47

『英米文化』48, 47–60 (2018) ISSN: 0917–3536

“It’s a Service that I Kneel for to You”: Failure of Courtly Love in The Changeling

TANAMACHI Atsushi

Abstract

This paper investigates the treatment of courtly love convention in the main plot of The Changeling to demonstrate how the convention is radically parodied in it. For this purpose, the paper explores the use of the word “service,” which bears multiple meanings, including those concerning the master-servant relationship as well as the relationship based on courtly love. An example of this play’s treatment of the courtly love convention can be seen when Beatrice drops her glove hoping that Alsemero would be the receiver. However, her plan is sabotaged by patriarchal interference, and her glove falls into the hands of Deflores, a ser- vant whom she despises. Moreover, since Deflores describes the glove as a “favour” from the socially superior lady, and later begs Beatrice that “[t]rue service merits mercy” (2.1.63), it is apparent that Deflores envisions himself as a courtly lover and attempts to reformulate his situation into that of a courtly lover offering an exalted kind of service to his lady. In this way, courtly love conventions undergo a breakdown and the expectations are frustrated until the climax of the play when they receive a final death blow.

In the subplot of The Changeling (1622), a collaborative work of Thomas Middleton and William Rowley, a gentleman named Antonio disguises himself as a “changeling,” or an idiot, and infiltrates a mad-house in order to secretly approach and woo Isabella, the wife of the warden. Antonio acts accordingly and plays a fool while suspicious eyes are around, but when he is left alone with Isabella, he addresses the warden’s wife in a courtly manner:

This shape of folly shrouds your dearest love, The truest servant to your powerful beauties, 48 『英米文化』48 (2018)

Whose magic had this force thus to transform me. (3.2.116–118)

Although he shifts his speech into a more dignified manner when they are alone, Antonio remains in his fool’s attire. He declares himself to be Isabella’s “servant” in the vein of a courtly love tradition. Later, Isabella talks of him as “[t]his love’s knight-errant, who hath made adventure / For purchase of [her] love” (3.2.230–1). It is evident from these lines that the rhetoric of courtly love is utilized in this work. However, the strangeness of a man dressed in a ridiculous costume employing the speech of love to his social inferior indicates that, by the late Jacobean period when the play was written and performed in an indoor playhouse, the Phoenix, the idea of courtly love may have lost its esteem substantially. Therefore, this paper investigates the treatment of courtly love convention in the main plot of The Changeling and how the convention is radically parodied in the relationship between Beatrice-Joana1 and Deflores.

Courtly Love and Service

From the time when Gaston Paris coined the term “amour courtois (courtly love)” with reference to Le Chevalier de la Charrette (c. 1174–81, also known as the Lancelot) in 1883, there have been many arguments over the phrase, leading one critic to conclude that the term itself “reflects modern critical assumptions more than medieval practice” (Kay 81–82). Courtly love is an elusive and problematic term surrounded by controversy even from the first influential definition by C. S. Lewis given in his book, The Allegory of Love (1936): “Humility, Courtesy, Adultery, and the Religion of Love.” However, it is also true that, according to Larry Benson, by the late fourteenth century, Geoffrey Chaucer wrote a com- plaint of a lover who fits many criteria of a courtly lover (239). Benson also notes that, by the early sixteenth century, “Henry VIII’s courtiers were living the lives of courtly lovers, using stanzas from Chaucer’s Troilus as love letters” (252). The prominence of the idea con- tinued under Elizabeth I, who kept the courtly love convention alive in order to “keep her jostling courtiers where she wanted them” (Low 27). Thus, it is clear that the idea of courtly love was an inextricable part of both the literary and social conventions in early modern England. Elusive though it may be, there should be some clarification of the scope of courtly love. The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English gives us a rather broad definition of the term: TANAMACHI Atsushi “It’s a Service that I Knell for to You” 49

[A] particular kind of love between men and women, involving service and veneration on the part of the man, and nominal or actual domination on the part of the woman. This reversal of the usual medieval marital relationship took place between a lady who might or might not be married and a man sometimes but not invariably her social infe- rior. Descriptions consequently insist on its private, discreet and secret nature. . . (Ousby 212, “courtly love”)

