"Killing the Whole Man": The Body in "The Changeling"

Middleton and Rowley's “The Changeling” still registers today as a profoundly unsettling work. At least that was my reaction, not having read the play before. Beyond its renowned psychological realism/acuity and its intense depiction of a character that we would term a “stalker” nowadays, I believe what underpins the chilling nature of the play lies in its concerted attention toward foregrounding the body as a mutually constitutive, indivisible "whole": its language and proceedings disavow the easy alienation of body “parts,” lending a certain depth of horror (not felt in “Titus Andronicus” for instance) to the murderous acts it depicts.

Whereas in “Titus” alienated limbs and tears are thought of in terms of exchange-value within the dramaturgy, such “parts” in “The Changeling” always redound to the body as a whole, a discrete whole that is neither truly part of a larger social/affiliative body nor merely a sexual body. When Beatrice reacts in horror at the De Flores' presentation of Alonzo's amputated finger, he points out that “Why, is that more / Than killing the whole man?” She is faced with the reality of the body as a whole, a fact that counters a tendency amongst other works we've read where the fetishization of parts adds a euphemistic effect to violence. Moreover, the double inscription/conditioning of “blood” within the play as both an affiliative and sexual signifier has an overdetermining effect that renders its generative point, the body, as something incapable of being placed as either a part of a larger social body or a sexual object. Also, despite those who would argue otherwise, the seemingly purposive confusion regarding the signification of the “ugliness” of De Flores also concords with a disavowal of the fetishization/alienation of bodily particulars.

Because of this refusal of fetishization/alienation, the whole aspect of “changing” bodies, either through feigning madness/idiocy or cunning bedroom-tricks, becomes especially problematic. As such, I'd argue that the play has an immanent logic that bodies are nonfungible, or, rather, their exchange is always beset by grave difficulties. This refusal adds to the psychological horror of the work, propelling it beyond certain other Elizabethan/Jacobean bloodbaths in terms of the psychic cleavages it makes upon an audience.

SO, things to think about: How is the body constituted in “The Changeling?” What do we think of Alsemero's allusion toward the “holy purpose” that supposedly rests in Beatrice's body? Does the play trouble the notion of bodies as teleological entities (i.e. having an end, purpose, use)? How is the notion of virginity as an alienated bodily particular complicated by the play? What differentiates Beatrice and Isabella in terms of how they relate to bodies, whether their own or others? Is the body of a madman or an idiot constituted as intrinsically different from a “normal” person's?

I could keep going on with talking points but I won't. In short, I want to keep this discussion as open-ended as possible, so anything related to bodies, etc. presumably can fit into the convo. I've pretty much laid all my cards on the table here, so please feel free to critique or interrogate my position in class – many of you probably know this work far better than I do.

See you tomorrow!