Joanna Have a Subtext?: The Changeling on the London Stage
Roberta Barker and David Nicol
Barker, Roberta, and
David Nicol. "Does Beatrice Joanna Have a Subtext?: The Changeling
on the London Stage". Early Modern Literary Studies 10.1 (May, 2004)
3.1-43 <URL: http://purl.oclc.org/emls/10-1/barknico.htm>.
- “This ominous, ill-faced fellow more disturbs me / Than all my other
passions” (II.i.53-4): so declares Beatrice-Joanna, heroine of the main plot
of Middleton’s and Rowley’s 1622 tragedy The Changeling, when she encounters
her father’s servant De Flores in the play’s second act. She has just admitted
to an overpowering attraction to the young nobleman, Alsemero, and has determined
to find “[s]ome speedy way” to marry him in place of the suitor her father
has chosen for her (II.i.23). These “other passions” seem quite disturbing
enough; why, then, does Beatrice find De Flores so much more upsetting?
Is her aversion to him a “passion” of fear and disgust, a premonition of the
degradation that will ensue when her “other” passions place her in
his hands? Or is it a “passion” informed, like the others, by sexual desire:
a sign of her true, submerged attraction to him? By answering these questions,
readers explain The Changeling’s main plot either as a morality play
in which a woman is destroyed by her own sin (whose consequences include her
rape and eventual murder at the hands of her fated scourge), or as a dark
love story about the bond between two well-matched demon lovers.
- The more romantic of these interpretations has dominated the modern
performance history of The Changeling. When the play reappeared on
the professional English stage after an absence of almost 300 years, reviewers
declared that now, at long last, audiences were ready for “a play whose central
figure is a beautiful young girl who is driven by love to become a ‘cruel
murderer’” (Darlington). Given that no less than five leading British actresses
– Mary Ure, Emma Piper, Diana Quick, Miranda Richardson and Cheryl Campbell
– have played Beatrice Joanna in major productions over the thirty years since
Darlington welcomed this “formidable woman” back to the London stage, it is
tempting to concur with his verdict, but a closer examination of critics’
reactions to their performances tells a different story. In a striking example
of the process by which critical reception of one production can lead to the
establishment of accepted interpretations for the next, theatre critics have
developed a reading of Beatrice Joanna as a spoilt child whose amoral decision
to murder her detested fiancé is only a precursor to her slow realization
of her repressed, subtextual desire for De Flores. The play thus becomes “a
warped love story” (Rutherford) that culminates in a blood-soaked romantic
- Our paper contests this reading – now virtually canonical in the theatre
- on two counts. First, we argue that its post-Freudian appropriation of an
early modern text necessitates many overt misreadings and misinterpretations.
To be sure, all contemporary performances of early modern playtexts depend
and a return to their ‘authentic’ meanings is probably neither possible nor
desirable. But this particular appropriation is also questionable on contemporary
feminist terms, for its erotic treatment of the central scene in which De
Flores demands that Beatrice Joanna reward his murder of Piracquo with sexual
favours risks affirming that Middleton and Rowley’s heroine actually desires
a rape she pleads against in the lines they wrote for her. The fact that the
dominant theatrical reading of Beatrice Joanna speaks productively neither
to her cultural origins nor to our own constructions of gender suggests that
it is ripe for re-evaluation.
- Re-evaluation was precisely what The Changeling needed in the
mid-twentieth century. It appears to have been a popular play, not only in
its own time, but also in the years that followed the reopening of the theatres
after the Puritan interregnum. In 1661, Samuel Pepys (that harsh critic of
Shakespeare) remarked that he had seen The Changeling at the Playhouse,
and that “it takes exceedingly” (qtd. in Daalder xl). Despite its early
success, however, The Changeling disappeared from the stage after 1668
and was not revived professionally until 1961, when Tony Richardson directed
the play at the Royal Court Theatre in London. Reviewing this production for
the Express, W.A. Darlington offered one possible explanation for the
play’s lengthy period of neglect. In the period after the Restoration, he
opined, “[r]omance reigned supreme” and audiences failed to appreciate the
savage qualities of The Changeling. Most particularly, Darlington was
convinced that the career of the lovely but depraved Beatrice Joanna went
“too strongly against the romantic tradition to be tolerable” for most audiences;
such a story could be acceptable only to “the disillusioned people of the
Restoration” or to “our disillusioned selves.” His argument was borne out
by Philip Hope-Wallace’s review for the Guardian, which noted that
a “thin-skinned purist” joining Richardson’s audience would be shocked to
find the play’s macabre imagery producing “not the expected awe and hush but
gales of hearty public school laughter.” One reviewer’s sign of increased
discernment in the audience is another’s sign of degradation, but both reviews
hint at a change of attitude in the early 1960s that allowed an appreciation
of the play’s supposed anti-romantic tone.
- Despite this, the Royal Court’s representation of Beatrice did not
meet with critical approval. While Robert Shaw’s DeFlores was generally admired
for his “dark fire” (“Tragedy’s Close Likeness”), the object of his obsession
proved less satisfactory. Mary Ure’s physical charms certainly met reviewers’
expectations: Darlington declared that her “fair beauty [was] most understandably
irresistible to all these inflammable Spaniards,” and Robert Muller noted
that she “sport[ed] a décolletage that must have raised wild hopes
in even the soberest spectator.” For most reviewers, however, these attractions
appeared more a handicap than a gift. The Times critic described Ure
as having “the prettiness and lifelessness of a doll” (“Tragedy’s Close Likeness”),
while Hope-Wallace excoriated her inappropriate “tendency to floating about
the stage in a dollish way.” Her failure to convey the heroine’s “indomitable
will” (“Tragedy’s Close Likeness”) was seen as a key contributing factor in
the production’s overall timidity and lack of terror (Nathan). In Kenneth
Tynan’s memorable metaphor, Ure was simply “a meringue miscast as a hamburger”
(qtd. in Morley).
- Taken as a group, these reviews yield interesting insights into the
assumptions with which critics greeted Beatrice Joanna’s return to the London
stage. None doubted that the actress who played her must possess considerable
physical attractions in order to justify the sexual desire that drives The
Changeling’s main plot. But those attractions alone did not satisfy. The
reviewers of the Royal Court production felt that the ideal Beatrice Joanna
must also possess a fiery will and a very adult sensuality; it was here that
Mary Ure was found wanting. A feminist critic might read these reviews as
an index of a mid-twentieth-century shift, not just in audience sensibility,
but also in reviewers’ willingness to accept (or even demand) a sexually and
morally transgressive heroine who drives her own fate in a ‘classic’ love
- This idea is complicated by critical reaction to the next major London
production of The Changeling, Peter Gill’s 1978 staging at the Riverside
Studios with Emma Piper and Brian Cox as Beatrice Joanna and De Flores. The
charges that had been laid against Ure’s Beatrice were repeated and elaborated
against Piper’s. In the development of an almost uniform consensus that Piper
was not powerful enough to carry the role, she was variously described as
overly-restrained (Young), “sedate” (Cushman, “Passion”), and lacking “tragic
thrust” (Rev. of The Changeling, The Lady). John Barber wrote
for The Telegraph that Piper had “no blood in her veins” and spoke
too quietly the speeches that “were meant to be declaimed with fire.” The
sexual connotations of the imagery of heat, blood and thrusting force used
to construct the critics’ ideal Beatrice Joanna are clear, as is the repetition
of the notion that an actress who lacks physical and temperamental dynamism
can never truly embody Middleton and Rowley’s heroine.
