Remember, remember
The Fifth of November,
Gunpowder treason and
plot.
We still remember the Fifth
of November in Britain, even if it's only as an excuse to let off fireworks at
any time from the beginning of October to Christmas, but many people know little
about the event that sparked it all off.
The popular version is that a man called Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the
Houses of Parliament, but was discovered at the last minute. Although we celebrate the failure and burn
Fawkes in effigy, there tends to be a sneaking admiration for him whenever
politicians are being particularly aggravating. Guy Fawkes has been described as the only man who ever entered
Parliament with honest intention.
In fact, it was a lot more
serious than that. It's been suggested
that, had the plot succeeded, it would have been as devastating to 17th century
Britain as 9/11. More so, in fact, as
it would have taken out virtually the whole leadership of the country, as well
as a lot of innocent bystanders. And
Fawkes wasn't even its instigator.
The plot was formed between
a group of Catholic gentry from the Midlands — several were related to
Shakespeare through his mother's family, the Ardens. Under Elizabeth I, who died in 1603, Catholics had been forced to
pay fines but had generally been left to get on with their religion, as long as
they kept it behind closed doors. She
did become harsher after the Pope ordered that it was the duty of all English
Catholics to assassinate her, but there was no wholesale persecution.
Nevertheless, it was far
from an ideal situation for them, and many Catholics hoped for better when
James VI of Scotland became James I of England. He was the son of the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots, but his
education had been supervised by the arch-Calvinist John Knox. In fact, James rejected both extremes,
sticking with Elizabeth's middle-of-the-road Church of England.
Early in 1604, a meeting was
held between Robert Catesby, Thomas Wintour and John Wright, at which Catesby
proposed his plan to blow up Parliament on the day the King was due to open
it. In the months that followed, a
number of co-conspirators were recruited, including Guy Fawkes, also known as
Guido Fawkes, a staunchly Catholic soldier who'd been fighting for the Spanish
against the Dutch Protestants.
The plot was put on hold
when the expected session of Parliament was postponed several times because of
outbreaks of the Plague in London, but by the time the opening approached, on
5th November 1605, the plotters were ready.
The plan was to wipe out the King, his sons, the Privy Council, Lords,
Bishops and Common — and, as collateral damage, anyone else who happened to be
close by — and simultaneously raise a rebellion in the Midlands. The rebels would seize James's daughter,
Princess Elizabeth, and place her as their puppet on the throne. Elizabeth was later Queen of Bohemia and
known by evocative names like the Winter Queen and the Queen of Hearts; at nine
years old, though, she presumably wouldn't have had much of a say.
The popular rebellion was
probably nothing but wishful thinking, but the attack on Parliament could well
have succeeded. The problem was that
several of the plotters had friends of relatives in Parliament, and one broke
ranks and sent a warning to his brother-in-law that I say they shall receive
a terrible blow this Parliament; and yet they shall not see who hurts them.
When news of this came to
James, he took it very seriously. It
must have resonated with him — his father had been assassinated by being blown
up — and he ordered the cellars to be searched, a tradition still carried out
before the State Opening of Parliament, though only as a ceremonial relic.
The plotters had rented a
disused undercroft beneath Parliament and built up a large number of barrels of
gunpowder there, hidden under piles of firewood. Fawkes, the gunpowder expert, had stayed to set the fuse before
making his escape, while the rest had left London to prepare their rising. Guy Fawkes was caught waiting to lay his
fuse and arrested, while the rebellion fizzled out into a fight at Holbeche
House in the West Midlands, at which most of the plotters were either killed or
captured. All the survivors confessed
under torture and were hung, drawn and quartered.
There was some backlash
against Catholics in the short term, with the Jesuits being generally blamed
for the plot, although there's no evidence any Jesuit was directly
involved. In the long run, though,
there was no increase of persecution of Catholics — in fact, their lot improved
somewhat during James's reign, and he kept out of the Protestant Alliance in
the Thirty Years War, although his daughter was centrally involved.
