M is for Monster:
Theories of Monstrosity in Middleton and Rowley’s The Changeling
Rachel Bauer
“The present time is more monstrous than natural,” wrote
author and translator Francais Belleforest of the Renaissance
(qtd. in Davidson). However, one could imagine a character in
Middleton and Rowley’s play The Changeling using the same phrase
to describe their own experiences. Indeed, from the title of the
play, Middleton and Rowley make clear that they intend to treat
the monstrous; according to critic Joyce Underwood Munro, a
“changeling” was generally “characterized as a wild creature,
devil, or monster” (259). While it is Antonio, a character in
the subplot, who bears the title of “changeling,” Middleton and
Rowley use the assessments of other characters to label
Beatrice, an unchaste noblewoman, and Deflores, a servant and
her lover, as monsters. Alsemero, Beatrice’s husband, identifies
Beatrice as such when he cries to her, “Oh, thou art all
deformed!” (5.3.78). According to Paré, author of Of Monsters
and Marvels, monsters may have physical attributes such as “one
arm, another who will have two heads, and additional members
over and above the ordinary”; hence, one of the principal
characteristics of monsters is “deformity” (3). With Deflores,
the connection to the monstrous is even clearer, for he is
consistently associated with a basilisk. Beatrice first labels
him as such when talking to Alsemero, emphasizing his “deadly
poison” (1.1.107-110). She later confirms this connection in the
final act and scene, stating that in order to win Alsemero, “I
have kissed poison for’t, stroked a serpent” (5.3.67). Middleton
and Rowley chose to cast Beatrice and Deflores as monsters in
order to both illustrate the faults of the society surrounding
them and bring about a more naturalized, balanced, and humanized
society.
To interpret Beatrice and Deflores, it is important to
first look at the ways those living during the Renaissance
perceived “monsters.” Park and Daston suggest that there were
three ways of viewing monsters during the Renaissance, two of
which shall be treated in this essay. Earlier during the
Renaissance, monsters were considered supernatural phenomenon,
acting as “portents or divine signs” (25, 22).
In other words,
supernatural or divine processes created monsters. However, Park
and Daston also argue that as the Renaissance progressed, a more
scientific view was adopted, where “all phenomena were natural,”
rather than of divine origin (43).
In some cases, Middleton and Rowley allow the characters
surrounding Beatrice and Deflores to adopt this more
“scientific” view. For example, when Deflores reveals to
Alsemero that his wife is an adulteress, as well as a murderer,
2
Alsemero replies, “It could not choose but follow” (5.3.109).
This suggests a natural progression of events, not the
incomprehensible horror that would be associated with
“supernatural” monsters. As Davidson writes, “When causal
knowledge, that is, knowledge of the natural causes, is produced
to explain a monster, the effect of such explanation is to
displace horror” (50).
However, as natural creatures, Beatrice and Deflores cannot
be condemned. They are of nature, sharing a common origin as
those who surround them. Therefore, their qualities must also be
natural. Further, according to Daston and Park, monsters were
more “artistic” than the rest of creation, because “Nature” had
to expend more effort in the creation of monsters than in the
rest of her “normal” creations (43).
Because Nature put more
work into the creation of monsters, “the most penetrating
insights into the inner workings of nature were to be gleaned”
from a study of monsters (45). Hence, Beatrice and Deflores’s
characteristics are merely more extreme versions of those other,
“natural” beings that surround them.
Indeed, in many cases, Beatrice and Deflores act as what
Davidson would call “divine hieroglyphics.” In other words, the
form a monster takes is representative of the type of flaws of
the society that surrounds them (Davidson 39). In the case of
Deflores and Beatrice, Middleton and Rowley use some of their
3
characteristics to highlight flaws in the surrounding society.
Overlarge appetite, especially for sexual pleasure, is one such
flaw. The very title of the play suggests this; one of the key
characteristics of changelings is their constant sense of hunger
(Munro 255). Deflores uses the imagery of banqueting to capture
Beatrice’s supposed lust, saying, “Hunger and pleasure, they’ll
commend sometimes/ Slovenly dishes, and feed heartily on ‘em”
(2.2.150-1). Later, after killing Piracquo, Beatrice’s
betrothed, he adds, “My thoughts are at a banquet for the deed”
(3.3.18).
