Szarmes

Christine Szarmes

English 4220

Professor Bassnett

April 10, 2013

Mediated Female Agency

Within Lady Mary Wroth’s The Countess of Montgomery’s Urania

The questionable presence of female agency remains a significant topic within

Mary Wroth’s The Countess of Montgomery’s Urania. The Jacobean period is

characterized as containing an “increased number of misogynistic diatribes, as well as a

deepening of the sentiment that knowledge, and therefore literature, belonged to the

masculine province” (Miller 123). Wroth’s prose romance questions this masculinist

notion as the text includes numerous female characters that experience love beyond the

confines of their marital bonds. This concept is unconventional within prose romance of

the time period and thus Wroth’s work challenges the societal restrictions placed upon

women with regards to female desire. Melissa Sanchez notes, “As the first English

woman to publish an original prose romance and sonnet sequence, and the first English

woman to have written a pastoral tragicomedy, Lady Mary Wroth has naturally attracted

decades of feminist scholarship” (Sanchez 449). Aspects of feminist qualities are

present within the prose as Wroth depicts female characters that choose love on their

own accord, outside the control of men and a patriarchal society. Desire becomes a

source of female agency as the women of the prose romance express their emotions,

forgoing the traditional feminine coyness associated with courtly love. Anne Shaver

contends, “Wroth’s women characters also embody glimmerings of new kinds of

1

Szarmes

political, poetic, and persuasive powers just becoming available to women as well as to

men” (Shaver 63). Despite such “glimmerings,” Wroth’s prose contrastingly presents

women whose existence and worth is wholly dependent upon the male characters. The

female characters Limena and Philarchos’ nameless adorner equate themselves to waste,

thereby negating any previous female power in their possession. Pamphilia confines her

emotional expression to her cabinet and female friendship functions within the text not

as a catalyst for feminine power, but as a detrimental presence that strengthens the

societal restrictions placed upon women. Therefore, although Wroth presents a

community that allows for a feminine expression of desire, the women in actuality

possess a limited agency as their power cannot extend further than that which is

sanctioned by the male characters. It is this limited agency that reinforces traditional

gender roles in favour of a patriarchal society within Wroth’s prose.

The notion of limited female agency is present within the character of Limena.

Limena attempts to harness a form of power as, while bound to another man, she

chooses death before betraying the love of Perissus. However, despite choosing the fate

of her own body, the patriarchal dominance within the tale problematizes the power

Limena attempts to channel and ultimately substantiates her subordinate relation to men.

Specifically, the patriarchal reign of Limena’s father creates the precedence for her

subordinate position in all her relationships with men. Despite a lack in love for

Philargus, the marriage is regarded as a “fit match” (Wroth 41) and therefore Limena

must obey. Perissus describes, “She seeing it was her father’s will, esteeming obedience

beyond all passions how worthily soever, suffered, most dutifully though unwillingly

she would obey” (Wroth 41-42). Here, most significant is Perissus’ use of the words

2

Szarmes

obedience, dutifully, and obey. With this language, Perissus communicates that Limena

possesses a limited agency as she must submit to the patriarchal order of her father.

Limena is depicted as voiceless and passive, wholly compliant in the damaging decision

that is to destroy her future happiness. Therefore, patriarchy functions in the text as a

structure that greatly limits the agency of its female characters and produces subservient

women. Further, Limena’s father exhibits a lack of care for his daughter as he wills her

to marry a man that she does not love and will mistreat her. Thus patriarchy and the

presence of a “fit match” takes precedence over the happiness and safety of Limena,

demonstrating the way in which women are expected to submit to this societal structure.