From the first anniversary
of the plot, nationwide celebrations were held to give thanks for its failure,
and this gradually evolved into lighting bonfires to burn effigies of Guy
Fawkes, the main public hate-figure, or of the Pope. This seems to have been a deft hijacking of the fires of Samhain,
or Halloween, a few days earlier, at which an effigy of the Summer King was
burnt on a bonfire, a possible descendent of an actual human sacrifice (as I
discussed in more detail in my post last week).
Fireworks were let off as
part of the celebrations from early on — they contain gunpowder, after all —
and have now taken over as the main focus of the festival. Until recently, it was common for children
to take their "guy" around before burning it, asking for a penny
for the guy, but this seems to have largely died out, and burning effigies
in general is less common than it used to be.
Halloween rituals imported (or reimported) from America have largely
taken over at this time of year.
It's easy to sympathise with
the Gunpowder Plotters as persecuted men who only wanted religious freedom, but
this is a naive view. In modern terms,
they were terrorists who were willing to accept any level of slaughter, of the
innocent as well as their actual targets, and their objective was certainly not
toleration and freedom. It's probable
they'd have treated Protestants a good deal worse than Elizabeth or James had
treated them, and they'd almost certainly have snuffed out the early stirrings
of parliamentary democracy which, by the end of the century, were to lead to a
constitutional monarchy. History would
have been very different if Guy Fawkes had lit that fuse.
Some years ago, I wrote a
poem called Guy Fawkes, which appeared in my self-published collection Lessons
of History, which looks at him from all angles, from stuffed effigy to
terrorist to sacrificial king. I
thought it would be good way to finish this piece.
Guy Fawkes
silly
straw-stuffed face
crookedly
amiable
cries
in silent agony
as
stuck-out tongues of fire
gently
lick him
asking
why
in
his innocence
he
is falsely condemned
archetypal
anarchist
who
so nearly carried out
what
we dream of in anger
not
that we would but
just
suppose
and
so we burn him now
for
letting down our fantasy
king
for the day
or
a summer maybe
becomes
a shield against
fear
of age
of
non-renewing
and
this years hope turns to ash
so
that next years hope can grow
willing
sacrifice
the
cancer to be cut out
takes
on himself
the
fears of the world
dug
into the soil
hung
up on a tree
burnt
into the skies
thank
God it isnt me
he
lives between our dreams
hiding
behind our minds
he
slips among shadows
of
hopes and fears
and
triumphs at last
as
we feel the pain
of
a stuffed nothing
penny
for the guy
mister
penny
for your thoughts
Thanks for writing on this :)
ReplyDeleteThey don't teach us much about the Gunpowder Plot in the US, except that a guy (whose name was Guy) tried to blow up Parliament. I suppose it's unsurprising that there would be a certain amount of revisionism and romanticism about the Gunpowder Plot from some quarters. We sure get that about the Civil War in the US, and it's much more recent. I used to date a guy who had to be reminded from time to time that the US Civil War really WAS about slavery, and this in spite of his being a poly sci major.
There's much the same thing with the English Civil War - there's an old saying that the Royalists were "wrong but romantic" and the Parliamentarians were "right but repulsive".
DeleteIncidentally, the word "guy" meaning a man actually derives from Guy Fawkes. Because of the "penny for the guy" tradition, it was first used to mean an oddly dressed man, then any man.
I remember reading something that was set circa 1800s in the US where the term "guy" was used to describe a man who was gullible or stupid. "I felt like such a guy when he told me it was all a prank" or something like. Also, the concept of being the "fall guy," as in the one who takes the blame for something. This makes sense, given the word's history.
ReplyDeleteFunny how in the States, the word guy has become a casual synonym for a (usually younger) man or boy. In fact, it's pretty much replaced use of the word boy for anyone who isn't a little tyke. We talk about teenaged guys now more than teenaged boys (while the word girl still gets used for any woman young enough to be deemed sexually attractive by the media). Strange that the word guy would evolve so.
Actually, in trying to write fantasy where there is a certain amount of banter and casualness between chums, I've been struggling to find a casual word that young males would use to refer to themselves and one another that isn't guy, bloke, dude or some similarly modern word. I'm not having a lot of luck, but man just feels formal, and boy comes off as too childish.