The Power of Contradiction in the Gothic Novel

Many of the Gothic novels that we have read in class have been filled with characters of similar social and economic class. The white, upper class characters that are present in The Castle of Otronto, A Sicilian Romance, and Joanna Baillie's play De Monfort all have similar qualities that can be observed from their character's actions, despite all three literary pieces being written at different times. Many characters in all three stories contradict their actions throughout their respective stories. The use of contradictions in the Gothic novel allow the readers to examine the different sides of the characters as well as the actions that are affecting them.

The marchioness from Ann Radcliffe's A Sicilian Romance is a character that contradicts the role that society has given her. The marchioness poisons the marquis at the end of the book, noted in her letter she left by her body after she killed herself. Women were not expected to have this power in the society in Radcliffe's novel. Women expected to act caretakers and to provide children to the men. By taking the knife and killing herself, she is invoking an important contradiction. A knife is a very masculine image. It can come to symbolize power as well as masculinity. The marchioness took her own life by taking a knife in her own hands and killing herself. She took hold of her masculinity, plotted the end of the life of the marquis, and created her own destiny. This was not expected of women at the time of A Sicilian Romance.

Is a knife or weapon itself a symbol for contradiction?

Contradictions are not only seen in people, but also in objects themselves. The Castle of Otronto presents a haunted castle right at the beginning of the book that presents how contradictions  can also take place around the characters' environment. The beginning of the book opens with the prophecy that the castle will change owners should the present owners be seen unfit to live in the castle. Following this prophecy, a helmet crashes down and falls on the son of Manfred. The castle becomes alive as the horror of the novel gives light to the supernatural. The supernatural element that is presented contradicts how the castle is supposed to function. Castles and buildings may have a symbolic meaning, but the superstition is something more. The contradiction in Walpole's novel gives light to the supernatural elements present.

The contradictions in Joanna Baillie's De Monfort are different. The aforementioned contradictions are two very broad and important contradictions that affect their respective environments of the novel. The contradictions in De Monfort can be seen when he dies at the end of the play. De Monfort is murdered, but many people consider it more than murder. One of the monks refers to it as "the strong hand of death," is dealing with him while Jane refers to his murder as "that death which best becomes a man." Many of the characters in the play, including De Monfort, think little of murder. This is a contradiction because murder is thought of as an inhuman act which cannot be reconciled. The characters in the play are not emotionless, but their morals contradict what society expects them to think and believe. 

Al three contradictions have important similarities and differences, but the one thing that can be drawn from all of them is the layers of the emotion and thinking that the contradictions add. This also contradicts the expectations of the Gothic novel as such novels often contain static characters that are only there to let the story run through them. The contradictions mentioned show how important the environment surrounding the story is.  

Discussion Questions:
1) What are the different impacts of the various contradicting actions as well as personalities that have been present in the Gothic novels that we have read so far in class?
2) Why are there different levels of contradictions? The marchioness is on a social level, but De Monfort's can be considered a personal level. Which level is more important? Do any of the levels of contradiction affect each other?

Passion and Nature in De Monfort

Throughout our study of the gothic novel much of our focus has been on the nature and expression of the passions.  Though for such characters as Manfred, the Marquis, and the Abate, passion appears to be a demonstration of patriarchal authority, later texts seem to move away from this model, viewing passion as something entirely other.  Passion becomes something outside of the self, an outward representation of one's internal anxieties.  This is seen in Christabel and Victoria, and again in Joanna Baillie's De Monfort, where the titular character carries anxieties that ultimately are displaced into his hatred for Rezenvelt.  Baillie attempts to create a humanized depiction of the passions, something she discusses in her Introductory Discourse.  While I find there to be some discrepancies between her theory and her portrayal, De Monfort ultimately becomes a reimagination of the gothic protagonist, a character whose "other" seems to arise from anxieties about the social order and his own masculinity.

