-
In 1978, the discovery of new evidence regarding Queen Elizabeth I's
pre-coronation procession of 1559 led David Bergeron to question certain
statements he had previously made about her in his seminal English
Civic Pageantry: 1558-1632. In this earlier work, Bergeron's reading
of the pamphlet officially produced in order to commemorate the procession,
written by Richard Mulcaster, led him to state that the behaviour of Elizabeth
at the pageant devices which took place showed her to be an "unscheduled
actor" (15). Following Mulcaster's pamphlet, Bergeron emphasised
the spontaneous pleasure demonstrated by the Queen in response to each
of the pageants performed for her, confirming the fact that the procession
itself was characterised by the mutual, unforced love felt between Queen
and audience. The new evidence he discovered forced him to change his
opinion however, and suggested rather that, as part-patron, the Queen
was "no mere passive spectator or grateful recipient of the event"
("Elizabeth" 3). Instead, Bergeron felt that Elizabeth must
have been aware of what was to take place because she had helped decide
the content of the pageants, in the form of providing a number of costumes
for the pageant players. Though Bergeron does not say as much, the revelation
that Elizabeth was a part-patron of the pageant devices compromises certain
aspects of Mulcaster's specially commissioned pamphlet, which repeatedly
insists upon the Queen's spontaneity in response to the performed events.
This new evidence undermines the suggestion that the procession was an
instinctive celebration of love between the Queen and her people, and
puts into question the notion that the pamphlet is a reliable source of
historical accuracy. Rather than being a mere record of events, the pamphlet
can be regarded as less than disinterested, and for a more compelling
reason than that it was written on a commission. For, apart from the discovery
that Elizabeth was involved in formulating the pageants, there are a number
of other examples in his report which compromise Mulcaster's version of
events. One instance is particularly troubling, and further serves to
undermine his entire project.
-
Whilst passing between two of the major pageant devices prepared for
the procession, Mulcaster informs us that the Queen "came againste
the Great Conduite in Cheape, which was bewtified with pictures and sentences
accordinglye against her Graces coming thether" (46). In his own
study, Bergeron reproduces Mulcaster's observation, and informs us that
in the Repertories of the Corporation of London there is a record
that shows "payments to painters for decorating the Conduit in Cheapside..."
(English 12). However, if we return to the precise record he quotes,
we find that it states something rather different. The record in fact
reads as follows:
A wide ranging search through the various accounts of the pre-coronation
procession has brought to light only one acknowledgement of this refusal
by the painters, and that occurs in R. R. Sharpe's London And The Kingdom,
which is effectively a history of the City read precisely from these original
Repertories (and thus would be difficult to ignore). Sharpe records
it as the "curious instance of a strike among painters" (1:
485), though he gives no reason as to why the painters decided on such
action. However, the strike meant that:
This final "reasonable remuneration" suggests the reason for the
painters' refusal, and the wardens being called in shows that the Painters'
Company was no doubt held responsible for the problem. Bergeron's failure
to register this refusal, in a record to which he directly refers, is obviously
both troubling and confusing. Most importantly however, there is evident
ambiguity concerning Mulcaster's original description of the relevant pageant
being "bewtified with pictures." If the instructions in the Repertories
are to be believed, the pageant stage was "covered with cloth of Arras,"
which could indeed have been decorated with pictures of some sort. The question
arises, however, whether Mulcaster was in fact referring to painted pictures
that he expected the Conduit to display, as was the case with other pageants
in the procession that had been prepared according to the original plan.
Thus the Conduit in Fleet Street, the "fifte and last Pageaunt erected,"
was, Mulcaster writes, "bewtified with painting" (53). If this
is the case, the suspicion arises that Mulcaster in fact did not witness
the earlier pageant device, took no account of the problem caused by the
painters' strike, and reported the event according to prior instructions
he had received and which detailed what the stage should have looked like.
If it is true that he did not see this particular pageant device, it is
possible that he did not see some or all of the others, and that whether
he saw them or not, he did not report them accurately. The possible mis-reporting
of this specific instance questions Mulcaster's total endeavour, particularly
when combined with the possible inaccuracy of his representation of the
Queen's reactions. If nothing else, these instances arouse the suspicion
of any modern reader as to the truth-value of Mulcaster's observations.
