Para1Thomas Nelson’s Device of the Pageant (1590), like the two other pre-1600 mayoral shows that survive as printed texts, has received less scholarly attention than the post-1600 shows. Perhaps this relative neglect is due in part to Nelson’s obscurity in comparison to dramatists such as Thomas Heywood, Thomas Middleton, and Thomas Dekker, all pageant poets who distinguished themselves across a range of dramatic and literary forms still of interest today. Nonetheless, Nelson’s show deserves a closer look for several reasons, not least of which is its complex engagement with the mood of London during the first year of what many historians regard as a crisis decade. This show is populated with allegorical figures who, appearing two years after England’s victory over the Spanish Armada, strive to reinforce peace, prosperity, and amity between the crown, the civic leadership, and London’s rapidly growing and diversifying population. These unifying gestures are threatened by the figure of Ambition, later concretized as the medieval rebel Jack Straw, who hints at a rising tide of domestic unrest due to various economic pressures on London’s non-elite denizens. Moreover, the show’s majesty and grandeur—presided over by the figure of Peace, who stands in for Queen Elizabeth I—is haunted by the early appearance of a strange merman who, according to the figure riding on his back, symbolizes the perversity of subjects who flout the nation’s laws prohibiting the consumption of meat on certain days of the week. Although the general pattern of order against chaos is characteristic of all mayoral shows, it takes shape here in ways that are specific to the interests of the sponsoring company, the Fishmongers. This critical introduction will demonstrate how Nelson’s show connected the particular concerns of the Fishmongers to civic leaders’ growing fear of discontent among the populace, as the show overtly proposes fish trade as a solution to poverty and starvation. This solution, while germane to the sociopolitical context of the early 1590s, also signals the growing importance of fishing and fish consumption to a future British Empire.

Para2Although some artists involved in civic shows were members of the sponsoring company (Hill, Pageantry 96), there seems to have been no prior connection between Nelson and the Fishmongers. A graduate of Clare Hall, Cambridge, Nelson was made free of the Stationers’ Company in 1580 and owned a shop in London. He also wrote short tracts and English-type ballads, including an epitaph on Francis Walsingham’s death in 1590. While acknowledging Nelson’s specialization in moralizing and sensational ballads, John C. Meagher cautions us against dismissing Nelson’s Lord Mayor’s Show as a routine imitation by a ballad-writing hack (94-95). Meagher’s admonition implies a history of deliberate scholarly neglect; however, scholars seem not to have been aware of the show’s very existence until the early twentieth century. William Herbert devotes some attention to Nelson’s lord mayor’s show in his History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies of London, yet he identifies Anthony Munday’s 1616 Chrysanaleia and Elkanah Settle’s 1700 Triumphs of London as the only pageants of the fishmongers known to be printed (50, emphasis added). Likewise, Frederick W. Fairholt does not mention Nelson’s show in his mostly comprehensive Lord Mayor’s Pageants: Being Collections Towards a History of these Annual Celebrations.

Para3The first sustained scholarly treatment was published in a 1918 article by Robert Withington, who also lists the show in his 1914 book English Pageantry: An Historical Outline (2:323). Withington identifies history and allegory as the show’s most prominent registers (The Lord Mayor’s Show for 1590 10). Its use of specific figures from English history, which David M. Bergeron later identifies as a significant new direction for the genre (Elizabethan 284), links the lord mayor and monarch of 1590—John Allott and Elizabeth I—to the year 1381, when Lord Mayor and Fishmonger William Walworth defended King Richard II by killing the rebel leader Wat Tyler, whom the show identifies instead as Jack Straw.¹ Richard rewarded Walworth with a knighthood, thus inaugurating a tradition in which all subsequent lord mayors would receive the same. The allegorical figure Commonwealth, who speaks for Walworth, relates the story:

I represent Sir William Walworth’s place,

A Fishmonger and Mayor of London twice.

