siria's review against another edition
4.0
Remember, remember, the 5th of November; Gunpowder, treason and plot...
At first glance, it might seem a little odd that I am reading a book so closely connected with November and Bonfire Night at the beginning of August. But although Fraser manages to untangle much of the still confused circumstances and events which made up the Powder Treason, this book is a lot more than a simple recounting of the events of 1606. She places them in the context of a continuum of events dating back to the reign of Elizabeth I, and traces their impact and influence all the way down to the modern day, looking at the struggles associated with being part of a minority - a Catholic - in a country where that had been the majority religion not a hundred years before. The terrors and vagaries of life as a recusant, and the tangled webs of recusant gentry society, are also examined.
The most important and most intriguing part of the book, to my mind, though, was when Fraser looked at the question of what kind of faith, what kind of beliefs are they, that would drive a group of men to commit mass murder. That's been a question for a long time where I live, and has rarely been more relevant in the rest of the western world. It's not an easy question, either to ask or to answer; and Fraser does not, in fairness, really try to answer it. She displays the evidence to the best of her ability, and leaves it up to the reader to make up his or her own mind - and that's the best kind of history writing.
At first glance, it might seem a little odd that I am reading a book so closely connected with November and Bonfire Night at the beginning of August. But although Fraser manages to untangle much of the still confused circumstances and events which made up the Powder Treason, this book is a lot more than a simple recounting of the events of 1606. She places them in the context of a continuum of events dating back to the reign of Elizabeth I, and traces their impact and influence all the way down to the modern day, looking at the struggles associated with being part of a minority - a Catholic - in a country where that had been the majority religion not a hundred years before. The terrors and vagaries of life as a recusant, and the tangled webs of recusant gentry society, are also examined.
The most important and most intriguing part of the book, to my mind, though, was when Fraser looked at the question of what kind of faith, what kind of beliefs are they, that would drive a group of men to commit mass murder. That's been a question for a long time where I live, and has rarely been more relevant in the rest of the western world. It's not an easy question, either to ask or to answer; and Fraser does not, in fairness, really try to answer it. She displays the evidence to the best of her ability, and leaves it up to the reader to make up his or her own mind - and that's the best kind of history writing.
xxstefaniereadsxx's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
3.0
The Gunpowder Plot refers to a conspiracy to blow up the House of Lords and King James I, on November 5, 1605, by some English Catholics that were led by Robert Catesby. One of his co-conspirators was Guy Fawkes, a man who had ten years of military experience, and who was the one that was in charge of the explosives. Fawkes was discovered guarding thirty six barrels of gunpowder, and was tried and sentenced for his failed assassination. This date is now known as Guy Fawkes Day, and is celebrated with fireworks, which is kind of...ironic.
I won't get into many of the details and background of how this plot came to be and what happened with the rest of Catesby and Fawkes' cohorts, but the story is very interesting. I am in the United States, so this was not something that was ever mentioned in any of my classes. I remember briefly reading about it once I started my World History major, but nothing as in depth as this book goes. I personally really like the work of Antonia Fraser, which is always properly researched and entertaining to read. I always learn a lot from the books that are written by her, and this one was no exception. I hate that I took forever to get around to reading this one.
I won't get into many of the details and background of how this plot came to be and what happened with the rest of Catesby and Fawkes' cohorts, but the story is very interesting. I am in the United States, so this was not something that was ever mentioned in any of my classes. I remember briefly reading about it once I started my World History major, but nothing as in depth as this book goes. I personally really like the work of Antonia Fraser, which is always properly researched and entertaining to read. I always learn a lot from the books that are written by her, and this one was no exception. I hate that I took forever to get around to reading this one.
nickfourtimes's review against another edition
4.0
1) "Sunday 20 May 1604 was the fateful date. On this day a meeting was held between Robin Catesby, Tom Wintour, Jack Wright, Thomas Percy and Guido Fawkes. Although the band of conspirators would eventually amount to an ill-omened thirteen, these five were regarded as the prime movers of the plot that followed, with Catesby as their inspirational leader and Wintour as adjutant. This meeting, which kick-started the Powder Treason into life, was held at an inn called the Duck and Drake, in the fashionable Strand district, where Tom Wintour stayed when he was in London."