- Piper did have some admirers. Foremost among them was Irving Wardle,
who appreciated her subtlety and control, writing that “she leaves a trail
of delicate ambiguities and half invitations to lovers and servants alike;
cracking into demoralized anguish when De Flores calls her bluff, but capable
even after that of regaining her status and keeping him guessing” (“Towering
Summit”). Wardle’s reading raises the spectre of an alternative Beatrice Joanna
to the one that was rapidly coming to dominate the reactions of reviewers:
an enigmatic young noblewoman whose power comes from her class as well as
from her sexual allure. A number of reviewers noted the “haughty disdain”
of Piper’s Beatrice (Shulman), but most found it an inappropriate basis for
the characterization; after all, as B.A. Young declared, Beatrice “need hardly
care about her birth once she is so steeped in crime.” If Beatrice Joanna’s
identity is defined primarily by her sexuality and her sin, her sense of aristocratic
entitlement becomes an irrelevant distraction.
- Indeed, the reviews of Gill’s Changeling show critical discourse
breaking down the class differences between Beatrice and De Flores in favour
of an ever-greater rapport between the devilish duo. Where Mary Ure was said
to have responded with “ambivalent surprise and repulsion” to the revelation
of De Flores’ desire for her (Muller), Emma Piper appears to have suggested
that Beatrice always felt an unconscious attraction to him. Michael Billington
recorded that Piper’s Beatrice was “fascinated from the start by De Flores’s
revolting pockiness”; when inciting him to murder, he noted, “she twists his
hair, fingers his scares [sic], and offers him her lips as if to suggest
extreme sexual arousal” (“The Changeling”). Barber, too, noted a “splendid
climax” in which Beatrice “lets her hair go loose, tears off her jewels and
clings passionately to her ‘wondrous necessary man’ De Flores” (“Changeling
Set”). Both Billington and Barber called the relationship one of “love-hate.”
In 1961, Muller had dismissed the effort “to see subtle psychological undertones
in the portraiture of [The Changeling’s] characters” as “patently
absurd.” In 1978, conversely, this quasi-Freudian reading of the heroine’s
unacknowledged desire for her servant allowed Sheridan Morley to praise its
“modern psychoanalytical streak.”
- The responses elicited by Piper’s Beatrice, then, suggest that reviewers
were more than willing to applaud the depth of a play that represented its
heroine as suffering from a repressed passion for a murderous servant, but
also that they wanted to see that passion overtly expressed in the
performance of the leading actress. Clearly, a convincing Beatrice Joanna
needed to be earthy enough from the outset to respond plausibly when initiated
into physical passion by the waiting De Flores. From this distance, it is
useless to speculate on the fine gradations of acting that allowed Barber
to praise Piper’s abandon in her meeting with De Flores but still to criticize
her bloodlessness, or to ask exactly how an actress might successfully mingle
an aura of repression with an adequate level of banked sensuality. What is
clear is that the balance required to embody the critics’ developing image
of the ideal Beatrice was indeed a delicate one: a fact emphasized when, only
a few months later, Diana Quick’s Beatrice at the RSC provided the sexual
dynamism that was missing from Piper’s performance.
- “With sequins glinting on her face, in evil scarlet robes and with
a voluptuous exposure of bosom, Miss Quick makes Beatrice a ruthless addict
of her own sensual drugs,” declared Felix Barker of the Evening News.
If this image of Beatrice Joanna was diametrically opposed to that projected
by the blonde and black-clad Emma Piper, it was entirely appropriate to the
ethos of Terry Hands’ Aldwych production of The Changeling. Hands presented
a similar reading of De Flores and Beatrice’s relationship to Gill’s, but
without the (over)-subtlety noted by the reviewers of the latter’s version.
In fact, Quick’s sexy Beatrice, clad in a series of salaciously revealing
costumes, was so clearly akin to De Flores that reviewers began to see her
repressed desire for him as a simple fact of the plot rather than as an intriguing
new interpretation of it. As Barker explained, “Though Beatrice thinks she
hates De Flores, she is a sensualist who responds to his hideous, snake-like
- Some reviewers approved Quick’s ability to make Beatrice’s passions
evident. According to Benedick Nightingale, “She suggests from the start that
Joanna’s [sic] hysterical disgust conceals a cloying fascination, and
so there’s an awful inevitability about her increasingly abject and sottish
surrender” (“Alexandrian Duet”). Yet there was a general consensus that Hands
and Quick had gone too far, with two moments in particular offending the critics.
One was the scene in which Beatrice asked De Flores to commit the murder,
at which point Quick “cast aside her flaming shawl and thrust her luscious
breasts towards [De Flores]” (Jenkins). Many critics found this decision ridiculous;
as Milton Shulman complained, “she so blatantly suggests a sexual reward
that she sounds rather silly and perverse when subsequently she is shocked
when De Flores demands exactly that payment” (“Tempting Beatrice”). A number
of reviewers felt that this interpretation of the scene removed any sympathy
for Beatrice: “Diana Quick’s Beatrice has no redeeming innocence (in that
see-nipples-and-die costume, how could she?),” huffed Kenneth Hurren. Quick,
concluded Barber, “misconceives the role … Instead of the slow corruption
of an innocent, we get the display of a mere wanton.” Where Emma Piper’s Beatrice
had been too chaste and reserved, Quick’s was not chaste enough; clearly,
there were limits past which the overt display of sexuality that critics had
missed in previous Beatrice Joannas should not go.
- Even more heat was generated by Hands’ decision to include a graphic sex
scene in which DeFlores brutally took Beatrice from behind. This moment provoked
a curious response from critics and spectators. Hands appears to have staged
the sequence as a rape, and at least two critics referred to it as such (‘M.F.’,
Holland). Despite this, a number of reviewers echoed Benedict Nightingale’s
description of Emrys James’ De Flores as “a seducer who somehow manages to
make menace tender and implacable sensuality gentle” (“Alexandrian Duet”)
– hardly terms suggesting an attacker. Nightingale attributed this discrepancy
to “over-statement” on Hands’ part, reasoning that
To show the principles copulating like dogs in mid-stage…is a
crudish and surely mistaken attempt to emphasise their moral ugliness by
making them physically ugly as well. Would someone so swooningly sensitive
[as DeFlores] to the honeypot as a whole – ‘she smells all amber’ – really
be satisfied with a brusque rear-end poke?
- In other words, this reviewer encouraged prospective audience members
to see Hands’ rape sequence, not as a fair interpretation of an ugly attack
on Beatrice Joanna, but as a directorial mistake – and an insult to De Flores
to boot. The recorded reactions of the production’s actual spectators suggest
that they agreed, taking Hands’ sex scene relatively lightly. Two reviewers
reported that when Quick afterwards announced, “This fellow has undone me
endlessly,” the audience was “in hoots and guffaws” (Holland; see also
‘M.F.’; italics Holland’s). Holland smirked that her complaint is “only too
true,” while Robert Cushman explained, “her complaint […], wearily delivered,
becomes a hilarious double entendre that Middleton…would surely have approved”
(“Body”). ‘M.F.’ had a more complex response, writing that “One of her best
delivered lines, rising from the awkward post-rape position of lying on her
tummy on a box, is: ‘This fellow has undone me endlessly.’ No breast beating,
but with pathos and regret, yet funny enough to raise some laughter.”
