§ONNEl'S AS TlHIEA l'ER~ TlHIE ]pERFORMANCE OF IDEAl, LoVE A~'D l'HE NEGATION OF MARlRIAGE IN MARY WROTH?S MASQUE

SUSAN LAUFFER O'HARA

THAT MASQUES WERE MORE THAN MERE ENTERTAINMENT, that they were as Suzanne Gossett has asserted "codified expression[s] of the values of soci• ety" (113) can be enlarged upon if we look to Ben Jonson's preface to his masque Hymenaei. Jonson stresses that "things subjected to understandini' are "impress• ing, and lasting: Else the glorie of all these solemnities [masques] had perish'd like a blaze, and gone out, in the beholderseyes." This is why "Princes and great• est persons" are "curious after the most high, and heartie inventions, to furnish the inward parts: (and those grounded upon antiquitie, and solide learnings) which, though their voyce be taught to sound to present occasions, their sense, or doth, or should alwayes lay hold on more remov'd mysteriel' (Hymenaei 209; Jonson's emphasis). It is this Jonsonian idea that a masque should function to impart "learnings," "sense," and "understanding," that it should "lay hold on more remov'd mysteries," that is of the utmost concern to our reading ofLady Mary Wroth's "A crowne of Sonetts dedicated to Love" (Roberts, Pamphilia P77-P90).1 But why should Jonson's theory on the writing and production of masques concern scholars studying what has become known as Wroth's son• net sequence, Pamphilia to Amphilanthus? This article will argue that Wroth's crown of sonnets contained within Pamphilia to Amphilanthus is a masque rather than part of a traditional sonnet sequence as originally thought. In fact, Wroth adheres so closely to masque conventions in her crown of sonnets that I will argue her masque could, indeed, be staged. More important, however, is the fact that Wroth not only grounded her masque upon "solide learnings" but also "sound[ed] to present occasions," calling into question the legitimacy of and necessity for the institution of marriage. 2 To argue that Wroth's crown of sonnets is a masque is not a great leap in genre form. As critics we tend to classify and categorize into neat genre pack• ages, creating boundaries that perhaps never existed or were soon blurred.3 In• deed, Wroth may have utilized sonnet sequence form for her masque to avoid the criticism heaped on Chapman for the long, incomprehensible speeches

EIRC29.1 (Summer 2003): 59-99 59 60 EXPLORATIONS IN RENAISSANCE CULTURE ofhis masques. 4 Several critics have noted the masque-like quality ofWroth's sonnet sequence. 5 And court masques in the early Tudor period consisted, in part, of knights reciting sonnets to their ladies (Orgel, Jonsonian Masque 35-36). These court entertainments have their origin in court mummings which consisted of tableaux and static dumb-shows mimed by costumed fig• ures often representing abstract qualities or popular mythological characters. Indeed, even the later Jonsonian masque is structured around aseries of set speeches in verse, and parts ofhis masques were sometimes mimed (Tydeman 25; Brock 171). These early conventions of court entertainment were still be• ing utilized in Stuart drama and masques, which, I believe, prompted Wroth to create her masque using sonnet sections. Each song or sonnet represents a picture that could be staged as a pantomime with Pamphilia acting as a presenter, reciting the verse as an explanation of the mumming.6 Moreover, within the verse ofWroth's masque are rubrics that indicate the entrances or exits of characters and that contain references to setting, stage production, lighting, and costuming. In some ways, then, the "sonnet sequence" Pamphilia to Amphilanthus is very different from a traditional sonnet sequence like Sidney's Astrophil and Stella or Spenser's Amoretti. What has become known as Wroth's sonnet sequence, Pamphilia to Amphilanthus is not actually an integral part of The Countess 0/ Montgomery's Urania but rather a manuscript attached to the end of the prose romance, the two works having been published in one volume. Wroth critics have long theorized that the appended sonnet sequence contains the sonnets given to Amphilanthus by Pamphilia in the Urania. This theory may be correct-at least for the first fifty-five songs and sonnets. Bur upon dose examination of Wroth's holograph manuscript of Pamphilia to Am• philanthus at the Folger Library, the divisions between the first fifty-five songs and sonnets and the last groupings of songs and sonnets become remarkably dear. Through the use of a blank page, Wroth separated the first fifty-five songs and sonnets from the rest of the group. She again separated, through the use of another blank page, the second section of songs and sonnets into two distinct groups, the blank page occurring after sonnet P90. Following the Folger manuscript, then, Pamphilia to Amphilanthus is divided into three dis• tinct seetions with P1-P55 comprising a traditional sonnet sequence (Section I) and the remaining songs and sonnets divided into two groups: P56-P90 (Section 11) and P91-P103 (Section 111). This is not a new discovery and, in fact, Jeff Masten voices his concern about the dangers of "obscur[ingl discrete groupings within the manuscript" by considering the collection as one distinct whole (68-69). These discrete groupings, then, and the ultimate reading of them, are so important to our understanding of the creative genius