|
COPYRIGHT 2003 Modern Humanities Research Association
In the preface to Conversions and Citizenry: Goa under Portugal, 1510-1610, (1) the author, Delio de Mendonca, states that he will go beyond 'one or two' sides of history to retrieve the 'third side' of conversions by using 'known material' interpretatively to re-create the origins and policy of conversions in Goa (p. viii). (2) The aim of this review-article is to explore the technique adopted to achieve that goal in practice; in effect to reduce all that is known to 'known material' and then recycle its contents and insights. There is always a consumer for something, especially if there is an institutional label attached to guarantee 'market' confidence. It seems to fit with the logic of 'marketing' that is discussed on the first page of the first chapter. I can at least attest to its success as 'an attempt to write a more provocative' history (p. viii).
The introduction goes round in circles, and ties itself in knots and leaves one exasperated with his switches from what needs to be done, what must not be done, what has been done and above all, the short discourse on historical imagination in a most unimaginatively written text. It gives the reader an impression of being served a plateful of a variety of borrowed and ill-digested insights. It sets off on the wrong foot in the very first paragraph, stating that Indo-Portuguese historiography reveals that the 'spice business' (author's expression?) absorbed more than ninety percent (sic) of official attention during the sixteenth century. How does the author arrive at such a precise percentage figure? I doubt if the two works quoted to substantiate this, and published in 1949 and 1969 respectively, worked out any such percentage and came to an agreement on it. The authors quoted are major figures in Indo-Portuguese historiography and actively participated in ISIPH seminars that have contributed to a substantial revision of Indo-Portuguese historiography over the past two and half decades. The Xavier Centre of Historical Research has played a key role in that process, but the failure of the author of Conversions and Citizenry, who at present represents that institution, to incorporate much of this recent research, seriously compromises his own institution's legacy. This failure is too grave to merit further comment, especially if this work was submitted for a doctorate.
The introductory chapter refers to 'citizens or converts', 'convertcitizens', and various other combinations, but without ever defining 'citizenship' (or 'citizenry') which is part of the title of the book and seems to be central to the theme. What was citizenship in the sixteenth century? This is a fundamental issue, if the author is not to be accused of extrapolating from time contexts and reading into the past more recent developments. Had the author cared to read, for instance, Antonio Hespanha's Panorama historico da cultura juridica europeia, or Paula Escaramela's Formation of Concepts in International Law, the concept of the citizen and rights of citizenship would become clear and help to make this entire piece of research a more mature contribution, rather than a game of shadow-boxing.
There is much archival and published documentation...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
