The execution of the five Jesuits

The Popish Plot was a fictitious conspiracy concocted by Titus Oates that gripped England, Wales and Scotland in Anti-Catholic hysteria between 1678 and 1681.^[1] Oates alleged that there existed an extensive Catholic conspiracy to assassinate Charles II, accusations that led to the execution of at least 15 men and precipitated the Exclusion Bill Crisis. Eventually Oates' intricate web of accusations fell apart, leading to his arrest and conviction for perjury.

Background[link]

The fictitious Popish Plot was exacerbated by many historical events in the sixteenth century and was only believed because circumstances before 1678 had increased anti-Catholic sentiment among the mostly Protestant population of England. Anti-Catholic fears are observed as early as 1533 with the English Reformation. Also, the Ridolfi plot in 1571, the Babington Plot of 1580, and the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 all contributed to anti-Catholic feeling. The rule of Mary I, the attack of the Spanish Armada, and the Great Fire of London in 1666 were other events that were important contributors to anti-Catholic sentiment and intensified Protestant hatred of Catholics, making the plot against Charles II seem believable.

English Reformation[link]

During the English Reformation (1533–1540), King Henry VIII took control over the Church in England, causing religious tension between English Catholics and the Protestant Church of England. Henry VIII broke away from the Bishop of Rome mostly because he wanted an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, which the pope would not grant.

Mary I[link]

Mary I (1553–1558), daughter of Catherine and Henry was a Catholic and sought to return the Church in England to union with the Holy See. During her five-year rule, some three hundred Protestants were executed. Protestants would forever remember her rule and as John Kenyon remarks, “Nor was there any doubt as to what would happen if Catholics seized control: all good Protestants would burn.”^[2] The persecution she had initiated always lurked in the back of Enlightenment minds.

The Ridolfi Plot[link]

In 1571, Roberto di Ridolfi, an ardent Catholic, plotted to overthrow Queen Elizabeth I of England and replace her with Mary Queen of Scots. He believed that there was a need for foreign intervention to restore Catholicism and bring Mary to the throne. Ridolfi was involved in the failed Northern Rebellion. After the failure, Ridolfi realised that foreign assistance was needed to overthrow the Elizabeth. He found assistance in the Bishop of Ross and Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk. They planned to have the Duke of Alba invade England with 10,000 men and assassinate Elizabeth I. The plot was discovered and the Duke of Norfolk was arrested and later executed. Elizabeth spared Mary (who was living in England, having fled the Scottish Reformation, even though she believed she was involved. Ridolfi was out of town when the plot was discovered and never returned to England; therefore he was unpunished.

The Babington Plot[link]

The Babington Plot (1586) was aimed at displacing Elizabeth I and put Mary Queen of Scots on the throne. Anthony Babington, a Catholic nobleman, was the key conspirator and devoted his life to returning England to Catholicism. He plotted with other Catholic Englishmen and King Phillip II of Spain to rescue Mary from prison and place her on the throne. Babington met John Ballard, a Jesuit priest who put Babington in charge of organising English Catholics. Babington started corresponding with Mary through ciphered letters. However, their letters were being intercepted by Elizabeth’s spies and, in 1586, a letter sent by Babington outlining the details of the plot was decoded. Ballard, Babington and six others were arrested while Mary was sentenced to death for her involvement and was beheaded on February 8, 1587.

The Spanish Armada[link]

In 1588, a Spanish fleet sailed against England because Phillip II of Spain deemed Elizabeth to be an illegitimate ruler of England. Elizabeth had further angered Phillip by her support of the Dutch Revolt that advocated the advance of Protestantism in the Netherlands, at that time a Spanish possession. The Spanish Armada was repulsed, which gave encouragment to the Protestants throughout Europe,because they thought that God was supportive of Protestantism.

The Gunpowder Plot[link]

The Gunpowder Plot was an attempted assassination of King James I. The plan was to blow up the House of Lords during the state opening of Parliament on November 5, 1605 and install James’ Catholic daughter Elizabeth as monarch. Guy Fawkes was in charge of the explosives and was discovered the night before the attack guarding 36 barrels of gunpowder. This was an actual plot and so that made the fabricated Popish Plot of 1687 more believable. The Jesuits became scapegoats after this incident.

The Great Fire of 1666[link]

When the Great Fire of London occurred in 1666, rumors floating around about arson and the first to be blamed were Catholics, especially the Jesuits. Kenyon remarks, “At Coventry, the townspeople were possessed by the idea that the papists were about to rise and cut their throats….”^[3] Kenyon also comments, “A nationwide panic seemed likely, and as homeless refugees poured out from London into the countryside, they took with them stories of a kind which were familiar to them in 1678 and 1679.”^[3]

All of these previous historical events influenced the Popish Plot’s believability because there was a growing fear by Protestants of increasing Catholic influence in England. Further, Charles' heir, his brother James Stuart, Duke of York had embraced Catholicism, and the King's wife, Catherine of Braganza, was also Catholic. Charles' wars and religious policies during the 1670s led to conflict with parliament. In 1672, Charles issued the Royal Declaration of Indulgence, in which he purported to suspend all penal laws against Catholics and other religious dissenters.^[4]

Charles II did not want to share power, but he was financially reliant on Parliament. He believed that an alliance with Catholic France would provide money and aid him in becoming absolute monarch. As the power of the Cabal Ministry waned Thomas Osborne, Lord Danby assumed more influence in his role as Lord High Treasurer. Danby sought to divert the Charles from a Francophile foreign policy.^[5]

In December 1677 an anonymous pamphlet (possibly by Andrew Marvell) spread alarm in London by suggesting that the Pope planned to change the lawful government of England.^[6]

Plot[link]

The fictitious Popish Plot unfolded in a very peculiar fashion. Oates and Israel Tonge had written a large manuscript that accused the Catholic Church authorities of approving the assassination of Charles II. The Jesuits in England were to carry out the task. The manuscript also named nearly 100 Jesuits and supporters, supposedly involved in this assassination plot; nothing in the document was ever proven to be true.

Oates slipped a copy of the manuscript into the wainscot of a gallery in Sir Richard Barker's house.^[7] The following day Tonge claimed to find the manuscript, and showed it to an acquaintance, Christopher Kirkby, who was shocked and decided to inform the King. Kirkby was a chemist and a former assistant in Charles' scientific experiments.^[8] On 13 August 1678, whilst Charles was out walking in St. James's Park, the chemist informed him of the plot.^[9] Charles was dismissive but Kirkby stated that he knew the names of assassins who planned to shoot the King and, if that failed, the Queen's physician, Sir George Wakeman, would poison him. When the King demanded proof, the chemist offered to bring Tonge who knew of these matters personally. Charles told Kirkby to present Tonge before Danby. Tonge then lied to Danby, saying that he had found the manuscript but did not know the author.

Danby advised the King to order an investigation. Charles II denied the request, maintaining that the entire affair was absurd. He told Danby to keep the events secret so as not to put the idea of regicide into people's minds.^[10] However, word of the manuscript spread to the Duke of York, who publicly called for an investigation into the matter.^{[citation needed]} During the investigation, Oates' name arose.