Further investigation bears out such a suspicion.
*
-
Richard Mulcaster's pamphlet produced in order to commemorate Elizabeth's
pre-coronation procession, The Passage Of Our Most Drad Soveraigne
Lady Quene Elyzabeth Through The Citie Of London To Westminster The Daye
Before Her Coronacion, was commissioned by the London Corporation
in order to celebrate the occasion as well as to disseminate the message
of the spectacle enacted in the streets of the capital. The existent record
of Mulcaster's payment for his commission is interesting in many ways,
not least in the fact that it is made clear that the Queen herself received
a copy of his pamphlet:
The pamphlet appeared nine days after the procession itself, and seems
also to have been reprinted at some point later in the year, indicating
its popularity. The pamphlet provides us with a precise record of the
route taken between Fenchurch and Temple Bar, and describes the pageant
devices that took place en route, dramatic interludes performed on specially
erected scaffolds. Each of these devices took place as the Queen reached
them, who then proceeded further once each (interconnecting) interlude
came to an end. These theatrical performances took the form of various
allegorical representations of the Queen and her perceived functions:
Elizabeth's descent was illustrated in a vast rose
tree of the houses of York and Lancaster, there was a pageant in the
form of Virtues defeating Vices, another celebrated the Queen's devotion
to the biblical beatitudes, another showed a withered and a flourishing
landscape to typify a good and bad commonwealth and, finally, there
was a vision of Elizabeth as Deborah, consulting with her estates
for the good of her realm. (Strong, Splendour 25)
On reading the text in which these events are described, one is struck
particularly by the tone used, in terms of the emphasis that Mulcaster
puts upon the adoration and love shown by the procession's audience
for their new Queen.
-
Mulcaster's opening sentence records the entrance of the
Queen into the city, "richely furnished," and "most honourably
accompanied" by the splendour of "Gentlemen, Barons, and other
the Nobilite of this Realme, as also with a notable trayne of goodly and
beawtifull Ladies, richly appoynted" (Mulcaster 38). This immediately
communicates the spectacular nature of the event, a reality that Mulcaster
demonstrates by his recording of the audience's response to the procession's
entrance in his next sentence:
And entryng the Citie was of the People received marveylous entirely,
as appeared by the assemblie, prayers, wishes, welcomminges, cryes,
tender woordes, and all other signes, which argue a wonderfull earnest
love of most obedient subjectes towarde theyr soveraigne. (38)
Mulcaster makes it clear that this is not a love that travels in one
direction, but insists on its mutual nature, the Queen demonstrating
her love for the people "so that on eyther syde there was nothing
but gladnes, nothing but prayer, nothing but comfort" (38). He
continues in the same manner, perceiving the circulation of this mutual
adoration:
The Quenes Majestie rejoysed marveilously to see that so exceadingly
shewed towarde her Grace, which all good Princes have ever desyred.
I meane so earnest love of subjectes, so evidently declared even to
her Grace's owne person, being carried in the middest of them. The
People again were wonderfully rauished with the louing answers and
gestures of theyr Princesse, like to the which they had before tryed
at her first comming to the Towre from Hatfield. This her Grace's
loving behaviour preconceived in the People's heades upon these considerations
was then throughly confirmed, and indede emplanted a wonderfull hope
in them touchyng her woorthy Governement in the reste of her Reygne.
For in all her passage, she did not only shew her most gracious love
toward the people in generall, but also privately, if the baser personages
had offered her Grace any flowers or such like as a signification
of their good wyll, or moved to her any sute, she most gently, to
the common rejoysing of all lookers on, and private comfort of the
partie, staid her chariot, and heard theyr requestes. So that if a
man shoulde say well, he could not better tearme the Citie of London
that time, than a stage wherein was shewed the wonderfull spectacle,
of a noble hearted Princesse toward her most loving People, and the
People's exceding comfort in beholding so worthy a Soveraigne, and
hearing so Prince like a voice ... could not but enflame her naturall,
obedient, and most loving People....Thus therefore the Quenes Majestie
passed from the Towre till she came to Fanchurche, the People on eche
side joyously beholdyng the viewe of so gracious a Ladye theyr Quene....