- Such formulations seem to welcome a sense of doubleness in
the representation of Beatrice. Before her sexual encounter with De Flores,
that doubleness depends on a mixture of the sensualism critics missed in Emma
Piper and the innocence they missed in Diana Quick: combined, these qualities
allow her to lust after De Flores while remaining unaware of the true nature
of her feelings. After their relationship is consummated, the corrupted Beatrice
Joanna becomes aware of the contradiction between her outward persona and
her secret life of sin. She can then exploit it discursively for ironic,
even comic, effect. Thus, a liaison that has undone her former innocence and
would destroy her life should it become known (hence the pathos and regret)
can also be read as a naughty ‘undoing’ of her tightly-laced garments. Because
the audience is allowed to share in this undoing, and has indeed been waiting
for it since Beatrice’s attraction to De Flores became apparent, they can
take pleasure in it. Reviewers of the Hands production objected when the outlines
of this awakening were blurred by Quick’s obvious lasciviousness in the early
scenes, but applauded the through-line of her journey from “spoilt child”
to temptress (Cushman, “Body”). In the process, they established an aura of
inevitability around the idea of a Beatrice who progresses from repression
- After this aura was consolidated by Piper’s and Quick’s otherwise
contrasting interpretations, ten years passed before Beatrice Joanna again
arrived on the London stage, this time in the form of Miranda Richardson in
Richard Eyre’s National Theatre production. Having recently starred as murderess
Ruth Ellis in the critically acclaimed film Dance with a Stranger,
Richardson was a hot property in 1988 (Christy). Her perceived ability to
“suggest…something darkly sinister under a doll-like beauty” (Billington,
“Fateful Attractions”) boded well for the combination of apparent innocence
and hidden corruption that critics had missed in previous Beatrices. Some
found it: Kate Kellaway called Richardson the “perfect” Beatrice. But for
many other critics Richardson, like Piper before her, was too subtle and restrained.
Christopher Edwards, one of her most sympathetic reviewers, praised her “contained
study of unknowing innocence waking up in a trap of sexual and moral consequences,”
but confessed that hers was “a chamber performance given in a concert hall.”
Less impressed, Maureen Paton dismissed Richardson as “over-mannered” and
“so tiresomely petulant that she should be put in a play-pen.” Echoing Tynan’s
dismissal of Mary Ure, John Peter called her “a well-bred kitten playing at
being a cornered lioness” (“Is This a Breath”). Viewed as small-scale and
cinematic, Richardson’s acting left many critics still pining for the elusive,
- Another significant influence on critical responses to this production,
however, was Eyre’s decision to relocate the setting to a nineteenth-century
Spanish slave colony. The role of De Flores was given to George Harris, a
black actor; Beatrice was thus re-envisioned as the daughter of a slave owner,
and De Flores as “a black major domo” (Peter, “Is This a Breath”). As Jim
Hiley pointed out, this decision immediately gave a reason for Beatrice’s
revulsion to De Flores in the opening scene: she was responding with the “gut
racism” typical of a well-brought-up colonial white girl. De Flores, meanwhile,
was played by Harris as “tall, handsome, and immensely dignified” (Peter,
“Is This a Breath”). Instead of sporting a facial disfigurement that might
be seen as reflecting his inner corruption, he was only ‘ugly’ insofar as
he was not white. This choice generated some potentially racist implications
of its own, fixing De Flores for Peter Kemp as “a man of primitive drives
which, once released, cannot be stopped” and a savage whose “alien background…has
gouged itself into his personality.” But many critics found that it increased
their respect for De Flores, here seen as a man so used to racist dismissals
that he was “barely nonplussed” by Beatrice’s insults (Hiley). When Beatrice
finally realized that he was “a wondrous necessary man” (V.i.91), she was
merely reaching the level of enlightenment that many spectators had already
- Playing to a liberal London audience in the dying days of Apartheid,
this staging could thus be seen as encouraging its spectators to formulate
an ideologically sympathetic reading of Beatrice’s burgeoning intimacy with
De Flores. The love between them rose up in defiance of the institutions of
racism and slavery, and the Spanish lady’s transgressions of class and patriarchy
were superseded by her transgression of racial boundaries. In this context,
as Michael Coveney wrote, miscegenation, rather than rape or murder, “was
reactivated as a tragic taboo,” and De Flores’ sexual demands evidenced a
rather more admirable form of “experimental lust” than they had done in past
productions. It even became possible for some critics to read Beatrice and
De Flores as “naïve souls, lost without the codes of their rigid society”
(Hiley), rather than as personifications of devilish corruption.
- In this production, Beatrice’s ‘undoing’ – the spiralling fall into
sin triggered by her lust for Alsemero and her decision to murder Piracquo
– was counterbalanced by her growing ability to see past the veil of race
and to acknowledge her own desire. To amplify this effect, Richardson seems
to have begun the play by emphasizing the character’s immaturity and conservatism;
her Beatrice was “a spoilt Sloane, more imperious than sexually obsessed[,
with a] suggestion of priggishness [that gave] a poignant irony to her corruption”
(Annan). In the first half of the play, she remained highly conscious of her
exalted place in the hierarchies of her world. There was thus a radical shift
between her initial (racially motivated) disgust and her later lust for De
Flores, although reviewers disagreed about the moment at which the shift occurred.
Irving Wardle noticed a change in Richardson’s manner when DeFlores called
her “the deed’s creature,” at which point, he said, “all her defences collapse,
and he leads her off stage as a tottering invalid” (“A Fine Balance”). Milton
Shulman located the change rather later, claiming that Beatrice’s coldness
turned to “hot lust” after DeFlores’ attempts to protect her in Act 5 (Rev.
of The Changeling). Either way, many critics concurred that this marked
shift – and the taboos it defied – gave power to a production in which “there
is no embrace without fear, and passion is acted with an ardour that makes
you feel you have never seen an embrace on the stage before” (Kellaway).
- In Eyre’s production, then, the initial sense of a subtextual lust
for De Flores lurking beneath Beatrice’s textual disdain was more subtle than
it had been in some previous versions; David Browne wrote that this Beatrice
fell in love with DeFlores “although she would have been the last to believe
it before hand [sic]”. But the Freudian interpretation still dominated
reviewers’ expectations. Christopher Edwards maintained that Beatrice’s “apparent
loathing of the very sight of De Flores is just a perverse erotic twist of
her nature.” Maureen Paton, who disliked the production and griped that the
relationship between Beatrice and De Flores “so lack[ed] electricity that
it could barely run a light-bulb,” nevertheless took their submerged desire
as a given, remarking that “they are supposed to be attracted to each other
by a dangerous mixture of fascination and repulsion.” Michael Billington,
by now a leading proponent of the Freudian reading of the role, saw Richardson’s
early tendency to treat DeFlores with “patrician disdain” as an instance of
her deplorable over-subtlety (“Fateful Attractions”). He insisted that “she
underplays the heroine’s ungovernable sexual obsession with De Flores,” and
all of Beatrice’s textual protestations of loathing served him only as evidence
of her lust: De Flores, he wrote, “clearly awakens fierce sexual longings
in his mistress: the more she condemns him as a ‘standing toad-pool’ the more
you feel she is aroused by him.” Despite Richardson’s failings, however, Billington
was eventually satisfied that his interpretation was present and correct,
noting that she came “into her own in the later scenes of degradation.” He
particularly approved her “rancidly sexy” reading of the touchstone line,
“This fellow has undone me endlessly.” Once again, we can see a reviewer reacting
to The Changeling – and encouraging audiences to react to it – in a
manner that maximizes our sense of Beatrice’s final relationship with De Flores
as an expression of her true self, and minimizes any tendency to see her as
a rape victim.
