What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gunpowder Plot: Terror and Faith in 1605
With a narrative that grips the reader like a detective story, Antonia Fraser brings the characters and events of the Gunpowder Plot to life. Dramatically recreating the conditions and motives that surrounded the fateful night of 5 November 1605, she unravels the tangled web of religion and politics that spawned the plot. 'Told with impressive scholarship and panache...The result is a narrative that is clear, balanced, and builds to its denouement with a sense of pace and tension worthy of a John le Carre novel' John Adamson, Sunday Telegraph
448 pages, Paperback
First published August 27, 1996
132 people are currently reading
2916 people want to read
About the author
Antonia Fraser
183 books1,493 followersAntonia Fraser is the author of many widely acclaimed historical works, including the biographies Mary, Queen of Scots (a 40th anniversary edition was published in May 2009), Cromwell: Our Chief of Men, King Charles II and The Gunpowder Plot (CWA Non-Fiction Gold Dagger; St Louis Literary Award). She has written five highly praised books which focus on women in history, The Weaker Vessel: Women's Lot in Seventeenth Century Britain (Wolfson Award for History, 1984), The Warrior Queens: Boadecia's Chariot, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, Marie Antoinette: The Journey (Franco-British Literary Prize 2001), which was made into a film by Sofia Coppola in 2006 and most recently Love and Louis XIV: The Women in the Life of the Sun King. She was awarded the Norton Medlicott Medal by the Historical Association in 2000. Antonia Fraser was made DBE in 2011 for her services to literature. Her most recent book is Must You Go?, celebrating her life with Harold Pinter, who died on Christmas Eve 2008. She lives in London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 187 reviews
November 17, 2009
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.
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.
Read
June 27, 2025Antonia Fraser here undertakes the difficult task of teasing out the true story of the Gunpowder Plot after centuries of distorting partisanship and myth. I found her effort deeply researched, compulsively readable, and quite convincing. I appreciate her intricate portrait of early Jacobean England, and her skillful illumination of the political and theological tensions that would give rise to a cell nativist Catholic terrorists bent upon obliterating the royal British government. She also does an excellent job placing the people and events surrounding the plot in a broader historical context. Reformation era England was Fraser's specialty. It shows. For the most part, she lets the known facts speak for themselves. Where she must deduce or speculate, her analysis always seems measured and plausible. The end result is a book that is sensational without being sensationalistic. It's exciting without needing to exaggerate. It bears the hallmarks of a well-chosen and expertly developed theme.
For all that the actual details are murky to most, the Gunpowder Plot is one of the signature events of British history. The foiling of the plot in 1605 is still celebrated, or lamented, as the case may be, every November. Thanks to Alan Moore (and the Wachowskibrothers sisters), Guy Fawkes, the most famous conspirator, gained global fame as the mascot for Occupy-era street protests worldwide. Yet oddly, a definitive dramatization of the true story, to my knowledge, remains to be created. What a fantastic film or long form series an account of the Gunpowder Plot might make!
Nor, that I am aware, has any science fiction writer ever used the Gunpowder Plot as a springboard for an "alternate history." This seems even odder. Imagine a parallel universe in which a band of terrorists had incinerated not just the king and crown princes of England, but the entire parliament to boot! The ramifications just stagger the imagination.
If you’re a creative writer looking for an under-exploited mine of dramatic gold, you’d do well to consider The Gunpowder Plot: Terror and Faith in 1605 by Antonia Fraser.
For all that the actual details are murky to most, the Gunpowder Plot is one of the signature events of British history. The foiling of the plot in 1605 is still celebrated, or lamented, as the case may be, every November. Thanks to Alan Moore (and the Wachowski
Nor, that I am aware, has any science fiction writer ever used the Gunpowder Plot as a springboard for an "alternate history." This seems even odder. Imagine a parallel universe in which a band of terrorists had incinerated not just the king and crown princes of England, but the entire parliament to boot! The ramifications just stagger the imagination.
If you’re a creative writer looking for an under-exploited mine of dramatic gold, you’d do well to consider The Gunpowder Plot: Terror and Faith in 1605 by Antonia Fraser.
December 4, 2025
Remember, Remember
We sing the song every year and celebrate the burning of Guy Fawkes on the bonfire. But what really happened? Is it myth, legend or history? Lady Antonia Fraser looks to peel back 400 years of English folklore in her The Gunpowder Plot to uncover the truth behind the failed 1605 conspiracy to blow up King James I (1603-1625) and the Houses of Parliament. In drawing on extensive archival research and a strong narrative instinct built up over decades of writing about history, I’ve felt that Fraser has been able to turn a complex historical episode into a vivid and compelling story.
That said, I have always found Fraser’s writing style can at times be surprisingly jarring and difficult to follow. This tendency appears across much of her work: long, winding sentences, abrupt shifts in focus, and an occasionally uneven narrative rhythm can interrupt the flow of reading. As a result I have often found myself re-reading sections to regain my footing. Yet this stylistic inconsistency coexists with a remarkable ability to bring history alive, and it’s worth noting that her clarity of intent often shines through even when the prose becomes knotty.
Fraser is strong when she comes to explain the deeper forces that led to the conspiracy and, ultimately, to its discovery. She situates the plot within the escalating frustration of English Catholics, who felt increasingly betrayed after James I failed to deliver the religious toleration many had expected. Fraser shows how this disappointment hardened into desperation among a small group of radicals convinced that only a dramatic, violent act could alter their community’s future. At the same time, she highlights the weaknesses in the conspirators’ secrecy: the growing number of participants, the loose spreading of information, and the now-famous anonymous letter warning Lord Monteagle. Fraser presents the uncovering of the plot not as a stroke of luck but as the almost inevitable consequence of its expanding scale and the intense atmosphere of surveillance and suspicion in Jacobean England. I appreciate this outlook, it’s more realistic.
Despite the occasional hurdles in her prose, what I really like about Fraser is that she excels at making challenging historical material accessible to the modern casual reader. She has a talent for stripping away the dry, antiquated elements and linguistic clutter that can make early-modern history feel remote. Instead, she foregrounds the human motivations and lived realities of the Gunpowder Plot’s central figures, such as Robert Catesby, Guy Fawkes, Thomas Winter, and others. Rather than presenting them as stock villains, she situates them within the broader context of religious persecution, cultural division, and political anxiety that shaped England in the early 17th century. What is interesting to me however, is that modern academics seem to forget the persecution of Protestants in Catholic Spain or France and even in Mary I’s (1553-58) England, as they are so desperate to portray a downtrodden desperate underclass of people in this story.
Her exploration of King James I’s complicated political landscape, marked by uncertain promises of religious tolerance, Catholic frustration, and the rise of state surveillance, adds further nuance to the narrative. Fraser’s ability to weave this context into the story helps illuminate the roots of the conspiracy without excusing its violence.
Overall, The Gunpowder Plot is a highly readable modern history of one of England’s most infamous conspiracies. Though Fraser’s stylistic quirks can disrupt the narrative, her commitment to making history approachable, vivid, and meaningful more than compensates. If you are willing to navigate the occasional rough patch in the prose, the reward is a richly contextualised and engaging account of faith, politics, and rebellion in early modern England.