(38-9)
This account of an exchange of reciprocal love has been reproduced
at some length in order to show how Mulcaster delineates for the reader
an occasion characterised by its unproblematic and implicit acknowledgement
of degree, indeed its effusive celebration of hierarchy. In this account,
the Queen has already been successful in gaining the support and love
of her subjects, has already won them over, is already the fulfilment
of their desire to be justly and nobly ruled. However, while this excerpt
articulates both the skill with which Elizabeth presented herself publicly,
and the sense in which this presentation took place in a theatrical
setting, it is the question of Mulcaster's accuracy that I wish to focus
upon. This accuracy is compromised when his version is juxtaposed with
the two other eye-witness accounts of the event.
-
The letters of the Venetian Ambassador to England of the time, Il Schifanoya,
to the Castellan of Mantua, and a two page entry which appears in Henry
Machyn's Diary constitute these accounts, and they enable us
to gain a more coherent picture of the entire procession. Machyn's short
entry in his Diary describes the spectacular impression made by the
procession, as well as giving some detail about the pageants that took
place. Particularly useful in this context, however, is the account
of Il Schifanoya, which allows us to determine the approximate size
of the procession, the number of horses preceding the Queen being, in
the Ambassador's opinion, one thousand. He goes on to write that the
houses along the route were decorated in the Queen's honour, and that
lining this route were "merchants and artisans of every trade ...
in long black gowns lined with hoods of red and black cloth ... with
all their ensigns, banners, and standards, which were innumerable, and
made a very fine show" (12). Each participant in the procession
also displayed their symbols of office; keys, chains, pennants, and
various uniforms of status and affluence. The Queen's ceremonial guards
were all dressed in crimson silk, and there was also much satin, velvet,
and fur in evidence. The Queen herself, he says, appeared in "an
open litter, trimmed down to the ground with gold brocade" (12),
and that she was "dressed in a royal robe of very rich cloth of
gold, with a double-raised stiff pile, and on her head over a coif of
cloth of gold, beneath which was her hair, a plain gold crown without
lace ... covered with jewels..." (12). The importance of Il Schifanoya's
account in this present study, however, lies in his observation of one
particular pageant device and its difference from the same pageant as
reported by Mulcaster. The device in question is that which showed certain
virtues defeating their opposing vices, and the two accounts bear close
examination.
-
According to Mulcaster, after enjoying the first major pageant device,
entitled "The uniting of the two Howses of Lancastre and Yorke"
(42), the Queen proceeded to the Conduit in Cornhill, where she found
a child "representing her Majesties person, placed in a seate of
Governement, supported by certyne vertues, which suppressed their contrarie
vyces under their feete..." (44). The Queen's name and title were
displayed, as was the name of the pageant, "The Seate of worthie
Governance" (44). The figure representing Elizabeth sat in a chair
that was held by four "lively personages," each of whom in
turn represented a virtue, and each having "a table to expresse
their effectes..." (44). These virtues were named Pure Religion,
Love of Subjects, Wisdom, and Justice, and they
did treade their contrarie Vices under their feete; that is to witte,
Pure Religion did treade upon Superstition and Ignoraunce; Love of
Subjectes did treade upon Rebellion and Insolencie; Wisdome did treade
upon Follie and Vaine Glorie; Justice did treade upon Adulacion and
Bribery. (44)
Each of these, according to Mulcaster, had their name clearly displayed,
and were also "aptly and properly apparelled," so as to "expresse
the same person that in title he represented" (45). Every empty
space was "furnished with proper sentences," each "commendyng
the seate supported by Vertues, and defacing the Vices..." (45).
The verses spoken at this pageant give voice to the obvious allegorical
meanings desired by the pageant devisers, to the effect that "Vertues
shall maintayn thy throne, / And Vyce be kept down still..." (45).