- Although this ever-more-dominant Freudian reading of The Changeling
was not univocal, the play was almost universally seen as a dark love
story. Jack Tinker admired the production for its emphasis on the depths of
depravity to which Rowley and Middleton’s characters sink; for him, Beatrice
Joanna was not so much enlightened by her corruption as she was “poisoned
by all the forbidden forces she herself ha[d] unleashed”. Tinker applauded
Eyre’s transposition of the play’s setting precisely because he felt that
it allowed “the master-slave undercurrents of the plot [to take] on a vivid
savagery as Miss Richardson’s gilded mistress and her lusting servant engage
in a dance of death that taints all it touches.” Though more conventionally
moralist than some, this reading nonetheless reiterates a belief in Beatrice’s
love for DeFlores as an important factor in the play. Many critics concurred
that the key turning-point of the play came with Beatrice Joanna’s realization
that “she and De Flores are of a kind” (Osborne). For those who accepted this
premise, the racial politics of Eyre’s casting inevitably engendered some
sympathy for the doomed pair. As Eyre wrote in his programme note, The
Changeling became in this interpretation a play about “passion [that]
has to be concealed, suppressed or diverted in the interests of the social
order” (qtd. in Peter, “Is This a Breath”). Beatrice’s initial love for Alsemero
fit into this category, too; but it was merely the forerunner to her more
taboo and violent love for De Flores. Rather than an indictment of the moral
degradation occasioned by these passions, Eyre’s offered a critique of the
oppressive social order that forced them into poisonous (but liberating) channels.
The romantic reading of The Changeling could scarcely go further.
- It could, however, achieve an even more unassailable position in the
critical repertoire, as it did when Michael Attenborough’s RSC production
arrived at the Barbican Pit in 1993, having opened the previous year at the
Swan in Stratford-upon-Avon. Attenborough’s version was perhaps the most
conservative of all major London Changeling revivals. It set the play
in 1630s Spain – that is, in the location its authors imagined for it and
in a period only a decade later than the play’s composition. Its reviewers
reported conventional Caroline costumes, a “simple set, a yellow-brick wall
from which a few brass reptiles and one overblown crucifix obtrude in mildly
symbolic style” (Nightingale, May 27, 1993), and no overt bodice-ripping or
sado-masochistic sex. Beatrice Joanna and De Flores were played by Cheryl
Campbell and Malcolm Storry: both white RSC actors with established classical
credentials. In other words, most of the forms of overt directorial intervention
that had proved controversial in previous productions were here eschewed,
and those who had longed to see The Changeling ‘played straight’ finally
got their chance.
- Of course, what passes for a ‘straight’ interpretation of a classic
playtext is often the one that most closely reproduces a particular culture’s
established assumptions about it. The critical reactions to Attenborough’s
Changeling suggest that a number of the discourses that had been building
around the play since 1961 had now gained the status of truisms. Once again,
an actress satisfied a few reviewers while failing to measure up to the expectations
of many. Paul Taylor praised Campbell, declaring that she “powerfully conveys
how Beatrice lives in the self-centred world of a child”; Jeremy Kingston,
too, applauded Campbell’s transformation from a “spoilt brat” with a “jutting
lower lip” into a murderess whose mind is “fatally misruled by impulse.” The
notion that Beatrice Joanna’s amorality was rooted in her status as a spoilt
daughter of privilege had clearly become canonical; but so, too, had the punishing
demand for a perfect balance between the character’s original naivety and
her awakening sensuality. While Kirsty Milne found Campbell’s Beatrice “a
woman of spirit and sensuality,” her colleague at the Daily Telegraph thought
her “irritatingly fluttery” (Rev. of The Changeling). Nick Curtis noted
that her “wily manipulations [were] a parody of girlish flirting…indicative
of the uncertain path Attenborough steer[ed] between po-face and parody.”
John Peter, meanwhile, sounded a familiar note with his complaint that Campbell,
“where she should be sultry or imperious, …is merely petulant and bitchy:
not a dangerous tigress, but an indignant pussycat” (Rev. of The Changeling)
– almost a direct reiteration of his charges against Richardson in the Eyre
production. The difficulty of conveying Beatrice Joanna’s complex journey
was becoming axiomatic.
- But what is most striking about the reviews of Attenborough’s Changeling
is the extent to which most critics now accepted the romantic interpretation
of Beatrice’s relationship with De Flores as a matter of simple fact. Some
habitués of past Changelings, such as Jane Edwardes, used it as a stick
to beat the newcomer with. “Sparks hardly fly between [De Flores] and the
self-centred Beatrice,” Edwardes wrote, concluding that “without the itching,
frenzied desire of the protagonists, the play’s flaws are all too evident.”
Others disagreed, feeling that the actors did manage to achieve the established
goal; thus, Lyn Gardner noted that Campbell “mark[ed] her mixture of attraction
and repulsion for De Flores with a mad sexual frenzy,” concluding with satisfaction:
“She positively itches.” Two more critics believed that Campbell and Storry’s
agon actually offered the deepest reading so far of the fatal attraction between
the murderous mistress and her all-too-compliant servant. Benedict Nightingale
described the interaction thus:
Right from the start there’s a fascination in Joanna’s [sic]
revulsion. By the end she is glorying in De Flores, …and generally giving
the impression that she has slummed her way to the sort of dark ecstasy
Freud is supposed to have discovered. … [De Flores] cannot be in the same
room without mentally digesting her, top to toe, and she cannot be near
him without enjoying his cannibalism. Nearly 400 years after its creation,
their sick symbiosis still has the power to appal.
- While the affair between Campbell and Storry clearly did not engender
any sympathy in Nightingale, it struck him as prophetic in its evocation of
the unconscious, sado-masochistic desires usually associated with the insights
of twentieth-century psychoanalysis. Malcolm Rutherford agreed that the production’s
take on this relationship was its key selling-point. Moreover, he did sympathize
with De Flores and Beatrice, writing that
This Changeling is presented as a warped love story, and
becomes in the end rather moving. […] [De Flores and Beatrice] become partners
in evil: she is no less infatuated than he is. As they die together, they
are in a way as striking as Antony and Cleopatra or Romeo and Juliet. Only
their world is different.
In the apotheosis of the romantic reading of The Changeling,
Beatrice and De Flores join the company of the great tragic lovers of the
early modern canon.
- Strikingly, Rutherford attributes this success to Attenborough’s “fundamental
rethinking” of the play. Read within the context of the play’s twentieth-century
reviews, however, Campbell and Storry’s representation of the “sick symbiosis”
between Beatrice and De Flores looks more like the culmination of a long-growing
tradition that sees this twisted romance as the nexus of the play’s greatness.
