For much of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I the repression meted out against Catholics increased almost annually. You can understand why the Queen might have been a bit annoyed with the Catholics – she might well have won the Spanish Armada, but even the joy of winning would have to have been tempered by the fact that these guys literally wanted her dead and were prepared to go to quite an extreme to assure that. A Pope had even named her in what we would probably call today a fatwa – making it virtually the religious responsibility of Catholics to try to kill her. She was considered a devil, not only for being a woman ruler (clearly considered a job that could only be done with the right set of genitalia intact – a view that was so wide spread that even Elizabeth thought of herself as an honorary man), but also a bastard and therefore out of contention for what was basically a holy office from birth – she had even been excommunicated from the Church. You know, the Catholic Church had not exactly done all that much to endear itself to her. Given her near absolute power, all this was hardly likely to be good news for the Catholics living in England. And it didn’t prove to be. On a near endless list of jobs with appalling OH&S standards in Elizabethan England, Catholic Priest surely was in the top ten list of most dangerous.James is perhaps my favourite Royal of all time – a king with more numbers than your average king being both James I and James VI, he also spoke with so broad Scottish accent that the English struggled to understand what he was saying. They found it just as hard to understand why he spent so much time chasing male Courtesans around his various palaces.When the old virgin finally died and was replaced by James I there was a general view (among the Catholics, at least) that life for England’s Catholics was likely to improve. And let’s face it, there was plenty of scope for improvement. Life for Catholics in England was pretty well intolerable. But their hopes for better days were based on the facts that James was both the son of Mary, who had died a Catholic, and also that he was married to a Catholic. There was even talk that he was just waiting to become King so he could do a Blair and convert to Catholicism. Things were looking up and James himself was helping to spread these rumours.And then? Well, then if anything things just got worse for Catholics. The repression didn’t slacken, it intensified. For the most part the Catholic Church called on its members to do the sorts of things that Churches in such situations often call on their members to do: stay calm, have patience and pray. And also typically, a group of youngish men decided that more direct action was called for. Of these young men Guy Fawkes (who had started calling himself Guido) was actually one of the least interesting. In one of those twists that history likes to play he become the symbol and supposed ring leader of the plot where in fact as he was always somewhat less than this. What seems to be obvious is that the plot had been discovered by the authorities a long time before it was set to ‘go off’, so to speak. It seems also clear that the gunpowder had actually deteriorated, something I didn’t know gunpowder could do, back into its constituent components and would never have blown up anyway – but more importantly, it seems clear that those responsible for making sure parliament did not blow up knew this was the case and knew it for a while before they chose to act. In fact, the only injuries caused by gunpowder by this plot (both figuratively and literally) was to some of the plotters themselves who spread their gunpowder out to dry as they were being hunted by the authorities and found it caught alight and effectively incinerated them. It also seems clear that the authorities dragged their feet in ‘discovering’ the plot and that they probably did this because they knew there was nothing to fear in any case. It seems those in charge had decided that there was a psychologically impressive moment for such a discovery and announcement and that everything was arranged so as to ‘discover the plot’ at that best of all moments. As I’ve said, the plot was actually carried out by a small group of radical young Catholic men. It did not have the support of the majority of Catholics in England, nor was it supported by Catholic powers abroad, nor by Catholic doctrine, nor by the Jesuit priests working in England at the time. Yet all of these groups, particularly the Jesuits, would be blamed and punished for their ‘involvement’ in this treason and outrage. There is an interesting point made here about the Porter’s scene in MacBeth and its constant talk of equivocators which is a direct reference (and one I’d never known before) to this plot. The whole question of equivocation is fascinating.Ms Fraser wrote this book in 1996 – as it turns out, five years too early for us to be able to play that most satisfying of games, the ‘we learn nothing from history’ game. The government’s attempts to tarnish the adherents of an entire religion on the basis of the actions of a few radical extremists, the efforts made to contort the ‘doctrine of equivocation’ (a necessity in a land where you could be put to death for admitting to being Catholic) so as to make it seem like all Catholics were essentially liars and the disproportionate punishment of civilian populations so as to make them pay for the excesses of a small number of extremists have so many parallels with today it seems pointless listing them.This really is a story of our times played out long enough ago for most of us to be able to see past the petty loyalties of religious nutters to the equally horrifying games played in the name of politics – well, by ‘most of us’ I obviously don’t include the crazies of Northern Ireland, say, who are still fighting the same wars. (Oh, did I say crazies, I meant family and fellow countrymen, but then, that is much the same thing) This is a story of our times because it shows how easy it is to manipulate people on the basis of fear of an out-group and how those in power love to play precisely these games so as to enhance their power. Unlike September 11, however, the only people hurt by the Gunpowder Plot were Catholics, whereas with September 11 merely most people hurt by it have proven to be Muslim. The gleefulness with which authorities of the day set about persecuting those suspected of being involved in this plot – obviously not unlike the gleefulness with which we invaded Iraq - was likewise inversely proportional to the level of responsibility these Catholics had for the plot.I’m not arguing that there was no plot – though, it appears that this is something that has been argued by historians since the days of the plot itself – but rather that it seems clear the Jesuits were not involved in the plot and yet those priests captured were tortured and put to death in the most unimaginably cruel ways. They suffered just as those who did plan the plot suffered. The authorities knew all along they had bigger fish to fry than those directly responsible and if the truth had to be somewhat manipulated to make the noose fit, well, there was plenty of rope. Colin Powell’s legacy destroying speech to the UN comes to mind.This is my first book by Antonia Fraser and I must seek out more. I’ve only just discovered that she not only writes history, but also fiction (crime novels, no less) and was married until his death to Harold Pinter. This book is subtitled, Terror and Faith in 1605, but as I’ve said really ought to have been written following 911 – all the same it makes for fascinating, disturbing and depressing reading.