Clearly an influence on Byron and what would come to be known as the Byronic hero, De Monfort is proud, suspicious, and brooding.  He is untrusting and unable to apologize for his actions, correcting his wrongs through acts of sudden kindness rather than ever admitting to them.  Though he is seen as such throughout the play, those who know him constantly refer to his natural goodness.  It is because of this, his servant's, friends', and sister's respect for him, that readers are able to sympathize with  him.  He is often apathetic and cold, but can be driven to violence or a temper through the mention of Rezenvelt.  Rezenvelt becomes such an enemy to De Monfort because he represents a shift in the social order of power and masculinity.  Though initially poor, Rezenvelt gains wealth and respect equal to that of De Monfort, and his humor and friendliness make him well liked by De Monfort's peers.  Thus the power given to De Monfort by his class and rank are deeply threatened by the flexibility of Rezenvelt's situation.   

Bested by him twice in duel and continually made jest of, De Monfort's masculinity feels threatened by Rezenvelt's presence as well.  As he becomes more consumed with hatred and fear, Baillie employs gothic imagery to signal De Monfort's submission to his passions.  This is seen most explicitly in act IV, scene III, where De Monfort and Rezenvelt give dramatically different interpretations of the same woods.  What De Monfort hears as "hollow groans the earth beneath [his] tread" and "things horrid, bloody, terrible," Rezenvelt hears as a "night-bird greet[ing] [him] on [his] way," whose "hooting is in harmony with such a scene as this" (56-57).  The gothic imagery portrays De Monfort's dissociation with reality, his final surrender to his dark other.  This transition is finally prompted by the fear of losing his sister by marriage to Rezenvelt, a rumor viciously spread by the jealous Countess Freberg.  Orphaned as a child, De Monfort and Jane became close in youth, and Jane becomes the moral center for De Monfort's character.  To lose her to Rezenvelt would be the ultimate loss of his identity and he decides to kill Rezenvelt rather than let this happen. 

To read more about the use of otherness in De Monfort, click here. 

Discussion Questions: 

1) How does Baillie's execution of De Monfort compare to the theories in her Introductory Discourse? What is she trying to show through her characterization of De Monfort and does she show it successfully?

2) How does De Monfort's control of his passions compare to other literary figures we have read thus far? 

Fleeting Moments: On the Character of Conrad

Joanna Baillie's first gothic play, De Monfort, is a fairly straight forward play. The plot unfolds within the span of a few days, keeping with the common theatrical concept of unity of time. Being that it is, as the title of the anthology implies, a Gothic drama, it must contain a bit of the supernatural, even if that be the tiniest wisp. With this in mind, I want to examine the character of Conrad.

The Character De Monfort in a British Production of the Play

We first see him at the end of the first scene of Act IV. He enters and begs audience with Freberg, believing him to be De Monfort. Freberg replies he is not the man who Conrad speaks of and Conrad responds, both apologizing slightly and flattering greatly. Freberg gets swept up in the lovely words of this mysterious man and tells him that he may be able to recommend Conrad to the actual De Monfort. Conrad, with courteous and lofty language, thanks Freberg, but says he already has a dear friend to recommend him, Rezenvelt. The scene ends with Freberg telling Conrad to come back the next day and make no mention of Rezenvelt. Freberg exits and Conrad soliloquizes that he will present himself to De Monfort as an enemy of Rezevelt in order to gain his favor.

Our second meeting with Conrad is just as quick. He is presented to De Monfort, who proceeds to shoo him away until Conrad states that he is a foe of Rezenvelt. This changes De Monfort's mood abruptly. De Monfort begins to hang on everything Conrad says. The stranger goes on to tell De Monfort that it is common knowledge that Rezenvelt intends to marry his sister, Lady Jane De Monfort. De Monfort becomes even more agitated, and starts to lose touch with reality and the other people in the room. Conrad sees this and frets, saying he has "rous'd a fierce ungovernable madman" (pg 51).