The Queen is seen as the embodiment of all of these virtues and thus
the enemy to those vices. The use of these allegorical figures from
the medieval morality plays also has a further ideological effect here,
virtue being seen to reside in the Protestantism supplanting the Catholicism
associated with Mary's reign. While the drama of the pageant device,
along with the spoken verses and the posted explanations clarify the
overall ideological thrust of this representation, Mulcaster ensures
that the message is quite clear by informing us further:
The ground of thys Pageant was, that like as by Vertues (whych does
aboundantly appere in her Grace) the Quenes Majestie was established
in the seate of Governement; so she should sette fast in the same
so long as she embraced Vertue....For if Vice once gotte up the head,
it would put the seate of Governement in peryll of falling. (46)
Here various virtues, physically represented though, as the pageant
explanation tells us, embodied in Elizabeth, are shown to tread upon
and defeat their opposing vices.
-
The observations of Il Schifanoya are interesting in this respect,
as he reports that this particular pageant showed slightly different
figures to those outlined by Mulcaster. According to the Ambassador,
the vices presented were named "Ignorance, Superstition, Hypocrisy,
Vain Glory, Simulation, Rebellion and Idolatry," concluding that
the general message of the pageant was "that hitherto religion
had been misunderstood and misdirected, and that now it will proceed
on a better footing" (13). This religious interpretation of the
device differs from Mulcaster's political interpretation, and reveals
allegory's inherent plenitude of meaning. The Spanish Ambassador interprets
the allegorical device in his own way and according to his own (religious)
concerns. This plenitude is increased when it becomes clear that the
Ambassador actually read the name of one of the vices - "Hypocrisy"
- differently from Mulcaster. This could, no doubt, be a problem of
translation rather than mis-reading by either of the observers. However,
this is doubtful in that, of the vices named by Mulcaster, only "Bribery"
both resembles "Hypocrisy" and does not appear on the Ambassador's
list. Yet "Bribery" ("corruzione") does not translate
as anything like "Hypocrisy" ("ipocrisia"), the
two being in no way commensurate, but delineating rather different vices.
While it is possible that no deception was intended by either the Ambassador
or Mulcaster (unfortunately Machyn does not note the names given to
the allegorical figures), the latter may have wished to avoid using
the term "Hypocrisy" because of something which occurred later
in the procession and which gives the Ambassador's naming of it a much
deeper significance. For if "Hypocrisy" is set in the context
of the "Truth/Tyme" pageant device which was subsequently
performed, the procession itself becomes compromised by meanings that
Mulcaster, as the official recorder, had no wish to produce.
-
Elizabeth proceeded to the Little Conduit in Cheape, to the "Truth/Tyme"
pageant, which most analyses of the pre-coronation procession agree
to be the most important. Jean Wilson calls it the "crucial show"
(6), David Bergeron the "dramatic climax" (English
21), Sydney Anglo a "critical juncture" (351), and Helen Hackett
the pageant that generated the "greatest excitement" (43).
Indeed, the centrality of this particular device is clear given that
it is described in some detail in Machyn's Diary. The perceived
importance of this particular pageant is predominantly due to the fact
that Elizabeth made what is for many critics a crucial interjection
in the proceedings that demonstrated her ability both as an actress
and a wily political manipulator. The crucial moment, which has so impressed
critics throughout the ages, actually occurred before the allegorical
display had begun. Mulcaster writes that as Elizabeth reached the pageant
stages, she inquired what the pageant was meant to signify. On being
told that it represented "Time," Elizabeth felt compelled
to respond: "'Tyme?' quoth she, 'and Tyme hath brought me hether'"
(38). The importance of this interjection, where Elizabeth associates
herself with Time, is fully realised when it becomes clear that in the
action that then proceeded to unfold upon the pageant stage, an allegorical
figure representing Time brings forth a further allegorical figure,
the latter representing Truth. Thus Elizabeth clearly associates herself
directly with the embodiment of truth itself. While this may indeed
demonstrate Elizabeth's awareness of what would be contained in this
particular performance, for many critics this represents a master-stroke
in terms of self-representation. Thus Bergeron tells us that here "the
queen rises triumphantly to the dramatic occasion" (English
20), while Anglo believes she "played her part to perfection,"
demonstrating that she "was a true heir to her father in crowd-pleasing
showmanship" (351). However, these plaudits are not based on Elizabeth
associating herself with Truth alone, but upon a further piece of showmanship
that occurred later in the action of the performance.