With the order of her father, Limena is instantly formed to adopt an acquiescent

demeanour that continues through to all her relationships with men, thereby reinforcing

the nature of the patriarchal society and traditional female gender roles. Additionally, it

is the treatment of Limena’s body and her final conversation with Philargus that reveals

a traditional gender representation of women. In her letter to Perissus, Limena writes, “I

must presently die, and for you; which death is most welcome, since for you I must have

it” (Wroth 46). Here, Limena relinquishes her body for Perissus, expressing the way in

which men have control over the female body. Limena is pleased to surrender her body

for Perissus as her tone indicates that she does not view her body as her own, but as

belonging to Perissus. Abdicating her body becomes an expression of love, a

requirement for her continued devotion, however this sacrifice is unbalanced as Perissus

does not face a similar bodily dispossession. Thus in this sense, female gender is

characterized as a complete erasing of physical existence, while the males within the

story survive in a corporeal sense. Further, Limena states that she “must” experience

3

Szarmes

death, implying that she does not possess a choice in the matter. Therefore Limena is

aware that she cannot exist physically while simultaneously challenging Philargus,

supporting the notion of her limited agency.

In addition to the representation of Limena’s body, her conversation with

Philargus is indicative of the features that women must embody, reflecting the

traditional gender roles within the tale. Most valuable to a woman’s character is her

virtue and religious conviction. Philargus attacks these traits, stating, “Or what can you

style virtuous and religious, since it is to one besides your husband? Hath shame

possessed you? And excellent modesty abandoned you?” (Wroth 48). Here, Philargus

contests that her love for Perissus has caused her to forsake her virtue and connection to

God as he believes she has broken her vows and thus remains immodest. Philargus

focuses on her virtue and religiosity because in slandering these traditionally valued

traits, Philargus is diminishing her worth as a woman. It is here that Wroth presents a

female expression of desire beyond the marital bonds that results in punishment and

degradation. It is the female character that must be chastised for her extramarital desire

because such expression is not characteristic of a socially accepted modest woman.

Therefore, it is here that conventional gender roles are represented as Limena is regarded

as depraved and wanton. Furthermore, Perissus also supports conventional female

gender characteristics as he describes of Limena, “Yet she, considering it to be to no

purpose to contend where she was miserably bound to obey, observed him as well as she

could bring her spirit to consent to” (Wroth 44). Here, Perissus supports the gender

relations present within a marriage wherein the woman must adopt a submissive role in

relation to her husband. Perissus states that Limena is “bound to obey,” thereby

4

Szarmes

reinforcing Limena’s subordination within her marriage and indicates that she does not

possess the agency or power to disobey Philargus. With this statement, Perissus

supports the patriarchal restrictions placed upon women and his factual tone

communicates that such societal structures are constant and inescapable. Therefore,

Perissus does not allow Limena the opportunity to harness a female power in objection

to Philargus as he maintains the expectation for Limena’s obedience within her

marriage. Thus Limena’s agency cannot extend further than that which is authorized by

the male characters of the tale.

While traditional gender roles are represented within Urania, Limena also

harnesses a form of power that communicates that a control over the body is not as

meaningful as a control over the soul. Perissus explains, “[Philargus] could not keep our

eyes but by them we did deliver our souls, he only able to keep her dainty body in his

wicked prison” (Wroth 44). Here, it is conveyed that Philargus does not have complete

control over Limena as her soul will eternally remain in her own power, free from the

secular prison Philargus presents. Further, Limena chooses to sacrifice her body for the

sake of love, thus expressing a power and over her own body that Philargus cannot seize

from her. Limena states, “Threatenings are but means to strengthen free and pure hearts

against the threateners” (Wroth 47), communicating a power from within that is not

fearful of a bodily surrender. With this notion, a tension is present between the

traditional gender roles within the story and Limena’s own power that exists outside of

Philargus’ control. However, although Limena expresses a power over her soul, her

inferior relation to the male characters remains established through Perissus’ language.