On 6 September Oates was summoned before the magistrate Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey to swear an oath prior to his testimony before the King. Oates claimed he had been at a Jesuit meeting held at the White Horse Tavern in the Strand, London on April 24, 1678.^[11] According to Oates, the purpose of that meeting was to discuss the assassination of Charles II. The meeting discussed a variety of methods which included: stabbing by Irish ruffians, shooting by two Jesuit soldiers, or poisoning by the Queen's physician, Sir George Wakeman.^[12]

Oates and Tonge were brought before the Privy Council later that month. The council interrogated Oates. On 28 September he made 43 allegations against various members of Catholic religious orders—including 541 Jesuits—and numerous Catholic nobles. He accused Sir George Wakeman, the Queen's physician, and Edward Colman, the secretary to the Duchess of York (Mary of Modena), of planning the assassination. Although Oates may have selected the names randomly, or with the help of the Earl of Danby, Coleman was found to have corresponded with a French Jesuit, which condemned him. Wakeman was later acquitted.

Others Oates accused included Dr. William Fogarty, Archbishop Peter Talbot of Dublin, Samuel Pepys, and Lord Belasyse. With the help of Danby the list grew to 81 accusations. Oates was given a squad of soldiers and he began to round up Jesuits.

Godfrey murder[link]

The allegations gained little credence until the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, a member of Parliament and strong supporter of Protestantism. His disappearance on 12 October 1678, the finding of his body on 17 October, and the subsequent failure to solve his murder sent the Protestant population into an uproar. He had been strangled and run through with his own sword. Many of his supporters blamed the murder on Catholics. As Kenyon commented, “Next day, the 18th, James wrote to William of Orange that Godfrey’s death was already ‘laid against the Catholics’, and even he, never the most realistic of men, feared that ‘all these things happening together will cause a great flame in the Parliament.’”^[13] The Lords asked King Charles to banish all Catholics from a radius of 20 miles around London, which Charles granted on October 30th, 1678, but it was too late because London was already in a panic.

Oates seized on this murder as proof that the Plot was true. The murder of Godfrey and the discovery of Edward Coleman’s letters provided a solid basis of facts for the lies of Oates and the other informers who followed him. Oates was called to testify before the House of Lords and the House of Commons on October 23, 1678. He testified that he had seen a number of contracts signed by the Superior General of the Jesuits. The contracts appointed officers that would command an army of Catholic supporters to kill Charles II and establish a Catholic monarch.^[14] To this day, no one is certain who killed Sir Edmund Godfrey.

King Charles, aware of the unrest, returned to London and summoned Parliament. He remained unconvinced by Oates' accusations, but Parliament and public opinion forced him to order an investigation. Parliament truly believed that this plot was real, declaring, “ This House is of opinion that there hath been and still is a damnable and hellish plot contrived and carried out by the popish recusants for assigning and murdering the King.”^[15] Tonges was called to testify on October 25th, 1678 where he gave evidence on the Great Fire and, later, rumours of another similar plot. On November 1st, both Houses ordered an investigation in which a Frenchman, Choqueux, was discovered to be storing gunpowder in a house nearby. It was later uncovered that he was simply the King’s firework maker.

Trial of the Five Catholic Lords[link]

Oates became more daring and accused five Catholic lords (The Earl of Powis, The Viscount Stafford, The Lord Arundell of Wardour, The Lord Petre and The Lord Belasyse) of involvement in the plot. The King reputedly dismissed the accusations, but the Earl of Shaftesbury had the lords arrested and sent to the Tower on 25 October 1678. Seizing upon the anti-Catholic tide, Shaftesbury publicly demanded that the King's brother, James, be excluded from the royal succession, prompting the Exclusion crisis. On 5 November 1678, people burned effigies of the Pope instead of those of Guy Fawkes.^[12] At the end of the year, the parliament passed a bill, a second Test Act, excluding Catholics from membership of both Houses (a law not repealed until 1829).

On 1 November the House of Commons resolved to proceed by impeachment against "the five popish lords". On 23 November all Arundell's papers were seized and examined by the Lords' committee; on 3 December the five peers were found guilty of high treason; and on 5 December the Commons announced the impeachment of Arundell. A month later Parliament was dissolved, and the proceedings were interrupted. In March 1679, it was resolved by both houses that the dissolution had not invalidated the motions for the impeachment. On 10 April 1679 Arundell and three of his companions (Belasyse was too ill to attend) were brought to the House of Lords to put in pleas against the articles of impeachment. Arundell complained of the uncertainty of the charges, and implored the peers to have them "reduced to competent certainty". But this plea was on 24 April voted irregular, and on 26 April the prisoners were again brought to the House of Lords and ordered to amend their pleas. Arundell replied by briefly declaring himself not guilty. The trial was fixed for 13 May, but a quarrel between the two houses as to points of procedure, and the legality of admitting bishops to a capital trial, followed by a dissolution, delayed its commencement till 30 November 1680. On that day it was decided to proceed first against Lord Stafford, who was condemned to death on 7 December and beheaded on 29 December.^[16] On 30 December the evidence against Arundell and his three fellow-prisoners was ordered to be in readiness, but there public proceedings stopped. Petre died in the Tower in 1683. His companions remained there till 12 February 1684 when an appeal to the court of King's Bench to release them on bail was successful. On 21 May 1685 Arundell, Powis, and Belasyse came to the House of Lords to present petitions for the annulling of the charges and on the following day the petitions were granted. On 1 June 1685 their liberty was formally assured on the ground that the witnesses against them had perjured themselves, and on 4 June the bill of attainder against Stafford was reversed.^[17]

Other accusations[link]

On 24 November, Oates claimed the Queen was working with the King's physician to poison him and enlisted the aid of "Captain" William Bedloe. The King personally interrogated Oates, caught him out in a number of inaccuracies and lies, and ordered his arrest. However, a few days later, with the threat of constitutional crisis, Parliament forced the release of Oates.

Hysteria continued. Noblewomen carried firearms if they had to venture outdoors at night. Houses were searched for hidden guns, mostly without any significant result. Some Catholic widows tried to ensure their safety by marrying Anglican widowers. The House of Commons was searched—without result—in the expectation of a second Gunpowder Plot being perpetrated.

Anyone even suspected of being Catholic was driven out of London and forbidden to be within ten miles of the city. Oates, for his part, received a state apartment in Whitehall and an annual allowance. He soon presented new allegations, claiming assassins intended to shoot the King with silver bullets so the wound would not heal. The public invented their own stories, including a tale that the sound of digging had been heard near the House of Commons and rumours of a French invasion in the Isle of Purbeck.

However, public opinion began to turn against Oates. Having had at least 15 innocent men executed, the last being Oliver Plunkett, Archbishop of Armagh on 1 July 1681. The Chief Justice, William Scroggs began to declare people innocent and the King began to devise countermeasures.

On 31 August 1681, Oates was told to leave his apartments in Whitehall, but remained undeterred and even denounced the King and the Duke of York. He was arrested for sedition, sentenced to a fine of £100,000 and thrown into prison.

When James II acceded to the throne in 1685 he had Oates retried for perjury. The death penalty was not available for perjury and Oates was sentenced to be stripped of clerical dress, whipped through London twice (perhaps in the expectation that this would kill him), and imprisoned for life and pilloried every year. Oates survived the whipping and spent the next three years in prison. At the accession of William of Orange and Mary in 1689, he was pardoned and granted a pension of £260 a year but his reputation did not recover. The pension was suspended, but in 1698 was restored and increased to £300 a year. Oates died on 12 or 13 July 1705.

