SOURCE: Bergeron, David M. “Anthony Munday: Pageant Poet to the City of London.” Huntington Library Quarterly 30, no. 4 (August 1967): pp. 345-68.

[In the following essay, Bergeron evaluates Munday's role in the development of Jacobean civic pageantry.]

Our knowledge of Anthony Munday, especially his contribution to English civic pageantry, is generally confined to what some of his contemporaries said about him in their various satirical barbs hurled in Munday's direction. There is a real need for a fresh assessment of Munday's work in the area of the lord mayor's shows. The only scholarly work which has attempted to discuss Munday and his contribution to pageantry, that done by Celeste Turner Wright in the 1920's, is inadequate, since the author had not seen the pamphlets which describe four of Munday's entertainments.¹ This paper is an effort in the direction of understanding Munday's important contribution to Jacobean civic pageantry.

As we know, civic entertainments were an important part of the social, political, and literary life of Elizabethan and Jacobean England. This pageantry could take the form of the royal entry of the sovereign, such as Elizabeth's coronation passage through London in 1559, or a provincial “progress,” such as Elizabeth's various summer visits to the estates of noblemen, or the annual lord mayor's show in London. The more sophisticated development of pageantry led to the formal court masque. My concern is, however, with the civic outdoors entertainments, readily available to the public.

English civic pageantry drew its content and themes from three main areas: history, allegory, and mythology. The emphasis on history was of course commensurate with a rising nationalism, and the pageants were occasionally propagandistic. Some entertainments stressed historical themes such as the union of the York and Lancaster houses under the Tudors; others introduced historical figures, former kings, and lord mayors. Owing its debt to morality drama, many pageants were filled with allegorical personages, generally personified virtues. The age-old contention between vice and virtue was frequently suggested. The use of mythology in these civic entertainments is also consonant with an age which was busily rediscovering the classical writers and myths. Munday, as we shall see, draws his content from these three broad areas. And he fulfills the general pattern of making the pageants both instructional and complimentary to the sovereign or magistrate. Thematically considered, the pageant was often a miniature, pictorial “mirror for magistrates.”

The lord mayor's show had its beginning as an institution in the mid-sixteenth century, but it reached its apogee in the first several decades of the seventeenth. Each October 29 the new mayor would leave the Guildhall in London, go to Westminster via the Thames, take his oath, return to the city, and make his way again to the Guildhall. On his return the sponsoring guild would offer entertainment along the route to honor him and their company. The more elaborate shows also included entertainment on the river. These pageants came to rival in magnificence and opulence the entertainments presented to the sovereign; and well-known dramatists, such as Dekker, Middleton, Munday, Webster, Heywood, were responsible for creating the pageants to honor the mayor. Our interest is with one of these writers, Munday.

Munday was much scoffed at by his fellow dramatists and pageant writers. Thomas Middleton sneered at Munday, the “impudent common writer,” in his prologue to the scenario of the lord mayor's show of 1613, though Munday actually gave assistance to Middleton in this production and also in several succeeding pageants. Munday was satirized in the character of “Post-haste” in the play Histriomastix. But perhaps the earliest satirical allusion to Munday came in Ben Jonson's The Case Is Altered, in which Munday was caricatured in the figure of “Antonio Balladino”—Pageant Poet to the City of Milan.

In Jonson's play Antonio (alias Munday) appears in the second scene of Act I. In response to Onion's question—“you are not Pageant Poet to the City of Millaine sir, are you?”—Antonio says: “I supply the place sir: when a worse cannot be had sir.”² Antonio further incriminates himself by coming out vigorously in favor of using stale, threadbare material. He tells Onion: “I do use as much stale stuffe, though I say it my selfe, as any man does in that kind I am sure.” Jonson has mocked Munday succinctly but skillfully.

In reality Munday was in the forefront among the pageant writers of the Jacobean era. His only serious rival was Thomas Middleton. There were seven lord mayor's shows for which Munday was fully responsible and which have survived in printed pamphlet—1605, 1609, 1611, 1614, 1615, 1616, and 1618. Also, in 1623, Munday wrote the water show performed on the Thames which accompanied Middleton's lord mayor's show for that year.

Apart from these printed pamphlets, there are other records which indicate Munday's connection with several other lord mayor's shows. The set of lord mayor's pageants between 1595 and 1604 is missing, and there is some speculation that Munday may have been responsible for some of the missing series. The Merchant Taylors' Records for 1602 reveal that Munday was paid thirty shillings for speeches for this pageant, and that he was given an additional sum for providing apparel for the children in the pageant.³ For similar services Munday was also paid by the Merchant Taylors in 1610.⁴ One can conclude, then, that Munday should be credited also with at least a part of the lord mayor's shows of 1602 and 1610.

According to the Haberdashers' Minutes, Munday was paid £2 “for his paines” in conjunction with the 1604 pageant,⁵ but precisely what this entailed is uncertain. And even though Middleton began the pamphlet of the 1613 show by disparaging Munday, he concluded by gratefully acknowledging the assistance of “Anthony Munday, gentleman.” In 1617 the Grocers' Court Books show that Munday was paid £5 “for his paines in drawing a project for this busynes. …”⁶ Munday is mentioned in the Ironmongers' Court Books in 1619 for having submitted a plot for the devices of the lord mayor's pageant for that year. And in 1621, Munday was paid for assisting Middleton in his show.⁷ In summary, then, Munday was connected in some way with at least fifteen lord mayor's shows during the period 1602-1623. His participation ranged from merely submitting a proposal to being fully responsible for the entire presentation.⁸

In the 1605 show, the first to survive in a printed pamphlet, Munday presents the only full-scale treatment of the Brutus-in-Albion myth of English history to be found in civic pageantry down to the closing of the theaters. As we know, the pseudo-history of Brutus' settling of England was an important aspect of the “Tudor myth” or Tudor interpretation of history, and the Elizabethans took the story quite seriously. They had just cause, since such historians and chroniclers as Matthew Paris, Richard Grafton, John Stow, William Camden, and Holinshed perpetuated the legend.⁹

Allegedly Brutus, descendant of Aeneas, left Troy and came to the land known as Albion. Having cleared the land of giants, Brutus set out to establish a civilization among the barbaric peoples. He established the city of Troynovant (new Troy), later to be known as London, on the banks of the Thames. Before his death Brutus divided the country among his three sons, Locrine, Albanact, and Camber. Brutus was then succeeded by a long and famous line of kings including Locrine, Lear, Gorboduc, and Arthur. The invasion of the Saxons broke the line of Briton kings; but Henry VII claimed to be descended from this ancient line, and thus he restored the kingdom to the heirs of Brutus when he gained the throne in 1485. The Tudors, therefore, succeeded not only in uniting the warring houses of Lancaster and York, but also they reinstated the noble strain of Brutus and his heirs.