These are our only encounters with Conrad. His entrance is at an interesting time in the play. It is the beginning of the fourth act and common sense leads us to believe we are at, or are approaching, the climax of the action. If this is so, we must hold this fleeting encounter as important to the plot. But this is where our questions begin. Who is Conrad? Why exactly did he want to meet with De Monfort? Why does Rezenvelt recommend him? What are his intentions? There seem to be some sinister machinations behind  this sudden meeting.

The Crafty Servant Syrus (on left) in Terence's The Self Tormentor

One of the first things that struck me about Conrad's character was before the play began. On the list of characters, Conrad is described as an artful knave. What does artful knave mean? Upon seeing this for the first time, I immediately compared him to the crafty servant stereotype, which began in Ancient Roman comedy, continued through Shakespeare and through to today. A crafty servant molds situations to suit their needs and desires, following master's orders only if it benefits them. I kept this in mind as I read, anticipating that Conrad would be a key figure in the action. However, he did not stick to this. His brief involvement in the story did not allow him to really alter situations to meet his wishes as much as the Roman playwright Terence's crafty servants. Conrad does admit to altering his story to present himself to De Monfort, but shows remorse in doing so. Crafty servants rarely show such remorse.

The next theory I pondered was that Conrad is a parasite character, another ancient stereotype so often reused in drama. Like the servant character, parasites bend situations to fit their desires, usually for money, power, or notoriety. Conrad does seem to have altered the situation to benefit himself, but again he shows uncharacteristic remorse.

Looking into Conrad's actions I saw another type of character he could possibly be. Conrad's words launched De Monfort into a frenzy. Upon rumors Conrad suggested, De Monfort was sent on a path that led to his eventual murder of Rezenfelt. This seemed familiar. Was it not Zofloya that sent Victoria on a path to her undoing? Conrad's remorse is called into question. Was it sincere? If it was, he could not have been a Zofloya-like character. Satan shows no remorse, for that is his greatest sin according to Milton. Milton suggests that if Lucifer showed remorse to God, God may have let him rejoin the heavenly realm. Was Conrad's remorse an act of artifice?




Discussion Questions:
1. Who is Conrad to you? What does he represent? What are his intentions? What is his significance? Are there other similarities between him and Zofloya? How about other characters we have discussed?

2. How is his character used? Could you consider his character as a plot device? Could the play have progressed in the same manner if his character were removed?

Baillie and the Need of Human Nature

Baillie’s dramas, in particular Plays on the Passions stand at the crossroads of the Scottish Enlightenment and early Romanticism. One can see the effect these had on her writing, and may explain her focus on the human mind and its relationship to human nature. However, her beginnings were with poetry, for which she was regarded as one of the finest woman poets in her lifetime. Elizabeth Barrett Browning even hailed her as “the first female poet in all senses in England.” Her career in poetry sits in contrast with that of her dramas, for it’s poetry itself which she goes on to criticize in Plays on the Passions, for they don’t often include human nature in them, creating a disconnect between the reader and the poem.

Baillie came from an intellectual family with important links to the major philosophical and scientific communities of the time, in particular the “common sense” school of philosophy that became known as the Scottish Enlightenment. Her uncle was William Hunter, anatomist and physician, who founded the University of Glasgow’s Hunterian Museum, and Matthew, her brother, born in 1761, later became a medic and anatomist. Baillie, intelligent and with a stimulating intellectual background, however, was excluded from the scientific world, which was why she launched her own examination of the psyche.

                                                            Edinburgh during the Scottish Enlightenment  

Her Plays on the Passions, was produced in three volumes between 1798 and 1812. The first volume created quite a stir amongst the literary circles of London and Edinburgh when introduced anonymously. The speculation into the authorship concluded two years later when Baillie came forward as the writer of the collection, thereby causing a subsequent sensation since no one had considered her as a candidate in the mystery. The three plays which were included were "Count Basil: A Tragedy,"  "The Tryal: A Comedy," which show love from opposing perspectives; and "De Monfort: A Tragedy," which explores the drama of hate.  It’s within Dramas that Baillie believes lies the most captivating characteristic writing may contain: human nature. Drama is the purest genre which isn’t caught up in eloquent or flowery rhetoric, stripping itself from these methodical attributes and bringing it as close to reality as possible.