Long-term effects of the Plot[link]

The Society of Jesus suffered the most between 1678 and 1681. During this period, nine Jesuits were executed and twelve died in prison. Three other deaths were also attributable to the plot.^[18] They also lost Combe in Herefordshire, which was the Jesuit headquarters of South Wales. A quote from French Jesuit Claude de la Colombiere highlights the plight of the Jesuits during this time period. He comments, “The name of the Jesuit is hated above all else, even by priests both secular and regular, and by the Catholic laity as well, because it is said that the Jesuits have caused this raging storm, which is likely to overthrow the whole Catholic religion.”^[19]

Other Catholic religious orders such as the Carmelites, Franciscans, and the Benedictines were also affected by the fictitious plot. They were no longer permitted to have more than a certain number of members or missions within England. John Kenyon points out that European religious orders throughout the Continent were affected by the plot since many of them depended on the alms of the English Catholic community for their existence. Many Catholic priests were arrested and tried because the Privy Council wanted to make sure to catch all of those who might possess information about the plot.^[20]

The fictitious plot had consequences for ordinary British Catholics. On October 30, 1687, a proclamation was made that required all Catholics who were not tradesmen or property owners to leave London and Westminster. They were not to enter a twelve-mile radius of the city without special permission. Throughout this period Catholics were subject to fines, harassment and imprisonment.^[21] It was not until the early 19th century that the vestiges of anti-Catholic prejudice were removed by the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, although anti-Catholic sentiment remained among politicians and the general populace.

Gallery of playing cards[link]

• 

  informer William Bedloe

• 

  Titus Oates uncovers plot

• 

  Magistrate Edmund Berry Godfrey with Oates

• 

  William Brooks, Alderman of Dublin

• 

  Thomas Pickering, Benedictine monk and victim of the Popish Plot

• 

  Nathaniel Reading in Pillory

• 

  Edward Colman a victim of Oates's plot

• 

  The execution of the five Jesuits

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Douglas C. Green (Hg.), Diaries of the Popish Plot, New York 1977.
• John Kenyon, The Popish Plot, 2d ed., 1985, repr. Phoenix Press 2001. ISBN 1-84212-168-5.
• John Pollock, The Popish Plot: A Study in the History, Kessinger Publishing, 2005. ISBN 1-4179-6576-2.

External links[link]

• Nathaniel Reading
• Names of eight Jesuit victims

Tarpley attending the 2005 Axis for Peace conference

Webster Griffin Tarpley (born 1946) is an American historian, author, journalist, lecturer, and critic of US foreign and domestic policy. Tarpley maintains that the September 11 attacks were engineered by a rogue network of the military-industrial complex and intelligence agencies as a false flag operation.^[1] His writings and speeches describe a model of terror operations by a rogue network in the military/intelligence sector working with moles in the private sector and in corporate media, and locates such contemporary false flag operations in a historical context stretching back in the English speaking world to at least the Gunpowder Plot in England in 1605.

Education[link]

The "rogue network" which Tarpley suspects of the September 11 attacks

Tarpley was born in Pittsfield, Massachusetts in 1946. He received a BA degree summa cum laude in English and Italian from Princeton University in 1966. While a student at Princeton he became a member of Phi Beta Kappa, and was a Fulbright Scholar at University of Turin in Italy.^[2] Tarpley also obtained a MA degree in humanities from Skidmore College. As well as a Ph.D. from The Catholic University of America in History.

Career[link]

In 1971, Tarpley was on the editorial board of The Campaigner, a National Caucus of Labor Committees' journal, according to its masthead.^[3]

As a European based journalist in the 1980s, Tarpley wrote a study on the assassination of Prime Minister Aldo Moro. The study claimed that the murder was a false flag operation orchestrated by the Propaganda Due, a Masonic Lodge, with the cooperation of senior members of Italian government secret services but blamed on the Red Brigades.^[4]

Tarpley was president of the Schiller Institute of the United States in the 1980s^{[5][clarification needed]} and in 1993.^[6] In 1986 Tarpley attempted to run on Lyndon LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party platform in the New York State Democratic Party primary for the U.S. Senate, but was ruled off the ballot because of a defect in his nominating petitions.^[7] He was a frequent host of "The LaRouche Connection" which its producer LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review News Service^[8] describes as "a news and information cable television program."^[9]

Tarpley first gained attention for co-authoring, with Anton Chaitkin, ("history editor of Executive Intelligence Review") a 1992 book on George H. W. Bush, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, which was published by Executive Intelligence Review, run by Lyndon LaRouche.^[10] He has expounded the "Versailles Thesis" laying the blame for the great wars of the 20th century on intrigues by Britain to retain her dominance.^[11] He gained experience as a political operative during his years with the LaRouche movement but broke away sometime after 1995.

In 2005, Tarpley published 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA. He speaks at length about the themes in the book during an interview in the film Oil, Smoke, Mirrors.

Since March, 2006, Tarpley has had a weekly online talk radio show called World Crisis Radio,^[12] currently hosted on GCNLive.com. Tarpley is a member of the "world anti-imperialist conference" Axis for Peace, of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and of a research Netzwerk of German 9/11 authors founded in September 2006. He is featured in the film, Zero: an investigation into 9/11 (2007–2008).^[13]

Tarpley is a critic of the Dalai Lama; in 2010 he told Russia Today that "pre-1959 Tibet ... was probably the closest thing to hell on earth that you had ... social reform was impossible." In the interview he criticizes US funding of pro-Dalai Lama organizations, which he says amounts to US$2 million per year, saying "this is a bad deal for the American taxpayers."^[14]

He also maintains that "The notion of anthropogenic global warming is a fraud."^[15]

Bibliography[link]

• Chi ha ucciso Aldo Moro? (Who Killed Aldo Moro?), a study commissioned by a member of the Italian government and published in Rome in 1978 The Larouchian, Partito Operaio Europeo http://www.movisol.org/moro.htm, which broke open the affiliation of the Red Brigades with the neofascist lodge P2.
• George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (1992) (co-authored with Anton Chaitkin, son of the lawyer who indicted Prescott Bush under the Trading with the Enemy Act for collaboration with Nazi Germany.) Reprinted 2004, ISBN 0-930852-92-3.
• Against Oligarchy (1996)
• Surviving the Cataclysm: Your Guide through the Worst Financial Crisis in Human History (1999); updated edition, 2009.
• 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA - Myth of the 21st Century (2005), Foreword by Thierry Meyssan, ISBN 0-930852-31-1, Fourth edition ISBN 0-930852-37-0 (April 2007).
  • Version française: La Terreur Fabriquée, Made in USA : 11 Septembre, le mythe du XXIe siècle (Sept. 2006). ISBN 2-9525571-4-4
  • In Italiano: La Fabbrica del Terrore (Sept. 2007). ISBN 978-88-87307-36-6
  • En Español: 11-S, El Falso Terrorismo Jan. 2008 ISBN 0-930852-98-2.
• Obama - The Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate (Apr. 2008) ISBN 0-930852-88-5.
  • Deutsche Fassung: Barack Obama: Wie ein US-Präsident gemacht wird (Aug. 2008) ISBN 978-3-938516-74-4.
  • Japanese Edition: Obama: Dangerous Geometry (Nov. 2008) ISBN 4-88086-239-8
  • Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography (Aug. 2008) ISBN 0-930852-81-8; Japanese edition, March 2009.