Thomas Heywood attests to the popularity of the Troy tradition in his Apology for Actors where, citing the many benefits of drama, he notes how drama has instructed the citizens in history so that “what man have you now of that weake capacity that cannot discourse of any notable thing recorded even from William the Conqueror, nay, from the landing of Brute, untill this day?”¹⁰ This Troy theme aided the cause of a rising nationalism, and writers of all kinds seized the opportunity to exploit popular belief.

It is not surprising that Munday decided to make this legend the focus of his lord mayor's entertainment when one considers the sizable quantity of literature of various forms which in some way alluded to the Brutus myth. One recalls the catalog of British kings from Brutus to Uther Pendragon which Arthur finds in the ancient book “hight Briton Moniments” at the House of Alma in Canto x of Book II of Spenser's Faerie Queene. And, of course, Arthur himself is part of that tradition. The Stationers' Register and Henslowe's diary provide us with additional examples of plays which, if one may judge by their titles, also dealt with the Troy myth. The most obvious example from the drama of the period was the play, of disputed authorship, called The Lamentable Tragedie of Locrine (ca. 1595). Locrine, of course, was Brutus' eldest son, and the play rehearses the traditional story. Brutus himself is present in the play. He reviews the history of his coming to England; and before he dies he divides the kingdom among his sons. The disharmony and disunity which result from Brutus' act of severing the kingdom are emphasized in the play.

It is the thematic note of unity which Munday sounds most clearly in the lord mayor's show of 1605. Munday entitles the pageant The Triumphes of Re-United Britania. In the prolegomena of the pamphlet, Munday, drawing on a fund of material available to him, traces the history of Brutus back to Noah and the Flood. He is quite specific about the date of Brutus' arrival in England: it was “the yeare of the world 2850, after the destruction of Troy 66, before the building of Rome 368, and 1116 before Christ's nativity.”¹¹ He sketches Brutus' conquest of the island and the division of the kingdom among his sons.

In the entertainment itself we find Neptune and his wife, Amphitrita, riding, respectively, on a lion and a camel. They are present as witnesses to the pageant; for they, so Munday says, “first seated their sonne Albion in this land” (p. 568). They are present to observe the happy fortune of England. The two familiar giants, Corineus and Goemagot (or Gotmagot), are also present; and they appear as guides to Britain's Mount (the chief device of the pageant), “and being fetterd unto it in chaines of golde, they seeme (as it were) to drawe the whole frame, shewing much envy and contention who shall exceed most in duty and service” (p. 568). On this mount is situated the figure of Britania, “accosted with Brute's devided kingdoms, in the like female representations, Leogria, Cambria, and Albania” (p. 568). Brute is also present, “seated somwhat lower, in the habite of an adventurous warlike Trojan.”

In the speeches of the entertainment Britania first complains to Brute, her conqueror, that “she had still continued her name of Albion, but for his conquest of her virgine honour …” (p. 568). Brutus counters by explaining the advantages which have come to her because of his conquest: taming the wilderness, overcoming the giants, establishing Troynovant on the Thames. The figures of the divided kingdoms respond by chiding Brutus for having severed the once united kingdom into three parts, given to his sons. But Brutus stays their argument by noting that the kingdoms are united again by King James, whom he calls “our second Brute,” a child of the marriage of Margaret, eldest daughter of Henry VII, to James IV of Scotland. Brutus says:

Albania, Scotland, where my sonne was slaine,
And where my follie's wretchednes began
Hath bred another Brute, that gives again,
To Britanie her first name; he is the man
On whose faire birth our elder wits did scan
Which prophet-like seventh Henry did foresee,
Of whose faire childe comes Britaine's unitie.

(p. 571)

Thus by James's “happye comming to the Crowne, England, Wales, and Scotland by the first Brute severed and divided, are in our second Brute re-united and made one happy Britania again. Peace and quietnesse bringing that to passe, which warre nor any other meanes could attaine unto” (p. 569).

Munday had a precedent for linking James with Brutus in the civic pageantry of the preceding year, though he gives fuller expression to the idea. In King James's elaborate coronation progress through London (which was delayed from July 1603 to March 1604 because of the plague), the speaker at the pageant located at Soper-lane End had connected James with Brute when he said that James's crown weighs “more than that of thy grand Grandsire Brute. …”¹² And the speech by Zeal at Fleetstreet Conduit in this same entertainment proclaimed James as a unifier of the kingdom much as Munday does: this empire “Contaynes foure Kingdomes by your entrance blest, / By Brute divided, but by you alone, / All are againe united and made One. …”¹³

To return to Munday's pageant—After Brutus has spoken, his three sons, Locrine, Camber, and Albanact, speak in turn and submit their kingdoms to the unification of the whole. This long wishedfor union is hailed and applauded; and the figure of London “incites fair Thamesis, and the rivers that bounded the severed Kingdoms (personated in faire and beautifull Nymphs) to sing Paeans and Songs of Triumph, in honor of our second Brute, Royall King James” (p. 569). The last speech of the pageant, spoken by Amphitrita, suggests a graceful bridge between the reigns of Elizabeth and James:

Our latest Phoenix, whose dead cinders shine
In angels' spheres, she, like a mother milde,
Yeelding to Nature, did her right resigne
To Time's true heyre, her god-son, and lov'de childe;
When giddy expectation was beguilde,
And Scotland yeelded out of Teudor's race
A true-borne bud to sit in Teudor's place. …

(p. 576)

James could not but be pleased with this suggestion of the link between him and Elizabeth. Indeed, most of the show is a grand compliment to him, though the usual flatteries to the new mayor are also dutifully made.