I slew Jack Straw, who sought my king’s disgrace,

First knight was I of London, you may read,

And since each Mayor gains knighthood by my deed.²

(Sp15)

The show’s other allegorical figures frame the moral virtues illustrated by this history as exhortations for Allott, who is called upon to protect the monarch and thus ensure continuing peace in the realm. These figures include Fame, Peace of England, Wisdom and Policy (speaking as a pair), God’s Truth, Plenty, Loyalty and Concord (another pair), Science and Labour (a third pair), and possibly Time. The show also includes speakers and symbols that specifically reference the sponsoring company and its close ally, the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths. These include figures from each company’s coat of arms (the merman for the Fishmongers and a unicorn for the Goldsmiths). For Withington, the inclusion of such trade symbols represents a natural development within the field of civic pageantry (The Lord Mayor’s Show for 1590 11, n. 6), one that would echo in later mayoral shows.

Para4The moral narrative these figures convey involves dissent threatening the realm but ultimately failing, leading peace and prosperity, bolstered by good governorship, to prevail. This didacticism displays what Meagher calls the general conservativism of the tradition (94). Thematically, this conservativism is expressed by way of direct addresses to the new lord mayor, who is called upon to exhibit what Lawrence Manley terms the magnanimity, virtue, and chivalric elan of worthy Londoners, which Manley claims the 1590 show helps to establish (Fictions 208). As is characteristic of all Elizabethan civic entertainments (Hill, Pageantry 279), the 1590 show strives to affirm the fundamental unity of city and crown, who stand firmly together against external threats. Picking up on the general theme of amity, Anne Lancashire aligns Nelson’s and the other two printed pre-1600 shows with the Shakespearean comedy of love, with love being a continuing thematic preoccupation throughout the London Lord Mayor’s Shows of the period (Comedy 4). The difference between the two genres is that while Shakespeare’s comedies portray romantic love, the shows portray London’s various economic, social, and political communities participating together in group affirmation of specific economic, social, and political values (Comedy 4). This sociopolitical love is supported in all three shows by a sophisticated repetition-based structure (Comedy 4, 12, 17-8) that harmonizes dissenting elements. Nelson’s version of this structure moves from the general (the allegorical presentation) to the specific (the historical figures who concretize the allegory and tether it to late medieval precedent), with Walworth/Commonwealth ultimately defeating the destructive forces of Ambition. Similarly, the strange figure of the merman is countered by a unicorn who offers more conventional sentiments; in this way the appearance of the two figures side-by-side stresses the historical amity between the two companies while more generally introducing the theme of unity (Lancashire, Comedy 16).

Para6Although the inchoate turbulence of the early 1590s has been acknowledged as important context for The Device of the Pageant, the Company of Fishmongers’ particular place in that historical picture has received far less discussion. As Theodore Leinwand observes, all lord mayor’s shows exhibit a clear preoccupation with wealth, trade, religion, and power (148); likewise, Manley reminds us that the mayoralty honoured in the shows was dominated by an elite of international traders (Literature and Culture 220) and Susan Anderson notes the considerable degree to which global trade and proto-colonial practices surrounded the celebration of the civic elite (356). Yet despite these invitations to consider the identity of the lord mayor and the sponsoring company as traders, there has been little discussion of the specific ways in which this identity shows up in Nelson’s show for the Fishmongers. The story of the Fishmongers in the late Tudor era prompts us to dig more deeply into the historical significance of the symbols that appear in the 1590 Fishmongers’ show and to consider what those symbols communicated not only to Allott and his retinue, but to a larger audience of spectators and readers at this moment in London’s history.

Para7Since the publication of an influential volume of essays analyzing the 1590s in Europe (Clark), some historians of late Tudor England have modified the crisis narrative by noting that threats of social unrest were largely a matter of perception—that is, a projected fear—on the part of the authorities. What is striking about the 1590s in London, John Walter observes, is the sensitivity that the City’s rulers showed to popular criticism of any failure to meet their obligation to feed the city (28). City government was entrusted to take care of the poor, with the companies bearing the cost of importing corn and grain while facing increased pressure to forego their own conspicuously lavish dinners (Power, “Crisis” 134 and London 373-374, 377; Walter 21). The exigency of such measures increased in the middle of the decade, a fact that suggests heightened attention to popular perceptions of the City’s wealthy elite. Nelson’s show seeks to manage such perceptions not only in its overall emphasis on unity between the crown, the City, and the people of London, but more specifically when the merman rider acknowledges, early in the show, the proliferation of poverty and hunger throughout the realm:

Within this Commonwealth, my Lord, all those that live in awe

Do seek each day for to perform and keep the ’stablished law.