References[link]

External links[link]

• Tarpley's Website
• Tarpley's Show on the Genesis Network
• Ground Zero Grassy Knoll - Feature article in New York Magazine (March 20, 2006)
• Publisher's web site
• Amazon.com's Webster Griffin Tarpley page

Audio and Video Links:

• Webster Tarpley lecture and interview videos

v t e LaRouche movement History Lyndon LaRouche Views of Lyndon LaRouche LaRouche criminal trials Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns Organizations Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität Citizens Electoral Council European Workers Party Executive Intelligence Review LaRouche movement National Caucus of Labor Committees Schiller Institute Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement Defunct California Proposition 64 (1986) Fusion Energy Foundation North American Labour Party Party for the Commonwealth of Canada U.S. Labor Party Members Robert Beltran James Bevel Michael Billington Amelia Boynton Robinson Norbert Brainin Anton Chaitkin Jacques Cheminade Billy Davis Sergey Glazyev Janice Hart Hulan Jack Kenneth Kronberg Stanislav Menshikov Theo Mitchell Robert James Moon Kesha Rogers Nataliya Vitrenko William Warfield Frederick Wills Helga Zepp-LaRouche Critics Chip Berlet Daniel Patrick Moynihan John Rees Mike Royko People separated from the movement Nicholas F. Benton Robert Dreyfuss F. William Engdahl Laurent Murawiec Webster Tarpley Related persons Jeremiah Duggan J. Gordon Edwards (entomologist and mountaineer) Daniel Estulin Erik R. Fleming Roy Frankhouser Victor Gunnarsson Zbigniew Jaworowski Gordon M. Johnson Karen Kwiatkowski Eric Lerner Friedwardt Winterberg Book:LaRouche movement Politics portal Wiktionary Wikibooks Wikiquote Wikisource Wikimedia Commons Wikinews Wikiversity

Gunpowder Plot

Guy Fawkes
George Cruikshank's illustration of Guy Fawkes, published in William Harrison Ainsworth's 1840 novel
Details
Parents	Edward Fawkes, Edith (née Blake or Jackson)
Born	(1570-04-13)13 April 1570 (presumed) York, England
Alias(es)	Guido Fawkes, John Johnson
Occupation	Soldier; Alférez
Plot
Role	Explosives
Enlisted	20 May 1604
Captured	5 November 1605
Conviction(s)	High treason
Penalty	Hanged, drawn and quartered
Died	31 January 1606(1606-01-31) (aged 35) Westminster, London, England
Cause	Hanged

Guy Fawkes (13 April 1570 – 31 January 1606), also known as Guido Fawkes, the name he adopted while fighting for the Spanish in the Low Countries, belonged to a group of provincial English Catholics who planned the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605.

Fawkes was born and educated in York. His father died when Fawkes was eight years old, after which his mother married a recusant Catholic. Fawkes later converted to Catholicism and left for the continent, where he fought in the Eighty Years' War on the side of Catholic Spain against Protestant Dutch reformers. He travelled to Spain to seek support for a Catholic rebellion in England but was unsuccessful. He later met Thomas Wintour, with whom he returned to England.

Wintour introduced Fawkes to Robert Catesby, who planned to assassinate King James I and restore a Catholic monarch to the throne. The plotters secured the lease to an undercroft beneath the House of Lords, and Fawkes was placed in charge of the gunpowder they stockpiled there. Prompted by the receipt of an anonymous letter, the authorities searched Westminster Palace during the early hours of 5 November, and found Fawkes guarding the explosives. Over the next few days, he was questioned and tortured, and eventually he broke. Immediately before his execution on 31 January, Fawkes jumped from the scaffold where he was to be hanged and broke his neck, thus avoiding the agony of the mutilation that followed.

Fawkes became synonymous with the Gunpowder Plot, the failure of which has been commemorated in England since 5 November 1605. His effigy is traditionally burned on a bonfire, commonly accompanied by a firework display.

Early life[link]

Childhood[link]

Fawkes was baptised at the church of St. Michael le Belfrey

Guy Fawkes was born in 1570 in Stonegate, York. He was the second of four children born to Edward Fawkes, a proctor and an advocate of the consistory court at York,^{[nb 1]} and his wife, Edith.^{[nb 2]} Guy's parents were regular communicants of the Church of England, as were his paternal grandparents; his grandmother, born Ellen Harrington, was the daughter of a prominent merchant, who served as Lord Mayor of York in 1536.^[4] However, Guy's mother's family were recusant Catholics, and his cousin, Richard Cowling, became a Jesuit priest.^[5] Guy was an uncommon name in England, but may have been popular in York on account of a local notable, Sir Guy Fairfax of Steeton.^[6]

The date of Fawkes' birth is unknown, but he was baptised in the church of St. Michael le Belfrey on 16 April. As the customary gap between birth and baptism was three days, he was probably born about 13 April.^[5] In 1568, Edith had given birth to a daughter named Anne, but the child died aged about seven weeks, in November that year. She bore two more children after Guy: Anne (b. 1572), and Elizabeth (b. 1575). Both were married, in 1599 and 1594 respectively.^[6][7]

In 1579, when Guy was eight years old, his father died. His mother remarried several years later, to the Catholic Dionis Baynbrigge (or Denis Bainbridge) of Scotton, Harrogate. Fawkes may have become a Catholic through the Baynbrigge family's recusant tendencies, and also the Catholic branches of the Pulleyn and Percy families of Scotton,^[8] but also from his time at St. Peter's School in York. A governor of the school had spent about 20 years in prison for recusancy, and its headmaster, John Pulleyn, came from a family of noted Yorkshire recusants, the Pulleyns of Blubberhouses. In her 1915 work The Pulleynes of Yorkshire, author Catharine Pullein suggested that Fawkes's Catholic education came from his Harrington relatives, who were known for harbouring priests, one of whom later accompanied Fawkes to Flanders in 1592–1593.^[9] Fawkes's fellow students included John Wright and his brother Christopher (both later involved with Fawkes in the Gunpowder plot) and Oswald Tesimond, Edward Oldcorne and Robert Middleton, who became priests (the latter executed in 1601).^[10]

After leaving school Fawkes entered the service of Anthony Browne, 1st Viscount Montagu. The Viscount took a dislike to Fawkes and after a short time dismissed him; he was subsequently employed by Anthony-Maria Browne, 2nd Viscount Montagu, who succeeded his grandfather at the age of 18.^[11] At least one source claims that Fawkes married and had a son, but no known contemporary accounts confirm this.^{[12][nb 3]}

Military career[link]

In October 1591 Fawkes sold the estate in Clifton that he had inherited from his father.^{[nb 4]} He travelled to the continent to fight in the Eighty Years War for Catholic Spain against the new Dutch Republic and, from 1595 until the Peace of Vervins in 1598, France. Although England was not by then engaged in land operations against Spain, the two countries were still at war, and the Spanish Armada of 1588 was only five years in the past. He joined Sir William Stanley, an English Catholic and veteran commander in his mid-fifties who had raised an army in Ireland to fight in Leicester's expedition to the Netherlands. Stanley had been held in high regard by Elizabeth I, but following his surrender of Deventer to the Spanish in 1587 he, and most of his troops, had switched sides to serve Spain. Fawkes became an alférez or junior officer, fought well at the siege of Calais in 1596, and by 1603 had been recommended for a captaincy.^[3] That year, he travelled to Spain to seek support for a Catholic rebellion in England. He used the occasion to adopt the Italian version of his name, Guido, and in his memorandum described James I as "a heretic", who intended "to have all of the Papist sect driven out of England." He denounced Scotland, and the King's favourites among the Scottish nobles, writing "it will not be possible to reconcile these two nations, as they are, for very long".^[13] Although he was received politely, the court of Philip III was unwilling to offer him any support.^[14]

Gunpowder Plot[link]

A contemporary engraving of eight of the thirteen conspirators, by Crispijn van de Passe. Fawkes is third from the right.