As Nightingale’s review in particular suggests, the notion that Beatrice Joanna’s
feelings for De Flores are characterized by a repressed attraction that flames
into sexual passion has become for critics the wellspring of the play’s continued
relevance. The majority of reviews of all five major twentieth-century productions
of The Changeling give Alsemero short shrift and refer to the subplot
(a main source of the play’s popularity in its own time) either derisively
or not at all. Only the dangerous liaison of Beatrice and De Flores, critics
imply, rescues The Changeling from being one of those neglected plays
which “too often turn out to be pretty boring” (Dungate). The key source of
its enduring fascination is its depiction of a nubile and beautiful young
girl, not yet in touch with her own rampant sensuality, who is initiated into
the mysteries of sex and evil by a Svengalian lover and who finds her ultimate
consummation on the point of his knife. Romantic indeed.
- One might argue that this interpretation of The Changeling,
whose theatrical career we have traced, actually originated on the page rather
than on the stage. After all, the seeds of it are contained in T.S. Eliot’s
celebrated disquisition on the play in Elizabethan Dramatists. For
Eliot, The Changeling is “the tragedy of the not naturally bad but
irresponsible and undeveloped nature, caught in the consequences of its own
action”; he writes that “Beatrice is not a moral creature; she comes moral
only by becoming damned” (85-6). Her “habituation” to crime (86), as Eliot
calls it, leads to her identification with De Flores so that in the end she
becomes “more his partner, his mate, than the mate and partner
of the man for the love of whom she consented to the crime. Her lover disappears
not only from the scene but from her own imagination” (87). Thus, when she
calls De Flores a ‘wondrous necessary man’ “her praise is more than half sincere”
(87). Another of The Changeling’s influential readers, Una Ellis-Fermor,
agrees with Eliot about the “undeveloped” nature of Beatrice-Joanna, reading
Beatrice as “a woman sleep-walking” (147) who is incapable of contemplating
the consequences of her actions or of resisting the impulse of her whims.
She develops “a world of experience” from her encounter with DeFlores, who
“pushes her resolutely to the realization from which her life of a spoilt
child has hitherto shielded her” (147). Since Eliot’s and Ellis-Fermor’s readings
predate the revival of The Changeling on the twentieth-century stage
and are often cited in reviews of theatrical productions of the play (e.g.
Billington, “Fateful Attractions”; Coveney; Grant; Gardner; Nightingale, “Absurd”;
“Tragedy’s Close Likeness”), we may guess that they influenced reviewers’
demands for a spoilt Beatrice whose relationship with De Flores leads her
to a realization of her true nature and its consequences. Nevertheless, Eliot
and Ellis-Fermor differ from many of the play’s theatrical critics insofar
as they see Beatrice as moving toward identification with De Flores,
rather than love (Eliot 87, Ellis-Fermor 148).
- Love, in fact, seems to have triumphed onstage and in the review pages
of London newspapers considerably before it appeared in academic discourse.
To be sure, an undeveloped hint of the Freudian interpretation of Beatrice
can be found in Christopher Ricks’ influential essay on “The Moral and Poetic
Structure of The Changeling,” in which Ricks ponders briefly whether
we can “take [Beatrice’s] initial loathing for [De Flores] as sexual in origin”
(302-3). Nevertheless, in literary criticism the strongest cases for Beatrice’s
unconscious desire for De Flores have been advanced by more recent articles:
Peter Morrison’s essay, “A Cangoun in Zombieland: Middleton’s Teratological
Changeling” (1983), and Joost Daalder’s introduction to his 1990 New Mermaids
edition of the play. Not only does Morrison believe that Beatrice loves De
Flores, but his iconoclastic attitude to previous critics stresses that he
is the first to articulate the idea in detail. In contrast to what he sees
as the dry formalism of his forbears, Morrison offers a self-consciously passionate
response to the play. His Beatrice is born into a society that expects her
to be merely beautiful and vapid; she is conditioned to aim for better and
better suitors as they appear (227), but is doomed to frustration because
her repressed sexual desires cannot be satisfied by the bloodless “zombies”
that she is expected to love (230-1). For “sexually-charged” Beatrice, De
Flores is the “ultimate other,” “a monstrous manifestation of [the] secret
self” that her social world has engendered but forbidden her to explore (232).
In this reading, the encounter of Beatrice and De Flores in Act Three, Scene
Four is a “terrible seduction scene” in which a “wholly aroused” Beatrice
“gets what she desires and despises” (232).
- Six years later, Daalder is even more explicit, bringing to his reader’s
attention “one of the main facts of the play that we might readily overlook
– and will overlook if we take things at face value – namely, that Beatrice
is attracted to De Flores without knowing it” (xxv). Protesting that he uses
Freudian terms only “for want of a better vocabulary, and not because I believe
the play to match a modern intellectual system,” Daalder nevertheless insists
that Beatrice’s attraction to De Flores “is ‘unconscious’: it exists in a
part of her mind which she refuses to acknowledge, and her ‘conscious’ attitude
is to deny what her unconscious tells her” (xxv). Daalder’s protests notwithstanding,
this is a modern reading rooted in Freud and Stanislavski (although
John Stachniewski has described a Calvinist notion of the unconscious in Middleton’s
tragedies, he does not see it as referring to Beatrice’s love for De Flores,
but to her lack of awareness of her “reprobate character” ). Moreover,
Daalder dismisses the idea that De Flores punishes Beatrice sexually, insisting
that when he demands sexual favours in return for the murder of Piracquo,
De Flores “brings into action…a deep current of feeling for him of which Beatrice
has not been aware. Her sexual enjoyment at the end of this scene is obvious…[and
t]his is not an emotion produced by bullying, leave alone something like rape,
as is so often claimed” (xxviii).
- Given that both Morrison’s and Daalder’s readings were produced after
the two 1978 productions which saw the definitive emergence of the Freudian/romantic
interpretation of the Beatrice/De Flores relationship, it is worth wondering
whether they were influenced by those productions and by their reception in
the popular press. Certainly Daalder goes out of his way to defend the overt
sexuality of Hands’ production against its detractors, arguing that it “presented,
in visual language, a duality in Beatrice which the text wishes us to imagine”
(xlii). At the very least, his sense of the text’s “wishes” seems to have
been born out of a lengthy cultural process through which a modern interpretation
of The Changeling gradually gained the currency required to dominate
both reviews aimed at influencing audience responses to the play and an edition
intended to shape students’ comprehension of it. However, we would argue that
a return to the text that supposedly “wishes” us to read the play in this
manner shows that the Freudian/romantic reading of The Changeling is
actually a misreading in which Beatrice’s hatred for De Flores is turned
into love, and her misery into lust.
- That misreading is epitomised by Michael Billington’s response to
the 1978 Riverside production. Claiming that Middleton pre-empted existentialism
and psychoanalysis by three centuries, Billington singles out a line spoken
by Alsemero when Beatrice tells him of her inexplicable loathing for DeFlores:
“There’s scarce a thing but is both loved and loathed” (I.i.124) (“The
Changeling”; also qtd. in Nightingale, “Alexandrian Duet”). This, Billington
suggests, “is the Freudian love-hate relationship in a nutshell.” When read
in context, however, the line means something quite different. Alsemero comforts
Beatrice by telling her that everyone has a meaningless hatred, for innocuous
things such as oil, wine, or, in his case, cherries. According to Alsemero,
a thing may be loved by one person and loathed by another; and indeed, this
is true of DeFlores, since he is in “good respect” with Beatrice’s father
(I.i.134) even though Beatrice despises him.