Yea, such do keep the Sabbath day in reverence as they ought

And fish days too, as well as flesh, which many set at naught.

Yet if the same were well observed, flesh seldom would be dear

And fish abound at each man’s board, more plenty in each year.

Then England’s store would be increased with butter, cheese, and beef

And thousands set to work for fish, that now beg for relief.

This shape, so strange, show they are strange and do digress from reason

That shun in eating fish and flesh to keep both time and season,

Which fault reformed, our commonwealth would flourish in such wise

As never any did behold the like with mortal eyes.

(Sp1)

The sponsoring company’s solution to the problem is to encourage not only the observance of fish days in accordance with the ‘stablished law but to promote fishing as employment for thousands of poor subjects. This plan may be self-interested, but it carries with it the gravitas of a company long established in the City and invested in its socioeconomic health.

Para8The Worshipful Company of Fishmongers has enjoyed an unbroken existence of over 700 years since the company’s first royal charter was granted by Edward I in 1272 (Worshipful). In 1536 the company, which was by default the Stock Fishmongers’ Company, combined with the Salt Fishmongers’ Company to form the company of the present name (Herbert II:3).³ Herbert, quoting a former company clerk, reports that the Fishmongers were famous for having had three score mayors of the city of London, besides several of the most considerable and eminent merchants free of it (19). Over a dozen members served as lord mayor between Walworth’s and Allott’s terms; eleven members were elected to the Court of Aldermen in the sixteenth century (Beaven 345, 331). The honouree of Nelson’s show, Allott, exemplified this history of civic leadership—he served as sheriff of London in 1580-1581 before his 1590 election as lord mayor (Lancashire, Mayors and Sheriffs). Furthermore, as had been the case with Walworth, Allott had the relatively rare (Meagher 100, n. 80-92) distinction of serving as both lord mayor and mayor of the Staple, whose role was to regulate exports and keep unaccustomed wool from leaving the country (Rich 126). The cloth trade was England’s chief export, as mayoral shows printed throughout the period attest; three-quarters of England’s overseas trade was in wool and cloth with seven-eighths of these goods moving through the Port of London (Bradbrook 96). To signal Allott’s role as regulator of this critical trade, Nelson’s show features a wool pack sitting at the feet of Peace, to which Plenty calls attention:

Muse not to see this famous fleece doth stand

Upon a wool pack, fixed at Peace’s feet.

The reason is, as you may understand,

Worthy John Allott, for his place most meet,

Is mayor of London and the Staple too

And will perform in both what he should do.

(Sp8)

Meagher understands this prop as a reference to the Golden Fleece of Greek mythology, evidently on a woolpack at the foot of the throne (100, n. 80-92); the Golden Fleece does appear in some civic shows in the period, such as Munday’s entertainments of 1614 and 1623 (Bergeron, Munday 367). However, in this instance the wool pack has a more contemporaneous association with Allott’s role in promoting and maintaining the wool trade. The interdependency of peace and prosperity are thus succinctly expressed in a single image.

Para9Evidence of the Fishmongers’ prestige and longevity also can be found in the company’s special relationship with the Goldsmiths, another member of the Great Twelve. The origins of the connection are uncertain. John Stow accuses the Fishmongers of ignorance on this point, although Stow himself does not explain the connection either; it seems that the two companies strove to repair previously disputed claims regarding precedency by dining together and exchanging liveries (Herbert 11-12, 43-44; see also Nichols). Lancashire cites sources claiming that Allott once lived in a house owned by the Goldsmiths (Comedy 27, n. 31). If true, such a connection attests to the currency of the relationship claimed at the outset of the show, when figures from each company’s arms—the merman and the unicorn—appear together to introduce the procession of allegorical figures. The unicorn rider signals the Goldsmiths’ blessing of Allott’s leadership and the company’s continuing support:

Rule now, my Lord, and keep this City well,

Reform abuses crept into the same.