I bought this book after a trip to the beautiful city of York (Guy Fawkes’ home town) when I realised that I knew shamefully little about this important period of British History. This book has definitely put that right as it is not only filled with interesting details of the plot itself but also gives an excellent briefing on the state of the nation (and in particular what life was like for British Catholics) in the years beforehand. This is essential because you need to have some appreciation of why anyone would consider committing such an horrific crime.Antonia Fraser gives a very balanced appraisal of everything; she laments the persecution experienced by the Catholic community but doesn’t shy away from calling the conspirators traitors. Fraser also uses a modern term and describes them as terrorists, which gives quite an interesting twist to tale. You can’t help but compare the events of 1605 to our 21st Century troubles with those prepared to use indiscriminate violence for religious reasons. The chapters of the book that deal with the interrogation, torture and various punishments, meted out (not only to the plotters but seemingly everyone they ever met) also begs the question of how far is too far when dealing with suspected terrorists. Something which is often discussed today.Thankfully, it appears that the “Powder Treason” was never very likely to succeed as not only was the wily Robert Cecil forewarned but it is said that the gunpowder had degraded so much that it would not have exploded. Also, I think that the plotters were a bit naive about what would have happened afterwards. They seemed to think that they could kill hundreds of people and that things would change for the better overnight. It is far more likely that they would have sparked a civil war that could eventually have claimed thousands of lives. However misguided they may have been they were exceedingly brave and committed people.This is a well researched book and the key events are related in an engaging manner. Fraser covers some of the conspiracy theories linked to the plot and asks some of the big “what if?” questions. There are lots of colourful anecdotes, sad stories and gory details. She also reveals the innocent links that Shakespeare’s family had with some of the plotters and shows how his later work (particularly MacBeth) was influenced by the extraordinary events. It’s an enjoyable read, although the bits about torture and the traditional “traitor’s death” make you shudder! I also recommend anyone who is interested in history to visit York which is a fascinating place.
What do You think about The Gunpowder Plot (2002)?
The Gunpowder Plot is something I have always wanted to understand, and now I feel I have a good grounding in it. Fraser's book is clear about the mechanics of the Plot: who, what, where and how. what she excells in the the Why? James I coming to power and the Catholics' role in society were the prime reasons. She lays out the timelines, the players, but also as much as we can understand of their motives and mindsets, and what were the motives of the prosecuters as well. So now I feel like I know WHY I should always remember the 5th of November.
—Serena
Remember, remember, the Fifth of November, the gunpowder treason and plot….or, as contemporaries called it, the Powder Plot. Its scale, for the 16th century, was ambitious, especially so for its novelty. No one-shot assassination, in this scheme at least thirteen conspirators worked together over a course of several months on a plan that would simultaneously involve kidnapping a royal princess and blowing up Parliament – killing, in one fell swoop, King James, his son the prince, the royal ministers, and the assembled lords of England. The plan was undone by a mysterious letter, but even its collapse was exciting, featuring explosions and a shootout before legal trials wiped up the last of those involved. What possessed these men on such a murderous undertaking? Faith and Treason is an excellent history of the affair, prudent and compassionate. While no one would fault Antonia Frasier for heaping abuse on men who knowingly plotted the death of innocents, who intended to create widespread confusing by massacring the entire government of England and then conspiring with foreign powers to impose order, she does not. She simply tells the story of what happened with an eye for understanding why, and much of it seems to be misplaced youthful bravado, matched with the Crown’s longstanding persecution of religious minorities and the crushed hope of James' about-face from earlier tolerance. The tale is a tragedy, not only for the misguided aims of these men who were foolish enough to think anything good could come of obliterating a nation's entire corpus of leadership, but because it backfired. Despite the urging of the Pope for English Catholics to live in peaceful hope, despite the general lack of restiveness among their populace, and despite the fact that the closest potential European allies (Isabella and Albert) had little interest in meddling in English affairs, the conspiracy persisted. In its wake, Catholicism bore the taint of treason, and would suffer it for two centuries more. Fraser's history is remarkable for its lack of vitriol, and thorough depiction of how the plan came together piece by piece, man by man, and then abruptly fell apart.
—Stephen
A good conspiracy mixed with passionate religious fervor, international intrigue, a new king, and a plot to blow up the nation’s center of government – well, it makes for a fascinating tale.The Fraser telling is thorough, factual, presented in excellent written discourse. Some may find complex and even tedious the finagling of a few families and Jesuits, the subtle religious politicizing, and hereditary conniving. Readers may need to look up the meaning of “recusant” and “misprision” of treason; they will receive a half chapter discoursing on the meaning of “equivocations.” Fanatics, spies, espionage, nobles and priests, hidden rooms in great houses, invasion rumors and escape plans, all were afoot during 1605. Taken together, they constitute the underlying basis for the Catholic pressures and eventually the Gunpowder Plot. What contentious times! What an explosive plot! What a wild story in its various dimensions! No wonder the event remains famous four centuries later. The illustrations help the book with reality. The ancestral trees and the map of the conspirators’ bases in the English Midlands also help. Torture by starvation, use of manacles to hang a person, breaking on the rack, and the process of quartering the living body provide detail. The painful confessions and gruesome killing of the thirteen traitors add to the actuality in the conclusion of this insurrection. The book is “popular” in the sense that events can be readily followed even through the clouded plotting. This is history written in its finest style. Fraser demonstrates her outstanding historical and literary skills.
—David