However, while he freely admits his own and Beatrice’s
hunger, Deflores also reveals that they are not the only
characters in this society who suffer from a greedy appetite.
When talking of the finger he cut from Piracquo’s hand, Deflores
says, “A greedy hand thrust in a dish at court/ In a mistake
hath had as much as this” (3.3.31-2). In this brief comment,
Deflores reveals that the problem of greed is prevalent
throughout the court around him. Further, he makes clear that
this appetite is reprehensible, in the repugnant image of a man
getting his hand cut off in a horrible dinnertime accident.
In this passage, Deflores also solidifies the link between
uncontained appetites for food and sex that he has elsewhere
suggested, with the suggestive verb “thrust.” Several times
during and after his interaction with Alonzo de Piracquo,
4
Beatrice’s betrothed, he uses the image of banqueting to stand
for the sexual act. For example, he sets up a contrast between
himself, who will shortly be satisfied by Beatrice’s attentions
and is therefore having a “banquet” of thoughts, and Piracquo,
who will shortly be deprived of both life and wife and now “goes
supperless to bed,/ Yet shall not rise tomorrow to his dinner”
(2.2.154-5). Hence, the “thrusting” of the hand also suggests
that uncontrolled sexual desire is a problem affecting the
society surrounding Deflores and Beatrice. Indeed, it is quite
clear that this problem plagues Alsemero as well, from the very
beginning of the play. He desires Beatrice, for he loves “her
beauties” and hopes the temple “must join us into one” (1.1.611). Yet, even he realizes that this desire may lead to no good.
He questions himself, saying, “Why should my hopes of fate be
timorous?” then repeats reassurances to himself, such as “The
place is holy, so is my intent” (1.1.4-5). Yet this reassurance
only serves to raise more doubt in the audience’s mind, and he
later confirms that “’Twas in [his] fears at first” that his
impure intentions might have repercussions (5.3.77).
Thus, Middleton and Rowley use the “scientific” viewpoint
of monsters to set Beatrice and Deflores as extreme examples of
societal flaws. However, in many circumstances, Middleton and
Rowley also choose to emphasize the “supernatural” qualities of
Beatrice and Deflores. When Jasperino first indicates to his
5
friend Alsemero that he believes there is a relationship between
Deflores and Beatrice, he calls his news “strange,” emphasizing
the unnaturalness of the relationship (4.2.82). Further,
according to Davidson, monsters cannot arouse horror unless they
are “unnatural” in the sense that they violate societal norms
(48). This sense of repugnance and horror is clearly present
when characters such as Alsemero, Tomazo, and Vermandero gain
insight into the true character and deeds of Deflores and
Beatrice. When Tomazo, Alonzo’s brother, begins to suspect
Deflores, he describes him as “so foul/ One would scarce touch
him with a sword he loved” (5.2.15-16). Vermandero, Beatrice’s
father, has a similar reaction when Beatrice and Deflores emerge
from the closet where they are imprisoned, using the word
“horrid” twice to describe the situation (5.3.142 & 171).
Finally, the advent of Beatrice and Deflores is linked to
supernatural occurrences. Park and Daston note that monsters
were considered to be part of “a whole group of related
phenomena: earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, celestial
apparitions, and rains of blood, stones, and other miscellanea”
(23). Beatrice makes this connection to the supernatural
portents when she says of Deflores, “upon yon meteor/ Ever hung
my fate” (5.3.154-5). Further, when Beatrice and Deflores commit
their first murder, they bring forth “some ill thing” that
“haunts the house” in the form of the ghost of Alonzo (5.1.63).
6
Hence, Beatrice and Deflores do not serve only as “divine
hieroglyphics,” passively mirroring back the negative
characteristics of society. In many cases, their seemingly
wicked behaviors contrast with, rather than mirror, society; as
noted before, they inspire horror because they violate societal
norms. Thus, they take on the role of “supernatural” monsters,
which, according to Davidson were “signs of God’s wrath” that
acted both as warnings of future punishments (portents, in other
words) and as punishments themselves for specific sins (38-40).
However, this raises an interesting point; if Deflores and
Beatrice are acting as punishments, it cannot simply be that
their own tendencies are aberrant and reprehensible; rather, the
society they are sent to punish is implicated.