This definition touches upon several points: devotion of male to female, the asymmetrical social status of lovers, love as both an ennobling and a private affair. Relationships in courtly love were expected to be confidential, taking place behind watchful eyes. Among the four marks of courtly love cited above (Humility, Courtesy, Adul- tery and the Religion of Love), the inclusion of its adulterous assertion has caused much controversy. While the objective of courtly lovers in literary works is not inevitably the achievement of an adulterous liaison, it is still, as Catherine Bates reminds us, a subversive love-relation that is frequently denied a legitimizing conclusion (17). As a result of this, pri- vacy and secrecy came to characterize courtly love. Meanwhile, the concept of a knight worshiping a socially superior lady, humbling himself before her and dedicating his service to earn her love and favour echoes the master-servant relationship of a feudal system based on homage and tenure. As vassals provide their ser- vice to their lords, and the lords, in turn, provide land and protection for their subjects, a knight would provide his service to a lady to sue for her favour. The following remarks of Chakravorty on the matter examine the similarities between these relationships and explain how the chivalric service in courtly love was understood:

In the classical phase of feudalism, love-service or domnei was conceived as an ana- logue of the liege-homage which a vassal owed his overlord. . . Moreover, the ‘service’ of the free vassal, as distinct from that of the servile orders, was conceived to be prompted by his loyalty and honour, not by fear and necessity. . . In the courtly love, the myth promoted a peculiar mixture of submission and proud self-regard, cultivated as a badge of social entitlement. (148)

The service of the free vassals was upheld as an honourable act unlike that of the lower class, and the fact that the former group was able to engage in such relationships with their 50 『英米文化』48 (2018) superiors marked them apart from “the servile order.” In the same way, the fact that one was allowed to engage in courtly love relationships was seen as a distinguishing marker of sta- tus.2

“Service” in The Changeling

According to Annabel Patterson’s count, the word “service” is used 17 times in the play (1635). This includes those concerning both master-servant relationship as well as courtly love relationship. One example of the former can be seen in a statement of Jasperino. At the beginning of Act 2, Scene 1, Beatrice, the daughter of the governor of a citadel, entrusts him with instructions for his master, Alsemero. As she hands her message, she asks for his “fair service” (2.1.1), to which Jesperino answers in an exemplary manner of a good servant: “The joy I shall return rewards my service” (2.1.5). It seems that he relishes the honourable act that is the service of free vassals and shows a proud self-regard in his service. Turning our attention to the service in courtly love relationship, an editor of The Change- ling draws attention to the close connection between love and service during the English Renaissance:

The rhetoric of courtly love which the Renaissance inherited from the medieval chival- ric code, imagined love as a kind of sublime ‘service’ offered by a knight to his lady: and the paradigm of such relationships was one in which the wooer abased himself before a woman of higher rank. . . (Neill Introduction xxx)

We may, therefore, conclude that, some forms of service were considered to be sublime and ennobling experiences. However, this was only true for those who could choose to abase themselves, such as free vassals and courtly lovers. In the case of those in the servile rank who are subjected to abasement not on their own accord, their situation is fundamentally different. Moreover, the courtly love relationships represented in the play seem to intentionally fail to meet the conventional expectations. Chakravorty observed that the play “reformulates the tropes of chivalry and courtly love, and it is . . . concerned with estranging their generic reg- ister on the stage” (145). This idea can be clearly demonstrated by comparing similar scenes from another earlier play. In Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy (c. 1590) Bel-Imperia, a TANAMACHI Atsushi “It’s a Service that I Knell for to You” 51 duke’s daughter, drops her glove for a knight to pick up and rewards him with it:

She, in going in, lets fall her glove, which Horatio, coming out, takes up HORATIO. Madam, your glove. BEL-IMPERIA. Thanks good Horatio, take it for thy pains. (Spanish 1.4.99–101)

The glove becomes an indirect gift from Bel-Imperia to Horatio and represents her affection towards him. Furthermore, the fact that there is a break in iambic pentameter after Horatio’s line suggests that it is a deliberate decision on Bel-Imperia’s part. The jealous reactions from the onstage-audience reinforce the idea that the glove is a favour given by a noble lady to a mere knight. In contrast, a similar situation in The Changeling leads to different results. Beatrice drops her glove apparently hoping that Alsemero would be the receiver. However, her intention is frustrated when her father interrupts Alsemero and orders his servant, Deflores, to retrieve it:

BEATRICE. [Aside] Not this serpent gone yet? [Drops a glove] VERMANDERO. Look, girl, thy glove’s fallen — Stay, stay—Deflores, help a little. (1.1.218–219)

Her plot miscarries due to this interference by her father, and the glove falls into the hands of Deflores, a servant whom she calls a “serpent.” When he offers to return the glove, Bea- trice scolds him:

Mischief on your officious forwardness! Who bade you stoop? They touch my hand no more: [Removes the other glove] There! [Throws it down] For t’other’s sake I part with this. . . (1.1.220–222)

When Beatrice throws down the other glove on the ground, it is an act reminiscent of a chi- valric gesture—that of a challenge—by which she clearly expresses her resentment towards Deflores. However, this antagonistic act ironically results in giving both of the gloves to the man whom she hates. The irony is not lost on Deflores, who utilizes the word from Bea- 52 『英米文化』48 (2018) trice’s earlier speech in his soliloquy: “Here’s a favour come—with a mischief!” (1.1.224). Moreover, since Deflores describes the pair of gloves as a “favour” from the socially supe- rior lady, this event reveals his desire to achieve a courtly love relationship with Beatrice. Even though Deflores is acutely aware of her hatred, he declares in a soliloquy that he “cannot choose but love her” (1.1.228). However, his affection seems to amount to no more than sexual desire, thus, his reactions towards frustration are accordingly physical in nature:

[Aside] Why, am not I an ass to devise ways Thus to be railed at? I must see her still; I shall have a mad qualm within this hour again. . . (2.1.77–79)

To avoid fits of sickness (“mad qualm”) which he claims to endure when he is unable to see her, Deflores finds every opportunity for employment to be near Beatrice, which inevitably ends with her rebukes. He derides himself for being willing to undergo such abasing experi- ences. And yet, he evidently believes himself to be choosing to suffer these humbling expe- riences in the vein of a courtly lover. When he begs Beatrice that “[t]rue service merits mercy” (2.1.63), it is apparent that Deflores is attempting to reformulate their relationship. Neill explains this attempt by Deflores thus:

Delivering messages belongs to Deflores’ function as a household servant, but by using the term mercy he seeks to cast himself in the role of a courtly lover offering a more exalted kind of service to the lady of the castle. The lady’s grant of ‘mercy’ often involves a ‘favour’ such as Deflores claims at [1.1.224]. (2.1.63, editor’s note)

It must be noted that, despite the fact that destitution has forced him into being employed as a household servant, Deflores proudly declares that he “tumbled into th’ world a gentleman” (2.1.49), of which even Beatrice is keenly aware: “I want / To help my self, since he’s a gen- tleman / In good respect with my father” (1.1.128–130). Madeline Bassnett suggests that Deflores “suffers a secret duality, falling in between class lines and thus never recognized for the man he feels he truly is” (397). Caught between levels of class division, his self- regard seems to be in conflict with reality. Likewise, the true meaning of Deflores’ “service” is precariously balanced upon the two possibilities of the word: an honourable act of a gen- tleman and a humble act of a servant. This becomes relevant as we proceed. TANAMACHI Atsushi “It’s a Service that I Knell for to You” 53

Rejection of Courtly Lovers

Another, deadly meaning is added to the word “service” by Alsemero. Christopher Ricks has rightly pointed out that Alsemero is the first to use the word to refer to the murder of Beatrice’s fiancé, Alonzo de Piracquo (296). As expected, he employs the language of courtly love to woo Beatrice:

ALSEMERO. One good service Would strike off both your fears. . . BEATRICE. What might that service be so strangely happy? ALSEMERO. The honourablest piece about man—valour. I’ll send a challenge to Piracquo instantly. (2.2.21–22, 26–28)

He proposes to eliminate his rival in a single combat, evoking the bygone era of chivalry. Nevertheless, Alsemero’s chivalric proposal is quickly rejected by Beatrice for her fear of losing him in such a hazardous undertaking. As she ponders on using Deflores as a substi- tute to take the bloody part, Alsemero’s bid to become a courtly lover is undermined. Meanwhile, observing the lovers’ clandestine meeting in the manner of a spy in the courtly love convention, Deflores gleefully muses upon the possibility of achieving a sexual liaison with Beatrice; using misogynistic logic, he assumes that he may partake in the plea- sure (“I’ll put in for one”) now that she has found a lover while being engaged to another man (2.2.57–62). She, in turn, engages him for the purpose of using him as a hired assassin, attempting to draw him into her plan by suppressing her hatred towards the servant. Thus, Beatrice and Deflores enter into a conversation, both having their own secret agenda. Furthermore, the sense of concealed intention and resulting misunderstanding is also heightened by the multiple use of asides by the both participants during the conversation. The audience, privileged with the information from both sides, understand that the two are clearly drawing their own conclusions when Beatrice praises Deflores’ manhood:

BEATRICE. Hardness becomes the visage of a man well, It argues service, resolution, manhood, If cause were of employment...... 54 『英米文化』48 (2018)

DEFLORES. I would but wish the honour of a service So happy as that mounts to. (2.2.92–94, 96–97)

Since the two of them have their own ends that they hope to achieve, “service” bears differ- ent connotations. The word could mean both “copulation” as well as “the duty of a servant,” the latter in this instance signifying the murder of Beatrice’s fiancé (as Ricks suggests, Bea- trice will later realize that “she cannot have the one kind of service without the other” [296]). With this in mind, we can closely examine their conversations. In order to convince Deflores of accepting the task, Beatrice refers to the reward, which she assures him to be “precious” (2.2.130). Although she is implying the monetary value of the reward, her counterpart expects reward of an utterly different kind, that is, her virginity: “I have assured myself of that beforehand, / And know it will be precious – the thought rav- ishes” (2.2.131–132). As he becomes more convinced of Beatrice’s affection (at least in a physical sense), Deflores begins to adopt the behavior of courtly lovers. He kneels before Beatrice (“It’s a service that I kneel for to you. [Kneels]”2.2.117) and begs her to bestow him the honour of proving his own worth to her. Accordingly, Deflores’ service for Beatrice now conveys an additional significance. It is remarkable that the catalyst for this shift in Deflores’ behavior is Beatrice’s repeated use of the same word:

Beatrice privately intends ‘service’ in a purely menial sense . . . but she repeats the word with such caressing insistence that De Flores’ knightly gesture seems perfectly fitted to the occasion. . . (Neill Issues 186)

Despite the tonal shift in Deflores’ conduct, fashioning himself in the vein of a courtly lover, Beatrice’s opinion of him remains unchanged; he is merely a hired assassin, a means to an end. The scene ends with “mutual and self-deception,” to quote Martin White, who con- cludes that “[t]heir passion, though focused differently, makes them equally blind” (98–99). This mutual blindness of Beatrice and Deflores comes to light and their misunderstanding is exposed to each other at their next meeting. When they meet again after the latter has completed the assigned task (i.e., the murder of Alonzo), she promptly tries to dispose of him by giving him his payment: TANAMACHI Atsushi “It’s a Service that I Knell for to You” 55

BEATRICE. Look you, sir, here’s three thousand golden florins: I have not meanly thought upon thy merit. DEFLORES. What, salary? Now you move me! BEATRICE. How, Deflores? DEFLORES. Do you place me in the rank of verminous fellows To destroy things for wages? (3.3.61–65)

Having embraced the idea of partaking in a courtly love relationship and being confident in the fact that he is acknowledged as a gentleman by accomplishing the chivalric mission assigned by his lady, Deflores becomes enraged on realizing that he was nothing more than a hired labourer. He not only recognizes that he has no place in such a relationship, but also that he is being denied of his heritage as a gentleman. McAlindon astutely describes the result of this twofold blow on Deflores:

When it dawns on him that he has not come into his lady’s favour at all, and that gold is to be his only reward, it is as if hard fate has thrust him out to servitude a second time; he is filled with an indignant sense of moral and social displacement. . . (203)

Meanwhile, not understanding the cause of his indignation, Beatrice offers to raise his salary, to which Deflores reacts by dropping any semblance of courtesy and unequivocally demanding satisfaction by sexual “pleasure” (3.3.115, 160). Finally realizing with horror that the reward he was after all along was her virginity, Beatrice reminds him of the bound- ary between them by invoking what Chakravorty refers to as “native honour,” that is, “rigid ontological barriers between noble and ignoble” (148). However, her admonition is quickly refuted:

BEATRICE. Think but upon the distance that creation Set ’twixt thy blood and mine, and keep thee there. DEFLORES. Look but into your conscience, read me there — ’Tis a true book, you’ll find me there your equal. Push! Fly not to your birth, but settle you In what the act has made you, you’re no more now. . . (3.3.130–135) 56 『英米文化』48 (2018)