We sing the song every year and celebrate the burning of Guy Fawkes on the bonfire. But what really happened? Is it myth, legend or history? Lady Antonia Fraser looks to peel back 400 years of English folklore in her The Gunpowder Plot to uncover the truth behind the failed 1605 conspiracy to blow up King James I (1603-1625) and the Houses of Parliament. In drawing on extensive archival research and a strong narrative instinct built up over decades of writing about history, I’ve felt that Fraser has been able to turn a complex historical episode into a vivid and compelling story.
That said, I have always found Fraser’s writing style can at times be surprisingly jarring and difficult to follow. This tendency appears across much of her work: long, winding sentences, abrupt shifts in focus, and an occasionally uneven narrative rhythm can interrupt the flow of reading. As a result I have often found myself re-reading sections to regain my footing. Yet this stylistic inconsistency coexists with a remarkable ability to bring history alive, and it’s worth noting that her clarity of intent often shines through even when the prose becomes knotty.
Fraser is strong when she comes to explain the deeper forces that led to the conspiracy and, ultimately, to its discovery. She situates the plot within the escalating frustration of English Catholics, who felt increasingly betrayed after James I failed to deliver the religious toleration many had expected. Fraser shows how this disappointment hardened into desperation among a small group of radicals convinced that only a dramatic, violent act could alter their community’s future. At the same time, she highlights the weaknesses in the conspirators’ secrecy: the growing number of participants, the loose spreading of information, and the now-famous anonymous letter warning Lord Monteagle. Fraser presents the uncovering of the plot not as a stroke of luck but as the almost inevitable consequence of its expanding scale and the intense atmosphere of surveillance and suspicion in Jacobean England. I appreciate this outlook, it’s more realistic.
Despite the occasional hurdles in her prose, what I really like about Fraser is that she excels at making challenging historical material accessible to the modern casual reader. She has a talent for stripping away the dry, antiquated elements and linguistic clutter that can make early-modern history feel remote. Instead, she foregrounds the human motivations and lived realities of the Gunpowder Plot’s central figures, such as Robert Catesby, Guy Fawkes, Thomas Winter, and others. Rather than presenting them as stock villains, she situates them within the broader context of religious persecution, cultural division, and political anxiety that shaped England in the early 17th century. What is interesting to me however, is that modern academics seem to forget the persecution of Protestants in Catholic Spain or France and even in Mary I’s (1553-58) England, as they are so desperate to portray a downtrodden desperate underclass of people in this story.
Her exploration of King James I’s complicated political landscape, marked by uncertain promises of religious tolerance, Catholic frustration, and the rise of state surveillance, adds further nuance to the narrative. Fraser’s ability to weave this context into the story helps illuminate the roots of the conspiracy without excusing its violence.
Overall, The Gunpowder Plot is a highly readable modern history of one of England’s most infamous conspiracies. Though Fraser’s stylistic quirks can disrupt the narrative, her commitment to making history approachable, vivid, and meaningful more than compensates. If you are willing to navigate the occasional rough patch in the prose, the reward is a richly contextualised and engaging account of faith, politics, and rebellion in early modern England.
August 29, 2015
“Remember, remember the fifth of November” is a little ditty that even those not living in England are familiar with. Guy Fawkes Day always stood out to me personally as it is the birthday of my estranged half-sister. However one relates to it; it is accepted as the Catholic conspiracy to “blow up” King James I of England. Antonia Fraser portraits this undeniable act of terrorism and those involved with it in, “Faith and Treason: The Story of the Gunpowder Plot”.
Fraser is a master at depicting historical events and thus continues to work her magic in “Faith and Treason”. Dividing the text into five parts; Fraser rehashes the inner workings of the Gunpowder Plot into a sort of detective/court case by exploring both the environmental background of the conspirators and the actual plot. Fraser uses an authoritative and scholarly voice and yet isn’t ‘dry’. The pace therefore moves in a steady and narrative way. It is undeniable that Fraser conducted deep and intricate research while avoiding speculation.
In the first section of “Faith and Treason”, Fraser sets the scene of England as James enters the realm and reveals the religious unrest circulating during this time period. For those readers hoping to immediately dive into the conspiracy; this may be a little sidetracking and bland (not to mention, overwhelming: as a lot of detail is involved). However, in doing so, Fraser sets the case and offers a well-rounded view into what actually played a role in the creation of the plot to begin with.
Fraser moves on in the second section by introducing the conspirators and revealing the formation of the plot in the third. “Faith and Treason” certainly picks up momentum at these points and reads almost like an exciting novel (but still in an academic way). Fraser has strong sleuth and debunking skills which offers new view points and angles to the reader. The only issue is that sometimes Fraser delves too much into detail and seems to stray on tangents. Some readers may, as a result, do some skimming.
Fraser’s explaining of the actual plot, movements of the conspirators, and the look at evidence is absolutely remarkable. “Faith and Treason” has an eye for historical detail and accuracy. Fraser is clear and concise leaving no stone being left unturned.
The striking issue with “Faith and Treason” is the constant references to plays, dramas, and Shakespeare. This is irrelevant and really has no place in an academic, scholarly writing. Playwrights were not historians and shouldn’t be references or alluded to (yet historians continue to do use them as such).
The concluding chapters of “Faith and Treason” are particularly strong as Fraser does well wrapping up the subject as a whole by updating on what happened to friends and family of the conspirators post-plot and also examining the reactions of England, other nations, dignitaries, etc; immediately afterwards and throughout history since. This certainly leaves “Faith and Treason” on a memorable note.
Fraser provides notes (although not annotated), a list of sources, and not one but three sections of color plates plus genealogical charts to help strengthen the text.
“Faith and Treason” is an overall well-written, unbiased, thorough look at the Gunpowder Plot that combines scholarly text with a readable accessibility. There are some tangents and dull moments but the reader is left with a plethora of knowledge on the topic plus an interest to seek out more information regarding the key figures. If one plans to read only one text regarding the Gunpowder Plot; then “Faith and Treason” should be the choice book.
Fraser is a master at depicting historical events and thus continues to work her magic in “Faith and Treason”. Dividing the text into five parts; Fraser rehashes the inner workings of the Gunpowder Plot into a sort of detective/court case by exploring both the environmental background of the conspirators and the actual plot. Fraser uses an authoritative and scholarly voice and yet isn’t ‘dry’. The pace therefore moves in a steady and narrative way. It is undeniable that Fraser conducted deep and intricate research while avoiding speculation.
In the first section of “Faith and Treason”, Fraser sets the scene of England as James enters the realm and reveals the religious unrest circulating during this time period. For those readers hoping to immediately dive into the conspiracy; this may be a little sidetracking and bland (not to mention, overwhelming: as a lot of detail is involved). However, in doing so, Fraser sets the case and offers a well-rounded view into what actually played a role in the creation of the plot to begin with.