Of course, one might argue that when Deflores and
Beatrice’s tendencies differ from society, this means that they
are the “wicked” ones needed to contrast against the “good”
society. However, the ending of the play does not fully support
this interpretation.
Beatrice and Deflores effect changes in
the society surrounding them, and Middleton and Rowley often
portray these changes as positive. Nor is it merely the case, as
Burks has suggested, that Beatrice’s death is the cause for
change in other characters (781-2). Many of the changes that
occur in Vermandero, Alsemero, etc, occur while both Beatrice
and Deflores are still living. Hence, rather than serving as the
7
“wickedness” that defines the “good society,” Beatrice and
Deflores actively provide needed change, both in attitude and
action, for a corrupt society.
Given their uncontained appetites, it is perhaps
unsurprising that Beatrice and Deflores generally show the
characteristics of what Bakhtin would define as the “grotesque
body.” According to Bakhtin, a body that is “unfinished,
outgrows itself, transgresses its own limits” is grotesque (qtd.
in Stallybrass 124). “Transgressing limits” is exactly what
Beatrice and Deflores do, breaking down the established
boundaries of class and, to some degree, gender. Their own union
symbolizes this; Beatrice is of high birth, while Deflores,
though once a “gentleman,” has now found that “hard fate has
thrust me out to servitude” (2.1.48-9). When Deflores first
demands sex as his reward for Piracquo’s murder, Beatrice bases
her objections on this difference of class, saying, “Take heed,
Deflores, of forgetfulness” (3.3.94). There is also, to some
degree, a breaking of gender boundaries in their
characterizations. This is most clear when Beatrice proclaims,
“Would creation…Had formed me man!” (2.2.107-8).
At first glance, Deflores and Beatrice do not seem to
effect much change on the hierarchical relationships that
surround them. Alibius, a character from the subplot,
reinstitutes the divide between student and teacher, noting that
8
he will “never keep scholars/ That shall be wiser than myself”
(5.3.213-214). Tomazo, Alsemero, and Vermandero may all bond in
the last act and scene, but they are also already part of the
same high class and male gender. As Burks argues, “The family
reconstitutes itself as a male circle, no longer vulnerable to
the vagaries of women” (782). However, while the characters fall
back into set roles, the roles themselves become more equal. For
example, Alsemero converts into the role of loving son. At the
beginning of the play, Vermandero clearly has greater authority
than Alsemero; this can be seen in his first address, for he has
the power to demand that Alsemero reveal his country of origin,
stating, “I must know/ Your country. We use not to give survey/
Of our chief strengths to strangers” (1.1.155-7). In addition,
as Alsemero quickly realizes, Vermandero has a great deal of
control over his own happiness. When Vermandero begins listing
the many fine qualities of his son-in-law to be, Alonzo de
Piracquo, Alsemero says Vermandero “poisons” him and “discharges
murderers at the gate” (1.1.200 & 216). Thus, Alsemero
recognizes that Vermandero is located in a position of
superiority and power over him.
However, by the end of the play, this is no longer true. It
is now Vermandero who is in a vulnerable position, consumed by
grief at the loss of his daughter. Alsemero is the one in
control, summarizing and interpreting the situation for him. It
9
is also he who is advising Vermandero now, stating “let that
your sorrow,/ As it goes from your eye, go from your heart”
(5.3. 216-217). Hence, “father” and “son” are now more equal. A
similar equalization occurs between two subplot characters,
Alibius and Isabella. Earlier in the play, Alibius attempted to
exercise his masculine power over his wife by locking her in the
house, to prevent her from, as Lollio phrases it, “being taken
in another man’s/ corn, you might be pounded in another place”
(3.2.9-10). However, at the end of the play, Isabella is allowed
to criticize Alibius, even calling him a “jealous coxcomb,”
while Alibius humbly submits to her assessment of him, stating,
“I see all apparent wife, and will change now/ Into a better
husband” (5.3.210-213). Indeed, the fact that Alibius and
Isabella are present at all at the end of the play indicates
that change has been effected. Up to the final scenes, plot and
subplot remained rigidly divided, with the upper class, tragic
characters such as Beatrice, Vermandero, Tomazo, etc. completely
separate from the lower class, more comic characters such as
Isabella, Alibius, Lollio, etc. Hence, their unification in the
final scene suggests a breaking down of class divisions. The
presence and increased power of Isabella also suggests that,
despite the death of the powerful and willful Beatrice, women
have not been completely banished to silence and low-class
status.