2) "On 28 July Parliament was prorogued by proclamation yet again. It would not now meet on 3 October as had been intended for the last six months, because it had been decided that 'some dregs of the late contagion' (the plague) still lingered in the capital. Since people were accustomed to return to London around All Hallows – 1 November – the new date chosen, which was in fact the third projected date, was Tuesday 5 November."
3) "Then on Saturday 26 October, apparently thanks to an obscure and ill-written letter delivered under cover of night to Lord Monteagle, everything changed.
The text of this 'dark and doubtful letter', as it would later be termed, was as follows:
'My Lord, out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care of your preservation. Therefore I would advise you, as you tender your life, to devise some excuse to shift of your attendance at this Parliament; for God and man hath concurred to punish the wickedness of this time. And think not slightly of this advertisement, but retire yourself into your country [county] where you may expect the event in safety. For though there be no appearance of any stir, yet I say they shall receive a terrible blow this Parliament; and yet they shall not see who hunts them. This counsel is not to be condemned because it may do you good and can do you no harm; for the danger is passed as soon as you have burnt the letter. And I hope God will give you the grace to make good use of it, to whose holy protection I commend you.'"
4) "It is Guy Fawkes who, in spite of having been generally known in his own time, including to the government, as Guido, has lent his forename to the stuffed, ragged figures on the pavement, whose placard solicits 'a penny for the guy', before being ritually burnt on 5 November. In all fairness, the reviled name should really be that of Robert Catesby, as leader of the conspiracy. But it may be some consolation to the shade of Guido, if it still wanders somewhere beneath the House of Lords, that Guy Fawkes is also the hero of some perennial subversive jokes as being 'the only man to get into Parliament with the right intentions'."
5) "It is not a position that the world can expect to see abandoned so long as the persecution of minorities – and for that matter of majorities – survives. Terrorism after all does not exist in a vacuum. 'I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness or because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people...' These are not the words of Robert Catesby, but mutatis mutandis they could in fact have been uttered by him had he lived to defend his actions to the world. This is in fact the speech, three hundred and fifty years later, of Nelson Mandela, in the dock for his leadership of the African National Congress, at the Rivoni Trial of 1964: he chose to quote it in his autobiography The Long Walk to Freedom as an explanation but not an excuse. [...] 'The hard facts were that fifty years of non-violence had brought [my] people nothing but more repressive legislation, and fewer rights.'
The Gunpowder Plotters were terrorists and they were defeated. They were not good men – by no stretch of the imagination can they be described as that. The goodness in this tragic episode belongs to the priests and lay brothers such as Nicholas Owen (Little John) and the heroic women. But, under different circumstances, they might have been very differently regarded. One might go to the opposite extreme and represent the Plotters as brave, bad men: but perhaps brave, misguided men is a kinder verdict which may be allowed at this distance of time.
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."
2) "On 28 July Parliament was prorogued by proclamation yet again. It would not now meet on 3 October as had been intended for the last six months, because it had been decided that 'some dregs of the late contagion' (the plague) still lingered in the capital. Since people were accustomed to return to London around All Hallows – 1 November – the new date chosen, which was in fact the third projected date, was Tuesday 5 November."
3) "Then on Saturday 26 October, apparently thanks to an obscure and ill-written letter delivered under cover of night to Lord Monteagle, everything changed.
The text of this 'dark and doubtful letter', as it would later be termed, was as follows:
'My Lord, out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care of your preservation. Therefore I would advise you, as you tender your life, to devise some excuse to shift of your attendance at this Parliament; for God and man hath concurred to punish the wickedness of this time. And think not slightly of this advertisement, but retire yourself into your country [county] where you may expect the event in safety. For though there be no appearance of any stir, yet I say they shall receive a terrible blow this Parliament; and yet they shall not see who hunts them. This counsel is not to be condemned because it may do you good and can do you no harm; for the danger is passed as soon as you have burnt the letter. And I hope God will give you the grace to make good use of it, to whose holy protection I commend you.'"