Fraser moves on in the second section by introducing the conspirators and revealing the formation of the plot in the third. “Faith and Treason” certainly picks up momentum at these points and reads almost like an exciting novel (but still in an academic way). Fraser has strong sleuth and debunking skills which offers new view points and angles to the reader. The only issue is that sometimes Fraser delves too much into detail and seems to stray on tangents. Some readers may, as a result, do some skimming.
Fraser’s explaining of the actual plot, movements of the conspirators, and the look at evidence is absolutely remarkable. “Faith and Treason” has an eye for historical detail and accuracy. Fraser is clear and concise leaving no stone being left unturned.
The striking issue with “Faith and Treason” is the constant references to plays, dramas, and Shakespeare. This is irrelevant and really has no place in an academic, scholarly writing. Playwrights were not historians and shouldn’t be references or alluded to (yet historians continue to do use them as such).
The concluding chapters of “Faith and Treason” are particularly strong as Fraser does well wrapping up the subject as a whole by updating on what happened to friends and family of the conspirators post-plot and also examining the reactions of England, other nations, dignitaries, etc; immediately afterwards and throughout history since. This certainly leaves “Faith and Treason” on a memorable note.
Fraser provides notes (although not annotated), a list of sources, and not one but three sections of color plates plus genealogical charts to help strengthen the text.
“Faith and Treason” is an overall well-written, unbiased, thorough look at the Gunpowder Plot that combines scholarly text with a readable accessibility. There are some tangents and dull moments but the reader is left with a plethora of knowledge on the topic plus an interest to seek out more information regarding the key figures. If one plans to read only one text regarding the Gunpowder Plot; then “Faith and Treason” should be the choice book.
October 31, 2018
I'm giving this four and half stars.It takes you on a definite journey into the immediate past of 1605 and 1605 itself.It covers the mood of the country,the plotters lives, connections,intended victims and right into the very heart of the court and to the king himself.The war between the Catholics and Protestants in Europe has always led to casualties and this story is no different.Told in a compelling,detailed,well researched manner the author covers her topic throughly.Loved the timeline aspect,the interesting descriptions of those involved and their possible motives,the escape attempt recreation and the topic of torture and its methods during this period.This was very well written and kept me on the edge of my seat even though i knew the outcome.By the end of this I very much count myself a new fan of this author.
October 13, 2019
A plot against the leaders of a land where religion, government conspiracy theories, and endless debate about who was really behind it... sound familiar?
Despite the fact that in broad strokes this sounds like it could have been written about a lot of the modern world, this is about the infamous Gunpowder Plot in the early 1600's. The more I read about this, the more it sounds like England's version of the JFK conspiracy. A lot of what happened is still being debated, a lot of things people "know" are wrong, and the famed Guy Fawkes both wasn't called that at the time and wasn't the leader.
It's a well researched book about the tension (to put it mildly) between the Protestants and Catholics at that time, with the Puritans causing troubles as well, almost a hundred years before some of them get on the Mayflower and start a genocide instead across the ocean.
I knew little bits about this famous event, now I know a great deal more.
Recommended for fans of history in general, English history, religious history, or political history in particular.
Despite the fact that in broad strokes this sounds like it could have been written about a lot of the modern world, this is about the infamous Gunpowder Plot in the early 1600's. The more I read about this, the more it sounds like England's version of the JFK conspiracy. A lot of what happened is still being debated, a lot of things people "know" are wrong, and the famed Guy Fawkes both wasn't called that at the time and wasn't the leader.
It's a well researched book about the tension (to put it mildly) between the Protestants and Catholics at that time, with the Puritans causing troubles as well, almost a hundred years before some of them get on the Mayflower and start a genocide instead across the ocean.
I knew little bits about this famous event, now I know a great deal more.
Recommended for fans of history in general, English history, religious history, or political history in particular.
November 8, 2015
A good, but not perfect, introduction to the Gunpowder Plot. The plusses are brevity, and a good background as to why it happened. Fraser makes the case that the plot was triggered by the disappointment of leading Catholics to the perceived broken promises of toleration by the new monarch, James I (aka James VI of Scotland) who ascended the throne of England in 1603 after the death of Elizabeth I. James I had a Catholic wife (Anne of Denmark) but learned how to survive in the violent politics of Scotland by promising everything yet nothing to all. She also makes a good case for the plot leadership by Robert Catesby, not the more infamous Guy Fawkes.
December 21, 2018
ENGLISH: At the beginning there are a few things I did not like, such as some improper comparisons of the plotters with hippies, the suggestion that James I-VI was homosexual, or an unwarranted attack against Saint Augustin (whom Fraser calls "fanatic"), but soon the book becomes a good historical study of the Gunpowder Plot, full of learning and plentiful references.
There is a quite good description of the barbarous way of executing "traitors" used in England (hanged, drawn and quartered), almost as good as that in Robert Hugh Benson's novel "Come rack, come rope!". Compared with this way of execution, those sponsored by the Spanish Inquisition are mild and moderate.
The book presents a good treatment of questions such as "equivocation" (meaning mental restriction); whether it is lawful to murder a tyrant king; the polemics around the confession seal; and the confrontation between Appellants and Jesuits.
The two main hypotheses suggested by Fraser, that Catesby was the mind behind the plot, and that the denouncing letter was forged by Cecil (Salisbury) and Monteagle, must be taken as mere hypotheses, for most historians do not agree with them, and anyway we'll probably never know.
ESPAÑOL: Al principio hay algunas cosas que no me gustaron, como ciertas comparaciones inadecuadas de los conspiradores con los hippies, la sugerencia de que James I-VI fue homosexual, o un ataque injustificado contra San Agustín (a quien Fraser llama "fanático"), pero pronto el libro se convierte en un buen estudio histórico de la Conspiración de la Pólvora, lleno de erudición y de referencias abundantes.
Hay una buena descripción de la manera bárbara de ejecutar a los "traidores" que empleaban en Inglaterra (ahorcados, arrastrados y descuartizados), casi tan buena como en la novela de Robert Hugh Benson: "Come rack, come rope!" (¡A la horca!). Comparadas con esta forma de ejecución, las decididas por la Inquisición española parecen leves y moderadas.
El libro trata bien cuestiones como la "equivocación" (es decir, la restricción mental); si es lícito asesinar a un rey tirano; la polémica sobre la inviolabilidad del secreto de confesión; y el enfrentamiento entre apelantes y jesuitas.
Las dos hipótesis principales sugeridas por Fraser, que Catesby era el cerebro de la conspiración, y que la carta de denuncia fue falsificada por Cecil (Salisbury) y Monteagle, deben tomarse como meras hipótesis, ya que la mayoría de los historiadores no están de acuerdo, y probablemente nunca lo sabremos.
There is a quite good description of the barbarous way of executing "traitors" used in England (hanged, drawn and quartered), almost as good as that in Robert Hugh Benson's novel "Come rack, come rope!". Compared with this way of execution, those sponsored by the Spanish Inquisition are mild and moderate.
The book presents a good treatment of questions such as "equivocation" (meaning mental restriction); whether it is lawful to murder a tyrant king; the polemics around the confession seal; and the confrontation between Appellants and Jesuits.
