win for her because the only reason he can control her when others can't is because he acknowledges and accepts her dominating identity. By him showing her that he is okay with that equality and respects her independence, as long as she accepts his as well, the result is her taking a step back and giving part of her identity to him. It's an interesting, yet satisfying ending to the play.
The focus on religion and Christianity is interesting as well, and Fletcher artfully works this devotion of faith into the concept of the island and human identity.

[Gill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Set in the East Indies, unusual for its period, though only a very vague sense of different cultures - and some of that a touch offensive to modern eyes perhaps. A princess is inundated by suitors, but her brother, the King, has been kidnapped by a local dignitary and is suffering in prison. She announces that she will only marry a man who can rescue her brother - and not simply release him, as the villainous Governor who captured him offers to do. Several suitors have ideas, but only one goes ahead, rents a merchant's house next to the prison, then blows it up in order to break the walls and spring the king.

And we are less than half way! It gets a bit bogged down in the Governor's nefarious plots, mostly in disguise, and some issues about changing religion, but in the end the baddy is unveiled and everyone who deserves to be happy is so.

Read as part of the REP King's Men online reading group in the bleak January of 2021.

[Valuxiea · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really liked the first half of this book and kind of hated the second. The main conflict is resolved early, and introduces a much more interesting conflict. However, while one single act explores this interesting conflict, it quickly become more about how amazing the West is and there's a new villainous angle which wears thin quickly. Still, all throughout I kept thinking "I would love to see how this would be performed" and I think the first half would stay well. But the theming and messaging are very dated and white savior esque, and even for plays of the era that would no transfer well to the stage today.

[One Sassy Reader · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve read this play for college, but I will still rate it, so I give it 3.5 stars.

I quite liked this play and I think it’s interesting and very representative of the period that it is set in.

Expansionism and colonialism and those sort of themes. It also is very telling of the stereotypes and religious conflicts that provided tension in the contact between different cultures.

One thing I appreciated was that it had a lot of action and it was fairly dynamic.

[Raidah Ahmed · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5⭐
It was a fun read🖤 I wish I had footnotes in my ebook, to help myself with the 17th century English at few points. But I liked it. Though most of the parts were unrealistic, specially the character of Armusia, I mean come on, who can be this good????? But then again, we don't always read to find realistic things😅over all it was good🖤

[Lydia Hughes · Rating 2 out of 5]

For my Renaissance Drama class. Like most of the plays for this class, the influence of imperialism and colonialism was evident. It was nice to see a female character exercising some autonomy over her narrative for once. Lots of fascinating socio-historical context for the turbulent political scene in England at the time of publishing.

[Eliza · Rating 4 out of 5]

HORRIFIC exploration of islam. transcends the concept of a tragicomedy to become more of an action play (???). quisara should have the last word. in general fun but what my lecturer describes as ‘twisty’ (which i think is v accurate)

[Maryam · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very unique read insofar as it being a culture study in which to break down discourse of the orient. Being of Indonesian descent this continues to be a read I would like to further breakdown one day.

[Jiang Yuqi · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 star. Read the synopsis first and thought it would be some Christian propaganda weird shits. But the play text is unexpected funny, dramatic and tender. Good characterisation etc. Strange use of side monologues tho. I start to wonder if Fletcher’s plays are always this tender…

[jules · Rating 1 out of 5]

i try to approach every text i study as if it has at least some potential merit, but after reading this play and two academic articles about it, i feel safe concluding that it is just straightforwardly SUPER racist colonial propaganda and i hate it.

[alec · Rating 2 out of 5]

Okay racism! Okay boring plot! Ok misogyny and sexism! I did not like this play. Like yes it's important to not forget it because its issues can provoke meaningful conversation, but it is just not good.

[Spencer Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a genre I'm particularly familiar with. I read this play for school. I liked it compared to some other plays I've read in school.

[Morgan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is what I did today.

[paperbackfruit · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.75

[Ketelen Lefkovich · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this for my master's.

I enjoyed this one, I found the dialogues more thought through and compelling than some other plays.

[Marissa]

Required reading

[Kelly 🌻🌞🌱 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved!

[Grace McNealy]

tfw u have a syphilitic colonial encounter

[rowan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Idk, sexist and racist as per 👍