-
The pageant device itself was made up of the representation of two
hills or mountains, the one on the north side being "cragged, barreyn,
and stonye; in whiche was erected one tree, artificiallye made, all
withered and deadde..." (49). Under the tree sat a mourning figure
in rags, over whose head was written his name, "whiche was, 'Ruinosa
Respublica,' 'A decayed Commonweale'" (49). Upon the tree hung
sentences "expressing the causes of the decaye of a Common weale"
(49). The southern hill in contrast was "fayre, freshe, grene,
and beawtifull, the grounde thereof full of flowers and beawtie,"
upon which stood a healthy tree, and under whom stood an "uprighte"
figure named "'Respublica bene instituta,' 'A florishyng
Commonweale'" (49-50). Between the two hills stood a cave out of
which, as the Queen arrived, "issued one personage, whose name
was Tyme, apparaylled as an olde man, with a sythe in his hande ...
leadinge a personage of lesser stature than himselfe," namely "'Temporis
filia,' 'The Daughter of Tyme'" (50). These two figures then
proceeded to the flourishing southern hill, the latter figure with her
true name, "Veritas" (Truth) written upon her breast.
In her hand she carried a book upon which was written "'Verbum
Veritas,' 'the Woorde of Trueth'" (50). A child standing upon
the southern hill interpreted the pageant in verse, to the effect that
the barren hill represented Mary's reign, and the flourishing hill,
now that Father Time had brought forth his daughter Truth, that of Elizabeth.
The verse proceeds to state that this truth is embodied in the Word
of Truth, the English Bible. This was then passed to Elizabeth, her
reaction upon receiving it being that further example of her ability
to be acutely politically manipulative. For, "as soone as she had
receyved the booke, [she] kissed it, and with both her handes held up
the same, and so laid it upon her brest, with great thankes to the Citie
therefore" (51). The dramatic nature of Elizabeth's behaviour here
underlines this political astuteness, demonstrating a commitment to
Protestantism, as well as to a general concept of legitimacy. And, in
this moment, she links those commitments both to the institution of
her monarchy, and to the powerful civic authorities.
-
The importance of this particular pageant, where the allegorical figure
of Time brings forth his daughter Truth, who embodies a flourishing
commonwealth, and whose presence dispels a decaying one, was indicated
by Mulcaster as a dramatic climax. Bergeron writes that Mulcaster
suggests that the meaning of this pageant is dependent on the previous
ones, the queen having already been instructed about unity, the virtues
which support the seat of government, and the blessings which accompany
her. (English 21)
The message of the pageant is quite clear: Elizabeth, the personification
of truth, brought forth by Time, relying on virtue and the word of truth
(the English Bible), will oversee the return to a flourishing nation
and the banishment of the decaying commonwealth representing Mary's
rule.
-
The quintessentially climactic moment for most pageant analysts comes
when the allegorical figure of Truth hands Elizabeth the English Bible,
which she proceeds to use with dramatic aplomb. According to Mulcaster,
a child who had recited verses explaining this pageant had held the
Bible and "reached his booke towardes the Quenes Majestie, whiche,
a little before, Trueth had let downe unto him from the hill; which
by Sir John Parrat was received, and delivered unto the Quene"
(50). This is both an interesting and defining moment. In descriptions
of the pre-coronation procession, the presence of "Sir John Parrat"
is frequently omitted, or he is referred to merely as an unnamed Gentleman
of the Queen. When he is named, it is, following Mulcaster, purely as
a conduit between "Truth" and Elizabeth, a mechanical agent
allowing the pageant message to be successfully accomplished. However,
in J. G. Nichols' study London Pageants, there is an interesting
footnote in his (confused and misleading) description of this pageant.
The footnote, appearing in connection with "Sir John Perrott"
in the main body of text, reads thus: "Who is supposed to have
been a bastard brother to the Queen; he was afterwards Viceroy of Ireland"
(London 56). That is to say then that the English Bible, "the
Woorde of Trueth," was passed from Truth, an allegorical figure,
to the sovereign, already both implicitly and explicitly identified
with "Truth," by the real figure of her bastard half-brother.
At the very centre of this valorisation of truth personified therefore
is a troubling representation of "Un-truth."