Deflores asserts that she had forfeited her claim to her noble birth when she abetted the mur- der of her own fiancé, now instead she is defined by her own action (“the deed’s creature” 3.3.137), and condemned to be his equal. He repeatedly emphasizes that they are bound to each other by the murder of Alonzo (“we two, engaged so jointly” 3.3.88, “one with me” 3.3.140). His emphasis on their union seems to be Deflores’ reaction to her unwillingness to accept him as a gentleman; since Beatrice refuses to recognize him as a gentleman, he makes her his equal by bringing her down to where she had placed him. Powerless to refute Deflores’ accusations, Beatrice kneels before him and begs to be released from his demand in a stark reversal of their former relationship (“Stay, hear me once for all! [Knells]” 3.3.155), which Mark Burnett calls “a climactic moment of social leveling” (306). In this way, the courtly love relationship undergoes a breakdown and is replaced by the masculine conquest of the female body. Deflores embraces the woman whom he yearned for, the woman who can find no escape from this situation and is forced to exit with him in silent resignation. Thus far, we have seen how the expectation of the courtly love conven- tion has been frustrated in the play, and at its climax, the convention seems to have received a final death blow. Curiously, however, after the rape of Beatrice by Deflores, they form a warped relationship, a mere parody of courtly love, in the later acts.

Witnessed in a Garden

As a result of the murder of her fiancé, Beatrice is finally able to marry Alsemero. Never- theless, she now must hide from her new husband the fact that she is no longer a virgin. For this reason, she devises a bed-trick using her waiting woman, Diaphanta, to take her place in nuptial bed for consummation. Her plan almost miscarries because of Diaphanta’s unex- pected eagerness for sexual pleasure. Deflores comes to Beatrice’s rescue and assassinates the waiting woman during a fire which he causes as a diversion. Beatrice softens her attitude towards him (“I’m forced to love thee now” 5.1.48), praising him for his good service:

How heartily he serves me! His face loathes one, But look upon his care, who would not love him? The east is not more beauteous than his service. (5.1.70–72)

By performing the mission assigned by the lady, Deflores attains the favour of Beatrice TANAMACHI Atsushi “It’s a Service that I Knell for to You” 57 through his service, and achieves what ostensibly amounts to a courtly love relationship with her. Interestingly, this is also the last instance of the use of the word “service” in the play. Before long, their secret is exposed by Jasperino, who had been suspecting the adulterous relationship of Beatrice and Deflores, and he guides Alsemero to a garden to witness their assignation:

Your confidence, I’m sure, is now of proof: The prospect from the garden has showed Enough for deep suspicion. (5.3.1–3)

As the play was intended to be performed at an indoor-theatre, the Phoenix, every scene from the beginning takes place in the interior (the entirety of subplot is set in an insane asy- lum, and the main plot is set within the citadel of Alicante except for Act 1, Scene 1, which takes place inside a church). The allusion to the garden is intriguing not only because it is one of few references to the open space outside of the claustrophobic environment of the citadel, but also it represents two important motifs. In order to clarify what motifs are repre- sented by it, we will examine the significance of garden imagery. Since medieval time, the gardens of the wealthy were usually walled3. The wall surrounding the garden marked boundaries, and what was within those boundaries was regarded as private area. However, the enclosed garden (hortus conclusus) was considered to be private as well as “a place of sociability,” according to one historian:

The wall around the orchard made it the ideal spot for lovers to meet, for seductions to take place, for secrets to be exchanged. Circumscribed, the orchard was a theater in which woman’s charms were exposed...... Literature and iconography tell us that this was where people came to rest and enjoy themselves, to sing, to make love openly or secretly, to debate and disport themselves. The orchard was also the symbol of the Virgin and virginity, a symbol of paradise lost. . . (Regnier-Bohler 322, 435)

To summarize, garden was considered to be a private place where people could socialize, 58 『英米文化』48 (2018) and lovers could secretly enjoy each other’s company, and therefore, it was used as a courtly love motif. At the same time, it notably symbolized the Garden of Eden and, consequently, represented the Fall motif. Thus, the brief reference to the garden in the play combines these two motifs. Significantly, the Garden of Eden is referred to at the very beginning of the play by Alse- mero, when he contemplates marriage with Beatrice:

The place is holy, so is my intent; I love her beauties to holy purpose, And that, methinks, admits comparison With man’s first creation—the place blest, And is his right home back, if he achieve it. (1.1.5–9)