So far, we haven’t read any works which would fit completely under Baillie’s description, for none of them have been Dramatic plays. Nonetheless, Baillie does recognize that novels may obtain a certain level of real human emotion which readers can identify themselves with. Baillie states the urge human beings have of “looking into another man’s closet,” meaning they want to discover their deepest secrets and motivations for acting the way they do. In Zofloya, for example, we observe a much more deep evolution within the characters, especially in Victoria as well as Zofloya, than in A Sicilian Romance, in which although there are major plot events occurring, the characters show little depth. Julia’s perfect nature is exactly what Baillie addresses as a lack of human nature, for it doesn’t depict a realistic human being. However, she also suggests that just as a perfect depiction of a character is bad, a purely evil on is too. In Zofloya we can observe this other side of the spectrum, for Zofloya is depicted as the devil in person. None of these sides contain what Baillie would see as essential, which is tha of human nature.

Discussion Questions

1. Do you agree with Baillie that novels create a disconnect between the reader and the work itself with the use of rhetoric devices or even the sublime?

2. Is human nature, as Baillie describes it, in your opinion essential?

3. What flaws do you think Baillie would see in the novels we’ve read so far?

How Baillie's Passion Informs the Gothic Novel

Joanna Baillie was a Scottish dramatist who began publishing her work in 1790, at the age of 28. Her Plays on the Passions, which explored the passions she felt drove the actions of mankind, were meant to be her masterwork. In the "Introductory Discourse," Baillie essentially argues that, in humans, there is an inherent sympathetic disposition that drives people to try to understand their peers. In response to meeting a person and observing their behavior, the individual doing the observation is likely to “involuntarily place every person they become acquainted with” (68) into a personality class  that they have defined over a lifetime of judging others dispositions. Despite what people see and understand on the surface of human behavior, Baillie argues that there is always a longing to see beneath the surface of their life and understand them in new ways. In other words, it is one thing for a person to see a man after a burst of anger and categorize them as an aggressive person, but the desire to see what happened to make the man behave in that way is something that is inherent to human nature.  In the Gothic novels we have read in class—Charlotte Dacre’s Zofloya, published in 1806; Ann Radcliffe’s A Sicilian Romance, published in 1790; and Horace Walpole’s The Castle of Otranto published in 1764—we are given a look into the passions of various characters, but not in a way that Baillie deems appropriate.     

Joanna Baillie (1762-1851)

The unbridled passions that have been described in the Gothic novels are things to be feared. In A Sicilian Romance the marchioness’ passion leads to her eventual death, the passion of men in both A Sicilian Romance and The Castle of Otranto leads to outbursts of extreme violence, and in Zofloya passion leads Victoria to Hell itself. It is nothing like the passions that Baillie argues are one of the most fundamental aspects of human nature. Part of this Baillie attributes to the medium of the Gothic novel itself. In fact, Baillie finds flaw in all mediums outside of the play when it comes to describing human behavior. Because of a person’s natural desire to understand other people, Baillie argues that the play is the only honest medium that can be used to show what is happening behind the scenes.

Historians try to provide information on the past, however, Baillie argues what people have done is only interesting to the general population once we are given a glimpse into the lives of the people performing the actions. Philosophers who study human hearts and passions need to have clear, relatable examples of no one will have any interest in the theory that they are trying to put forth. Poets provide an idealized look at the world and fantastic situations, however, Baillie argues the in poetry “one simple trait of the human heart, one expression of passion” (80) is more interesting to the reader than whatever imaginary world the poet can concoct. Finally, Novels do not provide the reader with realistic people. Instead, the audience is exposed to characters like Julia or Manfred who represent one passion instead of recognizing the variety of passions within us all. 