4) "It is Guy Fawkes who, in spite of having been generally known in his own time, including to the government, as Guido, has lent his forename to the stuffed, ragged figures on the pavement, whose placard solicits 'a penny for the guy', before being ritually burnt on 5 November. In all fairness, the reviled name should really be that of Robert Catesby, as leader of the conspiracy. But it may be some consolation to the shade of Guido, if it still wanders somewhere beneath the House of Lords, that Guy Fawkes is also the hero of some perennial subversive jokes as being 'the only man to get into Parliament with the right intentions'."
5) "It is not a position that the world can expect to see abandoned so long as the persecution of minorities – and for that matter of majorities – survives. Terrorism after all does not exist in a vacuum. 'I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness or because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people...' These are not the words of Robert Catesby, but mutatis mutandis they could in fact have been uttered by him had he lived to defend his actions to the world. This is in fact the speech, three hundred and fifty years later, of Nelson Mandela, in the dock for his leadership of the African National Congress, at the Rivoni Trial of 1964: he chose to quote it in his autobiography The Long Walk to Freedom as an explanation but not an excuse. [...] 'The hard facts were that fifty years of non-violence had brought [my] people nothing but more repressive legislation, and fewer rights.'
The Gunpowder Plotters were terrorists and they were defeated. They were not good men – by no stretch of the imagination can they be described as that. The goodness in this tragic episode belongs to the priests and lay brothers such as Nicholas Owen (Little John) and the heroic women. But, under different circumstances, they might have been very differently regarded. One might go to the opposite extreme and represent the Plotters as brave, bad men: but perhaps brave, misguided men is a kinder verdict which may be allowed at this distance of time.
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."
nickfourtimes's review against another edition
3.0
1) ''My Lord, out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care of your preservation. Therefore I would advise you, as you tender your life, to devise some excuse to shift of your attendance at this Parliament, for God and man hath concurred to punish the wickedness of this time. And think not slightly of this advertisement, but retire yourself into your country [county] where you may expect the event in safety. For though there be no appearance of any stir, yet I say they shall receive a terrible blow this Parliament; and yet they shall not see who hunts them. This counsel is not to be condemned because it may do you good and can do you no harm; for the danger is passed as soon as you have burnt the letter. And I hope God will give you the grace to make good use of it, to whose holy protection I commend you.'' #Anonymous letter received (possibly planted?) by Lord Monteagle, leading to the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot.
2) ''It is Guy Fawkes who, in spite of having been generally known in his own time, including to the government, as Guido, has lent his forename to the stuffed, ragged figures on the pavement, whose placard solicits 'a penny for the guy', before being ritually burnt on 5 November. In all fairness, the reviled name should really be that of Robert Catesby, as leader of the conspiracy. But it may be some consolation to the shade of Guido, if it still wanders somewhere beneath the House of Lords, that Guy Fawkes is also the hero of some perennial subversive jokes as being 'the only man to get into Parliament with the right intentions.'''
3) ''Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot.
I know of no reason why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.''
2) ''It is Guy Fawkes who, in spite of having been generally known in his own time, including to the government, as Guido, has lent his forename to the stuffed, ragged figures on the pavement, whose placard solicits 'a penny for the guy', before being ritually burnt on 5 November. In all fairness, the reviled name should really be that of Robert Catesby, as leader of the conspiracy. But it may be some consolation to the shade of Guido, if it still wanders somewhere beneath the House of Lords, that Guy Fawkes is also the hero of some perennial subversive jokes as being 'the only man to get into Parliament with the right intentions.'''
3) ''Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot.
I know of no reason why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.''
saydenie's review against another edition
4.0
I picked up this book after reading the play "Equivocation," which dealt with the same subject matter, because I wanted to know more about the history behind the Gunpowder Plot, or "Powder Treason" as it was known in its day. Antonia Fraser presents a fair and balanced portrayal of all characters involved, and only briefly touched on the many conspiracy theories. She neither vilified nor glorified the plotters, portraying them as "brave, misguided men." A very well-researched book that I would recommend to anyone interested in this area of history.