The two main hypotheses suggested by Fraser, that Catesby was the mind behind the plot, and that the denouncing letter was forged by Cecil (Salisbury) and Monteagle, must be taken as mere hypotheses, for most historians do not agree with them, and anyway we'll probably never know.
ESPAÑOL: Al principio hay algunas cosas que no me gustaron, como ciertas comparaciones inadecuadas de los conspiradores con los hippies, la sugerencia de que James I-VI fue homosexual, o un ataque injustificado contra San Agustín (a quien Fraser llama "fanático"), pero pronto el libro se convierte en un buen estudio histórico de la Conspiración de la Pólvora, lleno de erudición y de referencias abundantes.
Hay una buena descripción de la manera bárbara de ejecutar a los "traidores" que empleaban en Inglaterra (ahorcados, arrastrados y descuartizados), casi tan buena como en la novela de Robert Hugh Benson: "Come rack, come rope!" (¡A la horca!). Comparadas con esta forma de ejecución, las decididas por la Inquisición española parecen leves y moderadas.
El libro trata bien cuestiones como la "equivocación" (es decir, la restricción mental); si es lícito asesinar a un rey tirano; la polémica sobre la inviolabilidad del secreto de confesión; y el enfrentamiento entre apelantes y jesuitas.
Las dos hipótesis principales sugeridas por Fraser, que Catesby era el cerebro de la conspiración, y que la carta de denuncia fue falsificada por Cecil (Salisbury) y Monteagle, deben tomarse como meras hipótesis, ya que la mayoría de los historiadores no están de acuerdo, y probablemente nunca lo sabremos.
October 21, 2025
BANGING!!!
i appreciate my 27th year of living has been a slow reading year however, I have thoroughly enjoyed taking my time and going at my own pace and this was such an incredible read.
fraser’s writing is so enthralling and hugely accessible. people are correct when they say this reads like a crime novel in places, it’s almost unbelievable what happened and at times i was audibly gasping. I loved how vividly fraser brought the characters to life (even im intrigued by the passion and charisma of robin catesby!) and I really was taken aback by how much emotion i was feeling when we got to the executions of the plotters and of the priests (justice for father garnet!!!!). there were also times when fraser’s writing just shined. I had a chill run down my spine reading this line, and it so perfectly depicts the weight and meaning that lays behind it:
“Catesby, the second Phaeton, bringer of darkness, was on his way.”
but this is not to say that fraser sensationalises the treason plot, nor is she too sympathetic towards what she herself describes as a terrorist act. smart and sharp writing performs a talented balancing act which treats the readers as intelligent people who are able to discern their own opinion on the matter. you really feel for the plotters, their motivations and reasonings that led them to make such a horrifying decision and the hostile world that only added more powder to their flames. fraser is in particular fantastic at laying down the pieces that would come to define the powder treason, and vividly painting an anti-Catholic England and (purposely?) religiously ambiguous, paranoid King that is about to take the throne. i definitely will be picking up more fraser novels (eyeing that Oliver Cromwell one since her ending remarks posed for an interesting discussion on how england would so soon after this see the execution of its own king by parliament!)
i found i was often surprised over how relevant or how much i could see modern events flickering in the midst of the gunpowder plot and I also found fraser’s discussions on terrorism (and more specifically if we should see the plotters as terrorists), persecution and the morality of violence from the oppressed to be profound and extremely topical (it’s almost maddening that this was written in a pre-9/11 world). a really brilliant book which leaves you with much food for thought.
i appreciate my 27th year of living has been a slow reading year however, I have thoroughly enjoyed taking my time and going at my own pace and this was such an incredible read.
fraser’s writing is so enthralling and hugely accessible. people are correct when they say this reads like a crime novel in places, it’s almost unbelievable what happened and at times i was audibly gasping. I loved how vividly fraser brought the characters to life (even im intrigued by the passion and charisma of robin catesby!) and I really was taken aback by how much emotion i was feeling when we got to the executions of the plotters and of the priests (justice for father garnet!!!!). there were also times when fraser’s writing just shined. I had a chill run down my spine reading this line, and it so perfectly depicts the weight and meaning that lays behind it:
“Catesby, the second Phaeton, bringer of darkness, was on his way.”
but this is not to say that fraser sensationalises the treason plot, nor is she too sympathetic towards what she herself describes as a terrorist act. smart and sharp writing performs a talented balancing act which treats the readers as intelligent people who are able to discern their own opinion on the matter. you really feel for the plotters, their motivations and reasonings that led them to make such a horrifying decision and the hostile world that only added more powder to their flames. fraser is in particular fantastic at laying down the pieces that would come to define the powder treason, and vividly painting an anti-Catholic England and (purposely?) religiously ambiguous, paranoid King that is about to take the throne. i definitely will be picking up more fraser novels (eyeing that Oliver Cromwell one since her ending remarks posed for an interesting discussion on how england would so soon after this see the execution of its own king by parliament!)
i found i was often surprised over how relevant or how much i could see modern events flickering in the midst of the gunpowder plot and I also found fraser’s discussions on terrorism (and more specifically if we should see the plotters as terrorists), persecution and the morality of violence from the oppressed to be profound and extremely topical (it’s almost maddening that this was written in a pre-9/11 world). a really brilliant book which leaves you with much food for thought.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 15, 2025
the greatest book on the gunpowder plot i never thought id read.
December 29, 2018
I’ve always been fascinated by Catholics as persecuted minority. How would they behave? How would they cope? What would they do if they found themselves in the position they so often place other groups in? (I’m from a predominantly Catholic country.) Well, it turns out they would react in the same way as others; their religion is no deterrent to violence and terrorism; in other words, where you stand depends on where you sit.
The book is well-researched, competently written, and difficult to put down. The background and reasons behind the Gunpowder Plot are presented with clarity and flair. And yet there is something… I have to admit that I didn’t know much about the author apart from that she is a British historian. Then as I read this book, I found myself wondering whether she wasn’t a Catholic herself. I went online and voila – she had converted to Catholicism. The sympathy towards Catholicism is perceptible in the book, to the point where it could be seen as a slight bias. I read it some time ago, so I don’t remember the exact places which made me scratch my head, but I thought that there was a bit too much readiness to accept certain things about the Catholic way of treating their ideological opponents. Yes, it was unfortunate that they were persecuted and oppressed in England until the 19th century – but the Reformation and the emergence of the Church of England were the whirlwind the Catholic Church had sown the wind for.
Guy Fawkes (who was NOT the leader of the Plot, by the way) and his co-conspirators were very much deluded, and they paid for it horribly; but f*ck that, their families and friends and SERVANTS paid too, without becoming Catholic martyrs and heroes, for the most part. I felt very bad for those deemed collateral damage – I always do. I also did feel sorry for (Saint) Nicolas Owen, and for the priests who tried to stop Catesby and the other dumbasses.
Highly recommended.