10
Further, Deflores and Beatrice undermine the upper class’
very sense of security and pride. Middleton and Rowley make this
clear in their treatment of the castle/fort motif that occurs
throughout the play. In Act 3, Scene 1, as Deflores conducts
Alonzo about the castle, Alonzo comments repeatedly on the
strength of the place, calling it an “impregnable fort” and
noting its “goodly munition” (lns 4, 20). This illustrates his
sense of security and pride, recalling Vermandero’s boasting of
his castle’s strength to Alsemero. However, this sense of
security proves to be false, as his proud trust in the strength
of man-built walls blinds him to the danger standing before him
in the form of Deflores. Indeed, Deflores does not merely kill
Alonzo; he also effectively takes away both his defenses and
manhood first. This occurs when Deflores takes Alonzo’s sword,
stating, “This descent/ is somewhat narrow, we shall never pass/
Well with our weapons” (3.1.5-7). Hence, Alonzo is literally
disarmed, allowing Deflores to kill him; his dying cry of
“Deflores! Oh Deflores,/ Whose malice hast thou put on?” reveals
his surprise at being killed in such a safe place, with a person
who has appeared so harmless (3.1.25-6). The act of removing the
sword can also be seen as a sort of castration, given that
Deflores has just delivered his banquet speech, where he states
he shall effectively feast upon Beatrice, leaving no pleasure
left for Alonzo (2.2.150-5). Given this speech, it makes sense
11
to interpret the “narrow descent” as a vagina and the sword as a
phallic symbol, which Deflores then removes, effectively
castrating him and preventing any act of copulation from being
completed.
Vermandero comes to a similar realization of his
vulnerability when he discovers that his own daughter and
servant committed the murders that had occurred in his castle.
As he says, “An host of enemies entered my citadel/ Could not
amaze like this” (5.3.147-8). When paired with his earlier
assertion of the “strength” of his castle, it is clear that he
now possesses a more humble view of his untouchable strength.
While this loss of security and manly pride may seem to be
a bad thing, it is necessary for the formation of more equal and
friendly relationships. Deflores’s and Beatrice’s own
relationship is intimate, to the point that they are unable to
keep within the bounds of their own bodies and egos. Beatrice
recognizes this when she says of Deflores, “This ominous, illfaced fellow more disturbs me/ Than all my other passions”
(2.1.52-3). By casting him as one of her “passions,” Deflores
becomes a part of her emotional self. Alsemero similarly
recognizes that there is a deep connection between the two,
calling them “twins” (5.3.142). Finally, Deflores cements this
point, for while everyone else calls Beatrice either Beatrice or
12
Joanna, he never calls her by any name. She is too much a part
of him to require a separate name.
From the language Middleton and Rowley use, it is clear
that Beatrice and Deflores share a relationship that is overly
intense and enmeshed. For example, Beatrice claims that her
“passion,” Deflores, “disturbs” her. Similarly, when Alsemero
calls the two “twins,” he adds the qualifier “of mischief”
(5.3.142-3). However, at the same time, Middleton and Rowley
suggest that close relationships based on emotion and sympathy
are precisely what is lacking in the society surrounding them.
When Jasperino first suggests to Alsemero that Beatrice is
unfaithful, and Alsemero reacts emotionally, he goes on to
excuse himself, asking Jasperino, “Do not weigh me by my
passions” (4.2.109). While Alsemero seems to be asking Jasperino
merely to forgive him for his angry outburst, this comment feeds
into a larger trend of shallow interactions lacking in emotion
and human warmth. The first interactions between Alsemero,
Vermandero, and Alonzo in particular are characterized by very
formal speech and attitudes. They judge one another largely by
issues of class and wealth; for example, Vermandero praises
Alonzo for being “a courtier and a gallant, enriched/ With many
fair and noble ornaments” (1.1.206-7). They are chiefly
concerned with issues of honor and revenge; Alsemero boasts to
Vermandero that he would have revenged his father’s death, “had
13
not the late league/ Prevented me” (1.1.178-9). Even Vermandero
realizes this is an excessive need for revenge, stating “’Twas
time to breathe” (1.1.179). Beatrice has a similar reaction when
Alsemero, faced with the impossibility of marrying a woman
engaged to another, proposes a culturally accepted resolution, a
duel. Beatrice replies to this, “Here was a course/ Found to
bring sorrow on her way to death” and proceeds to list the
faults in this plan (2.2.29-45). Finally, the men speak in
formal, flowery, and diplomatic terms that betray no emotion.