In 1604 Fawkes became involved with a small group of English Catholics, led by Robert Catesby, who planned to assassinate the Protestant King James and replace him with his daughter, third in the line of succession, Princess Elizabeth.^[15][16] Fawkes was described by the Jesuit priest and former school friend Oswald Tesimond as "pleasant of approach and cheerful of manner, opposed to quarrels and strife ... loyal to his friends". Tesimond also claimed Fawkes was "a man highly skilled in matters of war", and that it was this mixture of piety and professionalism which endeared him to his fellow conspirators.^[3] The author Antonia Fraser describes Fawkes as "a tall, powerfully built man, with thick reddish-brown hair, a flowing moustache in the tradition of the time, and a bushy reddish-brown beard", and that he was "a man of action ... capable of intelligent argument as well as physical endurance, somewhat to the surprise of his enemies."^[5]

The first meeting of the five central conspirators took place on Sunday 20 May 1604, at an inn called the Duck and Drake, in the fashionable Strand district of London.^{[nb 5]} Catesby had already proposed at an earlier meeting with Thomas Wintour and John Wright to kill the King and his government by blowing up "the Parliament House with gunpowder". Wintour, who at first objected to the plan, was convinced by Catesby to travel to the continent to seek help. Wintour met with the Constable of Castile, the exiled Welsh spy Hugh Owen,^[18] and Sir William Stanley, who said that Catesby would receive no support from Spain. Owen did, however, introduce Wintour to Fawkes, who had by then been away from England for many years, and thus was largely unknown in the country. Wintour and Fawkes were contemporaries; each was militant, and had first-hand experience of the unwillingness of the Spaniards to help. Wintour told Fawkes of their plan to "doe some whatt in Ingland if the pece with Spaine healped us nott",^[3] and thus in April 1604 the two men returned to England.^[17] Wintour's news did not surprise Catesby; despite positive noises from the Spanish authorities, he feared that "the deeds would nott answere".^{[nb 6]}

One of the conspirators, Thomas Percy was promoted in June 1604, gaining access to a house in London which belonged to John Whynniard, Keeper of the King's Wardrobe. Fawkes was installed as a caretaker and began using the pseudonym John Johnson, servant to Percy.^[20] The contemporaneous account of the prosecution (taken from Thomas Wintour's confession)^[21] claimed that the conspirators attempted to dig a tunnel from beneath Whynniard's house to Parliament, although this story may have been a government fabrication; no evidence for the existence of a tunnel was presented by the prosecution, and no trace of one has ever been found; Fawkes himself did not admit the existence of such a scheme until his fifth interrogation, but even then he could not locate the tunnel.^[22] If the story is true, however, by December 1604 the conspirators were busy tunnelling from their rented house to the House of Lords. They ceased their efforts when, during tunnelling, they heard a noise from above. Fawkes was sent out to investigate, and returned with the news that the tenant's widow was clearing out a nearby undercroft, directly beneath the House of Lords.^[3][23]

The plotters purchased the lease to the room, which also belonged to John Whynniard. Unused and filthy, it was considered an ideal hiding place for the gunpowder the plotters planned to store.^[24] According to Fawkes, 20 barrels of gunpowder were brought in at first, followed by 16 more on 20 July.^[25] On 28 July however, the ever-present threat of the plague delayed the opening of Parliament until Tuesday, 5 November.^[26]

Overseas[link]

In an attempt to gain foreign support, in May 1605 Fawkes travelled overseas and informed Hugh Owen of the plotters' plan.^[27] At some point during this trip his name made its way into the files of Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury, who employed a network of spies across Europe. One of these spies, Captain William Turner, may have been responsible. Although the information he provided to Salisbury usually amounted to no more than a vague pattern of invasion reports, and included nothing which regarded the Gunpowder Plot, on 21 April he told how Fawkes was to be brought by Tesimond to England. Fawkes was a well known Flemish mercenary, and would be introduced to "Mr Catesby" and "honourable friends of the nobility and others who would have arms and horses in readiness".^[28] Turner's report did not, however, mention Fawkes's pseudonym in England, John Johnson, and did not reach Cecil until late in November, well after the plot had been discovered.^[3][29]

It is uncertain when Fawkes returned to England, but he was back in London by late August 1605, when he and Wintour discovered that the gunpowder stored in the undercroft had decayed. More gunpowder was brought into the room, along with firewood to conceal it.^[30] Fawkes's final role in the plot was settled during a series of meetings in October. He was to light the fuse and then escape across the Thames. Simultaneously, a revolt in the Midlands would help to ensure the capture of Princess Elizabeth. Acts of regicide were frowned upon, and Fawkes would therefore head to the continent, where he would explain to the Catholic powers his holy duty to kill the King and his retinue.^[31]

Discovery[link]

Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot (c. 1823), Henry Perronet Briggs

A few of the conspirators were concerned about fellow Catholics who would be present at Parliament during the opening.^[32] On the evening of 26 October, Lord Monteagle received an anonymous letter warning him to stay away, and to "retyre youre self into yowre contee whence yow maye expect the event in safti for ... they shall receyve a terrible blowe this parleament".^[33] Despite quickly becoming aware of the letter – informed by one of Monteagle's servants – the conspirators resolved to continue with their plans, as it appeared that it "was clearly thought to be a hoax".^[34] Fawkes checked the undercroft on 30 October, and reported that nothing had been disturbed.^[35] Monteagle's suspicions had been aroused however, and the letter was shown to King James. The King ordered Sir Thomas Knyvet to conduct a search of the cellars underneath Parliament, which he did in the early hours of 5 November. Fawkes had taken up his station late on the previous night, armed with a slow match and a watch given to him by Percy "becaus he should knowe howe the time went away".^[3] He was found leaving the cellar, shortly after midnight, and arrested. Inside, the barrels of gunpowder were discovered hidden under piles of firewood and coal.^[36]

Torture[link]

Fawkes gave his name as John Johnson and was first interrogated by members of the King's Privy Chamber, where he remained defiant. When asked by one of the lords what he was doing in possession of so much gunpowder, Fawkes answered that his intention was "to blow you Scotch beggars back to your native mountains."^[37] He identified himself as a 36-year-old Catholic from Netherdale in Yorkshire, and gave his father's name as Thomas and his mother's as Edith Jackson. Wounds on his body noted by his questioners he explained as the effects of pleurisy. Fawkes admitted his intention to blow up the House of Lords, and expressed regret at his failure to do so. His steadfast manner earned him the admiration of King James, who described Fawkes as possessing "a Roman resolution".^[38]

James's admiration did not, however, prevent him from ordering on 6 November that "John Johnson" be tortured, to reveal the names of his co-conspirators.^[39] He directed that the torture be light at first, referring to the use of manacles, but more severe if necessary, authorising the use of the rack: "the gentler Tortures are to be first used unto him et sic per gradus ad ima tenditur [and so by degrees proceeding to the worst]".^[37][40] Fawkes was transferred to the Tower of London. The King composed a list of questions to be put to "Johnson", such as "as to what he is, For I can never yet hear of any man that knows him", "When and where he learned to speak French?", and "If he was a Papist, who brought him up in it?"^[41] The room in which Fawkes was interrogated subsequently became known as the Guy Fawkes Room.^[42]

Fawkes's signature of "Guido", made soon after his torture, is a barely evident scrawl compared to a later instance.