December 23, 2018
This is obviously a well-researched book which I found to be a bit anti-climactic. I suppose the response to me should be that I need to go find a historical novel, which is true. But I was expecting more events surrounding the actual discovery of the gunpowder, etc. and less exhaustive background about the minor personages—of which there are many. The actual apprehension of Guy Fawkes took about a paragraph, and the word gunpowder wasn’t even referred to until later. It was kind of a “what happened” moment for me—almost as if the discovery was much less important than the religious fervor surrounding the plot. We do get a very thorough explanation of the complicated situation the Catholics had to deal with: concealing priests in carefully constructed hiding places; secret masses; obeying the government’s insistence on attending Protestant services (or not); and especially the infamous equivocation when being questioned. If you want a primer on the religious situation in Jacobean England, this will do the job. If you want a page-turner, this is not it. I found myself rereading paragraphs several times. Nonetheless, there is a wealth of information here and you certainly do get plenty of background before and after November 5.
December 18, 2018
I enjoy the way Antonia Fraser writes. Though she mentions tons of names, places and events, it is done in a way that I find easy to follow. She gives a very comprehensive description of the times in which the Gunpowder Plot was hatched - the situation of Catholics under Elizabeth I (in particular, of the parents and grandparents of the plotters), their hopes in the new king James, the political situation of neighboring countries, even what Shakespeare was writing at the time. We get to know the main characters well as they plan and put the plot into effect. It keeps the interest all along, including the last chapter, about the consequences of the plot in subsequent centuries, all the way till our days.
April 10, 2017
Very good overview of the plot and key plotters as well as peripheral persons, but would have been stronger without the unnecessary inclusion of 20th century terrorism (IRA, Mandela, etc).
August 20, 2023
The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 has quite the legacy - it's date (November 5th) is immortalized and bonfires continued to be lit centuries afterwards. In its own time, the unveiling of the plot reinforced Protestant England and its ruling regime, doing the Catholics to whom the plotters aimed to help no favors. Two theories exist about the Gunpowder Plot- that it was a real threat to the Stuart government and that it was actually masterminded by government minister Robert Cecil for his own political ends. This book attempts to find a middle ground between these two interpretations and convincingly arrives at something close to the truth. In addition to the historical arguments, I appreciated the very human details included in this book and it made reading this history almost akin to a novel.
August 6, 2023
A detailed (if a little dry) account of the Gunpowder Plot where most of the intrigue came from the event rather than the writing. It was surprisingly forgiving of the terrorists responsible on the grounds that they were doing what they thought was right, yet it was also very disapproving of the government's admittedly inhumane response even though the government presumably thought they were in the right too.
August 26, 2020
An excellent book but a little too biographical for me. I would have preferred it to be more historical.
November 9, 2024
Thoroughly researched, moving and exciting. Fraser writes as well as ever.
July 25, 2024
Whatever Lady Antonia Fraser wrote about - I'm sure I could read her shopping lists and be entertained - would be worth reading. The lady is perhaps my favourite mistress of this genre. Not simply erudite, eloquent and formidably well educated, she's genuinely talented. Such is the key to her success and longevity.
It came as no surprise, therefore, that what has to me been one of the most excruciatingly boring episodes in history to glean facts from, was here made gripping material that refused to be put down. Why couldn't we have had such reading at school? People can't help learning when drinking up such words.
It's unnecessary to outline here what the failed Gunpowder Plot was, with Guy Fawkes night such a culturally ingrained institution. What makes Fraser's history of its advent so coherent is, as always, her elaboration of the characters, their background, their motives, etc.
Just her broader insight into James I & VI's kingship was enough for this reader. His was never a time that resonated for me in other reading, yet here he is given life I had previously begged for in other works to gain just basic insight.
Callously indifferent to his mother's cruel fate, displaying not an ounce of filial loyalty, this maternally disdainful overly precious self-serving brat spent his Scottish days awaiting Elizabeth I's death. Baring a nauseatingly acquiescent grin from afar he anchored her favour as heir.
As if dancing, satin-shoed, on Gloriana's grave, he then minced brashly around her crumbling English palaces whose days of pomp and finery were gone before she lay cold. Ostentatiously bejewelled, in dusty ermine, swirling velvet, fluttering cloth of gold and ermine, he flirted audaciously with male favourites, in an unfathomable Scottish brogue. He stank. Behind him trailed a grubby, uncouth imported entourage that echoed his foreign tongue, stank just as badly and collectively got up everyone's nose. Yet James was impervious to the resulting courtly consternation. Not entirely facile, he was icily shrewd, calculating like his great great grandfather Henry VII. He also sponsored translation of the Bible named after him: the Authorised King James Version.
I still didn't warm to him though, but didn't need to.
It's astonishing that any son of so fascinating a legend as my favourite tragedienne, the martyred Mary, Queen of Scots, could have turned out so drab to eke out depth or meaning from! He would surely have been so reviled for his boringness alone; that in itself would justify the hatching of any plot. (In fact, this plot targeted the House of Lords rather than the king specifically. James's rule and its incidentals personified that target though.)
Contrasting with his predecessor Elizabeth I, her sister 'Bloody' Mary I and father Henry VIII, slithery James I lacked fire, conviction, had a spinelessness, a wateriness I find hard to get my teeth into. Yet Lady Fraser overrides this obstacle with all of her usual panache.
Guy Fawkes himself was little more interesting than King James, yet here we have all we need on him, fleshed out via 'that' satisfying Fraseresque treatment she is renowned and revered for.
The politics around the plot are, by any other account I've read, dry, monotonous and interminably convoluted, particularly for those not instinctively drawn to the Jacobean era. Not a patch on all things Tudor despite being immediately adjoined to its timeframe. Yet these politics, too, are here given context, explained patiently and meticulously. On this I knew I would be able to rely, having relished other such Fraser books. Like a child in a hearth I sat, glued, welcoming the magic of this storyteller's voice.
Like I said at the start, it wouldn't have mattered what it was about, it was always going to be special. It was, it is. I was finally able to learn things I didn't know about this fiasco, minus that dreaded textbook tedium that creeps into other accounts (oh woe, oh woe!).
Recommended especially to those who, like this reader, need more than a dry old listing of dates and names to get through this done-to-death tale to broaden their knowledge.
(Would have given it 5 stars but knocked off a half for my undying dislike of all things James I & VI - give me his neurotic mother any day, or even his sleazy grandson Charles II - and another half for whoever chose that ludicrous e-cover art.)
It came as no surprise, therefore, that what has to me been one of the most excruciatingly boring episodes in history to glean facts from, was here made gripping material that refused to be put down. Why couldn't we have had such reading at school? People can't help learning when drinking up such words.
It's unnecessary to outline here what the failed Gunpowder Plot was, with Guy Fawkes night such a culturally ingrained institution. What makes Fraser's history of its advent so coherent is, as always, her elaboration of the characters, their background, their motives, etc.
Just her broader insight into James I & VI's kingship was enough for this reader. His was never a time that resonated for me in other reading, yet here he is given life I had previously begged for in other works to gain just basic insight.
Callously indifferent to his mother's cruel fate, displaying not an ounce of filial loyalty, this maternally disdainful overly precious self-serving brat spent his Scottish days awaiting Elizabeth I's death. Baring a nauseatingly acquiescent grin from afar he anchored her favour as heir.