Vermandero and Alonzo use phrases such as “noble name” and “ a
treasury of honor” (2.1.98-100). Vermandero even uses the royal
“we” in his address to his future son-in-law (2.1.98-99).
Tomazo is the first to highlight the problem with this
system, noting that “In the state of ignorance I live in,/ A
brother may salute his brother’s murderer” (5.2.46-7). By being
polite, one runs the risk of not understanding another’s true
nature. Beatrice and Deflores, however, only use formal language
in the company of others or in order to gain their own ends. One
needs only to look at Beatrice’s asides to realize this; when
answering her father’s queries about whether church is over, she
answers briefly, modestly, and respectfully with “For this time,
sir” (1.1.147). However, her aside that immediately follows
shows that she is not tightly attached to religion or the mores
of society, given that she states, “I shall change my saint”
14
(1.1.148). She is also full of emotion, a “giddy turning”
(1.1.149). Of course, not even Beatrice and Deflores are
entirely immune from society’s crushing mores. When Beatrice and
Deflores do attempt to follow society’s mores, however,
Middleton and Rowley emphasize the unnaturalness of this action.
When substituting Diaphanta for herself in Alsemero’s
bedchamber, Beatrice becomes obsessed with maintaining her
honor, to the point that bodily harm becomes irrelevant.
Deflores emphasizes this when he counsels her, “You talk of
danger when your fame’s on fire?” (5.1.35). However, more
important is Beatrice’s response to Deflores’s help: “I’m forced
to love thee now,/ ‘Cause thou provid’st so carefully for my
honor” (5.1.48-9). The key word here is “forced”; the love
between Deflores and Beatrice is not natural, for it is spurred
on only by the societally-imposed necessity of defending honor.
However, in the end of the play, Beatrice and Deflores,
correct these “unnatural” and empty relationships. Alsemero
notes of Tomazo, “Your change is come too, from an ignorant
wrath/ To knowing friendship” (5.3.202-3). Middleton and Rowley
indicate that this breaking of boundaries between Tomazo and
Alsemero is a good thing, for the adjectives describing their
relationship
progress from “ignorance” and “wrath,” generally
assumed to be negative qualities, to “knowledge” and
“friendship.” Any boundaries remaining between Alsemero and
15
Vermandero dissolve, for Alsemero offers himself as not just a
son-in-law, but an actual son. Alsemero further suggests that
his integration into the family can be the positive force that
eases Vermandero’s sorrow at losing a daughter. He seeks to
comfort Vermandero, saying, “Man and his sorrow at the grave
must part” (5.3.218). Even Beatrice and Deflores’s unnatural
love seems to have resolved into a more authentic attachment,
illustrated in their act of dying together. Thus, while
Beatrice’s and Deflores’s own close relationship is excessive,
it is necessary in order to counteract the complete lack of
meaningful relationships in the world surrounding them. Indeed,
it is important to note that in most cases where Deflores’s and
Beatrice’s behavior differs from the majority, their behavior is
still excessive; the point is that it needs to be to make up for
the deficits in society.
Deflores and Beatrice also make others aware that
characters may have more than one dimension. Vermandero, Alonzo,
and Alsemero do not only interact in superficial ways, but
also
assume that those around them think and act in similar terms.
For example, when Tomazo confronts his brother regarding the
possibility that Beatrice loves another, he responds that he
would be an enemy to any “that should but think/ She knew the
meaning of inconstancy,/ Much less the use and practice”
(2.1.147-9). He not only is blind in this case, failing to
16
realize that Beatrice truly does know the “practice” of
inconstancy, but he is also completely unreasonable in his
expectation that women never even “know the meaning of
inconstancy.” He is adhering to the stereotypes set by society,
with no regard for the reality of human nature, let alone
Beatrice’s individual character.
