Silly me, I skipped, or anyway barely skimmed, the "Symbolist" play reference and went for reading up on the Queen of Jerusalem.
Obviously Rwandan Melisande is a woman from a very different sort of background in a very different sort of situation than the woman who was born the heiress to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, fought both her husband and her son, sometimes to victory, and in the end to a draw that left her in charge of a substantial town, and triggered the calling of the Second Crusade.
But of all the "models" put forth so far, it's pretty refreshing Jonathan included her as one of the referents to the name.
Because maybe at bottom, she's a Malê sort of woman. Perhaps, like the other ladies who were mother-in-law (or aunt or whatever), wives, or just close female friends of various Abacars (such as the Englishwoman who is now giving the Raj such headaches in India) she combines boldness and purpose with common sense, feet firmly on the ground and a discerning eye on the whole situation. Unlike a voice-hearing Jeanne d'Arc or the unfortunate and less inspiring Alice-Lakwena, she might keep it together.
That's the sort of woman an Abacar pays attention to.
Or I suppose I should go back and look at the play reference; I don't want a sad ending but perhaps the Abacars have been leading lives a bit too charmed; it's not that bad things never happen to them but that they always seem to come out of it as the moral victors, one way or another. I'm perfectly glad not to have yet another grim-dark timeline, but perhaps the karmic wheel must sooner or later turn out an Abacar who blows it bigtime.
Like say, this Melisande is indeed over the rainbow, sack-of-hammers nuts, but she's very good at presenting a passable semblance of sanity, and making the gleams of madness that come through look like there is shrewd method in them. Or she's not nuts but she is sociopathic, quite keen to abuse the power that has come to her and clever at it--and at manipulating a young Abacar who at bottom is raised to believe in the fundamental goodness of human beings--especially African human beings of humble origin and Islamic faith who rise from their pathetic and precarious obscurity to accomplish great and noble things. By now he knows a thing or two about the perversity of things in general and people in particular, but she might still blindside him.
Mind, what I'd like to see is the Abacar legacy score another win--if she's sick, one way or another, he helps her find healing; if she tries to lead him astray he leads her back. Or, there's not much wrong with her in the first place and yet another score for the good guys.
But there's that pesky play...I'll have to read over that reference again.
-----
Nope, I can't say that synopsis inspires much but dread, dread that Paulo might be headed for some kind of fall.
I like the other Melisende rather better.
And I'm marveling I took a whole class on the Crusades and even wrote an assigned essay on the Kingdom of Jerusalem and somehow I completely missed her story.
Of course in
that historical story, the husband she takes turns out to be a problem--one she triumphed over to be sure. If Paulo takes a fall, it could be a lesson in the limits of the Abacarist vision when there is an alternate more apt to the local situation; I doubt he'd be as bluntly arrogant as Queen Melisende's
husband Fulk, and would doubtless (if this is the role he winds up playing) believe his policies, where they diverged from the African Melisande's, to be more enlightened and for the greater good, which he would assume she would see in time--but nevertheless be wrong for the time and place, which he is a stranger to.
Then again, as the Melisande of the play is guilty of infidelity, there are accusations of the same against the historical Melisende; perhaps Paulo is more
Hugh of Jaffa than Fulk. The historical Hugh, if I am to believe the perspective of the Wikipedia article Jonathan referred us to, is said there to have been basically the spokesman and representative of the previous order in the KoJ, before Fulk and his Angevin cronies came to take over the place--the alleged infidelity is argued, by the article, never to have literally happened but to symbolize the conflict between the kingdom and its new king. I don't take the fact that Jerusalem society and the Church did rally to the Melisende-Hugh alliance against Fulk as hard evidence the two of them could never have trysted, but the point is that if they did it wasn't considered that important, and apparently she did reconcile with Fulk, once certain bounds had been placed on his notions of kingship.
So if Paulo is a Hugh figure, he could well be someone who meets Rwandian Melisande after she's committed to a marriage alliance (or even something more symbolic, such as a holy woman position she can't dare compromise by marrying or dallying with any man, a la Elizabeth I) and regrets she isn't free to be with him (and vice versa of course!) But who takes her side against Mr. King Wrong, without the situation being such they can dispose of the mook--or of course, he might have to back her "Virgin Holy Ruler" status while helping her maneuver around some unfortunate logical consequence of the role.
But then, it's more melodrama than drama; again the Abacar is the hero, with his love starcrossed and unrequited but who leaves the field having Done Good, to her gratitude.
I don't know, I'll have to see where Jonathan is going with this. I'm rooting for Melisande here to be as solidly grounded as Baldwin II's daughter was and to come out on top, regardless of how Paulo fits in. (And hoping he does well out of it too, but the references are against it.
)