Sir William Waad, Lieutenant of the Tower, supervised the torture and obtained Fawkes's confession.^[37] He searched his prisoner, and found a letter, addressed to Guy Fawkes. To Waad's surprise, "Johnson" remained silent, revealing nothing about the plot or its authors.^[43] On the night of 6 November he spoke with Waad, who reported to Salisbury "He [Johnson] told us that since he undertook this action he did every day pray to God he might perform that which might be for the advancement of the Catholic Faith and saving his own soul". According to Waad, Fawkes managed to rest through the night, despite his being warned that he would be interrogated until "I had gotton the inwards secret of his thoughts and all his complices".^[44] His composure was broken at some point during the following day.^[45]

The observer Sir Edward Hoby remarked "Since Johnson's being in the Tower, he beginneth to speak English". Fawkes revealed his true identity on 7 November, and told his interrogators that there were five people involved in the plot to kill the King. He began to reveal their names on 8 November, and told how they intended to place Princess Elizabeth on the throne. His third confession, on 9 November, implicated Francis Tresham. Following the Ridolfi plot of 1571 prisoners were made to dictate their confessions, before copying and signing them, if they still could.^[46] Although it is uncertain if he was subjected to the horrors of the rack, Fawkes's signature, little more than a scrawl, bears testament to the suffering he endured at the hands of his interrogators.^[47]

Trial and execution[link]

The trial of eight of the plotters began on Monday 27 January 1606. Fawkes shared the barge from the Tower to Westminster Hall with seven of his co-conspirators.^{[nb 7]} They were kept in the Star Chamber before being taken to Westminster Hall, where they were displayed on a purpose-built scaffold. The King and his close family, watching in secret, were among the spectators as the Lords Commissioners read out the list of charges. Fawkes was identified as Guido Fawkes, "otherwise called Guido Johnson". He pleaded not guilty, despite his apparent acceptance of guilt from the moment he was captured.^[49]

A 1606 etching by Claes (Nicolaes) Jansz Visscher, depicting Fawkes's execution

The outcome was never in doubt. The jury found all of the defendants guilty, and the Lord Chief Justice Sir John Popham proclaimed them guilty of high treason.^[50] The Attorney General Sir Edward Coke told the court that each of the condemned would be drawn backwards to his death, by a horse, his head near the ground. They were to be "put to death halfway between heaven and earth as unworthy of both". Their genitals would be cut off and burnt before their eyes, and their bowels and hearts removed. They would then be decapitated, and the dismembered parts of their bodies displayed so that they might become "prey for the fowls of the air".^[51] Fawkes's and Tresham's testimony regarding the Spanish treason was read aloud, as well as confessions related specifically to the Gunpowder Plot. The last piece of evidence offered was a conversation between Fawkes and Wintour, who had been kept in adjacent cells. The two men apparently thought they had been speaking in private, but their conversation was intercepted by a government spy. When the prisoners were allowed to speak, Fawkes explained his not guilty plea as ignorance of certain aspects of the indictment.^[52]

On 31 January 1606, Fawkes and three others — Thomas Wintour, Ambrose Rookwood, and Robert Keyes — were dragged (i.e. drawn) from the Tower on wattled hurdles to the Old Palace Yard at Westminster, opposite the building they had attempted to destroy.^[53] His fellow plotters were then hanged and quartered. Fawkes was the last to stand on the scaffold. He asked for forgiveness of the King and state, while keeping up his "crosses and idle ceremonies", and aided by the hangman began to climb the ladder to the noose. Although weakened by torture, Fawkes managed to jump from the gallows, breaking his neck in the fall and thus avoiding the agony of the latter part of his execution.^[37][54] His lifeless body was nevertheless quartered,^[55] and as was the custom,^[56] his body parts were then distributed to "the four corners of the kingdom", to be displayed as a warning to other would-be traitors.^[57]

Legacy[link]

Procession of a Guy (1864)

On 5 November 1605 Londoners were encouraged to celebrate the King's escape from assassination by lighting bonfires, "always provided that 'this testemonye of joy be carefull done without any danger or disorder'".^[3] An Act of Parliament^{[nb 8]} designated each 5 November as a day of thanksgiving for "the joyful day of deliverance", and remained in force until 1859.^[58] Although he was only one of 13 conspirators, Fawkes is today the individual most associated with the failed Plot.^[59]

In Britain, 5 November has variously been called Guy Fawkes Night, Guy Fawkes Day, Plot Night^[60] and Bonfire Night; the latter can be traced directly back to the original celebration of 5 November 1605.^[61] Bonfires were accompanied by fireworks from the 1650s onwards, and it became the custom to burn an effigy (usually the Pope) after 1673, when the heir presumptive, James, Duke of York made his conversion to Catholicism public.^[3] Effigies of other notable figures who have become targets for the public's ire, such as Paul Kruger and Margaret Thatcher, have also found their way onto the bonfires,^[62] although most modern effigies are of Fawkes.^[58] The "guy" is normally created by children, from old clothes, newspapers, and a mask.^[58] During the 19th century, "guy" came to mean an oddly dressed person, but in American English it lost any pejorative connotation, and was used to refer to any male person.^[58][63]

William Harrison Ainsworth's 1841 historical romance Guy Fawkes; or, The Gunpowder Treason, portrays Fawkes in a generally sympathetic light,^[64] and transformed him in the public perception into an "acceptable fictional character". Fawkes subsequently appeared as "essentially an action hero" in children's books and penny dreadfuls such as The Boyhood Days of Guy Fawkes; or, The Conspirators of Old London, published in about 1905.^[65] Fawkes is sometimes referred to as "the only man ever to enter Parliament with honest intentions".^[66]

References[link]

Notes

Footnotes

Bibliography

External links[link]

Media related to Guy Fawkes at Wikimedia Commons Quotations related to Guy Fawkes at Wikiquote

• Guy Fawkes story from the BBC, including archive video clips

Chidiock (Charles) Tichborne (1563 – 20 September 1586) is remembered as an English conspirator and poet.

Biography[link]

He was born in Southampton sometime after 24 August 1562 ^[1] to Roman Catholic parents, Peter Tichborne and his wife Elizabeth (née Middleton).^[2] His birth date has been given as circa 1558 in many sources, though unverified, and thus his age given as 28 at his execution. It is unlikely that he was born before his parents marriage so he could have been no more than 23 years old when he died.

Chidiock's father Peter appears to be the youngest son of Henry Tichborne (born circa 1474) and Anne Mervin (or Marvin) but the records are unclear. Peter was clerk of the Crowne at the trial of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton in 1554 and was an ardent catholic supporter. Being the youngest son of a youngest son he was of little means and required to make his own way. He secured an education and the patronage of Lord Chidiock Paulet. In later life he spent many years imprisoned unable to pay recusancy fines. Chideock's mother was Elizabeth Middleton, daughter of William Middleton (grandson of Sir Thomas Middleton of Belso, Kt.) and Elizabeth Potter (daughter of John Potter of Westram). William had been servant to John Islip, Abbot of Westminster, and a banner bearer at Islip's funeral 1532 ^[3], and later bought lands in Kent.

