‘The Changeling’: A Critical Reader ed. by Mark Hutchings
2021; Modern Humanities Research Association; Volume: 116; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1353/mlr.2021.0093
ISSN2222-4319
Autores Tópico(s)Reformation and Early Modern Christianity
Resumo Reviews about the religion (literally) ‘around him’ (p. ). is is true, but one of the strengths of this approach is to show how Donne’s religious identity has been in- flected by material contexts. e book is an incisive commentary on how religious metaphors and allusions reverberate throughout the texts which surround them. As such, this book will have wide appeal, speaking directly to Donne scholars, historians of religion, and those engaged with the history of the book. Indeed, one of the study’s strengths is the way it weaves these different disciplinary approaches together. Eckhardt’s writing conveys an infectious enthusiasm. We enjoy with him moments of connection with Donne when we encounter ‘books that clearly touched his hand and are still around to touch our hands’ (p. ). But this excitement also encompasses the (oen anonymous) scribes, compositors, binders, collectors, and readers of Donne’s work. Consequently, this book is testimony to the thrill of archival research as well as the power of such research to enable us to encounter Donne in new and invigorating ways. U S E R ‘e Changeling’: A Critical Reader. Ed. by M H. (Arden Early Modern Drama Guides) London: e Arden Shakespeare. . xix+ pp.£. ISBN ––––. A scholarly coup de théâtre was achieved in by publication of the newly extensive , complete Middleton (omas Middleton , Collected Works, ed. by Gary Taylor and John Lavangino (Oxford: Oxford University Press)), which had a powerful phalanx of editors. is anthology provides some corrective perspectives, via eight current essays about Middleton’s e Changeling, introduced by Mark Hutchings. ey question Middleton’s designation as ‘our other Shakespeare’ (p. ) and the resulting editorial apparatus. A critical history by Sara D. Luttfring establishes the polarized status of the play, inaccessible aer its first printing in except for reissue in , until C. W. Dee included it in his Old English Plays (). e next essay, by Jennifer Panek, on performance history, cites testimony about its initial popularity from the title-page: ‘Acted (with great applause) at the Privat house in Drury Lane and Salisbury Court’ (p. ), but she adds that aer a performance at court, the play waited until for its next public revival, at Birkbeck College. Its first truly professional performance, in modern London, was Tony Richardson’s at the Royal Court in , but came only aer numerous academic versions exposing the script to fashionable critical interpretations: Freudian, Marxist, Feminist, etc. e third essay, by Patricia A. Cahill, outlines, without resolving, the classic problems of assigning textual responsibilities to two authors, while recognizing that segmenting a text might be rejected for shared authorship throughout composition . She also reviews sexual preoccupations from the feminist world, factors of class structure, and historical contexts, while looking ahead to analyses based on race and disability. ere seems more critical interest in such anxieties than in treating the script as a unique artefact. MLR, ., e most serious problem for scholars has been the intrusion of supposedly debasing grotesque scenes, also challenging directors, as detailed by Panek, and later by Peter Womack and Sarah Dustagheer in ‘New Directions’. Ironically, this issue may have been solved by both early and modern audiences who found the Bedlam elements diverting analogues to more intense moments. Womack also notes how the Calvinistic determinism of Middleton combines with the Freudian subconscious concept. e constricting brutalities of stage interpretations also match the harshness displayed in the heroine’s capitulation to De Flores, seen as a reflection of her intrinsic love/hate attitude to him throughout. Berta Cano-Echevarría’s essay derives such misogynistic views in the play from noted Spanish models. Dustagheer describes other modern producers’ solutions to these divergent elements in the play, while Natalie Vienne-Guerrin explores how similarly brutal recent films of the script fit into the genre of the horror film. Finally, in ‘Resources’, Norah J. Williams questions the professional balance between Middleton’s and Rowley’s responsibility for the script. She doubts ‘the enduring perspective of Rowley as the inferior playwright’, judging that David Nichol’s work ‘has shown that Rowley was the more senior playwright in the partnership’ (p. ), and citing David Lake: ‘Rowley was primarily responsible for the first...
Referência(s)