Perissus identifies Limena’s body as “dainty,” thereby connoting a female frailty and

5

Szarmes

lack of corporal strength. With this connotation, Perissus substantiates his position

above her as a male character in possession of might and vigour as he recognizes

Limena’s feminine bodily deficiency. Therefore, it is both Philargus and Perissus that

possess control over Limena’s body as Perissus highlights Limena’s lack of bodily

power, implying that her frailty prevents her bodily escape from Philargus’ prison,

further supporting traditional gender roles. In describing Limena as dainty, Perissus

linguistically restricts Limena’s agency as he sanctions only a soulful absconding of

Philargus’ prison and indicates that a bodily escape for her is not possible. Thus Limena

possesses an agency that is mediated through the permissions of both Philargus and

Perissus.

Similarly, Limena’s agency is further dictated through the control of a man as

Philargus does not grant Limena her death. Despite Limena’s decision in favour of

death, it is Philargus that ultimately controls her corporeal fate thus proving the way in

which her body is under the power of a man. Philargus therefore removes Limena’s

already limited agency as her decision for death remains uninfluential and powerless.

Sanchez notes, “In particular, the relentless scenes of feminine anguish, humiliation, and

torture in the Urania indicate the extent to which idealized equations of love and

suffering can compel subjects to assent to their own abuse” (Sanchez 450). Here,

Sanchez contends that is it not simply the male characters within Wroth’s prose that

cause female suffering, but also the female characters themselves. Thus through her

devotion to Perissus, Limena relinquishes her female agency in favour of love and

allows the torture Philargus inflicts upon her to become an act of devoutness. Limena

describes: “Once every day he brought me to this pillar where you found me in the like

6

Szarmes

manner bound me, then whipped me, after washing the stripes and blisters with salt

water” (Wroth 69). This torture scene depicts the way in which Limena’s body is

subject to the will and power of a man. In holding her physically captive, Philargus

eliminates the opportunity for Limena to transcend her body and experience and soulful

connection to Perissus. Philargus grounds Limena in her physicality and therefore

further removes her power as he does not grant her the release of death and the

subsequent release of her soul. With this notion, Limena’s agency is greatly limited as it

cannot extend further than that which Philargus will allow. Furthermore, despite a

change in fate and Philargus’ resultant death, Limena’s limited agency remains present

in her relationship with Philargus. While on his deathbed, Philargus requests the

forgiveness of Perissus and Limena, asking “Deny not these petitions, I humbly beseech

you, both unto a dying man, who in his life did offer you too foul and too unpardonable

an injury” (Wroth 66). While each character grants Philargus absolution, their

conflicting language reveals the continuance of Limena’s limited power. Specifically,

Perissus states, “I am glad your punishment is accompanied with so happy and true

repentance. I do freely forgive you and think no more of that past than if never done”

(Wroth 67). Here, Perissus demonstrates his agency as he is able to “freely” exonerate

Philargus on his own accord. In contrast, Limena avows, “My lord…I most sincerely

and heartily forgive you, and so I pray do you the like for me” (Wroth 67). The

language of Limena’s forgiveness connotes a sustained inferiority as she continues to

address Philargus as her “lord” and lacks the liberty present within Perissus’ statement.

Therefore, although Philargus relinquishes power and humbly asks for forgiveness, his

patriarchal power remains present as Limena continues to regard him as her superior.

7

Szarmes

Additionally, Limena in turn asks Philargus for his forgiveness, revealing the way in

which his previous accusations regarding her virtue and modesty diminished her value in

her own eyes. Thus despite adopting a less dominating demeanour while on his

deathbed, Philargus continues to possess power over Limena as he must absolve her

perceived immodesty. As a result, Philargus continues to control Limena’s agency.

Analogous to Limena’s tale, Wroth’s prose depicts an episode wherein the

hypocritical male character of Philarchos condemns the love from a young woman after

breaking his own marriage oath. This episode also presents traditional gender roles as

the woman adopts a submissive role in relation to Philarchos. The woman within the

scene remains nameless, expressing that she is not granted an identity and therefore

cannot possess any agency. The male becomes the focus of the tale as the unnamed

woman is portrayed as a pitiful and passive slave to love. Philarchos employs flawed

rationalization in order to mask his desire for the young woman. He states, “And where

better, or when, than when being both alone but for each other (which in love, or at the

time of love, are but one)” (Wroth 204), expressing that the woman’s love for him binds

the pair and therefore their interaction is justified. Philarchos continues, “How poor a

thing had it been and how meanly would it show if I embraced it not?” (Wroth 204).