As if dancing, satin-shoed, on Gloriana's grave, he then minced brashly around her crumbling English palaces whose days of pomp and finery were gone before she lay cold. Ostentatiously bejewelled, in dusty ermine, swirling velvet, fluttering cloth of gold and ermine, he flirted audaciously with male favourites, in an unfathomable Scottish brogue. He stank. Behind him trailed a grubby, uncouth imported entourage that echoed his foreign tongue, stank just as badly and collectively got up everyone's nose. Yet James was impervious to the resulting courtly consternation. Not entirely facile, he was icily shrewd, calculating like his great great grandfather Henry VII. He also sponsored translation of the Bible named after him: the Authorised King James Version.
I still didn't warm to him though, but didn't need to.
It's astonishing that any son of so fascinating a legend as my favourite tragedienne, the martyred Mary, Queen of Scots, could have turned out so drab to eke out depth or meaning from! He would surely have been so reviled for his boringness alone; that in itself would justify the hatching of any plot. (In fact, this plot targeted the House of Lords rather than the king specifically. James's rule and its incidentals personified that target though.)
Contrasting with his predecessor Elizabeth I, her sister 'Bloody' Mary I and father Henry VIII, slithery James I lacked fire, conviction, had a spinelessness, a wateriness I find hard to get my teeth into. Yet Lady Fraser overrides this obstacle with all of her usual panache.
Guy Fawkes himself was little more interesting than King James, yet here we have all we need on him, fleshed out via 'that' satisfying Fraseresque treatment she is renowned and revered for.
The politics around the plot are, by any other account I've read, dry, monotonous and interminably convoluted, particularly for those not instinctively drawn to the Jacobean era. Not a patch on all things Tudor despite being immediately adjoined to its timeframe. Yet these politics, too, are here given context, explained patiently and meticulously. On this I knew I would be able to rely, having relished other such Fraser books. Like a child in a hearth I sat, glued, welcoming the magic of this storyteller's voice.
Like I said at the start, it wouldn't have mattered what it was about, it was always going to be special. It was, it is. I was finally able to learn things I didn't know about this fiasco, minus that dreaded textbook tedium that creeps into other accounts (oh woe, oh woe!).
Recommended especially to those who, like this reader, need more than a dry old listing of dates and names to get through this done-to-death tale to broaden their knowledge.
(Would have given it 5 stars but knocked off a half for my undying dislike of all things James I & VI - give me his neurotic mother any day, or even his sleazy grandson Charles II - and another half for whoever chose that ludicrous e-cover art.)
February 3, 2011
There is so much right about this book! Her comparisons to the similarities between how today's peoples react to similar movements and plots that cause disruption and turn people's thinking into being wary and wanting protection were very relevant. Catholics were not that accepted at this time, but it could have been alot worse and many just out of wanting safety and loose attitude from others about their own practice of their own faith. If there was anything that people didn't want...it was to be felt as a threat or to be moved to worry about Catholicism as a threat. And that is exactly what happened. The plot people were a bit off the deep end of radical as to where they fit with the more general Catholic population, and help from Spain in that way was supremely unwelcome. It's well written, well researched, and Ms. Fraser knows what she is talking about. And she has a good bit of salt in writing style, similar to Barbara Tuchman. And when she passes a conclusion, it's really worth considering. I'm giving it 3 stars because I got bogged down and it became slow reading for me. I guess I'm looking right now for a bit more of fast movement like fiction. But it is an excellent book! It's a book I may reread later on.
March 6, 2014
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 1, 2022
"Remember, remember, the fifth of November, the gunpowder, the treason, the plot. . .
The English people still celebrate Guy Fawkes Day with fireworks, bonfires and celebrations. The actual plot was a failed assassination attempt on King James I and the seated Parliament by a group of English Catholics who figured they would kill the King and perhaps the young heir and kidnap the King's daughter to be raised in the Catholic faith under their regency. They had assumed that James would treat them better than his predecessor, Elizabeth I, with his 'promise' to not persecute those who were outwardly obedient to the law and perhaps even convert to Catholicism.
Unfortunately, several other earlier plots had hardened James' intentions and eventually, all Catholic priests were to leave England and fines were once again imposed on the English Catholics who did not receive the Sacrament in an Anglican Church at least once a year as well as deny the power of the Pope.
The ringleader of the Gunpowder Plot was Robert Catesby and he inspired several others into joining him as well as implicated many who knew nothing about the plot. Close friends and relatives were not even warned to not attend Parliament on the proposed assassination attempts dates. But someone - it was never firmly determined who - sent a letter to Baron Monteagle who handed it over the the Lord Privy Seal, Lord Salisbury, who was one of the Great Officers of the Realm, who may have heard rumors of the plot earlier. Once the King was informed, he ordered an in-depth search. Guido or "Guy" Fawkes was found with the barrels of gunpowder and immediately arrested. As news of Fawkes arrest spread, his fellow conspirators fled. Some were killed while others were captured and fiercely interrogated (yes, that means tortured). Even a couple Jesuit priests were implicated for not betraying the seal of the confessional and hanged.
Apparently, gunpowder, at the time, deteriorated quickly and that which had been set in place for the earlier but cancelled meetings had to be replaced. To this day there is still some disagreement on whether the powder would have even exploded or not. Along with projecting how much damage might have occurred if only half the powder ignited.
In fact, there is still a tradition of the King's Guards searching beneath the Parliament "just in case".
2022-224
The English people still celebrate Guy Fawkes Day with fireworks, bonfires and celebrations. The actual plot was a failed assassination attempt on King James I and the seated Parliament by a group of English Catholics who figured they would kill the King and perhaps the young heir and kidnap the King's daughter to be raised in the Catholic faith under their regency. They had assumed that James would treat them better than his predecessor, Elizabeth I, with his 'promise' to not persecute those who were outwardly obedient to the law and perhaps even convert to Catholicism.
Unfortunately, several other earlier plots had hardened James' intentions and eventually, all Catholic priests were to leave England and fines were once again imposed on the English Catholics who did not receive the Sacrament in an Anglican Church at least once a year as well as deny the power of the Pope.
The ringleader of the Gunpowder Plot was Robert Catesby and he inspired several others into joining him as well as implicated many who knew nothing about the plot. Close friends and relatives were not even warned to not attend Parliament on the proposed assassination attempts dates. But someone - it was never firmly determined who - sent a letter to Baron Monteagle who handed it over the the Lord Privy Seal, Lord Salisbury, who was one of the Great Officers of the Realm, who may have heard rumors of the plot earlier. Once the King was informed, he ordered an in-depth search. Guido or "Guy" Fawkes was found with the barrels of gunpowder and immediately arrested. As news of Fawkes arrest spread, his fellow conspirators fled. Some were killed while others were captured and fiercely interrogated (yes, that means tortured). Even a couple Jesuit priests were implicated for not betraying the seal of the confessional and hanged.
Apparently, gunpowder, at the time, deteriorated quickly and that which had been set in place for the earlier but cancelled meetings had to be replaced. To this day there is still some disagreement on whether the powder would have even exploded or not. Along with projecting how much damage might have occurred if only half the powder ignited.
In fact, there is still a tradition of the King's Guards searching beneath the Parliament "just in case".
