ABSTRACT
This postscript is intended as a substitute for the traditional conclusion that completes or closes down debate in academic works, and the reasoning behind this more tentative approach to closure is that my own thoughts on the development of the antimasque and masque are continually evolving as critical debate on this topic moves forward; in many ways masque criticism has benefited from the general resurgence of interest in Jonson himself. However, at the final stage of this book it may be useful to summarise my position. The Jonsonian antimasque developed out of incoherencies and anomalies in the early masques, and became a significant structure of dissent, offsetting and questioning the assertions of royal hegemony in the masque proper. Yet, as I have been at pains to emphasise throughout, this destabilising impetus of the antimasque does not completely negate or undermine the assertions of masque, but complements it in a dialectical investigation of contemporary government and how it may be improved. In this way, the antimasque was involved in an essentially didactic project that sought to reform the court and the Crown from within. Nevertheless, the expanded satirical antimasque became a dominant part of the court entertainment, so that, in its full-blown form, it threatened to consume the eulogistic masque. However, a key aspect to this critical perspective is the belief that such a consumption is never complete as the structure of the court entertainment demands that masque is always reinstated after the antimasque, no matter how perfunctory this reinstatement may seem. After reaching a peak, the antimasque declines dramatically, and this collapse can be explicitly linked with Charles I’s accession to the throne in 1625, and concomitant aesthetic and political developments.