Here, Philarchos rationalizes that to dismiss the young woman’s love would be unkind

and cruel, concealing his desire under the veil of a good deed. Most significant here is

the power relationship between Philarchos and the unnamed woman. Because the young

woman is depicted as a passive slave to love, the power is placed in the hands of

Philarchos and their interaction is wholly dependent upon his decision. The contact

between the pair becomes a favour that Philarchos is granting the young woman, thus

8

Szarmes

revealing the way in which his male agency dictates the position of the female character.

Because Philarchos frames their interaction as a favour he is granting, he negates the

possibility of a female agency within the unnamed woman as she must simply await

Philargus’ favour. Further, the young woman substantiates her subservient position,

informing Philarchos that she is “wholly at [his] mercy” (Wroth 204). Therefore, with

this statement the unnamed woman accepts her lack of agency and simultaneously

reinforces traditional gender roles that emphasize women’s passivity and subordination

to men.

Pamphilia’s poetic writing further demonstrates the female characters’ limited

agency within Urania. Helen Hackett explains that the Urania contains characters who

interpret the meaning of “their passions and greifs, but courteously refrain from

announcing it, or even refrain from pursuing explicit decodings,” (Hackett, Romance

Fiction 161) which is strongly characterizes Pamphilia and her emotional containment.

Bernadette Andrea notes that Pamphilia “appears throughout Wroth’s long prose

romance as a contained woman writer divorced from the political movements that

occupy her beloved Amphilanthus” (Andrea 335). Pamphilia is indeed a contained

character, however the social politics present within the text greatly influence this

containment. The patriarchal structure within the prose dictates Pamphilia’s possibility

for emotional expression and she is subsequently positioned within the private sphere

due to her gender. Andrea continues, “Pamphilia is required to conceal her songs and

sonnets at the core of the concentric circles—from garden to chamber to closet to

cabinet—that define her identity as an exemplar of the Renaissance woman writer”

(Andrea 335-336). Therefore, Pamphilia’s identity is grounded within the private sphere

9

Szarmes

as her writings cannot surpass the imaginative boundaries dictated by society, expressing

the character’s limited agency. Specifically, Pamphilia utilizes her poetry as a means of

emotional expression with regards to her love for Amphilanthus. The narrator describes,

“They gone, Pamphilia alone began to breathe out her passions which to none she would

discover, resolving rather so to perish than that any third should know she could be

subject to affection” (Wroth 61). It is solely when Pamphilia is alone that she is able to

express her passions and desire as she fearfully communicates an anxiety surrounding

the possibility of another gaining access to her expression of passion. The narrator

continues, “Being heavy, she went into her bed but not with hope of rest, but to get more

liberty to express her woe” (Wroth 61). Here, it is exclusively the private sphere that

offers Pamphilia liberty as the patriarchal structures disallow for a public emotional

expression. Pamphilia reinforces these structures by limiting herself to her bed and

further by shaming herself for experiencing emotion. The narrator explains following

Pamphilia’s completion of her poem, “Then she took the new-writ lines, and as soon

almost as she had given them life, she likewise gave them burial” (Wroth 62). Here,

Pamphilia is described as possessing agency as she is described as giving her poem life,

expressing her ability for creation; however the strict and dominating patriarchal

structures oppose this agency and therefore her agency is quickly expunged. This

quickness between the poetry’s life and death expresses the power of the societal

expectations for women as even in the confines of the private sphere, Pamphilia’s

agency is mediated and monitored. Andrea details the restrictions of these societal

expectations as she explains, “She may write, but only from the limits of her own room;

she may preserve her writing, but only within the confines of her own mind” (Andrea