- If we choose, pace Daalder, to take the play at “face value,” we
find that Alsemero’s comment makes perfectly good sense, for desire in The
Changeling can be read as quite straightforward in its targets. Whether
or not she is subconsciously attracted to De Flores, Beatrice’s tragedy originates
in the fact that she is consciously attracted to Alsemero: a man who,
despite his virtues, is not the one her father wishes her to marry. In the
terms of the play, there is nothing wrong with desire itself; as Alsemero
suggests, desire and aversion begin as morally neutral idiosyncrasies of particular
human organisms. But desire must be directed toward goals approved by patriarchal
authority. Beatrice’s “giddy turning” (I.i.154) when she meets a man more
attractive than the “complete gentleman” (210) chosen by her father is not
in itself a fatal sin. Rather, her moment of hamartia comes when she
decides to behave in a manner that she knows might destroy her social and
As Beatrice implies here, her conscious choice to act on a lust that
contravenes her father’s wishes is quite enough to damn her. She will recognize
this in the play’s final scene when she actually begs her father to speak
the “curse” she has earlier prophesied, telling him to “cast [her] to the
ground regardlessly” (V.iii.152).
My father spends his breath for? And his blessing
Is only mine as I regard his name;
Else it goes from me, and turns head against me,
Transformed into a curse. (II.i.19-23)
- De Flores is the effective executor of this curse, as the dying Beatrice
Joanna emphasizes when she laments that
Beneath the stars, upon yon meteor
The subject of Beatrice’s declaration that her prophetic disgust for
De Flores was “ne’er believed” is vague – did she disbelieve the warnings
of her own loathing when she approached De Flores about Piracquo’s murder,
or did those around her disbelieve them when they viewed De Flores
as a harmless and useful servant? What is clear is that Daalder is overstating
his case when he declares that Beatrice’s loathing “must have been bound up
with the sexual urge which she now concedes she was led by” (115). In asserting
that De Flores has taken both her honour and her life, Beatrice concedes no
such thing. Rather, she recognizes the justice of the intuition she had expressed
earlier in the play when she admitted, “I never see this fellow but I think
| Of some harm towards me” (II.i.89-90). The nature of that harm becomes apparent
at the end of her tragedy when her hopes have been dashed and her husband
has become disgusted with her. Only then does she see that DeFlores was the
“meteor” upon whom hung her fate: both a warning of doom and the agent of
it. Having failed to trust her instincts, Beatrice was fated to end in his
clutches from the moment she “changed from [her] first love”, a change that
was, in the terms of her society, “a kind | Of whoredom in [her] heart” (III.iv.143-4).
Ever hung my fate, ’mongst things corruptible;
I ne’er could pluck it from him. My loathing
Was prophet to the rest, but ne’er believed;
Mine honour fell with him, and now my life. (V.iii.154-58)
- As we have seen, theatrical productions – or rather, the reviewers
who recorded and interpreted their choices for posterity – have often taken
Beatrice’s unambiguous loathing of De Flores and turned it into unacknowledged
lust. In order to do this, all Beatrice’s expressions of hatred, fear and
dejection have to be reversed. This is easy enough if one assumes that Beatrice
is playing “the maid’s part, still answer nay, and take it” (Richard III
III.vii.51). De Flores himself thinks she is doing so; having repeatedly
demanded from Beatrice a sexual “reward” in place of the financial one she
had envisaged, De Flores takes the cowed woman into his arms and gloats, “’Las,
how the turtle pants! Thou’lt love anon | What thou so fear’st and faint’st
to venture on” (III.iv.169-70). DeFlores is able to read Beatrice’s audible
fear as sexual arousal and to offer the kind of encouragement typically given
to shy early modern newlyweds; but Beatrice herself is silent on the point,
and an actor playing her part could just as easily enact her terror in a manner
that contradicted De Flores’ complacent conclusion.
- Again, it is quite true that Beatrice begins to display apparent affection
and respect for De Flores after their sexual encounter, notably in the exchange
so beloved by the play’s reviewers in which she responds to her father’s assertion
that De Flores is “good on all occasions” by concurring that he is “[a] wondrous
necessary man, my lord” (V.i.91). But the celebrated irony of this remark
hangs partially on the fact that Beatrice calls her servant “necessary” –
not, after all, quite the same thing as “desirable” or “admirable.” All of
the praise Beatrice grants De Flores in the second half of the play is couched
in the rhetoric of necessity: “I’m forced to love thee now,” she tells
him with a marked lack of steamy passion, “’Cause thou provid’st so carefully
for my honour” (V.i.47-8, italics ours). Beatrice comes to love DeFlores not
out of desire, as he himself expects, but out of a desperate dependence that
does not erase her earlier physical repulsion: “His face loathes one,” she
admits, “But look upon his care, who would not love him?” (V.i.70-1). Because
De Flores is the only person capable of maintaining the illusion of her chastity
and because he does it with such cunning devotion, Beatrice must conclude
that “[h]ere’s a man worth loving!” (V.i.76). The old adage “fighting for
peace is like fucking for virginity” describes exactly the situation in which
she finds herself; her transformation originates more from her desperation
to maintain a semblance of obedience to the patriarchal code than from the
fulfillment of any hidden desire.
- That Beatrice has not achieved such fulfilment is evident in
her final moments, in which the difference between The Changeling and
such tragedies of romantic apotheosis as Romeo and Juliet and Antony
and Cleopatra could not be more apparent. Daalder describes Beatrice’s
death in the closet as the culmination of her masochistic desires: assuming
that DeFlores and Beatrice are engaged in intercourse while DeFlores stabs
her, he reads her cry “O, O, O!” (V.iii.139) as a combined scream and orgasm
(114). It should, however, be noted that Alonzo utters exactly the same cry
when DeFlores stabs him (III.ii.18). If, as seems likely (Daalder 46), Alonzo
is murdered in the same space of the stage that is later used to represent
Alsemero’s closet, the parallel between their identical cries may be intended
to emphasise the idea that Beatrice’s murder is her punishment for Alonzo’s
death, rather than the culmination of her lust.
- Moreover, it is important to resist the temptation to conflate Beatrice’s
response to her final downfall with De Flores’ response to his. For De Flores,
his conquest of Beatrice’s chastity is the fulfilment of his desires: “I thank
life for nothing | But that pleasure,” he says, and dies calling for Beatrice
to join him (V.iii.168-9, 175-7). But Beatrice ignores him, crying “Forgive
me, Alsemero, all forgive! | ’Tis time to die when ’tis a shame to live” (V.iii.178-9).
At the point of death, she still pleads for a version of the happy ending
that she had dreamt of: simultaneous reconciliation with the man she desired
and with her father. Her liaison with De Flores was merely a desperate means
to achieve a goal stymied at every turn by the structures of patriarchal Alicante.