At least two of Chidiock's sisters are recorded by name: Dorothy, first wife of Thomas Muttelbury of Jurdens, Somerset ^[4] ; and Mary, second wife of Sir William Kirkham of Blagdon, Paignton, Devon. ^[5] At his execution Chidiock mentions his wife Agnes, one child, and his six sisters. In his letter to his wife, written the night before his execution he mentions his sisters - and also 'my little sister Babb'. ^[6] Another sister is implied in a secret intelligence note to Francis Walsingham, dated Sept 18 1586, in which the writer has had conference with "Jennings of Portsmouth" who reports that Mr Bruyn of Dorset and Mr Kyrkham of Devon are persons to be suspect as they had married Tychbourn's sisters. ^[7]

Given the recent succession of Elizabeth I to the throne after the death of Mary I, he was allowed to practice Catholicism for part of his early life. However in 1570 the Queen was excommunicated by the Pope for her own Protestantism and support of Protestant causes, most notably the Dutch Rebellion against Spain; in retaliation she ended her relative toleration of the Catholic Church. Catholicism was made illegal, and Roman Catholics were once more banned by law from practicing their religion and Roman Catholic priests risked death for performing their functions.

Tower of London, Traitor's Gate

Chidiock descended from Sir Roger de Tichborne who owned land at Tichborne, near Winchester, in the twelfth century. Chidiock's second cousin and contemporary was Sir Benjamin Tichborne who lived at Tichborne Park and was created a Baronet by King James I in 1621. The Tichborne family is ancient and believed to have held land at Tichborne from before the Norman Conquest. In Chidiock's reported oration from the scaffold before his execution he allegedly stated: "I am descended from a house, from two hundred years before the Conquest, never stained till this my misfortune.".^[8]

In 1583, Tichborne and his father, Peter, were arrested and questioned concerning the use of "popish relics", religious objects Tichborne had brought back from a visit he had made abroad without informing the authorities of an intention to travel.^[2] Though released without charge, records suggest that this was not the last time they were to be questioned by the authorities over their religion. In June 1586 accusations of "popish practices" were laid against his family.

Chidiock's father secured the patronage of his distant kinsman, Lord Chidiock Paulet (1521–1574, son of the 1st Marquess of Winchester), after whom he named his son. The name originates from a Paulet ancestor, Sir John Chideock, Kt., who owned land at Chideock, a village in Dorset. Chidiock Tichborne was never called Charles - this is an error that has grown from a misprint in the AQA GCSE English Literature syllabus which has included the Elegy in its early poetry section for several years. Unfortunately this error persists in much of the educational literature supporting the syllabus.

In June 1586, Tichborne agreed to take part in the Babington Plot to murder Queen Elizabeth and replace her with the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, who was next in line to the throne. The plot was foiled by Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth's spymaster, using double agents, most notably Robert Poley who was later witness to the murder of Christopher Marlowe, and though most of the conspirators fled, Tichborne had an injured leg and was forced to remain in London. On 14 August he was arrested and he was later tried and sentenced to death in Westminster Hall.

While in custody in the Tower of London on 19 September (the eve of his execution), Tichborne wrote to his wife Agnes. The letter contained three stanzas of poetry that is his best known piece of work, Tichborne's Elegy, also known by its first line My Prime of Youth is but a Frost of Cares. The poem is a dark look at a life cut short and is a favorite of many scholars to this day. Two other poems are known by him, To His Friend and The Housedove.

On 20 September 1586, Tichborne was executed with Anthony Babington, John Ballard, and four other conspirators. They were eviscerated, hanged, drawn and quartered, the mandatory punishment for treason, in St Giles Field. However, when Elizabeth was informed that these gruesome executions were arousing sympathy for the condemned, she ordered that the remaining seven conspirators were to be hanged until 'quite dead' before being eviscerated.

Tichborne's Elegy[link]

My prime of youth is but a frost of cares,

My feast of joy is but a dish of pain,

My crop of corn is but a field of tares,

And all my good is but vain hope of gain;

The day is past, and yet I saw no sun,

And now I live, and now my life is done.

My tale was heard and yet it was not told,

My fruit is fallen, and yet my leaves are green,

My youth is spent and yet I am not old,

I saw the world and yet I was not seen;

My thread is cut and yet it is not spun,

And now I live, and now my life is done.

I sought my death and found it in my womb,

I looked for life and saw it was a shade,

I trod the earth and knew it was my tomb,

And now I die, and now I was but made;

My glass is full, and now my glass is run,

And now I live, and now my life is done.

This is the first printed version from Verses of Prayse and Joye (1586). The original text differs slightly: along with other minor differences, the first line of the second verse reads "The spring is past, and yet it hath not sprung," and the third line reads "My youth is gone, and yet I am but young."

To His Friend (assumed to be Anthony Babington)

Good sorrow cease, false hope be gone, misfortune once farewell;

Come, solemn muse, the sad discourse of our adventures tell.

A friend I had whose special part made mine affection his;

We ruled tides and streams ourselves, no want was in our bliss.

Six years we sailed, sea-room enough, by many happy lands,

Till at the length, a stream us took and cast us on the sands.

There lodged we were in a gulf of woe, despairing what to do,

Till at the length, from shore unknown, a Pilot to us drew,

Whose help did sound our grounded ship from out Caribda's mouth,

But unadvised, on Scylla drives; the wind which from the South

Did blustering blow the fatal blast of our unhappy fall,

Where driving, leaves my friend and I to fortune ever thrall;

Where we be worse beset with sands and rocks on every side,

Where we be quite bereft of aid, of men, of winds, of tide.

Where vain it is to hail for help so far from any shore,

So far from Pilot's course; despair shall we, therefore?

No! God from out his heap of helps on us will some bestow,

And send such mighty surge of seas, or else such blasts to blow

As shall remove our grounded ship far from this dangerous place,

And we shall joy each others' chance through God's almighty grace,

And keep ourselves on land secure, our sail on safer seas.

Sweet friend, till then content thy self, and pray for our release.

The Housedove

A silly housedove happed to fall

amongst a flock of crows,

Which fed and filled her harmless craw

amongst her fatal foes.

The crafty fowler drew his net -

all his that he could catch -

The crows lament their hellish chance,

the dove repents her match.

But too, too late! it was her chance

the fowler did her spy,

And so did take her for a crow -

which thing caused her to die.

The only known manuscript versions of To His Friend and The Housedove are from Edinburgh Library MS Laing, II, 69/24

However twenty eight different manuscript versions of the Elegy (or Lament) are known and there are many variations of the text.

Tichborne's authorship of the Elegy has been disputed, with attributions to others including Sir Walter Raleigh. However it was printed soon after the Babington plot in a volume called Verses of Praise and Joy in 1586, published by John Wolfe of London to celebrate the Queen's survival and to attack the plotters. Another poem in the volume is titled: Hendecasyllabon T. K. in Cygneam Cantionem Chideochi Tychborne and is an answer to Chidiock verses, most likely by the poet and dramatist Thomas Kyd, author of The Spanish Tragedy.

Hendecasyllabon T. K. (Thomas Kyd 1558-1595) in Cygneam Cantionem Chideochi Tychborne

Thy prime of youth is frozen with thy faults,

Thy feast of joy is finisht with thy fall;

Thy crop of corn is tares availing naughts,

Thy good God knows thy hope, thy hap and all.

Short were thy days, and shadowed was thy sun,

T'obscure thy light unluckily begun.

Time trieth truth, and truth hath treason tripped;

Thy faith bare fruit as thou hadst faithless been:

Thy ill spent youth thine after years hath nipt;

And God that saw thee hath preserved our Queen.

Her thread still holds, thine perished though unspun,

And she shall live when traitors lives are done.