10

Szarmes

335). Andrea’s assertion expresses the way in which sixteenth-century women are

characterized by their silence and obedience to societal expectancies as patriarchal

structures are deeply ingrained within the minds of the text’s female characters. Nona

Fienberg opposes this notion, contending that within Wroth’s Urania, it is the female

speakers’ emotional life that is linked to the public, secular sphere, wherein social

change is “marked by women’s activity” (Fienberg 129). Fienberg also asserts, “female

poetic subjectivity negotiates the complex territory of both private and public, familial

and mythological discourses” (Fienberg 127). However, Fienberg’s contentions do not

pertain to Pamphilia as the restrictive nature of the character’s poetry does not permit an

emotional expression within the public sphere. Pamphilia’s actions cannot allow for

social change as she limits her agency to the private sphere and immediately permits

social expectations to eradicate her already limited agency. Pamphilia does not

negotiate the boundaries between the public and private because she does not attempt to

exercise agency beyond the boundaries of the private sphere. Therefore, Pamphilia

reinforces traditional gender roles within the text and allows patriarchal structures to

dictate and reduce her agency.

Additionally, the female characters within Philargus and Philarchos’ tales further

reinforce male dominance as they equate themselves to waste. Philarchos

communicates, “Without modesty and sincere living, a woman is but a beast of the

handsomer sort” (Worth 208). Here, Philarchos coveys that a woman lacking chastity or

virtue is subsequently a beast, thereby denouncing the young woman’s character for her

expression of desire, akin to Philargus’ attack on Limena’s virtue and worth. The

unnamed woman states to Philarchos, “Make not your conquest dishonourable, but

11

Szarmes

virtuously dispose of me” (Wroth 205). Because the woman asks for Philarchos to

“dispose” of her, she substantiates his disparaging notions of her beastly character and

unchaste nature. The young woman equates herself with waste due to the fact that she

acted immodestly through her desires. This communicates a lack of self-worth while

simultaneously confirming Philarchos’ superior position and the traditional gender roles.

Correspondingly, Limena devalues her own body, stating to Philargus, “This wretched

and unfortunate body is, I confess, in your hands to dispose of” (Wroth 48), revealing

that Philargus’ slanderous contentions with regards to her lack of virtue and immodesty

hold weight in Limena’s eyes and her worth has in fact diminished. Previously,

Limena’s body acted as a romantic sacrifice for her beloved, however here she equates it

to waste, communicating that her body is something to be “disposed of.” With this

notion, traditional power relations between genders are expressed as women become

disposable and men again possess control over the female body. Therefore, the

slanderous male assertions limit the female characters’ agency and value as beings

because the women perpetuate the men’s denigration. Thus the men’s words become

more powerful than the women’s agency and their own self-worth, which allows for the

continuation of patriarchal values within their society. While Pamphilia does not equate

herself to waste in the way of Limena and the unnamed woman, she does degrade and

belittle her intelligence while substantiating Amphilanthus’ superiority. Pamphilia cries,

“Fie, passion…how foolish canst thou make us?...O Love, thou dost master me” (Wroth

62). Pamphilia’s language describes the way in which a man influences both her worth

and her agency. Pamphilia describes herself as foolish, thereby connoting a loss in

rationality and prudence, complicating the presence of her humanly intellectual features

12

Szarmes

and denigrating her character. Additionally, Pamphilia utilizes the word “master” to

connote the power that love has over her. Because her understanding of love is directly

linked to Amphilanthus, is it Amphilanthus that masters her. Therefore, Pamphilia

establishes herself as inferior to Amphilanthus as she relinquishes her agency and

control into the hands of the male character. Thus the female characters within the prose

react to the males’ power and superiority in a manner that degrades themselves and

ultimately allows for the perpetuation of patriarchal values. It is this female reaction and

self-slandering that positions the male characters in a wholly dominating role and

disallows for the possibility of female agency. Therefore, female liberty lies in the

hands of the male characters within the prose romance.

