'A thundering sin of fire and brimstone' (James I to Parliament on 9 November 1605)
Antonia Fraser's 'The Gunpowder Plot' is in many ways an excellent study of a mystery in English history which is too easily dismissed as 'cut and dried'. It is well-written with ready access to identities of source materials.
Antonia Fraser explains the links between leading recusant families and stresses produced on them by the role played by women. She notes how many preserved their Catholicism under an Anglican front during the reign of Elizabeth. But she also describes how many disappeared overseas, to Louvain and Douai as well as the armies of Spain. She stresses how James I, perhaps far from being 'the wisest fool in Christendom' (Henry IV), was a skillful manipulator of opinion with a batch of (undelivered) promises and a torrent of encouraging words and preferments which kept the lid on the boiling kettle, at least initially. Linked to this is the stress given to a FAMILY-based monarchy after the arid decades of rule by the 'Virgin Queen'.
Antonia Fraser stresses the family bonds uniting the conspirators - except for a few outsiders, notably Guy Fawkes. She minimises the role of priests and the Sacrament in the whole affair - undoubtedly overplayed by the authorities in their shock after 5 November 1605, with the extra motivation to at opposition strike as widely as possible. She rejects the tale of an attempted digging of an underground passage from rented quarters to the cellars under the Palace of Westminster. One might ask if anybody, outside the distorting world of fanaticism, ever believed in any such idea - how to dispose of the debris, how to direct the passage, how to supply the props and expertise required are just a few of the objections.
Be that as it may, Antonia Fraser makes it clear that failure followed expansion of personnel which led to betrayal to Monteagle and so to the authorities. She states the informant was Francis Tresham - later and whom she castigates as a 'wayward, treacherous and perhaps ultimately self-hating character' . Nevertheless, this betrayal was not THROUGH the letter TO Monteagle because she alleges it was written through his agency - not his own handwriting but produced possibly at his dictation. Then he could surrender that document to Robert Cecil (in charge of security) who EVENTUALLY showed it to the King. Note the delay and link that with the author's argument that the plotters knew they'd been betrayed but Catesby pushed through the operation. That delay is the mystery to me. Firstly, did Cecil delay because of doubt about the royal reaction? Elizabeth wouldn't have hesitated to smash a recusant plot but James was negotiating a treaty with Spain and had 'played' with known recusants. Secondly, why didn't the plotters cut and run, leaving Catesby, and anybody mad enough to help him, to face the consequences? The author doesn't really deal with those questions.
Guy Fawkes was seized about midnight on 4-5 November and Parliament's session was delayed to 9 November. Within hours eight names of conspirators were known. 'It is of course impossible to be certain how much of this process was helped on by Tresham's confidences to Monteagle' declares Antonia Fraser whose style reveals the weakness of the accusation. Fawkes aka Johnson is not included in the list so does that mean that Monteagle/Tresham didn't know about that key-figure? The author makes no comment. Guy Fawkes 'beginneth to speak English' (Hoby) reveals that he was broken by the rack two days later. He produced a series of confessions, with signatures worsened by the application of a thumbscrew, which eventually included the name of Francis Tresham. Meanwhile the plotters rode around the country like beheaded chickens until cornered at Holbeach House in Staffordshire. There ironically several were injured by exploding gunpowder and the chief participant, Robert Catesby, was killed. Incidentally I was unaware of the official transfer of gunpowder on 7 November from Westminster to the Tower of London. However, my sceptical mind wonders why no description in diaries or letters apparently appears regarding a key event linked to what must have been the sensation of the day.
Other plotters were speedily rounded up and clearly much of the accompanying zeal arose from personal spite or private gain. These were interrogated in the Tower, largely by its new Governor, Sir William Waad, who'd been 'involved in the discovery of the major conspiracies of late Elizabethan and early Jacobean times' and so, the author hints, was untrustworthy. Regarding the major confession used by historians, Antonia Fraser remarks ' that Tom Wintour by now was remembering what he was told to remember' and the whole document is suspect. Largely thanks to the confession of Thomas Bates the affair was transformed into the 'Case of the Conspiring Jesuits' - and that is the nub of the whole business for Antonia Fraser.
Initially Catholics were not blamed en masse for the 'Powder Treason' but that leniency disappeared as the role of Jesuits became high-lighted. The contradiction underlying this canard appears to be one of the main points of the book; repeatedly she denies priests had knowledge of the plot, asserts their rejection of any such resistance and fiercely divides English Catholicism into a large majority prepared to work their way around restrictions imposed after 1559 and a distinct minority prepared to attempt violence.
