Good now be still, and doe not me torment, 
With [multituds] of questions, be at rest, 
And onely let me quarrell with my breast,
Which stil lets in new stormes my soule to rent. 
Fye, will you still my mischiefes more augment? 
You saye, I answere crosse, I that confest 
Long since, yet must I euer be opprest, 
With your tongue torture which will ne're be spent? 
Well then I see no way but this will fright, 
That Deuill speech; alas, I am possest, 
And madd folks senseles are of wisdomes right, 
The hellish spirit, Absence, doth arrest. 
All my poore senses to his cruell might, 
Spare me then till I am my selfe, and blest.

In ‘Sonnet 45’ of her collection of sonnets Pamphilia to Amphilanthus (1621), Mary Wroth uses the idea of speaking to illustrate the gendered power dynamics in the relationship between the collection’s titular figures.

Wroth represents speech as synonymous with power, with Pamphilia’s victimhood arising from Amphilanthus’ excessive speech, and the inability to have her own speech heeded. Through the overwhelming sense of anguish created by words such as “torment”, “storms”, “rent” and “torture” in the opening stanzas alone, Wroth portrays Pamphilia as a victimised speaker, wounded by the violence of her pursuer’s unrelenting speech. While Amphilanthus’ speech has the power to harm, Pamphilia’s is impotent which Wroth demonstrates through Amphilanthus’ repeated disregard for Pamphilia’s wishes. Rebutting the accusation that she answers “cross”, Pamphilia asserts herself as the “I that confessed/ Long since”. By framing Pamphilia’s speech as a confession, from which one could expect absolvement, Lanyer emphasises Pamphilia’s helplessness in the relationship. This is reinforced by the outcome of her ‘confession’ being more torment, which Wroth emphasises through her choice to rhyme “confessed” with “oppressed”. As this defies the reader’s expectation of the result of a confession, Lanyer highlights Pamphila’s lack of access to speech as a mechanism to refuse unwanted advances.

However, the poem’s volta seems to mark Pamphilia’s weaponisation of the futility of her speech into the means of her freedom. Wroth demonstrates that Pamphilia’s madness is manufactured by opening the volta with Pamphilia’s admission that “I see no way but this will fright/ That Devil speech;”, with the ability to make this observation displaying her sanity. Pamphilia therefore voluntarily abandons her faculties, feigning possession to fashion for herself an identity whereby she can resist Amphilanthus successfully. By reworking herself into a ‘madwoman’ through which neither frequent or ordered speech can be obtained, Pamphilia renders all further attempts on her futile, thus subduing Amphilanthus to her will. Wroth represents this role reversal through the introduction of a new rhyme sound in “fright” and “right” as the rhyme’s upward inflection disrupts the prior rhythm of the poem, signifying Pamphilia’s freedom as a flight from the monotony of Amphilanthus’ efforts.  

Although Pamphilia’s self-fashioning as “senseless” liberates her, Wroth complicates the extent to which this is truly an empowering choice for Pamphilia by ending the poem somewhat cyclically. While in the context of her self-made possession Pamphilia’s request of “Spare me” in the final line could be read as a sarcastic comment rather than genuine imploring, the pervasiveness of confinement throughout the poem undermines the veracity of her freedom. This is demonstrated most clearly by the poem’s ‘abba abba cbc bcb’ rhyme scheme, with the ‘b’ rhyme being the one through which words of subjugation such as “oppressed”, “arrest” and “possessed” are conveyed. As this is strikingly the only rhyme present in both halves of the poem, Wroth creates a latent threat to Pamphilia’s newfound freedom which is emphasised by the use of “til” in the final line, highlighting the impermanence of her ability to resist Amphilanthus. 

The fragility of Pamphilia’s liberation is also compound by its very foundation being her own degradation. That a woman in full command of her faculties, which Wroth demonstrates through the carefully crafted and self-conscious form of the Petrarchan sonnet, must relegate herself to a state of ineptitude among other “mad folks” for her choice to be honoured at all illuminates Pamphilia’s true position. Wroth illustrates the misery of the situation by using language indicative of compliance rather than wilful creation to describe Pamphilia’s choice. Her resolve to feign madness is prefaced by “Well then”, which signifies defeat, and the acknowledgement of self-abasement as her only recourse, undermining its status as a choice at all. Wroth therefore presents Pamhphilia’s self-fashioning not as a straightforward reclamation of powerlessness but as a recognition of a kind of victimhood that requires further victimisation as a solution, highlighting the imbalance of power between her and Amphilanthus. 

Through her depiction of speech, sanity and power in the relationship between Pamphilia and Amphilanthus, Mary Wroth illustrates how Pamphilia’s identity is complicated by her attempt to resist Amphilanthus. While Wroth seems to depict a partially autonomous Pamphilia who employs her wit to create a means of escape for herself, she ultimately represents Pamphilia’s freedom as inexorably contingent on the destruction of her selfhood. By representing the denial of that which makes Pamphilia a social being as necessary to her relief, Wroth positions sane female speech, and the daring of a woman to participate freely in her relationships, as counterproductive should she desire peace.