Baillie argues that Tragedy was probably first type of drama and that, if done properly, sets the viewer up for personal growth. Tragedy allows the reader a moment where they can see a great hero, or villain, in their private moments. These private moments where the character is allowed to reveal their most personal thoughts and human flaws allows the viewer a moment of connection, an access point to understanding the figures inner passions. If the characters are portrayed as simply a lover, or a hero, or a villain than the human aspect of the character is gone and the audience is no longer able to see a real human heart in them. This is what the Gothic works we have read thus far suffer from. Characters tend to take on one aspect of human behavior and model that behavior throughout the course of the novel. Such modes of characterization are useful for the audience in the sense that it is clear that the evil Manfred will be punished, and the good and virtuous Julia will be rewarded, and it provides very clear moral instruction. However, it deprives the reader of the human value that Baillie values so much. Only if the audience is able to make the human connection to the character can they see the effect that extreme passion has on their mind and life. 

While Gothic novels have their fair share of Tragedy, we have not yet seen a Comedy. Where Tragedy shows the heroes and the great figures that have long since been stripped of their human aspects, Comedy shows daily life. Because Comedy already has characters that the audience can relate to, it puts writers like Baillie at an advantage. Instead of trying to humanize some long-dead historical hero, she can focus on the smaller, more subtle aspects of human nature instead. However, Comedy runs the risk of becoming Satirical or Witty or Sentimental and if that happens than the audience loses the warmer aspects of human nature because the focus is purely on amusing them. As a result Baillie feels that Characteristic Comedy is the only route for moralists to take because it finds humor in human flaws that we all posses. 

Baillie takes what she has observed from plays, what she likes and doesn't like, and challenges herself to write her Plays on the Passions in as honest a way as she can. She challenges herself to “trace passions through all its varieties” (105) so even the characters with the smallest parts can be seen as complex humans. By doing so she hopes to avoid the parodies of people that have been presented to us in the Gothic novels we have read so far.     

For more information on the ways in which Joanna Baillie adapts past genres, click here.

And because we are talking about plays and drama and I have a one-track mind, here is a link to Shakespeare's Globe's Tumblr (which is a super fun link thank-you-very-much). 

Discussion Questions:
1. In what ways does Baillie's view on passion and characterization change how we view the previous texts we have read in this course? Or does it change our interpretations at all? 
2. When Plays on the Passions first came out, it was said to be a popular topic of discussion among critics and scholars of the time. A Sicilian Romance and Castle of Otranto both pre-date Baillie's Plays on the Passions by at least a few years, however, Zofloya was published a substantial amount of time after. Do you think Dacre would have been familiar with Baillie's "Introductory Discourse"? What influences from Baillie do we see in the characters in Zofloya? How does this compare with A Sicilian Romance and Castle of Otranto?
3. Baillie discusses in her "Introductory Discourse" why plays are the most suitable method for exploring human emotions and passions. Do you agree with this? 

Zofloya, The Moor, The Slave, The Devil

Surprise, surprise, Zofloya is literally the devil himself! It hardly qualifies as a plot twist. Throughout the novel it is hinted that Zofloya is something other than human; he appears suddenly, makes dead bodies disappear, and is even able to read minds and predict the future. He is the one who tempts Victoria with the idea of murdering her husband. He continuously makes cryptic and sinister remarks about his relationship to Victoria like on page 239 when he says, "The Signora is not my wife,...she will be mine, however, for we are linked by indissoluble bands." So when we read the conclusion of the novel, it isn't much of a surprise. His role throughout the plot of the novel confirms his devilish nature.

However, Zofloya's infernal nature goes deeper than that, or rather there is more at play than just what he does and what he says that makes Zolfoya seem sinister. Zofloya is an English novel written in 1806, and the character Zolfoya is black. More than that look at the way Zofloya describes himself to Victoria as "the lowest of your slaves..."(153) and when explaining his back story he says "I became the property of the Spaniard..."(153) Not only is he a black man in a white man's world he is a slave, and he would have been read as a slave in 1806 when the slave trade was still legal in England. Just the fact that Zofloya is a black slave who dresses in exotic clothes already brings with it a myriad of associations and stereotypes that paint him as a racial other. From the introduction of his character Dacre's narrator doesn't miss an opportunity to point out Zofloya's "dark skin" or his status as a servant and a Moor. Even before the actual introduction of his character in the novel we are aware of Zofloya's race. The title of the book, after all, is Zofloya, or The Moor. 