unisonlibrarian's review against another edition
5.0
Under the shadow of the new king, James I, many promises and overtures were made to Catholics in England, and Catholic leaders abroad. The feeling was one of hope, and the language was one of tolerance and acceptance. Much of this would turn out to be political positioning from an astutely political king and his court, nonetheless the mood in the nation was changing. Drifting in to this play acted out on the theological stage were the men who were to become the embodiment of historical notoriety, the hatchers of the treasonous plan known throughout the land as the Gunpowder Treason and Plot. Popular myth surrounds Guy Fawkes, seemingly as a man alone acting against the state, caught red handed in the cellars of the Houses of Parliament, waiting to blow the Royal Family and all the government ministers to smithereens. The real power and brains behind the plot was Robert (Robin) Catesby, a man of influential character who moved other men to act where they may not have otherwise, such as the usually placid Sir Everard Digby who always stood to lose more than he could gain from the plot. The dramatis personae of that fateful year of 1605 is a litany of rebellious people believing in a cause so strongly that they feared neither noose nor bullet on their trek. Indeed, comparisons with modern terrorists who seek political gain at the expense of the powerful, but also the innocent, is not without merit.
Antonia Fraser presents them, and their case sympathetically, particularly of the priests who knew what was to happen, but did not organise it themselves, and in many cases petitioned the ring leaders to call the terrible incident to a halt. The confessional being sacred, they had no obligation to tell the authorities what they knew. This would be their downfall in the end. The downfall of the perpetrators was more clear cut and inevitable than any could realise, thanks to the Machiavellian reach of Robert Cecil, later the first Earl of Salisbury, whose knowledge of what was to come was always more than he let on, even to the king, not unlikely for a man trained by the perennial Elizabethan spy, Sir Francis Walsingham. Fraser weaves the narrative superbly, as such it reads almost like a thriller, but ever with her characteristic touches of splendid research and wry humour, she also leaves no detail spared in the descriptions of the executions of the perpetrators. This is history telling at its best, forcing one to keep reading until the saddening but inevitable conclusion.
Antonia Fraser presents them, and their case sympathetically, particularly of the priests who knew what was to happen, but did not organise it themselves, and in many cases petitioned the ring leaders to call the terrible incident to a halt. The confessional being sacred, they had no obligation to tell the authorities what they knew. This would be their downfall in the end. The downfall of the perpetrators was more clear cut and inevitable than any could realise, thanks to the Machiavellian reach of Robert Cecil, later the first Earl of Salisbury, whose knowledge of what was to come was always more than he let on, even to the king, not unlikely for a man trained by the perennial Elizabethan spy, Sir Francis Walsingham. Fraser weaves the narrative superbly, as such it reads almost like a thriller, but ever with her characteristic touches of splendid research and wry humour, she also leaves no detail spared in the descriptions of the executions of the perpetrators. This is history telling at its best, forcing one to keep reading until the saddening but inevitable conclusion.
giamarang's review against another edition
5.0
I chose to read this book in high school as part of my humanities class. It just had to be something historical. Most kids chose biographies or more modern history, but I was really drawn to this era. I think I had recently watched for V for Vendetta, so the Gunpowder Plot was fresh in my mind. When I first found this book, I thought it was going to be boring and hard to get through, so I ended up putting it off until a few days before the assignment was due. But, it was not what I expected.
I could not put the book down. Maybe I am just a geek, but Fraser wrote this so well, as if it was fiction. It felt like a real story rather than just an account of dated events. There was depth, and I was engaged as a 16-year old. Now, at 20, I still think about this book from time to time and how I should really pick it up again. If you enjoy history and English uprisings/conflict, I highly suggest you read this or anything else by Fraser. I feel that their style is similar to that of Hilary Mantel's. Despite being non-fiction and historical, it reads like a fresh story.
I could not put the book down. Maybe I am just a geek, but Fraser wrote this so well, as if it was fiction. It felt like a real story rather than just an account of dated events. There was depth, and I was engaged as a 16-year old. Now, at 20, I still think about this book from time to time and how I should really pick it up again. If you enjoy history and English uprisings/conflict, I highly suggest you read this or anything else by Fraser. I feel that their style is similar to that of Hilary Mantel's. Despite being non-fiction and historical, it reads like a fresh story.