2022-224
March 31, 2023
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.
November 1, 2024
The 52 Book Club 2024 Challenge includes prompt 40, which can be satisfied by reading a book, "Set during a holiday you don't celebrate." Faith and Treason was that book, which wasn't as much set during a holiday as about the events behind a holiday I don't celebrate, Guy Fawkes or Bonfire Day.
Having finished Ms. Antonia Fraser's book on the subject, I know a lot more about the holiday than I ever thought I might need to. More importantly, I also understand better the religious atmosphere and pressures of the early 1600s, a period not too distant from the formation of the Anglican Church and the split between the English monarchy and Rome. I thought Ms. Fraser was imminently fair in her approach and treatment of the Plotters and I found myself, if not sympathizing with them, at least understanding them. As Ms. Fraser herself wrote:
Having finished Ms. Antonia Fraser's book on the subject, I know a lot more about the holiday than I ever thought I might need to. More importantly, I also understand better the religious atmosphere and pressures of the early 1600s, a period not too distant from the formation of the Anglican Church and the split between the English monarchy and Rome. I thought Ms. Fraser was imminently fair in her approach and treatment of the Plotters and I found myself, if not sympathizing with them, at least understanding them. As Ms. Fraser herself wrote:
The study of history can at least bring respect for those who 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.
April 24, 2024
Fraser's meticulous research is unimpeachable, in spite of the 400 years that have elapsed since this event occurred. It is not surprising that so many have attempted to use the people responsible, and those who opposed them, in service to other agendas. Such is the nature of history. The one undeniable reality of the Gunpowder Plot and its aftermath is the role religious extremism played in promoting it and punishing those responsible. One more testament to how the mythology of a Nazarene carpenter has been poisoned and manipulated to perpetrate cruelty and violence.
June 26, 2024
Simply superb. One of the most gripping historical narratives I've come across in a long long time. Wonderful control of both the facts, context and storytelling by Antonia Fraser.
December 2, 2022
Rather dry recounting of the Gunpowder Plot, and it's aftermath. I usually like Ms. Fraser's writing, but this one left me yawning. Ah, well - not all stories are as compelling as the Tudor period - King James might have been a decent king, but a lousy human being, for all that.
August 16, 2019
Great telling of a complex, interesting topic--probably barely known to Americans. I only tripped onto the Guy Fawkes Gunpowder Plot from watching an old British mystery which was itself portraying Victorian London on a November 5th, as the Bonfire festivities figured in many crucial scenes. So, thanks to Fraser's book, and an article or so here and there, I'm getting up to speed on the history of Elizabethan (and subsequent) English Catholicism.
It's a very long path from Henry VIII's time to the Glorious Revolution, which pretty much encompasses the transition from Catholic to Protestant rule. It's not that surprising that, given the defeat of the Armada in 1588, Catholicism was definitely on the defensive in England, just as nationalism was gaining strength in most of the Great Powers. I think that nationalism had as much to do with the Reformation generally, and particularly in Henry VIII's case, than worries about the Catholic rituals in themselves.
This can be seen in the near constant reaction to the Plot, both before and after 1605, as having foreign origins; it was Spanish, if not Papist, or French, if not Jesuit influence corrupting or influencing English Catholics. That's true in the literal sense that any Catholic country in Europe might serve as a destination, safe haven, or origin for any Catholic setting foot in England. Officially though, as the author points out, the King was fairly certain that the Plotters, whether they had sought foreign help, were acting on their own.
That wasn't due to any lack of Fawke's (and others) hoping for just that--a second Armada, in effect. As pointed out, having completely failed to ensnare any foreign power in the Plot, Catesby and the others were left with challenging the King (for what seemed to be his reneging on promises of religious toleration) with the means at hand. Something the author doesn't delve into was the plausibility of alternatives to the terrorist act they hoped for. I suppose they couldn't come up with something more spectacular than killing all of Parliament as well as the King.
The purpose of the Plot seems completely obscured by the act. I'm reminded somewhat of the American Abolitionist John Brown plotting a slave insurrection in 1859. His fanatical devotion to a cause, which was at least as admirable as the goal of securing toleration for 'recusants,' led to a plot that was not only amateurish, but logistically and politically absurd. That taking over a Federal arsenal with seventeen guys would somehow lead to a slave rebellion shows completely disjointed thinking. Maybe, as with the Gunpowder Plot, the act was a desperate attempt to make a mark, regardless of its consequences.
Not that killing the King would've been acceptable, but it at least makes sense as an act of vengeance against the person who the Plotters blamed for the recusants' plight, rather than the arbitrary and immense crime of simultaneously killing all the members of Parliament, some of whom were sympathetic to the recusants, and a few of whom were actually fellow Catholics. Had the explosion occurred, it's doubtful that English Catholics, to say nothing of Catholic courts in other countries, would want to throw in with indiscriminate murderers.
The author sets the stage well, going back to the initial split with Rome in the 1530s, and picking up the trail of the succession, with the twists and turns in recusant policy, up to and after the era of the Gunpowder Plot. Despite all of the ancillary information, there's plenty of detail about each Plotter, their relations and interactions, and their accomplices. Especially interesting is the mystery surrounding the so-called Monteagle letter, which gave the plot up.
A very fair and balanced analysis of this still-born Plot. She's very handy with her phrasing, maintaining a serious, scholarly tone but finding room for some laconic, witty, and poignant descriptions and details. Highly recommended for those interested in English history; this puts a little light on an obscure period, coming as it did just before the British Colonial era in America.
It's a very long path from Henry VIII's time to the Glorious Revolution, which pretty much encompasses the transition from Catholic to Protestant rule. It's not that surprising that, given the defeat of the Armada in 1588, Catholicism was definitely on the defensive in England, just as nationalism was gaining strength in most of the Great Powers. I think that nationalism had as much to do with the Reformation generally, and particularly in Henry VIII's case, than worries about the Catholic rituals in themselves.
This can be seen in the near constant reaction to the Plot, both before and after 1605, as having foreign origins; it was Spanish, if not Papist, or French, if not Jesuit influence corrupting or influencing English Catholics. That's true in the literal sense that any Catholic country in Europe might serve as a destination, safe haven, or origin for any Catholic setting foot in England. Officially though, as the author points out, the King was fairly certain that the Plotters, whether they had sought foreign help, were acting on their own.
That wasn't due to any lack of Fawke's (and others) hoping for just that--a second Armada, in effect. As pointed out, having completely failed to ensnare any foreign power in the Plot, Catesby and the others were left with challenging the King (for what seemed to be his reneging on promises of religious toleration) with the means at hand. Something the author doesn't delve into was the plausibility of alternatives to the terrorist act they hoped for. I suppose they couldn't come up with something more spectacular than killing all of Parliament as well as the King.
The purpose of the Plot seems completely obscured by the act. I'm reminded somewhat of the American Abolitionist John Brown plotting a slave insurrection in 1859. His fanatical devotion to a cause, which was at least as admirable as the goal of securing toleration for 'recusants,' led to a plot that was not only amateurish, but logistically and politically absurd. That taking over a Federal arsenal with seventeen guys would somehow lead to a slave rebellion shows completely disjointed thinking. Maybe, as with the Gunpowder Plot, the act was a desperate attempt to make a mark, regardless of its consequences.