-
The presence of the real in these allegorical circumstances is a defining
moment, not least because it is not (only) a symbolic presence. Sir
John Perrot was no doubt chosen to play a central role in this display
because of the fact that he had sheltered Protestants during the reign
of Mary, an act that had seen him spend a short time in prison. However,
according to Hiram Morgan, "Perrot is best known ... for who he
may have been - the reputed son of Henry VIII..." (109). Morgan
stresses that "Perrot was popularly held to be his [Henry's] son,
being large in frame, choleric in temper, tyrannical in government and
a lady's man by inclination" (109). As proof, Morgan informs us
that there exist a number of records that show he was the son of Henry,
and he even floats the idea (which he finally rejects) that Perrot's
parentage (and thus claim on the throne) may well have been the reason
for his execution towards the end of Elizabeth's reign. Given his bastard
status, his appearance in the pre-coronation procession could have cast
a rather dim light on the tenuous nature of Elizabeth's claim to the
throne, as she had been disinherited by her (and Sir John's) father.
A contemporary audience would have been aware of Perrot's ambiguous
position, both in terms of such claims to legitimacy, and as a bearer
of Truth.
-
The presence of Perrot thus compromises this particular dramatic climax
and could be interpreted as encouraging the production of an alternative
message for a contemporary audience than that desired. Indeed, the hypocrisy
of the ruling elite could have been an entirely understandable and relevant
reading. Furthermore, such a reading produced in this allegorical moment
undermines the entire ideological project of the procession. If we recall
that, according to the Venetian Ambassador, one of the vices that Elizabeth
was to crush underfoot was indeed "Hypocrisy," and that Mulcaster,
in his official interpretation of the event did not delineate such a
vice, there emerges a counter-force in terms of interpretation that
problematises Mulcaster's official reading. Perrot's presence demonstrates
the hypocrisy that the ruling elite personified, and clarifies Mulcaster's
desire to avoid the use of this term. In reality, Perrot was not associated
with Mulcaster's "Bribery," but rather with Il Schifanoya's
"Hypocrisy."
*
-
The impact of the above examples on the truth-value of Mulcaster's
record of events extends to the most apparent aspect of his project,
the spontaneous adulation of the audience for their Queen. As stated
earlier, Mulcaster constantly emphasises this point, observing the "earnest
love of subjectes, so evidently declared even to her Grace's owne person,"
and the "common rejoysing of all lookers on," so that "there
was nothing but gladnes" (38-9). Such emphasis continues throughout
his pamphlet, the crowd being won over by the obvious virtue of the
Queen. The other eye-witness accounts of the procession cast doubt on
Mulcaster's observations in this respect however, when it is realised
that of the three accounts it is only Mulcaster who mentions the crowd
at all. In both the account of Il Schifanoya, and that which appears
in Henry Machyn's Diary, there is not a single mention of the
audience that defines the content and tone of Mulcaster's report and
that in many ways constitutes the ideological thrust of his whole project.
For Mulcaster, the presence of the audience is determining, emphasising
the mutual love that circulated between population and sovereign, defining
for us a unified population, content in its certainty of a rigid, secure
and natural hierarchy.
-
The absence articulated by these two eye-witness accounts obviously
needs to be considered and negotiated. What they fail to record is not
proof that the audience described by Mulcaster was in fact absent. Perhaps
they suggest rather something similar to what Glynne Wickham has observed
with regard to medieval processions:
The starting point [of a ruler's claim to rule] was the physical
manifestation of the ruler's person to the subjects assembled within
the capital city. This could most conveniently be achieved by a procession
through the streets which were lined for the occasion with beholders.
I say ' lined' rather than 'thronged' because the fullest discipline
that medieval civic administration could achieve was enforced on these
occasions. (1:53)
The early modern period had a much more sophisticated system of communication
(and coercion), but Wickham's observation is relevant. It should be
remembered that the decoration and gravelling of the streets, as well
as the actual presence of the members of the Guilds had been ordered
by the Lord Mayor. Thus the "City was at very great charge to express
their love and joy" (Nichols, Elizabeth 1:35), an order
that the Guilds were careful to adhere to for, as contemporary evidence
demonstrates, their failure to do so would have consequences: "Not
failinge hereof, as you will answere the contraire at your perill"
(folio 104). Such information concerning the presence of the Guilds
compromises the notion of the implicit agreement of all sections of
Elizabethan London to play their part in the event. Furthermore, it
questions the idea of the spontaneity of the celebration that is said
to have characterised the procession. The Guilds were simply ordered
to follow certain instructions.