Jennifer Carrell notes of the sixteenth-century, “It is difficult to find men

discussing women reading romances in the Renaissance, it is next to impossible to

discover women discussing their own readings of romance” (Carrell 79-80). Carrell’s

assertion implies a lack of female self-reflection and public discourse that is

characteristic of the females within the Urania. Therefore, Pamphilia’s containment

within the private sphere strongly reflects the nature of women’s experience within

Wroth’s community. Because Wroth’s prose romance is understood as a “roman-à-clef”

(Hackett, Femininity and Romance 367), the lack of female agency and male dominance

holds weight both within her sub-narratives and within her society. Barbara Lewalski

contends that “Wroth replace[s] heroes with heroines at the centre of several major

genres employed by the male Sidney authors, transforming their values and exploring

the poets and situations of women writers” (Lewalski 400). However, this

transformation results in female characters that possess a limited agency based upon that

13

Szarmes

which is sanctioned by the male characters. Despite replacing heroes with heroines, a

lack in female power remains present with regards to the characters of Limena,

Pamphilia, and the unnamed woman. Wroth’s romance is understood to propose a

version of “pastoral temperance as a way for women…to embrace an ideal of constancy

that allows for both rigor and openness to the flux of experience, and for pastoral itself,

in a sometimes hostile climate, to maintain some of its time-honored virtues” (Zurcher-

Sandy 103). However, this openness to experience is either beneficial to the women of

the prose or entirely detrimental, specifically with regards to Limena. The female

suffering that is present within the text is characteristic of such openness to experience;

however the women are continually clobbered from the presence of male dominance and

patriarchy. Ultimately, Limena, Pamphilia and the nameless young women demonstrate

a further movement into female passivity juxtaposed against the male outward

movement toward “conventional sexual and political goals,” (Andrea 337) reinforcing

the restrictive nature of traditional gender roles and limited female agency.

14

Szarmes

Works Cited

Andrea, Bernadette. "Pamphilia's Cabinet: Gendered Authorship and Empire in Lady

Mary Wroth's 'Urania.'" ELH 68 (2001): 335-58. JSTOR. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

Carrell, Jennifer Lee. "A Pack of Lies in a Looking Glass: Lady Mary Wroth's Urania

and the Magic Mirror of Romance." Studies in English Literature 34 (1994): 79-107.

JSTOR. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.

Fienberg, Nona. "Mary Wroth's Poetics of the Self." Studies in English Literature 42

(2002): 121-36. JSTOR. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.

Hackett, Helen. Women and Romance Fiction in the English Renaissance. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 2000. Print.

Hackett, Helen. “Yet Tell Me Some Such Fiction’: Lady Mary Wroth’s Urania and the

‘Femininity’ and Romance.” Women, Texts and Histories 1575-1760. Ed. Clare Brant

and Diane Purkiss. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. 39-68.

Lewalski, Barbara. "Old Renaissance Canons, New Women's Texts: Some Jacobean

Examples." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 138 (1994): 397-406.

JSTOR. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.

Miller, Naomi J. "'Not Much to Be Marked': Narrative of the Woman's Part in Lady

Mary Wroth's Urania." Studies in English Literature 29 (1989): 121-37. JSTOR.

Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

Sanchez, Melissa. "The Politics of Masochism in Mary Wroth's 'Urania.'" ELH 74

(2007): 449-78. JSTOR. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

Shaver, Anne. "A New Woman of Romance." Modern Language Studies 21 (1991): 63-

77. JSTOR. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

15

Szarmes

Wroth, Mary. The Countess of Montgomery's Urania. Ed. Mary Ellen Lamb. Tempe:

ACMRS, 2011. Print.

Zurcher-Sandy, Amelia. "Pastoral, Temperance, and the Unitary Self in Wroth's

'Urania.'" Studies in English Literature 42 (2002): 103-19. JSTOR. Web. 10 Mar.

2013.

16