However, although the author dwells long on the miserable life experienced by Catholic recusants under Elizabeth, you will find no mention in her pages of the Ridolfi(1571), Throgmorton (1563) or Babbington (1586) plots , largely inspired by the Papal Bull (Regnans in Excelsis) of Pius V which 'deposed' the Queen - and which fizzle out after the execution of her rival, Mary Stuart, in 1587. All these plots saddled Catholics, justifiably or not, with the whiff of treason. Indeed the only plot appearing in the index is the 'Popish Plot, a fraud perpetrated by Protestant liars in 1679 - although it does cover the indecisive 'Main' and 'Bye' plots of 1603 against James. There's no mention of the Marian persecutions of 1555-8 and very little of the Spanish Armada (1588) and little mention of the Dutch struggle vs. the Spanish which originated in persecution nor of St. Bartholomew's Eve (1572), a key episode of the French Religious Wars. Just after describing the arrest of Guy Fawkes Antonia Fraser describes at length the application of torture by Protestants towards Catholics without a single mention of the reverse - e.g. the racking of Ann Askew in 1545. There's no mention of the harassment suffered by the Puritans, also victims of Elizabeth's 'via media' politics. Antonia Fraser does examine the split between Catholics backing Jesuits (and so, usually, Spain) and the 'Appellants' stressing their loyalty - note this split occurs AFTER the defeat of the Armada.
The last parts of the book are concerned with the fates of the plotters and, more importantly, with those on the periphery, namely family members, friends, bystanders and Jesuits. Much of the evidence produced borders on the hagiographical and you could be reading the life of a 6th century saint or the account of a Marian martyr culled from the pages of Foxe for all the reliability / scepticism you may choose to exercise. For the cruelties inflicted on guilty and innocent alike you might compare not only the activities of the Gestapo, NKVD or Savak but also, perhaps, by the opponents of Al Qaida. For the way the innocents are dragged into the mire of public opprobrium or severe punishment consider the Show Trials under Stalin or the efforts of McCarthyism. Add to that the primitive / direct approach pursued by governments of the period generally - e.g. vs. heretics and witches. No spying on emails, cctv or phone hacking was available to secure conviction, unlike today. A good case would be that of the Jesuits, so strongly supported by the author; some were agents of Spain, some were supporters of claimants to the throne and some were merely trying to administer religious rights to the faithful in a hostile environment - to make matters worse, some Jesuits might be all three! So how can we distinguish them? We can't - and nor could the interrogators of the time. Of course, the authorities lied, forged documents and cheated to get the convictions of both guilty and innocent, but the same thing happens today.
In the last chapter Antonia Fraser considers 'Satan's Policy' and describes the injustices piled on Catholics since 1605, not only a disgraceful burden placed on the innocent but also a disastrous loss of talent and service to the community. She also discusses the wide variance in historiography but appears to have forgotten that no piece of evidence can ever be seen in isolation but is examined on the basis of previous experience. I would like to think that both she and myself prefer a position on the fence of judgement when dealing with this slice of History but consider her last paragraph:
'The study of history can at least bring respect for those whose motives, if not their actions, were noble and idealistic. It was indeed a 'heavy and doleful tragedy' that men of such calibre were driven by continued religious persecution to Gunpowder, Treason and Plot'. To this I would quote, 'By their fruits you shall know them' (Matt:7,10) Has Antonia Fraser fallen off that fence?
In sum, this is a biased book and justifiably so because, as we all should know,' History is written by the winners' (Napoleon)and Catholicism 'lost' in Tudor and Stuart England. So this work may try to provide a balance. Antonia Fraser makes fine use of the sources but how trustworthy are they? The reader can judge according to a predisposition or by critical examination of the materials. Antonia Fraser attempts the latter but, I fear, is undermined by the former. That's why I give the book 4 stars..
無料のKindleアプリをダウンロードして、スマートフォン、タブレット、またはコンピューターで今すぐKindle本を読むことができます。Kindleデバイスは必要ありません。
ウェブ版Kindleなら、お使いのブラウザですぐにお読みいただけます。
携帯電話のカメラを使用する - 以下のコードをスキャンし、Kindleアプリをダウンロードしてください。
著者について
著者をフォローして、新作のアップデートや改善されたおすすめを入手してください。
他の国からのトップレビュー
BobH
'A thundering sin of fire and brimstone' (James I 1605)
2013年2月17日に英国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
Robert Lee
Excellent service.Great VFM.
2023年11月6日に英国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
Michael Bully
A flawed classic, but perhaps over sympathetic to the Plotters
2020年10月4日に英国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
Elaine
Too much royalty
2022年11月18日に英国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
Mrs. S. Crossley
Great read
2022年8月20日にアメリカ合衆国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