Not that killing the King would've been acceptable, but it at least makes sense as an act of vengeance against the person who the Plotters blamed for the recusants' plight, rather than the arbitrary and immense crime of simultaneously killing all the members of Parliament, some of whom were sympathetic to the recusants, and a few of whom were actually fellow Catholics. Had the explosion occurred, it's doubtful that English Catholics, to say nothing of Catholic courts in other countries, would want to throw in with indiscriminate murderers.
The author sets the stage well, going back to the initial split with Rome in the 1530s, and picking up the trail of the succession, with the twists and turns in recusant policy, up to and after the era of the Gunpowder Plot. Despite all of the ancillary information, there's plenty of detail about each Plotter, their relations and interactions, and their accomplices. Especially interesting is the mystery surrounding the so-called Monteagle letter, which gave the plot up.
A very fair and balanced analysis of this still-born Plot. She's very handy with her phrasing, maintaining a serious, scholarly tone but finding room for some laconic, witty, and poignant descriptions and details. Highly recommended for those interested in English history; this puts a little light on an obscure period, coming as it did just before the British Colonial era in America.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 15, 2014
'Remember, remember the fifth of November...'
And we do, some four hundred years on. The memory of the Gunpowder Plot lingers on to this day in the ritual bonfire and effigy of Guy Fawkes on Bonfire Night on the 5th November, in the ceremonial searching of the vaults and cellars of the House of Lords on the eve of the Opening of Parliament, in the perennial joke regarding Guy Fawkes being 'the only man to ever enter Parliament with honest intentions'. However, it is likely that the majority of those celebrating on the 5th November know very little about the historical context of the Plot, the virulent anti-Catholicism of Jacobean England, the players other than Guy Fawkes (who actually had a relatively marginal role and certainly wasn't one of the instigators), the subsequent hunt and trials of those accused, the executions and martyrdom of plotters and priests.
This is a complex story, with many players, both high and low, but Fraser lays it out clearly and concisely. The history of the Gunpowder Plot has long been riven by controversy and arguments between No-Plotters (those who believe that the Plot was manufactured and contrived by Robert Cecil, Secretary of State under both Elizabeth I and James I, as an excuse to crack down on Catholicism) and the Pro-Plotters (those who believe there was indeed a Plot, conceived and carried out by Catholic recusants) - Fraser navigates a diplomatic path between these two sides, coming down on the whole with the Pro-Plotters, albeit with a few caveats about how much Cecil knew and when.
The Gunpowder Plot, as the title 'terror and faith' illustrates, was simply an early example of what we today know as terrorism - wherever minorities are oppressed for reasons of faith (or ethnicity or political affiliation or any number of reasons) there will always be a small number who will feel that the only recourse is to violence. That they are often driven to such extremes by deprivation of rights, repressive legislation and societal discrimination is the real tragedy. Indeed, the Gunpowder Plot was described at the time as a 'heavy and doleful tragedy', although who exactly were the tragic heroes is best left to individual opinion.
And we do, some four hundred years on. The memory of the Gunpowder Plot lingers on to this day in the ritual bonfire and effigy of Guy Fawkes on Bonfire Night on the 5th November, in the ceremonial searching of the vaults and cellars of the House of Lords on the eve of the Opening of Parliament, in the perennial joke regarding Guy Fawkes being 'the only man to ever enter Parliament with honest intentions'. However, it is likely that the majority of those celebrating on the 5th November know very little about the historical context of the Plot, the virulent anti-Catholicism of Jacobean England, the players other than Guy Fawkes (who actually had a relatively marginal role and certainly wasn't one of the instigators), the subsequent hunt and trials of those accused, the executions and martyrdom of plotters and priests.
This is a complex story, with many players, both high and low, but Fraser lays it out clearly and concisely. The history of the Gunpowder Plot has long been riven by controversy and arguments between No-Plotters (those who believe that the Plot was manufactured and contrived by Robert Cecil, Secretary of State under both Elizabeth I and James I, as an excuse to crack down on Catholicism) and the Pro-Plotters (those who believe there was indeed a Plot, conceived and carried out by Catholic recusants) - Fraser navigates a diplomatic path between these two sides, coming down on the whole with the Pro-Plotters, albeit with a few caveats about how much Cecil knew and when.
The Gunpowder Plot, as the title 'terror and faith' illustrates, was simply an early example of what we today know as terrorism - wherever minorities are oppressed for reasons of faith (or ethnicity or political affiliation or any number of reasons) there will always be a small number who will feel that the only recourse is to violence. That they are often driven to such extremes by deprivation of rights, repressive legislation and societal discrimination is the real tragedy. Indeed, the Gunpowder Plot was described at the time as a 'heavy and doleful tragedy', although who exactly were the tragic heroes is best left to individual opinion.
April 4, 2010
Before reading this book, I never understood the religious and cultural history of the gunpowder plot. Fraser takes us back to the beginning of the 17th century, when British Catholics were filled with hope at the death of Queen Elizabeth and the ascension to the throne of James I, son of Catholic martyr Mary Queen of Scots. Hope soon turned to disillusionment as Catholics realized that James was a thorough Protestant and had no intention of softening the anti-Catholic measures the Tudors had put in place. They came up with a plot to blow up the houses of Parliament with most of the royal family inside; they would then capture James's 9-year-old daughter (who was studying outside London) and raise her Catholic until she was ready to be queen. There's no saying how much of this might have worked if the actual explosion had occurred, but as it happened, the plotters were betrayed and Guy Fawkes was seized along with the gunpowder the night before the bombing was to take place. The gunpowder plot was the 9/11 of its day -- a scheme so villainous and dramatic that it colored the very date. Every British child knows what happened on November 5.
It's a gripping tale, and Fraser tells it well. She spends a lot of time discussing the conditions for Catholics at the time -- fines, priest holes, all that. She hasn't much sympathy for the plotters themselves, but has a lot for their priests, some of whom were also captured, tortured and killed. She mentions that a few priests had learned of the plot months before November 5 and had tried to reach out to the Pope so that he could forbid it -- but did not tell anyone else as the plot was learned in the confessional. I'm not a Catholic myself, but must say I can rather see the point of the English government in questioning this decision. I mean, if the plotters had been successful, they'd have taken out both the royal and legislative leadership of the country and possibly sparked a civil war.
It's a gripping tale, and Fraser tells it well. She spends a lot of time discussing the conditions for Catholics at the time -- fines, priest holes, all that. She hasn't much sympathy for the plotters themselves, but has a lot for their priests, some of whom were also captured, tortured and killed. She mentions that a few priests had learned of the plot months before November 5 and had tried to reach out to the Pope so that he could forbid it -- but did not tell anyone else as the plot was learned in the confessional. I'm not a Catholic myself, but must say I can rather see the point of the English government in questioning this decision. I mean, if the plotters had been successful, they'd have taken out both the royal and legislative leadership of the country and possibly sparked a civil war.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 187 reviews