Munday's pageant is, then, patently instructional, even propagandistic, as such entertainments frequently were. Munday has aided in placing firmly in the popular mind—specifically those who filled the streets of London to witness the presentation and those who purchased copies of the pamphlet—the concept of union achieved by James. Many of the writers of the Renaissance, from the authors of Gorboduc to Shakespeare in his history plays, were concerned with this theme of unity. No other pageant writer in Munday's lifetime was to deal with this crucial historical theme in terms of the Brutus story. He has had the final word.

Division of the kingdom always generates discord and disharmony whether the divider is Brutus, Gorboduc, or Lear. The message is clear: the kingdom must remain physically and spiritually united. Hence, the Tudors could be praised for uniting the warring houses, and James could be acclaimed for joining the various factions into a united kingdom. As the motto on the coin produced in the first year of James's reign said, Henricus rosas regna Jacobus. The great virtue arising from unity was expressed by John Webster in his 1624 lord mayor's show when several figures in a chariot repeat the phrase—“By unity the smallest things grow great.” Munday writes in full cognizance of this value of unity.

Munday was engaged by the Ironmongers in 1609 to devise a pageant to honor the new mayor, Sir Thomas Campbell of their company. He called the entertainment Camp-bell or The Ironmongers Faire Feild. Unfortunately the A sheet of the only surviving pamphlet which outlines the show is missing; thus our knowledge is somewhat incomplete. From what remains, however, we observe that Munday is dependent on allegorical figures who portray the virtues of a kingdom.

The idea of personifying the virtues necessary for a good government is at least as old as 1559, when Elizabeth was greeted by the “seat of worthy government” situated at Cornhill during her coronation passage through London.¹⁴ Munday's main device is an island portraying the land of Happiness where “true Majesty holdeth her government. …”¹⁵ It is richly garnished with all sorts of gems, and in the midst of the isle is the golden field wherein is erected Majesty's watchtower.

All of the allegorical figures are emblematically costumed, following the general practice of the pageant writers. Majesty, for example, “hath a costly vaile of golde Tinsell on her head, & thereupon her Crowne imperiall, a Mownd in her left hand, and a golden Scepter in her right” (sig. B1). The figure of Religion is seated nearby; she is dressed in pure white and “holdes a rich Booke in one hand, and a silver rod in the other, as her Ensignes of good reward and encouragement …” (sig. B1). Nobility and Policy also accompany Majesty, and Munday comments: “These are not unapt attendants, to be ever in presence of Soveraigne Majestie” (sig. B1^v). Seated behind Majesty is Tranquility, “that ever blessed Companyon of all Royall Kingdomes …” (sig. B1^v). She is dressed in red and carries a palm branch in one hand and a wreath of flowers in the other.

The three Graces, mythological figures who were very popular in Renaissance iconography,¹⁶ are also present with the allegorical virtues. Munday assigns to the Graces, Aglaia, Thalia, and Euphrosyne, the qualities of Cheerfulness, Peacefulness, and Happiness. They were dressed, respectively, in crimson, “willow color,” and purple. Munday adds another dimension to their meaning: Euphrosyne “sitteth in a golden Cave, holding a faire shield wherein Fame triumpheth over Death. The second [Thalia] holdes another Shield, wherein Eternity treadeth upon Hell and the Devill, and the first [Aglaia] hath her Shield, wherein Tyme sits sleeping, his houre glasse layd along and not running, and his Scithe broken in two peeces” (sig. B2). Thus the Graces carry with them emblematic shields. I would suggest that Munday perhaps borrowed this technique from Thomas Dekker. In King James's passage through London in 1604, Dekker had placed the Graces, who were appropriately costumed, at the pageant at Soper-lane End; and “They helde in their handes pensild Shieldes; upon the first was drawne a Rose: on the second, three Dyce: on the third a branch of Mirtle. Figuring Pleasantnesse. Accord. Florishing.”¹⁷ For the pageant writer to borrow a basic device from someone else was not at all uncommon.

At any rate, Munday clearly has an allegorical and moral instruction in mind for this entertainment. He envisions, for example, that the whole island floats “upon the calme Sea of discreete and loyall affections” (sig. B2). And he has portrayed the virtues which ought always to accompany Majesty. The instructional nature of the pageant is obvious. Munday concludes: “In briefe, this whole relation, and circumstances thereto belonging, is but a morall type or figure of his Majesties most happie and grecious governement, which heaven blesse with unaltering continuance” (sig. B2^v).

Accompanying the mayor and offering interpretation are the figures of St. George, mounted on a dragon, and St. Andrew, seated on a unicorn—“united now in everlasting amitie” (sig. B2^v). Munday notes a technical problem which comes with using children as speakers—“the weake voyces of so many Children, … in a crowde of such noyse and uncivill turmoyle, are not any way able to be understood, neither their capacities to reach the full height of every intention …” (sig. B2^v). Thus he calls upon the services of St. George and St. Andrew to assist the mayor in understanding what is said.

Should there be any doubt of the allegorical import of this pageant, St. Andrew's words make the meaning quite explicit. He says as he surveys the scene: “Those seaven royall and unparalled Vertues, that are this lifes best glory, and the futures Crowne, do make it seeme a Feild of heavenly happines” (sig. B3).

When the Goldsmiths called on Munday's services in 1611, he rewarded them with Chruso-thriambos. The Triumphes of Golde. In this lord mayor's show Munday shifts the emphasis to history and historical personages. There is also an emphasis on the trade of the Goldsmiths.

In fact, boats ostensibly filled with ingots of gold and silver accompany the mayor on his journey on the Thames. An Indian king and queen, Chiorison and Tamanama, are also present; they had “brought into England … no meane quantity of Indian Gold. …”¹⁸ There is constructed on land a Mount of Gold which shows various persons performing the tasks of mining and refining the metal. Also situated on this mount is Chthoon, or Vesta, “the breeding and teeming Mother of al Golde, Silver, Mineral, and other Mettals …” (sig. A4^v). She is surrounded by her two daughters, Chrusos (Gold) and Argurion (Silver).