So shall your Fame eternized be for ay

And London still preserved from decay.

And I that do support the Goldsmiths’ arms,

Which long in love to you have been united,

Will do my best to shadow you from harms

And find the means your loves may be requited.

(Sp2)

Building on the legacy of love between the companies, Munday’s Chrysanaleia would claim that the Fishmongers and the Goldsmiths crusaded together in the Middle Ages (A4). Yet it is difficult to validate this and other claims given that Fishmongers’ Hall was one of fifty-four livery halls devastated by the Great Fire of 1666; therefore, documents shedding further light on the company’s relationship with the Goldsmiths may have been destroyed (Herbert 68-69; Robertson and Gordon vii).

Para10For all its emphasis on securing the peace, the show betrays anxiety about trouble ahead. By this time, Elizabeth was fifty-seven years old and without an heir. In subtle acknowledgement of this fact, Peace indicates that Elizabeth’s commitment to her realm faces a natural end: whilst she lives, even with her heart and might / She seeks in Peace for to defend your right (emphasis added). Accordingly, the show vacillates between overt triumph and implicit foreboding; the 1588 defeat of the Spanish Armada and its immediate aftermath provide important context for these tonal shifts. With respect to its nationalistic sentiments, the show resembles much of the English drama staged between 1588 and 1592 in its patriotic, even jingoistic (Shapiro 360) bent. Indeed, Shakespeare’s first tetralogy appears in this moment, signaling the vogue for chronicle drama and historiography that emerged in the years immediately following the Armada’s defeat. Soon, however, the ostensible confidence expressed in such productions would be challenged by new fears regarding Iberian/Catholic threats. A second armada threatened English shores already in 1591-1592; this threat was followed by another in 1597, at which time Parliament was dissolved and the crown recalled its troops from France, ordered the western counties to mobilize, and commenced raising levies (Griffin 13, Shapiro 356). Military forces were readied yet again in 1599, when rumors of a new armada circulated while the Earl of Essex was campaigning in Ireland, leaving England militarily unprepared (Shapiro 351, 357). The constantly looming possibility of invasion made the numerous foreign immigrants inhabiting the City targets of hostility; some residents even believed immigrants to be double-dealers spying for their native governments (Griffin 19, 22). As for England’s own subjects, the 1588 defeat of the Armada cultivated what Anthony Esler calls aspiring minds in Elizabeth’s young courtiers (qtd. in Shapiro 352), a phenomenon that found vivid expression in Essex’s own unsuccessful 1601 rebellion. The figure of Ambition that haunts Nelson’s show, then, proves prophetic. As the remaining years of the 1590s were to demonstrate, Ambition never rests, but seeks each time and tide / How England’s Peace might soon be brought in thrall / And commonwealth plunged into civil broils / That foreign foes might triumph in our spoils. These lines bring civil broils and the triumph of foreign foes into one composite picture of doom, suggesting that a lack of domestic tranquility leaves England vulnerable to exterior threats, while exterior threats themselves can foment domestic rebellion. In short, the figure of Ambition consolidates impending dangers both at home and abroad.