So why does making Zofloya black make him more terrifying to Dacre's readership? There are, of course, the prevailing stereotypes about African men that made them out to be hyper-sexual and extremely violent, but we also have to consider the historical context of the novel. As I've mentioned before the novel was written in 1806, which is only a few years removed from the Haitian Revolution where African slaves revolted against their masters. This event must have been fresh in the general consciousness of slave owning Europeans, and, without a doubt, must of made many people anxious about the possibility of slaves taking vengeance over their oppressive masters.

Throughout the novel we get hints that Zofloya yearns to be treated as an equal and resents being treated as an inferior. When Zofloya speaks endearingly about his previous master in Spain he describes it as follows, "he treated me as a friend and an equal, rather than as a miserable captive and domestic." (153) As I've mentioned before, Zofloya does describe himself to Victoria as "the lowest of your slaves," but it's hard to imagine Zofloya saying that to Victoria without at least a hint of irony, especially when you consider his endgame with Victoria. Now let's flash forward to the scene in the Banditti cavern where Zofloya is taunting Victoria with cryptic language, he says, "A truce, fair Victoria, to folly!--am I not thy equal--Ay thy superior!--proud girl, to suppose that the Moor, Zofloya, is a slave in mind" (242) This is a huge jump from being "the lowest slave." Here we see a triumphant Zofloya who has successfully plotted and executed the murder of his masters and has completely dominated Victoria to the point to where she cannot deny any of his requests. Looking at this through a racial lens we see a black slave successfully seducing a white woman and convincing her to murder her husband. Yes, Zofloya is literally Satan who corrupts Victoria's immortal soul, but he is also an African slave who achieves the total destruction of his European masters. Which, considering the time the novel was written, might have been more terrifying to Dacre's readership than Satan.

Dacre is very aware of the deep seated anxieties and fears that she is exploiting by writing Zofloya the way she does. What she is doing is subverting the expectations that readers have for somebody like Zofloya: making the slave take on the role of master. What Dacre does with Zofloya is similar to what she does with Victoria. With Victoria Dacre subverts reader's expectations of a "docile," "innocent" female Gothic protagonist. With Zofloya Dacre gives a slave an immense amount of power and agency.

I wouldn't say that Zofloya is a multidimensional and well developed character. Yet there is much more to him than just a dark skinned representation of Satan. Dacre is tapping the racial anxieties of her readership and bringing those anxieties out in the open.

1. How do you think the meaning of the novel would change if it turned out that there was nothing supernatural about Zofloya, and he was just an extremely cunning and manipulative person? 

2. In the beginning of Chapter XXX on pgs 232-233 there is a lengthy description of the awesome scenery surrounding Victoria. Here Zofloya is described as being right at home in the midst of the sublime. To what extent is Zofloya an embodiment of the Sublime?

Xenophobia in Dacre's Zofloya

In the 17th century the British Empire started it's task of conquering and making foreign countries their own colonies. Colonization was apart of Great Britain's imperialist ambitions. Their goal was to control the other countries and obtain all their foreign goods. However, the country that became a British colony was was on the smaller end of the deal. The colony was often exploited and overrun by the British. At the turn of the century, colonies from other Imperialist powers started to gain momentum and resent.

In 1791, France (Great Britain's strongest rival) entered into the Haitian Revolution for five years. Haiti was a colon of France that was continuously being exploited for their goods such as indigo, sugar, coffee, and a few other small crops which was all managed by the enslaved nation's residents. Haiti was composed of 5 subgroups: the white plantation owners, the slaves on the plantation, the petit blancs that were shop keepers and artisans. The remaining population of Haiti was made up of African descent: those who were free, those who were slaves, and those who had escaped. This small population of white people on Saint Dominigue directly opposed France's political power and ability to control the markets. Haiti residents and merchants were only allowed to export and import from France. Even though the white people living in Haiti opposed France's control, their attitude towards enslavement remained untouched.