But our interest is with the other figures and other activities of the entertainment. The new mayor, James Pemberton, is met at Baynard's Castle by Leofstane, a Goldsmith, by whose person Munday means to portray Sir Henry Fitz-Alwin, the first lord mayor of London. Leofstane leads the mayor on to a tomb, and they see there also a chariot which contains figures representing Richard I and King John, both of whom were largely responsible for instituting and establishing the office of lord mayor. History has come, as it were, to lend its sanction to the activities of the day.

At the tomb Leofstane encounters Time, a familiar figure in English pageantry, who develops a history of the lord mayors and especially those Goldsmiths who have served as mayor. Time speaks: “As thus I turne my Glasse to Times of old, / So turne thine eares to what must now be told” (sig. B3). He goes on to review the establishment of the mayoralty by Richard and John. Then Time reveals that in this tomb lies one Nicholas Faringdon, four times lord mayor. He calls him forth: “Arise, arise I say, good Faringdon, / For in this triumph thou must needs make one” (sig. B3^v). Faringdon responds to the beckoning call of Time but is puzzled—“Cannot graves containe their dead, / Where long they have lien buried, / But to Triumphs, sports, and showes / They must be raisd?” (sig. B4). Faringdon goes on to review his accomplishments as mayor. The three figures then make their way to the device of the Mount of Gold.

At the conclusion of the festivities for the day Leofstane, Time, and Faringdon each address the new mayor. Leofstane dwells on the meaning of Pemberton's name, and Time notes that he is named James, as is the king—“Consider likewise, James thy gracious King, / Sets James (his Subject) heere his Deputy” (sig. C3^v). Faringdon closes with these instructional words:

You are a Gold-Smith, Golden be
Your daily deedes of Charitie.
Golden your hearing poor mens cases.
Free from partiall bribes embraces.
And let no rich or mighty man
Injure the poore, if helpe you can.
The World well wots, your former care,
Forbids ye now to pinch or spare,
But to be liberall, francke, and free,
And keep good Hospitality,
Such beseemes a Maioraltie,
Yet far from prodigality.

(sig. C4)

Faringdon is in effect urging the new mayor to follow Aristotle's golden mean (all the more appropriate since he is a Goldsmith). At any rate, the message is clear. Through spoken word and by their presence these various historical personages have recalled the glorious heritage of the guild (a technique to be duplicated in many such pageants). They have also urged in ethical terms that the new mayor uphold the dignity of the tradition and that he be selfless and compassionate in his ministrations. Thus Munday has let History speak again as he had in the 1605 show.

Munday's fellow Drapers called upon him to direct the pageant for the installation of Sir Thomas Hayes in 1614. The show, which Munday called Himatia-Poleos. The Triumphes of Olde Draperie, or the Rich Cloathing of England,¹⁹ does not differ markedly from his other pageants. Munday begins the pamphlet by apologizing for having been led astray by Stow to call Sir Henry Fitz-Alwin a Goldsmith (see the 1611 show) when he really was a Draper. Appropriately, then, Fitz-Alwin appears again in the 1614 entertainment.

Fitz-Alwin is situated with several other figures in a chariot, “drawn by two golden pelleted Lyons, and two golden Woolves” (p. 6). The person of Richard I is also represented; he is surrounded by personified figures of several English cities. “Those Citties are disciphered by their Eschuchions of Armes, and that their best advantage ever ensued by making of woollen Cloathes, for the continuall maintenance of Englands Draperie” (pp. 6-7). Munday does not enumerate which cities are so represented except London, “sitting neerest unto himself [Richard], as chiefe Mother and matrone of them all” (p. 7). London wears a triple crown of gold, “under battelled or branched with Cloudes, and beames of the Sunne, being the Armes of the Drapers Societie …” (p. 7).

It was not uncommon for the pageant writer to personify a city. Thomas Middleton, for example, in the lord mayor's show for 1613 also presented the figure of London, who was the first to greet the mayor. Middleton describes London: “attired like a reverend mother, a long white hair naturally flowing on either side of her; on her head a model of steeples and turrets; her habit crimson silk … ; her left hand holding a key of gold. …”²⁰ London, who considers the mayor to be her son, urges him to follow virtue and to use the key to lock out sin and uncleanness, “And be kept sweet with sanctity, faith, and fear.” London also appears later in this same show in an allegorical setting atop the device of London's Triumphant Mount. She is surrounded by such figures as Religion, Liberality, Perfect Love, Modesty, and Knowledge. By extension, the mayor, as London's son, should also surround himself with such qualities.

In addition to Fitz-Alwin, who speaks to the new mayor and reviews the accomplishments of the Drapers, Munday includes another formed lord mayor, Sir John Norman. Norman was mayor in the mid-fifteenth century and allegedly the first lord mayor to go to Westminster by barge.²¹ Munday places him in a boat “with the seaven liberall Sciences (all attired like graceful Ladies) sitting about him …” (p. 8). Norman greets the mayor with a speech and later assists in explaining the devices of the show. There is also a group of “sweet singing youths, … each having a silver Oare in his hand” who “sing a most sweet dittie of Rowe thy Boate Norman, and so seeme to rowe up along to Westminster, in honour of the Lord Maiors attendance” (p. 10). These former lord mayors lend their blessing to the festivities and also remind the new mayor of some of his noble predecessors.

Munday also uses a mount which represents “the whole estate of Londons olde Draperie.” In the most eminent place sits “Himatia, or Cloathing, as Mother, Lady and commaundresse of all the rest, who by their distinct emblemes and properties, … doe expresse their dutie and attendance on so gratious a person …” (p. 7). Several figures are shown industriously performing the various functions of preparing woolen clothes. Also “Peace, Plentie, Liberalitie, Councell and Discreet Zeale, doe supporte the florishing condition of Himatiaes Common-wealth, and strive to prevent all occasions which may seeme sinister or hurtfull thereto” (pp. 7-8). Unfortunately, Munday does not describe these allegorical personages, but we can safely assume that they were emblematically costumed.

As a final event a “goodly Ramme or Golden Fleece” appears with a Shepherd sitting by it, and the Shepherd addresses the mayor. The Golden Fleece was commonly associated with the Drapers Company, and Munday will develop the Jason-Golden Fleece story in succeeding pageants. The closing speech of the entertainment gives the usual charge to the mayor to prepare for “envies stormes” and to practice “vertue, zeale, and upright heed …” (p. 17). On the whole the pageant is a rather feeble echo of Munday's preceding show of 1611.