Para11In order to mitigate the commonwealth’s vulnerability to such dangers, the civic oligarchy and the companies had to be seen as taking care of the people, an expectation answered in the merman rider’s speech. First, the speech signals the company’s concern to make sure people are fed or, perhaps more accurately, that people feel sufficiently provided for so as not to riot. The concern is not unfounded—historians record some 1595 protests originating over matters related to the London food market; that year’s disturbances, notably, occurred not over grain but over but the price of fish and the enforcement of fish days, which drove up food prices (Walter 17, 21, 29). The statutory regulation of fish consumption, which was initially undertaken with the economic rationale of supporting the English fisheries, began with the Edwardian proclamation of 1548; that proclamation was followed by a 1563 statute that restricted the nation’s diet to fish on Wednesdays in addition to the existing Fridays and Saturdays (Billington 98; Sgroi 1-2, 4). These efforts at installing political lent proved controversial and deeply unpopular, as they were seen as forcing the consumption of fish for patriotic purposes, even as fish days were no longer observed for religious reasons, while raising prices as well (Sgroi 8-9). In light of such resistance, the Fishmongers’ Company issued a call in 1571 for the more rigorous enforcement of fish days. Yet during 1584-1585, a setback in the form of four bills was introduced in the Commons; these bills resulted in the successful repeal of Wednesdays as fish days. The Fishmongers responded with a propaganda war that would be waged all the way to the end of Elizabeth’s reign. The sentiments in support of fish days that are evident in Nelson’s show may be regarded as a very public part of that campaign, where we witness the company claiming that the observation of fish days will sustain and prosper England’s people. This argument represents the company’s attempt to answer the widespread popular perception of fish days as encroaching on personal liberties and inflating food prices.

Para12Hence, the show stages sociopolitical concerns specific to the interests of the sponsoring company and extrapolates those concerns into a prescription for the nation’s wealth, one to which patriotic English subjects are urged to pay heed. However, the company was not alone in linking fishing and fish consumption to nationalist sentiment. Elizabeth’s inner circle of magistrates also promoted the cause in ways that anticipate the eventual formation of a British Empire of the seas, one in which the fishing industry would play a critical role. When John Dee argued for a petty navy royal in his General and Rare Memorials, he did so largely out of concern for protecting the English fisheries, which he saw as being encroached upon by Dutch fishing boats (Ellinghausen 139). While Dee does not mention fish days, his imperial vision links the protection of the fisheries with England’s economic positioning in the sphere of global competition. Likewise, Elizabeth’s chief advisor William Cecil actively promoted English fishing as a means to increase the number of seamen available for trade and defence (Cell 23). In line with such thinking, Tudor laws mandating fish days bundled measures protecting the fisheries with regulations pertaining to shipping and the maintenance of the navy. The 1563 act, titled an Acte towching certayne politique constitutions made for the maintenance of the navye, represents one such example (Sgroi 2). Appeals also were publicly made, via the printing press, to enhance navigation by promoting fishing, as fishermen were seen as possessing essential seafaring skills that, once mobilized, would prove invaluable for English defence. One such publication is Robert Hitchcock’s A politique plat, where Hitchcock meditates on the need to flourish the commonwealth by promoting navigation as well as employing the poor through fishing and related industries (Ellinghausen 139). Therefore, the Fishmongers’ Company, in advocating for fish days and the employment of fishermen, did not argue for these measures in isolation, but rather shared in the growth of late Tudor imperialist thought, by which fishing paved the way not only for enhanced national defence, but for larger economic ambitions worldwide.

Para13This history grounds Nelson’s particular articulation of unity, the exigency for it, and the forces that threaten it in events and other literature specific to the early 1590s. The show’s warning of disruptions to domestic tranquility, as crystallized in the Ambition/Jack Straw figure, centered on matters concerning food, employment, and the government enforcement of unpopular mandates. As for the imperialist dimensions of fishing and fish consumption, these have yet to be fully articulated in 1590, but they will be fleshed out more distinctly in two Fishmongers’ shows to come, namely Munday’s 1616 Chrysanaleia and Settle’s 1700 Triumphs of London; the language of pageantry thus lends the Fishmongers’ identity as traders a more specifically global emphasis (Ellinghausen 143-152).

Para14Nelson is one of only a few lord mayor’s show writers in the Tudor/Jacobean period who was not a professional dramatist. Because the pageant book—like others printed before 1605 (Hill, Owners, 152)—contains very few descriptive passages,⁴ we must rely in large part on the printed speeches, as well our current understanding of mayoral show conventions, to ascertain what may have occurred on the performance day. Henry Machyn’s 1553 diary affords scholars a basic outline of what the shows’ audiences would typically witness: processional movement, colourful costumes, music, references to the sponsoring trade guilds, references to historical figures, and of course, speeches (Bergeron, Elizabethan). Emblematic tableau, dance, and crowd-pleasing effects such as fireworks and giants on stilts also generally featured in the performances (Hill, Pageantry 1).