Middleton and Rowley’s playtext never suggests that Beatrice takes any pleasure
in her brutalisation; that pleasure has been read into it by post-Stanislavskian
actors and post-Freudian critics in search of the all-important subtext. If
we are willing to discard the idea that theatrical and literary power hangs
on the presence of such a subtext, we may find Beatrice’s longings rather
homelier than those of the masochistic character constructed by the twentieth-century
stage and its spectators.
- As W.B.Worthen writes, performance of classic playtexts is not a matter
of reproducing the authorial intentions or cultural assumptions that first
produced them. Rather, it is “a way of interpreting ourselves to ourselves”
in which each generation remakes “the cultural tradition embodied by the work”
in its own image (191). Thus, it might be argued that a post-Freudian appropriation
of Middleton and Rowley’s playtext is perfectly legitimate on its own terms:
an interpretation that speaks to and for our time, rather than a futile attempt
to enact onstage the more historicized meanings for which academics so love
to plead. Yet the case of Beatrice Joanna problematizes this argument, for
the very reviews that promulgate the Freudian reading of her character demonstrate
its risky connotations in a contemporary context. As critics’ descriptions
of the laughter that greeted Beatrice’s line, “This fellow hath undone me
endlessly” (IV.i.1) in Hands’ sexually graphic production suggest, this reading
allows the audience to remain content that Beatrice really wants De Flores
even if the director stages the characters’ climactic confrontation as a brutal
rape scene. Although the victim may seem unwilling, in fact it’s all a bit
of saucy fun: no means yes, and one need not feel pity for a heroine whose
corruption is also her awakening to her true nature. In a world where rape
victims are still subjected to humiliating cross-examination about their sexual
pasts on the witness stand, this is hardly a productive way of interpreting
ourselves to ourselves.
- Moreover, the ideal Beatrice Joanna we have seen constructed by so
many critics out of the foundations laid by Eliot and Ellis-Fermor is a figure
who inhibits contemporary actresses from exploring some of the more potentially
interesting reaches both of their own ranges and of Middleton and Rowley’s
character. The reviewers’ Beatrice is a spoilt child, never quite aware of
what she is doing, who finally recognizes her own wicked sexuality in the
arms of an underling whose sadism grants her an illicit jouissance.
She embodies a fantasy of woman as both virgin and whore, unconscious yet
culpable, lacking in agency yet still sinful. She is the childlike femme
fatale, object of a brutal masculine lust that is legitimated by
her responsive capacity for evil. Indeed, this Beatrice affirms masculine
power in all its forms: the power of De Flores justly to identify her ‘true’
desires, and the power of Vermandero and Alsemero justly to condemn her “deformed”
mockery of virgin innocence (V.iii.77). She is an Eve who accepts the fatal
apple because she desires the serpent. It is scarcely surprising that no one
actress in our time has ever succeeded in embodying this overdetermined Beatrice
to the satisfaction of more than a minority of critics.
- As Darlington observed in 1961, Middleton and Rowley’s heroine can
be read quite differently: as a “formidable woman” who sees quite clearly
what she desires and pursues it with a ruthless sense of her own power and
agency. Her tragedy is not that she cannot recognize her lust for De Flores,
but rather that Alsemero, “the man [who] was meant me” should come “so near
his time and miss it” (I.i.84-5) – and that she responds to this dilemma with
sinful plotting rather than with modest resignation. This reading of the play
is faithful to the contexts provided for it by recent historicist scholars,
who argue that it reflects early modern reactions to the problem of excessive
feminine self-will (Burks 776), to the proposed alliance of Prince Charles
with the potentially scheming Spanish Catholic Infanta (Malcolmson 334), or
to that notoriously seductive English sinner, Frances Howard (Hopkins 152).
- Just as Marjorie Garber has given this historicist reading a contemporary
slant by celebrating Beatrice Joanna’s ability to fake orgasm à la Meg Ryan,
twenty-first century actresses might take it as an opportunity to create a
contemporary interpretation of Beatrice Joanna. A forceful young aristocrat
who pursues her own will without considering the consequences, who faces retribution
at the hands of the servant she assumed she could dominate, and who ultimately
recognizes her own hamartia, this Beatrice is the antithesis of the
blinkered sex kitten of recent stage tradition. Middleton and Rowley’s intentions
in shaping Beatrice’s story are likely best summed up by the title of their
primary source text, John Reynolds’ The Triumphs of God’s Revenge against
the Crying and Execrable Sin of Wilful and Premeditated Murder (1621).
For a modern audience, however, their representation of the sheer bad luck
she suffers in meeting Alsemero at a time when her father (who admires Alsemero
immensely) cannot reject Piracquo without losing face only highlights the
deficiencies of a marriage system that denies daughters the right to choose
their own husbands. While the theatrical reading we have outlined reinscribes
patriarchy, this alternative questions the moral consequences of its foundational
trade in women.
- In Angela Carter’s short story “The Bloody Chamber,” Bluebeard’s wife
looks back on their courtship and their brief, brutal marriage. She remembers
with particular vividness the moment when she first perceived her husband’s
lust for her and found repulsion and attraction vying in her breast: “And
I saw myself, suddenly, as he saw me…. And, for the first time in my innocent
and confined life, I sensed in myself a potentiality for corruption that took
my breath away” (Carter 11). Reviewers of the Changeling productions
we have studied here have often performed a similar operation on Beatrice
Joanna. Seeing her through De Flores’ eyes, they have found in her the potentiality
for sexual corruption that he perceives. This reading implies that
the tragedy could have been averted if only Beatrice had recognised her longing
for a bit of rough, and had not pretended to fancy the aristocratic squares
a woman of her class was expected to marry.
- Middleton and Rowley’s play is in fact more interesting than this
crude attempt at interpreting ‘what women want.’ In the early modern terms
inscribed in their playtext, Beatrice Joanna is a sinner who strays from the
path of righteousness and who is appropriately punished when her appointed
scourge takes from her precisely that virgin honour she so wanted to save
for the lover of her choice. She is not ignorant of her own will; rather,
by pursuing it too vehemently, she loses it. In contemporary terms, this trajectory
invites a provocative feminist reading. From a feminist standpoint, Beatrice
Joanna’s career can be (re-)read as critiquing every aspect of patriarchal
ideology: its presumption in attempting to control feminine desire, its brutality
in gaining control of feminine bodies, its hypocrisy in rejecting the crimes
committed by women for the sake of the men they love (V.iii.78) – and, not
least, its naivety in assuming that women cannot commit evil deeds on their
own initiative. The story of Beatrice Joanna invites a modern audience not
to see women through the eyes of male lust, not to assume that no means yes
or vice versa, but to judge women according to their own desires. We might
be doing Beatrice Joanna, and ourselves, greater justice if we believed her
loathing, taking her sins and her repentance at face value.
- Annan, Gabrielle. “Othello in Negative.” Sunday Telegraph 26
- Barber, John. “Changeling Set to be Talk of the Town.” Daily
Telegraph 7 Sep. 1978.
- ---. “Feminine Ascendance.” Daily Telegraph 21 Oct. 1978.
- Barker, Felix. “Stage Shocker of 1632 [sic] that Would Even
Stun Hammer.” Evening News 17 Oct. 1978.
- Billington, Michael. “The Changeling.” Guardian 6 Sep.