The Drapers succeeded again in 1615 in selecting a mayor, Sir John Jolles of their company. Quite naturally they looked once again to Munday to devise the entertainment for the mayor's installation. Munday to devise the entertainment for the mayor's installation. Munday called this pageant Metropolis Coronata; The Triumphes of Ancient Drapery. It manages to combine mythology, allegory, and history all into the same performance.

There are two devices presented on the river. The first is a boat which carries Jason and his companions, Hercules, Telamon, Orpheus, Castor, Pollux, Calais, and Zethes. They are seated around him, “attired in faire guilt armours, bearing triumphal launces, wreathed about with laurell, shields honoured with the impress of the Golden Fleece, and their heads circled with laurels. …”²² Much of the attention is directed to Medea, “whose love to Jason was his best meanes of obtaining the Golden Fleece.” And thus to illustrate “the fiery zeale of her affection towards him, she sitteth playing with his lovelockes, and wantoning with him in all pleasing daliance” (p. 108). The boat is rowed “by divers comely eunuches, which continually attended on Medea, and she favoring them but to passe under the Fleece of Golde, had all their garments immediately sprinkled over with golde …” (p. 109). Later in the land show the Ram or Golden Fleece also appeared, “having on each side a housewifely virgin sitting, seriously imployed in carding and spinning wooll for cloth …” (p. 112). The story of Jason and the Golden Fleece was a popular one in English pageantry from the sixteenth century through the Jacobean era. Jason was, for example, one of the central figures in Middleton's lord mayor's show of 1621, The Sun in Aries.

The second device on the water is another barge, this one in the shape of a whale which conveys the figures of Neptune and Thamesis. And in this boat also appears—not unsurprisingly—the redoubtable and seemingly ubiquitous Henry Fitz-Alwin. About this first lord mayor are seated “Eight Royall Vertues”—eight former mayors. Crowded in also are the allegorical figures of Fame, “triumphing in the top,” and Time “guiding the way before.” Fitz-Alwin salutes the mayor and in a long speech explains the water pageant.

The first device which greets the mayor on land after his return from Westminster is another ship, “stiled by the Lord Maior's name, and called Joell, appearing to bee lately returned from trafficking Wool and Cloth with other remote countryes …” (p. 112). Neptune, “on a pelleted lyon” and Thamesis “on a sea horse” accompany the boat. And then the Golden Fleece follows.

Next comes yet another sea-device called “the Chariot of Man's Life.” A speech by Time reveals the appearance of this chariot: “On the top is placed a spheare or globe intimating the world, created for the use of man. … It is supported by the foure Elements, Water, Earth, Ayre, and Fire, as their figures and emblemes doe aptly declare. It runneth on seven wheeles, describing the Seven Ages of Man …” (p. 114). It is drawn by two lions and two sea horses, “figuring what swift motion hasteneth on the minutes, houres, months, and yeeres of our frailtie; and on the whole frame or body guided by Time as coachman to the Life of Man” (p. 114). Thus Munday has again invoked the presence of Time as he did in the 1611 production. Here, however, he suggests allegorically the transitoriness of man's existence.

The chief pageant which provided the name of the entertainment is the Monument of London which includes the figure of London, “The ancient Mother of the whole Land,” and her Twelve Daughters—i.e., the Twelve Companies of London. Raised about London “as supporters to London's flourishing happinesse and continuance of the same in true transquillitie” and four “goodly mounts” bearing “emblemes of those especiall qualities, which make any commonwealth truly happy” (p. 114)—Learned Religion, Military Discipline, Navigation, and Homebred Husbandry. This may call to mind the figure of Majesty in the 1609 show and the virtues which surrounded her. Or perhaps it is truly reminiscent of Middleton's London's Triumphant Mount from his 1613 mayoralty pageant (see p. 356 above). It would not be surprising if Munday had merely borrowed the idea.

The festivities of the day concluded with the appearance of a figure from English pseudo-history—Robin Hood. He was accompanied by a number of his men “all clad in greene, with their bowes, arrowes, and bugles, and a new slaine deere carried among them” (p. 112). At the close of the sixteenth century Munday had written two plays dealing with the subject of Robin Hood: The Downfall of Robert Earl of Huntingdon and The Death of Robert Earl of Huntingdon (the latter written in collaboration with Henry Chettle). With this background Munday understandably invokes Robin Hood's presence. He also suggests a reason, though historically inaccurate, for Robin Hood's appearance: he is son-in-law by marriage to none other than Henry Fitz-Alwin.²³ At any rate, Robin Hood and his men talk and sing, and finally Robin Hood speaks to the new mayor:

Since graves may not their dead containe,
Nor in their peacefull sleepes remaine,
But Triumphes and great Showes must use them,
And we unable to refuse them;
It joyes me that Earle Robert Hood,
Fetcht from the Forrest of Merrie Shirwood,
With these my yeomen tight and tall,
Brave huntsmen and good archers all,
Must in this joviall day partake,
Prepared for your Honour's sake.

(p. 115)

History is at times, then, the handmaiden of these entertainments, for she beckons forth worthies of the past to lend dignity and their noble examples and to assist in commemorating in an appropriate manner the important event of the mayor's inauguration.

Munday still holds a monopoly on the lord mayor's shows again in 1616; this entertainment he devises at the request of the Fishmongers, whose member John Leman was to be installed as mayor. I regard this show, which Munday called Chrysanaleia, The Golden Fishing, as one of his best productions. Again he combines the elements of mythology, allegory and symbolism, and history, though the emphasis falls on the historical aspect.

The first part of the entertainment is appropriately a fishing boat called the “Fishmongers' Esperanza, or Hope of London.”²⁴ Munday comments: “It may passe … for the same Fishing-busse wherein Saint Peter sate mending his nets when his best Master called him from that humble and lowly condition, and made him a Fisher of Men” (p. 197). But if this be a little farfetched, Munday says, take the boat for one of the ordinary vessels that daily “enricheth our Kingdome with all variety of fish the sea can yeelde. …” A number of fishermen are in the boat “seriously at labour, drawing up their nets laden with living fish, and bestowing them bountifully among the people” (pp. 197-198). The guild is effectively complimented by this device.