-
Returning to the theme of audience, perhaps because it would have generally
been constituted by common people, they are absent in Machyn's and Il
Schifanoya's accounts. These recorders of the event, members of the
higher orders of society, perhaps viewed the procession in such a way
as to remain blind to the presence of the mob. It is possible that the
crowds of "adoring subjects" were simply not seen, or not
recorded, because it was felt that they were not important. Alternatively,
perhaps they were not recorded because they were, in fact, rather quiet,
rather un-celebratory, as the crowd had apparently been in 1533 for
the entry of Anne Boleyn (Smuts 76).
-
Whatever we wish to surmise regarding this absence, the reading of
these documents compromises Mulcaster's text, especially in terms of
what it actually makes out of the status of the audience. The emphatic
manner with which Mulcaster represents that presence is particularly
apparent in certain sections of the procession where Elizabeth continually
has difficulty in hearing and requests the crowd to be silent to enable
her to hear what is being said (to her) at the pageant devices. Elizabeth
is shown to be interested in listening to the lessons that were being
enacted, thus giving her the impression of being a good and obedient
sovereign, one who takes the views of her subjects into account. Her
ability as an effective actress is also stressed in this context, as
is her skill in manipulating the crowd. Finally, the fact that there
was so much cheering is interpreted as an indication of the love felt
for her by her subjects. However, not only are the crowds absent in
the other accounts of the procession, there is also no mention of the
Queen having to halt and quieten anybody, or having to send a messenger
forward to request silence at each pageant device as she approached,
as it appears in Mulcaster:
And ere the Quenes Majestie came wythin hearing of thys Pageaunt,
she sent certaine, as also at all the other Pageauntes, to require
the People to be silent. For her Majestie was disposed to heare all
that shoulde be sayde unto her. (44)
The final section of Mulcaster's pamphlet is particularly interesting
in this context, and reveals in its textual form the constructed nature
of his undertaking. This section takes the form of an addenda or an
appendix and is entitled "Certain notes of the Queenes Majesties
great mercie, clemencie, and wisdom, used in this passage" (58).
This appendix contains a number of examples of the Queen's interchanges
with certain members of the crowd during the procession, and lists her
responses to certain situations and comments she had overheard. Among
other things, she cheers up a crying man, smiles at the mention of the
name of her own father and confirms the authority of the city. These
various examples attempt to personalise the Queen, to underline her
caring nature, and to instil a sense of her integrity through communicating
the nobility of her thought even when expressed spontaneously. The fact
that they are tacked on to the end of the record of the procession induces
the perception that they could, in fact, have been invented events.
They appear almost as an afterthought, as though her humanity and approachability
had not been made apparent enough in the main body of the text. Yet
again however, none of these events are present in the other eye-witness
accounts of the procession, neither in the main texts nor in the form
of appendices. This is another example of that absence noted above,
but now with an added dimension. For stress should be laid upon the
fact that the report of Il Schifanoya is a very full description of
the procession and the pageants performed for the Queen. As such, it
is relevant that, within the context of such a full description, certain
defining moments and events (for Mulcaster) are entirely absent.
- The importance of re-reading Mulcaster's pamphlet becomes clear in the
light of the fact that his delineation of the audience, as well as his version
of the constitution of the pageant devices, have been transmitted throughout
history, being reproduced in a manner characterised by a focusing upon the
dominant and dominating figure of Elizabeth. This conventional reading of
the procession began almost immediately, as is demonstrated by its coverage
in Holinshed's Chronicles, where it is evident that Mulcaster's pamphlet
has simply been reproduced word for word. It begins:
At hir entring the citie, she was of the people receiued maruellous
intierlie, as appeared by the assemblies, praiers, wishes, welcommings,
cries, tender words, and all other signes which argued a wonderfull
earnest love of most obedient subiects towards their souereigne. (4:
159)
The text continues in this manner, mutual love obviously once more being
the overriding theme. Holinshed commissioned his Chronicle in 1570,
and it finally appeared in 1577, and was for many years regarded as historically
accurate. The propagandist nature of this work is underlined however by
the fact that it merely reproduces Mulcaster's report. It is important
also in the way that, through this reproduction, it initiates the construction
of a credibility around the truth-value of the events as produced by Mulcaster.