Alsemero’s hope for return to the Garden of Eden is thwarted by what he has witnessed in the terrestrial garden of Alicante. When he interrogates his wife about her relationship with Deflores, she confesses to what had occurred: “your love has made me / A cruel murd’ress. / . . . A bloody one. / I have kissed poison for’t, stroked a serpent” (5.3.65–67). Beatrice once again refers to Deflores as “serpent” and renounces him. Meanwhile, Alsem- ero forsakes his wife by calling her “broken rib of mankind” (5.3.146), which is a reference to the creation of Eve in Genesis. These images, Eve (Beatrice) and the serpent (Deflores) being witnessed committing a transgression in the garden, denote the idea of paradise lost. When he is told by Alsemero that Beatrice has confessed to their crime, Deflores decides to end his life with her in a murder-suicide. Even at his end, Deflores continues to envision himself as a courtly lover who attained his lady’s favour with a chivalric endevour:

I loved this woman in spite of her heart; Her love I earned out of Piracquo’s murder. [H]er honour’s prize Was my reward—I thank life for nothing But that pleasure. . . (5.3.165–169)

Throughout the play up until his oddly triumphant death, Deflores exhibits a tendency to distort reality by engaging in what Chakravorty refers to as “actantial inversion”: TANAMACHI Atsushi “It’s a Service that I Knell for to You” 59

[The play] thus shows a remarkable consistency of actantial inversions: assassin is revenger, the serpent is Adam and the sexual blackmailer is the tragic lover. (161)

Perhaps, therefore, the final twist of The Changeling is this appropriation of the narrative by Deflores. Although he is ultimately ignored by the established patriarchal system repre- sented by Vermandero and Alsemero, who form a father-son relationship after the blood-let- ting of the diseased daughter and the revolting servant ends, Deflores desperately tries to take control of his own narrative and fashions himself as a tragic courtly lover until his dying breath. However, this self-fashioning of Deflores is at the same time the death of the courtly love convention; as he dies a courtly lover so to the convention dies off with him.

Notes

1 It should be acknowledged that her double name has some significance within the play. For instance, her father, Vermandero, cries out her two names when he is baffled with the revelation of her crimes: An host of enemies entered my citadel Could not amaze like this. Joanna! Beatrice! Joanna! (5.3.147–148) However, this is not the focus of this paper, and she will be referred to as Beatrice for the rest of the paper. 2 In a similar vein, Benson alludes to the distinguishing property of language. “[I]f knights or ladies speak of love,” he maintains, “they must use the gentle language of courtly love; to do otherwise is to cease to be gentle, to become churls” (244). This indicates that the language they employed in love was another marker of the class distinction. 3 They were enclosed by walls partly because they needed to be protected from people and animals beyond, but “mainly because they came to be regarded as attached to a house—a private area where life was lived.” (Quest-Ritson 21–22)

Works Cited

Bassnett, Madeline. “‘A Frightful Pleasure, That is All’: Wonder, Monstrosity, and The Changeling” Dalhousie Review, Volume 84, Number 3 (2004): 387–406. Bates, Catherine. The Rhetoric of Courtship in Elizabethan Language and Literature. Cambridge: Cam- 60 『英米文化』48 (2018)

bridge University Press, 1992. Benson, Larry D. “Courtly Love and Chivalry in the Later Middle Ages.” Fifteenth-Century Studies: Recent Essays (1984): 237–57. Chakravorty, Swapan. Society and Politics in the Plays of Thomas Middleton. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Kay, Sarah. “Court, Clerks, and Courtly Love” Ed. Roberta L. Krueger. The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 81–96. Kyd, Thomas. The Spanish Tragedy. Ed. J R Mulryne. London: A & C Black, 1989, 2009. Low, Anthony. The Reinvention of Love: Poetry, Politics and Culture from Sidney to Milton. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Middleton, Thomas and William Rowley. The Changeling. Ed. Michael Neill. London: A & C Black, 2006. Neill, Michael. Issues of Death: Mortality and Identity in English Renaissance Tragedy. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997. —. Introduction. The Changeling. Ed. Neill. vii–xlv. Ousby, Ian. Ed. The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, 1993. Patterson, Annabel. Introduction to The Changeling. Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works. Eds. Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. 1632–1636. Quest-Ritson, Charles. The English Garden: A Social History. Boston: David R Godine. 2001, 2003. Regnier-Bohler, Danielle. “Imagining the Self.” Eds. Philippe Aries and George Duby. History of Pri- vate Life, Volume II: Revelations of the Medieval World. Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 1988. Ricks, Christopher. “The Moral and Poetic Structure of The Changeling.” Essays in Criticism 10.3 (1960): 290–306. White, Martin. Middleton and Tourneur. London: Palgrave Macmillan Limited, 1992.