A Dolphin, “alluding someway to the Lord Maior's coate of armes, but more properly to the Company's,” came next. And since it is a fish inclined by nature to music, “Arion, a famous Musician and Poet, rideth on his backe, being saved so from death, when robbers and pirates on the seas would maliciously have drowned him” (p. 198). Munday alludes to the familiar story of Arion's rescue from the sea by a dolphin. Arion appeared several times in various entertainments during the Elizabethan and Jacobean era. Arion, riding on a dolphin's back, was part of the entertainment on the second Monday of Queen Elizabeth's visit to Kenilworth in the summer of 1575. The dolphin itself was a fascinating device, for inside it a consort of musicians produced music. Arion told the queen the story of his delivery and then sang her a song. Munday's device, though less spectacular, reminds the audience again of the company.

Since the Goldsmiths have always been closely associated with the Fishmongers, the next device celebrates this friendship. A King of Moors, “gallantly mounted on a Golden Leopard,” appears “hurling gold and silver every way about him” (p. 198). In addition six tributary kings accompany him; they are “gorgeously attired in faire guilt armours, and apt furniture. …” They also carry gold and silver and attend the King of Moors, all of this “shewing thereby, that the Fishmongers are not unmindfull of their combined Brethren, the worthy Company of Goldsmithes …” (p. 198).

The next pageant takes on symbolic connotations. It contains a lemon tree (a play on the mayor's name) “in full and ample form, richly laden with the fruite and flowers it beareth” (p. 198). By the root of this tree a Pelican “hath built her nest with all her tender brood about her.” Munday makes the symbolic connection of the mayor with the Pelican—“… an excellent type of government in a Magistrate, who, at his meere entrance into his yeare's office becometh a nursing father of the family …” (p. 198). In short, the mayor is urged to exercise love and compassion in discharging his duties. Furthermore, the Five Senses “in their best and liviest representations” are seated about the tree.

The historical element of the entertainment is introduced with the device of a Bower, “shaped in forme of a flowrie arbour, and adorned with all the scutchions of arms of so many worthy men of the Fishmongers' Company as have beene Lord Maiors …” (p. 199). Within the Bower is a Tomb whereon rests the figure of Sir William Walworth, twice lord mayor of London and member of the Fishmongers. London's Genius, “a comely youth, attired in the shape of an angell, with a golden crowne on his head, golden wand in his hand, sits mounted on horsebacke by the Bower …” (p. 200). When the new mayor approaches the Bower, the Genius speaks, “the trumpets sound their severall surden flourishes, Walworth ariseth, and he is convaied on horsebacke from the Bower …” (p. 200). Munday has here repeated a technique from the 1611 show in which Faringdon was summoned from the tomb by Time.

Walworth is singled out for his successful quelling of the Jack Straw-Wat Tyler rebellion against Richard II. Munday notes that Walworth “manfully defended and preserved” the life, crown, and dignity of the king, and Walworth tells of his feat in a speech of the pageant. Munday had a precedent for treating this portion of mayoralty history in Thomas Nelson's lord mayor's show of 1590. Here the three principal figures, Richard II, Jack Straw, and Walworth, all appear and speak. Straw comments: “Yet for our bad ambitious mindes by Walworth we were tamde, / He being Maior of London then, soone danted all our pride, / He slew me first, the rest soone fled, and then like traitors dide.”²⁵ Walworth observes that he was knighted by the king for his valor, “and since each Maior gaines knighthood by my deede.” An anonymous play, The Life and Death of Jack Straw (1594), also treats the same story. Walworth's successful protection of the king is emphasized. Near the end of the play he is knighted by Richard and responds—

                                                                                                    what I did
My dutie and alleagaunce bad me doe,
Binds me and my successors evermore,
With sweet incouragement to the like attempt.
Your Maiestie and all your Royall Pieres,
Shall finde your London such a store house still,
As not alone you shall command our wealth,
But loyall harts, the treasure of a Prince. …(26)

Walworth enunciates clearly the mayor's responsibility to the sovereign, and his example bears testimony to these noble principles. Munday has thus added Walworth to Fitz-Alwin and Faringdon—all exemplary former lord mayors who offer the new mayor a worthy precedent and a challenge to fulfill his duties with equal wisdom and courage.

Munday continues his allusion to the Walworth story in the last device of the entertainment, a chariot “drawne by two Mare-men and two Mare-mayds.” In the highest place of eminence sits “the triumphing Angell, who that day smote the enemy by Walworth's hand …” (p. 200). With one hand this Angel holds on King Richard's crown, “that neither forraine hostilitie nor home-bred trecherie should ever more shake it” (p. 200). The forefront of the chariot is populated with Royal Virtues, “as Truth, Vertue, Honor, Temperance, Fortitude, Zeale, Equity, Conscience beating downe Treason and Mutinie. Behind, and on the sides, sit Justice, Authority, Lawe, Vigilancy, Peace, Plentie, and Discipline, as best props and pillers to any Kingly Estate” (pp. 200-201). And Munday adds that these personified figures “are best observed by their severall emblems and properties …” (p. 201). The morality conflict between virtue and vice is suggested by these allegorical characters—the virtues are successful in beating down such vices as Treason and Mutiny. This ties in obviously with the Walworth story. Moreover, here, as in other shows, Munday has portrayed emblematically the virtues vital to a government's welfare.

It seems to me that this show is more thematically unified than most of Munday's efforts. Every part of the pageant points in some way to the Fishmongers Company. The entertainment begins on a very literal level with the presentation of a simple fishing boat. But the lemon tree-pelican device relies on symbolism and suggests the charity which the mayor must exercise. And Walworth in one of his speeches explains this symbolism. Through the dramatic resurrection of Walworth and the concluding chariot, Munday points not simply to a glorious incident from history but allegorically to the virtues which are epitomized in this former mayor and which ought to be emulated. In a sense, history assists the allegorical motif of virtue which must be attained. Through various means Munday has given the new mayor his marching orders. He will do well to follow them.