An incremental integrity is apparent in the casting as "truth"
of the initial "truth" of an earlier text, a reality that is
visible in the further transmission of those "truths" to our
own day. In his influential study of The Reign Of Elizabeth 1558-1603,
a part of The Oxford History Of England series, J. B. Black demonstrates
precisely this process of transmission, whereby assumed knowledge is passed
off as fact. Regarding the pre-coronation procession he writes: "From
the first day of her arrival in the capital ... the young queen revelled
in the enthusiastic loyalty of her subjects, feasting their eyes with
equipages....The popular rejoicing reached a climax on the eve of the
coronation..." (5-6). This is typical of the sort of statement regarding
the record of events that has traditionally appeared in historical writings,
as is clear from the influential works of J. B. Neale, E. C. Wilson, Frances
Yates, and Roy Strong. This is further evidenced by that most highly regarded
examination of processions to date, David Bergeron's English Civic
Pageantry 1558-1642, where, despite the disclaimer that Mulcaster's
pamphlet is indeed "a marvellous piece of propaganda" in which
"Elizabeth is seen in an extremely favourable light" (13) he
writes that from "Fenchurch to Temple Bar the sovereign has moved
through the city amid the shouts and acclamations of London's citizens"
(22). This behaviour demonstrates "a give-and-take ... an intimacy
of reaction," so that one "is impressed with how the elements
of actor, audience, and honoured guest fuse into a single compound of
entertainment..." (15).
-
This kind of admiration reaches its peak in the more hagiographic, popularising
studies of Elizabeth such as Alison Plowden's Elizabethan England:
Life In An Age Of Adventure. Here there is an attempt to bring the
occasion to life, filling it with pathos and melodrama: "It was a
cold January day, with flurries of snow in the air and muddy underfoot,
but no discomforts of cold or wet feet could dampen the enthusiasm of
the Londoners as they waited to greet their Queen..." (13). Plowden
grounds her observations in a historical context by then quoting from
a "contemporary account," the author of which (Mulcaster) she
does not name, nor indicates had written this account on a commission.
She continues: "Bells pealed, musicians played and everywhere the
crowds cheered in ecstasy as they caught their first glimpse of the slim,
red-headed young woman in her sumptuous robes..." (15). Much of the
contemporary account is further referred to until the procession comes
to an end: "And so, as the winter dusk closed in, borne along on
a great warm emotional wavecrest of love and joy, England's Elizabeth
came home..." (17). Plowden's study happens to be one of the most
pervasive accounts of the pre-coronation procession, and is certainly
one of the most accessible. It would indeed be possible to suggest that
its status as popular history disqualifies its being taken seriously,
and that its methodology and its aims do not require the attention to
bibliographical detail that more scholarly studies do. The desire behind
its use here is an attempt to outline the wide range that this conventional
knowledge covers, the success which typifies the transmission of this
body of evidence. And, with regard to Plowden's absences, it is interesting
to note that Stephen Greenblatt, when quoting from the very same source
in an attempt to support his theory of Elizabeth as successful actress
and processions as successful sites for impressing the population, informs
us that it was written by "one observer" (168). There is no
mention in Greenblatt's analysis, one of the most important modern academic
studies of the period, of who this observer was, nor indeed of the status
of his contemporary account.
-
The failure of Greenblatt and Plowden to state the ideological positioning
of their source material is important in terms of a further, similar lack
that is discernible. For while those scholars who acknowledge their use
of Mulcaster further agree that they are drawing upon a text characterised
by its function as propaganda, they immediately allow a slippage that
enables them to accept much, if not all, of what it says as fact. Thus
we can read Bergeron's disclaimer about the pamphlet being "a marvellous
piece of propaganda," and then, within the same sentence, that it
is "in addition ... a record of the events..." (English
13). As such, it is necessary to take it seriously not just as a record
of events, but as propaganda also. Indeed, given the evidence presented
above, Mulcaster's record of Elizabeth's pre-coronation procession should
not primarily be regarded as a record of events, but rather as a work
of propaganda.
Primary Sources
