the masque becoming mere self-confirming narcissism" (Lindley 3). The author of such entertainments might be regarded as little more than a highly paid sycophant.
The charge of sycophancy worried Jonson. His concern was for his personal reputation and for the artistic validity of the masque form. The masque could never be seen as great literature if it was only expensively commissioned flattery. Jonson actively defended himself against the charge on three points: "the veracity of his praise" (it could not be flattery if it was true); the "sincere motivation" of his praise (he supported the monarchy and felt an affinity for James); and the foundation of his praise in classical learning (especially classical examples of praise as a teaching tool) (Metcalfe 135). The antimasques, which occasionally featured mild satires of the court, proved to be a fourth means of refuting the charge of flattery. Jonson's satire established his independence and made him appear to be objective and, therefore, "a more valuable, credible, and attractive spokesman" f
...