Beatrice and Deflores, on the other hand, are fine examples
of complexity and multiplicity. Both present a false face to
prevent others from perceiving their “negative qualities,” or
the qualities that the society around them would frown upon.
Alsemero makes this point visually when he says to Beatrice,
“There was a visor/ Oe’r that cunning face” (5.3.47-8). Deflores
similarly hides behind the “honest” servant façade. There is
also the issue of Beatrice’s second name, Joanna, which suggests
that she has several distinct personalities.
The discovery of Beatrice and Deflores’s double nature
causes those around them to become aware of the possibility of
human characteristics that differ from formal stereotypes.
Indeed, it is no accident that Middleton and Rowley cast those
characters with the most knowledge and appreciation of the true
nature of others as the most successful characters. Tomazo and
Jasperino are the first to mark the true character of Beatrice
and Deflores, demonstrating that they recognize that people may
deviate from societal expectations. Further, unlike the more
17
selfish characters around them, both seek the good of others
even when it is not advantageous for them to do so. Tomazo
selflessly seeks to defend his brother, telling him the truth
about Beatrice even though he knows it must anger Alonzo. As he
says to Alonzo, he means to “mark your harms so heedfully”
(2.1.126). Jasperino is similarly concerned for his friend’s
happiness, and in a similar scene, confesses his concerns of
Beatrice’s faithfulness, despite his fears of losing “faith and
friendship” (4.2.82). Even Beatrice recognizes his loyalty,
saying of him, “How wise is Alsemero in his friend!” (2.1.6).
Hence, Middleton and Rowley allow them both to survive in the
end, with Tomazo better off for having found the murderer of his
brother and therefore, having been relieved of his burden of
sadness.
Throughout The Changeling, Middleton and Rowley show their
appreciation for both the “supernatural” and the “scientific”
view of monsters, combining the two to promote a more humanistic
view. The “scientific” view allows the playwrights to highlight
flaws in society, yet scientific study of humankind leaves no
room for close, emotional, complex, and ultimately human
relationships. Further, as Park and Daston note, the more
naturalistic, scientific view was associated with “the
‘withdrawal’ of the educated classes from more popular culture”
(40). By continuing to present the supernatural view in their
18
play, Middleton and Rowley close the divide between the upper
and lower classes. Finally, by allowing aspects of both the
“scientific” and the “supernatural” views to be present,
Middleton and Rowley re-affirm the possibility of interpreting
characters in more than one way. No matter which “monstrous”
interpretation one uses, Beatrice and Deflores act as beneficial
characters, highlighting society’s excesses, as in the case of
appetite, and closing the gaps that prevent more emotionally
involved, complex, and rewarding relationships.
19
Works Cited
Burks, Deborah G. “’I’ll Want My Will Else’: The Changeling and
Women’s Complicity with their Rapists.” ELH 62.4 (Winter
1995): 759-790.
Davidson, Arnold I. “The Horror of Monsters.” The Boundaries of
Humanity: Humans, Animals, and Machines. Ed. James Sheehan
and Morton Sosna. Berkley: U of California P, 1991. 36-65.
Middleton, Thomas, and William Rowley. The Changeling. Ed.
Michael Neill. New York: W W Norton, 2006.
Munro, Joyce Underwood. “The Invisible Made Visible: The Fairy
Changeling as a Folk Articulation of Failure to Thrive in
Infants and Children.” The Good People: New Fairylore
Essays. Ed. Peter Narvaez. New York: Garland P, 1991. 253284.
Pare, Ambroise. On Monsters and Marvels. Trans. Janis L.
Pallister. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1982.
Park, Katharine, and Lorraine J. Daston. “The Study of Monsters
in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth- Century France and England.”
Past and Present 92 (August 1981): 20-54. JSTOR. Seymour
Library, Knox College, Galesburg, IL. 12 November 2008
<http://www.jstor.org/action/showAdvancedSearch>.
Stallybrass, Peter. “Patriarchal Territories: The Body
Enclosed.” Rewriting the Renaissance: This Discourses of
20
Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe. Ed. Margaret W.
Fergusen, Maureen Quilligan, & Nancy J. Vickers. Chicago: U
of Chicago P, 1986. 123-142.
21