Munday sat out the year 1617 in deference to Middleton, but he returned in 1618 at the request of the Ironmongers who wanted to honor the new mayor, Sir Sebastian Harvey. This lord mayor's show, which Munday called Sidero-Thriambos or Steele and Iron Triumphing, was to be his last except for his water sketch in 1623. Munday divides the interest in the 1618 production almost equally between mythology and allegory.

In keeping with the company which is being honored, Munday constructs for the first device an island which has on it a mine. “Therein Mulciber, the God of Mynes and Mettals … sheweth his personall attendance, with divers of his one-eyed Cyclops about him.”²⁷ These figures are actively engaged in the various mining processes. At the four corners of the isle are four “beautifull Nymphes or Graces” named “Chrusos, Argurion, Calcos and Sideros, figuring the foure ages of the world, and habited according to their true Carracters and natures” (sig. B1^v). Though the Golden Age, Silver Age, and Bronze Age each formerly held sway, they have now given way to the Iron Age, which Munday says parenthetically is the age “wherein wee live.” It is interesting to speculate that perhaps Munday was influenced by Thomas Heywood's series of plays on the four ages of the world which were written between 1611 and 1613. Jupiter is also present on the island, “mounted upon his Royall Eagle, with his three-forked Thunderbolt in his hand …” (sig. B2). Jupiter wears a suit of armor which had originally been intended for Mars but is given to him by Mulciber “because hee so graciously vouchsafed, to bee personally present in this Triumph, as Patron of all their pains, and protector from foule-mouthed slander and detraction” (sig. B2). The presence of Jupiter, the highest of the gods, is a personal compliment to the mayor. Furthermore, he embodies the allegorical concept of Protection.

An ancient British Bard guides the way to the Mount of Fame, the second principal device of the show. Obviously in the most eminent place on this mount is the allegorical figure of Fame, “seeming as if shee sounded her Golden Trumpet, the Banner whereof, is plentifully powdred with Tongues, Eyes and Eares: implying, that all tongues should be silent, all eyes and eares wide open, when Fame filleth the world with her sacred memories” (sig. B4). Fame shows the mayor the other personages which accompany her “for more honourable solemnity of this generall Triumph; presaging a happy and successfull course to his yeare of government” (sig. B4). Munday is drawing on a long and extensive use of Fame in the civic pageantry before this show. In part of Dekker's contribution to the 1604 entertainment of King James, Fame was involved in the pageant at Soper-lane End. Fame is described by Dekker: “A Woman in a Watchet Roabe, thickly set with open Eyes, and Tongues, a payre of large golden Winges at her backe, a Trumpet in her hand, a Mantle of sundry collours traversing her body. …”²⁸ Dekker uses Fame again in the lord mayor's show of 1612, and Middleton includes the figure in the 1613 mayoralty pageant. And of course Munday had previously used Fame in the 1615 production. Fame stands as a reminder that the leaders of state must perpetuate the noble heritage from which they have come, for Fame with her eyes and tongues will pass on to future generations a record of the conduct of the magistrate.

The figure of Expectation sits below Fame on the right and suggests “that there will be more then ordinary matter expecte from him …” (sig. B4^v). Hope sits on the other side and reminds the mayor that his father had also once been mayor and “left such sensible instructions to his Sonne, as cannot but edge his temper the more keenely, and quicken his spirits the more industriously” (sig. B4^v). Justice and Fortitude are also present, treading down the figures of Ambition, Treason, and Hostility, “which seeke the subversion of all estates …” (sig. C1). And to assist the mayor in his struggles against these vices, “they sit gyved, and manacled together in Iron shackles, purposely made and sent from the Iron-mongers Myne, to binde such base villaines to their better behavior” (sig. C1). Munday thereby connects the two main devices of the show.

There is a final group of personages situated on this Mount of Fame. Frame's two “sober Sisters,” Fear and Modesty, are present, “both vailed, but so sharpe-sighted, that they can discerne through the darkest obscurities, when any threatneth danger to Majesty, or to his carefull Deputie” (sig. C1, C1^v). Should the two become aware of any danger, they inform Vigilancy and Providence, who sit close by. These in turn awake Care “to ring the Bell in the Watch-Tower,” which in turn calls forth Courage and Counsel, “that every one may have imploiment, for safe preserving the Mount of Fame” (sig. C1^v). These Virtues will readily aid the mayor as he faces the sundry trials of his office. The allegorical message to the magistrate is unmistakable: he must summon forth these different virtues to bear him up in the unstinting conflict with vice.

One of the concluding comments which Munday makes in the pamphlet which describes the 1618 entertainment is virtually an artistic principle which guides the pageant writer in working out his technique. Munday states: “For better understanding the true morality of this devise, the personages have all Emblemes and Properties in their hands, & so neere them, that the weakest capacity may take knowledge of them; which course in such solemne Triumphes hath alwaies beene allowed of best observation …” (sig. C1^v). Munday realizes that he is working with a plastic art creating a tableau vivant—the visual element is essential. The allegory must be understood readily; there is no time for dramatic development—hence the emblematic method. The personified figures were thus costumed so as to be quickly recognized. At times it is as if some of the figures have merely stepped from the pages of the popular emblem books.

Munday's last contribution to civic pageantry came in 1623 in the form of the water show performed on the Thames in honor of the mayor. Middleton was responsible for the rest of the entertainment. Munday called his part The Triumphs of the Golden Fleece. What he essentially does is to reach back into the file and pull out the same device which he had used in the 1615 show. Again we find a boat with Jason, Medea, and others in it—most of them carrying shields bearing the impress of the Golden Fleece. Munday adds: “Wee suppose this Argoe to be returned from Colchos, purposely to honor this Triumphall day, by the rare Arte of Medea the Enchantresse. …”²⁹ In this performance Medea is attended by six tributary Indian kings, “holding their severall dominions of Medea, and living in vassalage to her” (sig. A4^v). They row the boat, “wearing their Tributarie Crownes, and Antickely attired in rich habiliments.” Munday continues to be fascinated by the Jason-Golden Fleece story; and on a more practical level, it has a direct relationship to the Drapers Company, of which he himself was a member.