- ---. “Fateful Attractions.” Guardian 25 Jun. 1988.
- Browne, David. Rev. of The Changeling. National Theatre. Lyttleton
Theatre, London. What’s On 29 Jun. 1988.
- Burks, Deborah G. “‘I’ll Want My Will Else’: The Changeling and
Women’s Complicity with their Rapists.” English Literary History 62
- Rev. of The Changeling. Riverside Studios, London. The Lady
21 Sep. 1978.
- Rev. of The Changeling. Royal Shakespeare Company. Swan Theatre,
Stratford-upon-Avon. Daily Telegraph 9 Nov. 1992.
- Carter, Angela. The Bloody Chamber. London: Vintage, 1995.
- “C.C.”. Rev. of The Changeling. Royal Shakespeare Company.
Aldwych Theatre, London. Morning Star 19 Oct. 1978.
- Christy, Desmond. “Creature of the Deed.” Guardian 25 Jun.
- Coveney, Michael. Rev. of The Changeling. National Theatre.
Lyttleton Theatre, London. Financial Times 24 Jun. 1988.
- Curtis, Nick. Rev. of The Changeling. Royal Shakespeare Company.
Barbican Pit, London. Time Out 2 Jun 1993.
- Cushman, Robert. “Passion and the Playwrights.” Observer 10
- ---. “Body, Mind and Soul.” Observer 22 Oct. 1978.
- Daalder, Joost, ed. The Changeling. By Thomas Middleton and
William Rowley. 2nd ed. London: A & C Black, 1990.
- Darlington, W.A. “Revival After 250 Years: ‘The Changeling’ a
Fine Tragedy.” Daily Telegraph 22 Feb. 1961.
- Dungate, Rod. Rev. of The Changeling. Royal Shakespeare Company.
Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon. Plays and Players December, 1992.
- Edwardes, Jane. Rev. of The Changeling. Royal Shakespeare Company.
Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon. Time Out 4 Nov. 1992.
- Edwards, Christopher. Rev. of The Changeling. National Theatre.
Lyttleton Theatre, London. Spectator 2 Jul. 1988.
- Eliot, T.S. “Thomas Middleton.” Times Literary Supplement 30
June 1927. Rpt. in Eliot, Elizabethan Dramatists. London: Faber, 1962.
- Ellis-Fermor, Una. The Jacobean Drama: an Interpretation. Revised
edition. London: Methuen, 1958.
- Garber, Marjorie. “The Insincerity of Women.” Desire in the Renaissance:
Psychoanalysis and Literature. Ed. Valeria Finucci and Regina Schwartz.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. 19-38.
- Gardner, Lyn. “Classy Anguish.” Guardian 28 May 1993.
- Grant, Steve. Rev. of The Changeling. National Theatre. Lyttleton
Theatre, London. Time Out 29 Jun. 1988.
- Hiley, Jim. Rev. of The Changeling. National Theatre. Lyttleton
Theatre, London. Listener 7 Jul. 1988.
- Holland, Roger. “Funny Tragedy.” Mitcham News 27 Oct. 1978.
- Hope-Wallace, Philip. “A Woman Dipped in Blood.” Guardian 23
- Hopkins, Lisa. “Beguiling the Master of the Mystery: Form and Power
in The Changeling.” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England
9 (1997): 149-61.
- Hurren, Kenneth. Rev. of The Changeling. Royal Shakespeare
Company. Aldwych Theatre, London. What’s On in London 9 Nov. 1978.
- Jenkins, Peter. “A Tale of Two Worlds.” Spectator 21 Oct. 1978.
- Kellaway, Kate. Rev. of The Changeling. National Theatre. Lyttleton
Theatre, London. Observer 26 Jun. 1988.
- Kemp, Peter. Rev. of The Changeling. National Theatre. Lyttleton
Theatre, London. Independent 25 Jun. 1988.
- Kingston, Jeremy. “Lessons in the Meaning of Death.” Times 5
- Malcolmson, Christina. “‘As Tame as the Ladies’: Politics and
Gender in The Changeling.” English Literary Renaissance 20
- ‘M.F.’ Rev. of The Changeling. Royal Shakespeare Company. Aldwych
Theatre, London. Chelsea Post 27 Oct. 1978.
- Middleton, Thomas, and William Rowley. The Changeling. 2nd
ed. Ed. Joost Daalder. London: A & C Black, 1990.
- Milne, Kirsty. “Voice that Launched a Thousand Smokes.” Sunday
Telegraph 8 Nov. 1992.
- Morley, Sheridan. “All Change.” Punch 13 Sep. 1978.
- Morrison, Peter. “A Cangoun in Zombieland: Middleton’s Teratological
Changeling.” ‘Accompaninge the Players’: Essays Celebrating Thomas Middleton,
1580-1980. Ed. Kenneth Friedenreich. New York: AMS, 1983. 219-41.
- Muller, Robert. “Mary Ure Takes the Plunge.” Daily Mail 22
- Nathan, David. “A Timid Touch of Evil.” Daily Herald 22 Feb.
- Nightingale, Benedick. “The Alexandrian Duet.” New Statesman 20
- ---. “Absurd Perhaps, but Irresistible.” Times 27 May 1993.
- Osborne, Charles. Rev. of The Changeling. National Theatre.
Lyttleton Theatre, London. Daily Telegraph 25 Jun. 1988.
- Paton, Maureen. Rev. of The Changeling. National Theatre. Lyttleton
Theatre, London. Daily Express 27 Jun. 1988.
- Peter, John. “Is This a Breath of Fresh Eyre?” Sunday Times 26
- ---. Rev. of The Changeling. Royal Shakespeare Company. Swan
Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon. Sunday Times 8 Nov. 1992.
- Ricks, Christopher. “The Moral and Poetic Structure of The Changeling.”
Essays in Criticism 10 (1960): 290-306.
- Rutherford, Malcolm. “The Changeling.” Financial Times 27 May
- Shakespeare, William. The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore
Evans. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974.
- Shulman, Milton. “The Chill of Passion.” Evening Standard 6
- ---. “Tempting Beatrice.” Evening Standard 17 Oct. 1978.
- ---. Rev. of The Changeling. National Theatre. Lyttleton Theatre,
London. Evening Standard 24 Jun. 1988.
- Stachniewski, John. “Calvinist Psychology in Middleton’s Tragedies.”
New Casebooks: Three Jacobean Revenge Tragedies. Ed. R.V. Holdsworth.
Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1990. 226-46
- Taylor, Paul. Rev. of The Changeling. Royal Shakespeare Company.
Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon. Independent 7 Nov. 1992.
- Tinker, Jack. Rev. of The Changeling. National Theatre. Lyttleton
Theatre, London. Daily Mail 30 Jun. 1988.
- “Tragedy’s Close Likeness to Macbeth.” Times 22 Feb.
- Wardle, Irving. “Towering Summit on Jacobean Theatre.” Times 6
- ---. “Roles Calculated in Fine Balance.” Times 24 Jun. 1988.
- Worthen, W.B. Shakespeare and the Authority of Performance.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
- Young, B.A. “The Changeling.” Financial Times 6 Sep.
Responses to this piece intended for the
Readers' Forum may be sent to the Editor at M.Steggle@shu.ac.uk.
© 2004-, Matthew
Steggle (Editor, EMLS).