Toussaint L'Ouverture or "The Black Napolean"

In 1791, Toussaint L'Ouverture also known as the "The Black Napolean" rallied his people to revolt against the white plantation owners on the island. By the time the fighting ceased, L'Ouverture and his troops managed to kill over half of the 40,000 white residents that fought against them. L'Ouverture and the rest of the slaves were successful in their rebellion. Even when France sent troops to restore the power, L'Ouverture and the rebels were successful, and eventually pushed France forces out of Haiti. L'Ouverture was captured and imprisoned in France in 1803 where he eventually died.

Great Britain looked at this uprising as a forewarning that their would be revolutions in all of the colonies. The Imperialist nation was beginning to have a wave of xenophobic fears that the slaves and colonist would rise up and attack Great Britain.

In regards to literature at this time, the authors took this theme of Xenophobia and incorporated it into their writing. For example, Charlotte Dacre's Zofloya or The Moor is the a novel that portrays a moor (Zofloya) as dark, sinful, and violent. His character is seen as threatening, fearful, capable of committing unexplainable violence, murder, and a powerful character. Dacre more than likely had the idea of expressing the fear of the foreigner when she created Zofloya's character.

Jose the Prince of the Moors

The Moor was a term that originated in the English language. It is a term used directly to describe the "dark-skinned" or "black" volume of people in Europe. The term originated because of Queen Elizabeth I fear and hatred for the English moors. She proclaimed that the black moors of England were infidels and incapable of believing in Christ or Christianity. This marks the development of resentment and racism against the Moors in England.

Back to Dacre's novel, Zofloya's character is described as a majestic character but is worthy of Victoria's fascination and growing affections. We see this is the first description of Zofloya's character:

He was clad in a habit of white and gold; on his head he wore a white turban, which sparkled with emaralds, and was surmounted by a waving feather of green; his arms and legs, which were bare, were encircled with the finest oriental pearl; he wore a collar of gold round his throat, and his ears were decorated with gold rings of an enormous size (136).

Dacre begins to describe his character as one that is wealthy and has power. However, he still holds the status as a slave. His status in the novel is to serve Henriquez. This is where the reader starts to question and raise suspicion towards Zofloya's character and role in the novel. This can be the xenophobic fears of the time drifting into Dacre's novel. The reader is cautious and is not aware of what Zofloya is capable of until his character is revealed to have the ability to provide poison for Victoria to kill Leonardo. His growing attachment to Victoria also reflects the xenophobic fears of miscegeny. By the end of the novel, Zofloya's power over Victoria is seen out in the open. Her dependence on him transgressed throughout the novel, and lead her to fully submitting herself to Zofloya:

The attempt was vain, a numbing torpor began to creep over her as before; she essayed to conquer it, though contrary to the direction of Zofloya; and her incapacity to do so conveyed a bitter pang in her heart, while she felt that she was no longer mistress over herself or her faculties . . . she hopelessly resigned herself to the arbitrary spell that appeared to be cast over her (232).

There are many other moments throughout the Dacre's novel where we can see the overtones of Xenphobic fears and race at play.

Here's a documentary of "When the Moors Ruled Europe" is discusses the history behind the Moors.

Discussion Questions:

1) Considering the history behind Slave Rebellion, do you think the fear of a slave revolution played a part in Charlotte Dacre's creation of Zofloya as a novel and as a character? Why do you think this novel was highly criticized? 

2) Where do we see sexual tension between Victoria and Zofloya? Why did Dacre choose to have these moments?

3) What is the significance of racial difference in this novel? What is Zofloya's role throughout the novel? Why do you think Dacre chose Zofloya to have "dark-skin?" What is the significance behind Zofloya's past?