Para15Each year on October 29, the lord mayor’s show would have taken place in the streets alongside the Thames River. Wiggins and Richardson list the setting for Nelson’s show as the Staple Inn (47)—a structure that originated in the thirteenth century as a wool market and later became part of the Inns of Chancery, with a grand new hall built in 1580. However, the text contains no references to that physical building but only to the office of mayor of the Staple that was held by Allott. It is uncertain whether the show featured a land pageant only or included a water pageant as well. Although the lord mayor always proceeded to Westminster by water, some critics maintain that mayoral shows featured only a land pageant until Peele included the first water show in 1591 (Klein 19; Robertson and Gordon xxvii; Withington, The Lord Mayor’s Show for 1590 10). Lancashire, though, speculates that the 1590 performance may also have had a water show given that it opens with a merman (Comedy 9). We can only say with certainty that the land pageant has survived in print, yet it is possible that some water pageantry was excluded from the pageant text and/or composed by a different writer (Lancashire, Comedy 9).

Para16Given that the speeches would have been difficult for many of the show’s attendees to hear,⁵ the visual elements of the production are important to piecing together a sense of the performance. The emblematic method (Bergeron, Elizabethan 283 and Munday 366), so important to conveying the show’s allegorical elements, would have relied heavily on costumes, props, and tableaux. Meagher’s detailed textual footnotes are useful here, particularly for understanding how the visuals supported the show’s central themes of peace, unity, and mutual aid. For example, the speech prefaces for Wisdom and Policy indicate that each figure supports the state on one side as they are presumably literally supporting the cloth-of-state canopy over the throne occupied by Peace/Elizabeth (Meagher 60, n. 57-66). The cloth-of-state, as mobile property, thus visually reinforces not only support of the monarch but of the Peace she embodies, which is guaranteed by the figure to follow, God’s Truth, whom the enthroned Peace reaches out to embrace (Meagher 100, n. 67-79). Likewise, Loyalty and Concord do their own part to enforce the linkages between tender hearts, with what Meagher terms chains of loyalty perhaps literally represented on stage, as they were in at least one other contemporaneous entertainment (101, n. 93-99). Science and Labour, whose stanza structurally resembles those of the previous two pairs, may echo the visual accompanying Wisdom and Policy by holding a canopy over the monarch’s head—this time with the monarch being Richard II. Science and Labour may also physically support Commonwealth, for whom they serve as chief props (Meagher 102, n. 114-120). Attending to the ways in which verse structure enhances the visuals, Meagher suggests that the lines assigned to these three pairs of allegorical figures—Wisdom/Policy, Loyalty/Concord, and Science/Labour—may have been spoken in unison, at least in the final couplet (101, n. 93-99). This suggestion makes sense especially in the speech from Loyalty/Concord:

Faithful and loyal are her subjects seen,

Concord unites them still in loyal bands.

Their tender hearts are linked to our queen

And Concord craves no other at their hands.

Thus Loyalty and Concord doth agree

That London still therein shall famous be.

(Sp9)

Speaking these lines in unison would signify the agreement at the end of the penultimate line and thus reinforce the interdependence of Loyalty and Concord as qualities that co-exist to sustain the realm.

Para17Alongside these allegorical figures, the show also visually signifies the dignity of certain individuals, such as monarchs and lord mayors. As previously noted, the show directly references Elizabeth as Peace’s human embodiment. Meagher comments that God’s Truth, the figure entrusted with directing Peace/Elizabeth, appears with a Bible in one hand and a sun in the other, symbols linking the 1590 pageant to the 1558 entertainment celebrating Elizabeth’s coronation (98, n. 21-42). Elizabeth also is herself the source of sunshine, an attribution that echoes in the 1600 Rainbow Portrait, where she holds a rainbow in her right hand, above which appears the Latin inscription Non Sole Sine Iris (no rainbow without the sun). Elizabeth, in other words, is the sun that makes the rainbow appear. The show’s incorporation of dignity encompasses not only the present monarch, but a monarch of the past (Richard II) as well as past and present lord mayors (Walworth and Allott), drawing a line of historical continuity between each monarch and the corresponding lord mayor. Additionally, the staging of monarchs alongside civic leaders stresses the interconnections between peace, protection, and wealth. As previously mentioned, the show highlights Allott’s relationship to the Staple, referencing an office held by Walworth as well. Commonwealth, who assumes Walworth’s place, may be dressed in magistrates’ robes, even mayoral robes, thus costuming Commonwealth in the garments of civic authority and mercantile power (Meagher 102, n. 107-113).