Throughout these entertainments Munday betrays his antiquarian bent through his emphasis on history. I would suggest, however, that this concentrated use of history marks one of Munday's important contributions to English civic pageantry. He alone explored the Brutus myth of English history. He constantly relied on the presence of former lord mayors, and indeed he brings to these pageants a historical sense of continuity. Various speeches reminded spectators of accomplishments of the guilds, and the historical personages themselves stood as exemplars of virtue. Munday is equally skilled at using allegorical and mythological figures effectively, but in this respect he does not differ noticeably from other pageant writers.

Munday is admittedly didactic, but this is only in keeping with one of the prerequisites for a worthy civic entertainment. His moral instructions are generally overlaid with history or mythology. Allegorical motifs are woven throughout the tapestry of his pageants, and frequently even the presentation of history or mythology is interpreted in allegorical terms. This underscores pageantry's general reliance on allegory as one of its chief methods. Munday's artistic use of emblematic costume and properties demonstrates his knowledge of how allegory can be assisted by these pictorial devices.

Civic pageantry is a type of drama; perhaps it is best considered as incipient drama. Part of the drama was of course provided by the presence of the sovereign or magistrate; he was perforce a contributor to the over-all dramatic situation. There was a dynamic relationship between sovereign and audience; there was rapport—vital ingredients for any theater. Munday also moved further in the direction of drama with his two “resurection” scenes—in the 1611 and 1616 shows. Here former mayors are called forth from their tombs in order to participate in the festivities. This particular device is unique with Munday. The possibilities for real drama are very limited, since there is a processional movement with not much time to tarry at any one spot. Thematic unity, not dramatic unity, is really all that can be expected. Generally Munday is successful in achieving this thematic unity.

Such street pageantry appealed to a universal audience drawn from all social stations as in the public theaters, but like the court masque it relied on historical, mythological, and allegorical figures. It doubtless contributed both thematically and technically to the development of English drama, and to ignore it is to make our knowledge of the evolution of drama incomplete. And no study of pageantry is complete without acknowledging Munday's vital part in the achievement of the Jacobean lord mayor's shows.

Notes

1. Celeste Turner [Wright], Anthony Mundy: An Elizabethan Man of Letters, Univ. of Calif. Pubs. in Eng., Vol. 2, No. 1 (Berkeley, 1928).

2. Ben Jonson, ed. C. H. Herford and Percy Simpson, Vol. III (Oxford, 1927).

3. R. T. D. Sayle, Lord Mayors' Pageants of the Merchant Taylors' Company in the 15th, 16th, & 17th Centuries (London, 1931), p. 65.

4. Ibid., p. 89.

5. Collections III: A Calendar of Dramatic Records in the Books of the Livery Companies of London 1485-1640, ed. Jean Robertson and D. J. Gordon, Malone Soc. Repr. (Oxford, 1954), p. 63.

6. Ibid., p. 93.

7. Ibid., p. 101.

8. London's Love to the Royal Prince Henrie (1610), though published anonymously, is generally attributed to Munday. This was a ceremony on the Thames which celebrated Prince Henry's being created Prince of Wales. Since it is such a brief sketch, I have chosen to omit it and concentrate on the pageants for the lord mayor.

9. By the time of John Speed's History of Great Britaine (1614), the doctrine is being seriously questioned and treated with more historical accuracy.

10. Thomas Heywood, An Apology for Actors (London, 1841), pp. 52-53.

11. John Nichols, The Progresses, Processions, and Magnificent Festivities, of King James the First (London, 1828), I, 565. All references to this pageant are to this text and are cited by page numbers in the body of the paper.

12. The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker, ed. Fredson Bowers (Cambridge, Eng., 1955), II, 279.

13. Ibid., p. 298.

14. See The Quenes Majesties Passage through the Citie of London to Westminster the Day before Her Coronacion, ed. James M. Osborn (New Haven, 1960), pp. 37-39.

15. Anthony Munday, Camp-bell or The Ironmongers Faire Feild ([London, 1609]), sig. B1. All references are to this printed pamphlet.

16. See Edgar Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance (London, 1958), Chs. ii and iii.

17. Bowers, Dekker, II, 277.

18. Anthony Munday, Chruso-thriambos. The Triumphes of Golde (London, 1611), sig. A3^v. All citations are from this printed version.

19. London, 1614. All quotations are from this pamphlet.

20. The Works of Thomas Middleton, ed. A. H. Bullen (Boston, 1886), VII, 236.

21. Robert Withington has generally disproved this theory. See his English Pageantry: An Historical Outline (Cambridge, Mass., 1920), II, 7-8.

22. Nichols, Progresses … of James the First, III, 108-109. All citations are to Nichols' reprint of the pageant.

23. I was struck with the sense of inaccuracy because Munday himself in his Robin Hood plays had called the father-in-law of Robin Hood “Fitzwater.” And now, completely ignoring his own work, he links Fitz-Alwin and Robin Hood. Mrs. Wright in her study of Munday repeats the mistake by calling Robin Hood the son-in-law of Fitz-Alwin (p. 161). My doubts were corroborated by further investigation which led me to Malcolm Anthony Nelson, “The Robin Hood Tradition in English Literature in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” unpublished dissertation (Northwestern, 1961). Mr. Nelson notes Munday's several corruptions of the Robin Hood tradition. He substantiates my questioning with this statement: “Munday maintains that the first Lord Mayor of London, Sir Henry Fitz-Alwine … was Robin Hood's father-in-law. In this new corruption of the tradition, a modification of Munday's earlier invention, Fitz-Alwine is substituted for Matilda's father, Fitzwater” (p. 181).

24. Nichols, Progresses of James, III, 197. All references are to Nichols.

25. Thomas Nelson, The Device of the Pageant (London, 1590), p. 6.

26. The Life and Death of Jack Straw, ed. Kenneth Muir and F. P. Wilson, Malone Soc. Reprs. (Oxford, 1957), sig. F2^v.

27. Anthony Munday, Sidero-Thriambos or Steele and Iron Triumphing (London, 1618), sig. B1. All quotations are from this printed pamphlet.

28. Bowers, Dekker, II, 276.

29. Anthony Munday, The Triumphs of the Golden Fleece (London, 1623), sig. A4. Citations are to this text.