Para18Mercantile unity is likewise on full display, as the show’s visual language includes symbols specific to the Fishmongers’ Company and the company’s closest ally, the Goldsmiths. The two creatures that open the show—the merman and the unicorn—directly reference the coat of arms for each company; the use of heraldic supporters was common in Tudor-era lord mayor’s shows (Meagher 97, n. 1-20). The merman, who stands on the dexter side of the crest in the Fishmongers’ coat of arms, was granted as a supporter in 1575 (Nichols 506); two unicorns flank the crest on the Goldsmiths’ arms, granted in 1571 (Herbert 121). The two figures may have entered as finished pieces in a pageant car carried by porters; the speeches likely were delivered by children in costume, as was conventional for civic shows (Meagher 97-98, n. 21-42; Wiggins and Richardson 46; Withington, The Lord Mayor’s Show for 1590 11). Alternatively, the merman may have appeared separately to introduce the show, as his appearance recalls the exotic beasts and wild men who appeared in street theater and popular drama dating back to the Midsummer’s Watch, the civic celebrations that immediately precede the development of the lord mayor’s show. The wild man, according to Robertson and Gordon, was deployed to clear the way for the pageant (xvii). Armed with clubs and squibs, these savages—variously called woodhouses, woodmen, woodwards, ivymen, or greenmen—continued to appear as an invariable feature of later shows (xxv). In a notable—and perhaps formally incoherent⁶—variation on convention, Nelson’s merman imprints the company’s heraldry onto the startling spectacle of the wild man, effectively directing the audience’s attention toward an important message regarding the observance of fish days and the company’s provisioning for the poor.

Para19The prose passage that appears near the end of the pageant book also describes heraldic symbols—in this case, three coats of arms appearing over the final scene. These include the seal of the City of London, the Fishmonger’s Company seal, and the seal conferred upon Walworth and his posterity forever, which depicts two arms bearing up a millstone signifying the strength necessary for Walworth to have undertaken his otherwise impossible feat of putting down the rebellion. The dagger, which stands as the central symbol of Walworth’s feat, may have been a separate prop used in the pageant; alternatively, as Wiggins and Richardson suggest, the dagger may have appeared only on the City’s coat of arms (47).⁷ These symbols intermingle the company’s identity with the history of the City and the lord mayor’s office, thus claiming an integral role for the Fishmongers in the City’s cultivation of greatness.

Para20As for non-verbal sounds, we know that music generally played a role in mayoral shows. A more particular feature of Nelson’s show, however, is the use of Fame’s trumpet. The trumpet receives only two mentions in the text itself—in the speech prefix announcing Fame, and in Fame’s reference to the trumpet’s sound in a subsequent line. The trumpet may sound only once, just before Fame speaks; Meagher, however, speculates that Fame’s trumpet also may blast between speeches, whenever the words fame or famous are uttered (98, n. 43-49). Meagher also proposes the intriguing possibility that Ambition recoils in fear at each trumpet blast (102, n. 100-106). If this had been the case, such stage business may have worked to comic effect; alternatively, the trumpet blast may prompt listeners to imagine the mobilization of military forces needed to defend the island from foreign threats. The word blast, for example, can be seen as enhancing the martial connotations implied in Peace’s prayer for defence; blast, that is, could signify musket, caliver, or cannon fire as well as the sound of a trumpet. In any case, even if not everyone present on the performance day could hear the speeches, everyone certainly would have heard the trumpet’s blast.