Thou soughtst thy death, and found it in desert,

Thou look'dst for life, yet lewdly forc'd it fade:

Thou trodst the earth, and now on earth thou art,

As men may wish thou never hadst been made.

Thy glory, and thy glass are timeless run;

And this, O Tychborne, hath thy treason done.

Critical Appreciation[link]

Tichborne's Elegy uses two favorite Renaissance figures of speech - antithesis and paradox - to crystallize the tragedy of the poet's situation.

Antithesis means setting opposites against each other: prime of youth / frost of cares (from the first line). This is typical of Renaissance poetry, as for example in Wyatt's "I find no peace, and all my war is done", with the lover freezing/burning. We also see it in the poem by Elizabeth I, "I grieve and dare not show my discontent", e.g., "I am and not, I freeze and yet am burned."

A paradox is a statement which seems self-contradictory, yet is true, e.g., "My tale is heard, and yet it was not told", or "My glass is full, and now my glass is run."

Often a Renaissance poem will begin with antithesis to establish circumstances and reveal its themes through paradox.

The Elegy is remarkable for being written almost entirely in monosyllables with the possible exception of the word "fallen". However in early editions it was written as "fall'n" which is monosyllabic.^[9]

The Housedove exploits a popular image from the period: Tichborne sees himself as an innocent dove caught among his fellow conspirators, (see Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet 1.5.48). The 'crafty fowler' is probably Sir Francis Walsingham, the spymaster who manipulated the Babington plot.

The Elegy has inspired many homages and 'answers' including those by Jonathon Robin at allpoetry.com ; a rap version by David A More at www.marlovian.com ; After Reading Tichborne's Elegy by Dick Allen (2003) and an affecting reworking by Nick Montfort called Tichborne's Lexicon, which is an alphabetical list of the words in the Elegy (http://nickm.com/poems/#riddles).

The Elegy has also been set to music many times from the Elizabethan era to the present day by, among others, Michael East, Richard Alison (fl1580-1610, in An Hour's Recreation in musicke, 1606), John Mundy (1592) and Charles-François Gounod (1873) and more recently Norman Dello Joio (1949) and Jim Clark (see http://wn.com/Tichborne's_Elegy_Poem_animation).

References[link]

• Richard S. M. Hirsch (1986) The Works of Chidiock Tichborne, English Literary Renaissance, (1986) Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 303–318 and (1987) Vol 17 pp. 276–7
• Isaac D'Israeli (circa 1859) (1st collected edition 1881) Curiosities of Literature, Vol. II, pp. 171–178
• Teresa McLean (1982) The Recusant Legend: Chideock Tichborne, History Today, Vol. 32, Issue 5, May 1982, pp. 11–14
• Katherine Tynan (Hinkson) (1892) A Conspirator under Queen Elizabeth, article in The Ave Maria, Vol. XXXV, Notre Dame, Indiana, Sept. 24, 1892, No. 13

Notes[link]

External links[link]

Wikisource has original works written by or about: Chidiock Tichborne

•  "Tichborne, Chidiock". Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900. 
• Tichborne's Elegy
• Original version from RPO
• Translation by N.Semoniff (in Russian)
• Audio: Robert Pinsky reads "Tichborne's Elegy" by Chidiock Tichborne (via poemsoutloud.net)

Dred Scott
Born	1795 Unknown
Died	September 17, 1858 St. Louis, Missouri
Nationality	American

Dred Scott (1795 – September 17, 1858), was an African American slave in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as "the Dred Scott Decision." His case was based on the fact that although he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, he had lived with his master Dr. John Emerson in states and territories where slavery was illegal according to both state laws and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, including Illinois and Minnesota (which was then part of the Wisconsin Territory). The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property.

While Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had hoped to settle issues related to slavery and Congressional authority by this decision, it aroused outrage and deepened sectional tensions. President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and the post-Civil war Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments nullified the decision.

Overview[link]

The case raised the issue of the status of slaves who had been held while residents in a free state. Such states and territories held that a slaveholder forfeited his rights to property by illegally holding a slave to a state that prohibited the institution and where there was no law to support his controlling the slave. Congress had never before addressed whether slaves were free if they set foot upon free soil. The ruling overturned the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional, since it ruled that as slavery was protected in the Constitution, Congress could not regulate it in the federal Territories and deprive a slave owner of his property without due process. This conclusion enraged the abolitionist Republicans and further exacerbated sectional sentiments that led to the American Civil War. Newspapers at this time covered the case very well, showing people's interest in the topic. Depending on the newspaper (southern or abolitionist) the reporters would either show approval or disapproval towards the decision to deny Scott his freedom.

Scott often traveled with his master Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon in the US Army, who was regularly transferred under Army command. Scott's stay with his master in Illinois, a free state, gave him the legal leverage to make a claim for freedom, as did his extended stay at Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin Territory (now Minnesota), where slavery was also prohibited. Scott did not file a petition for freedom while living in the free lands—perhaps because he was unaware of his rights at the time, or because he was afraid of the possible repercussions. After two years, the army transferred Emerson to territory where slavery was legal: first to St. Louis, Missouri, then to Louisiana. After getting married in Louisiana, Emerson commanded the Scotts to return to him. They could have refused the order by staying in the free territory of Wisconsin (now Minnesota), or by going to the free state of Illinois, but instead they went down the Mississippi River to Louisiana; a voyage of more than 1,000 miles (1,600 km). Emerson died in 1843; his widow directed Scott to work for another officer. At this change Scott sought freedom for his family and himself. He offered US$300, about $7,000 in current value, to Emerson's widow, Irene, but she refused to release him. Scott then went to the St. Louis Circuit Court to obtain his freedom.^[1]

Life[link]

In the late 1790s, Dred Scott was born into slavery in Southampton County, Virginia, as property to the Peter Blow family. From what experts can conclude, Scott was originally named Sam and had an older brother named Dred. However, when the brother died as a young man, Scott chose to take his brother's name instead. The Blow family settled near Huntsville, Alabama, where they unsuccessfully attempted farming.

In 1830 the Blow family took Scott with them when they relocated to St. Louis, Missouri. They sold him to John Emerson, a doctor serving in the United States Army.

Marriage and family[link]

In 1836 Dred Scott met a teen-aged slave named Harriet Robinson whose master was Major Lawrence Taliaferro, an army officer from Virginia. Taliaferro allowed Scott and Harriet to marry and transferred his ownership of Harriet to Dr. Emerson so the couple could be together. A couple of years later, Harriet gave birth to their first child, Eliza. In 1840, they had another daughter whom they named Lizzie. Eventually they would also have two sons, however, neither survived past infancy.

Dr. Emerson married Irene Sanford,^[2] and the Emersons and Scotts returned to Missouri in 1842. When Dr. Emerson died the following year, his widow took over the estate. Scott offered to purchase his freedom from the widow Emerson, but she refused his request.

Dred Scott case[link]

Having failed to purchase his freedom, in 1846 Scott filed legal suit in St Louis Circuit Court through the help of a local lawyer. Historical details about why Scott sought recourse in the court system are unclear. The Scott v. Emerson case was tried in 1847 in the federal-state courthouse in St. Louis. The judgment went against Scott, but having found evidence of hearsay, the judge called for a retrial.^{[citation needed]}

In 1850, a Missouri jury concluded that Scott and his wife should be granted freedom since they had been illegally held as slaves during their extended residence in the free jurisdictions of Illinois and Wisconsin. Irene Emerson appealed. In 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court struck down the lower court ruling, saying, "Times now are not as they were when the previous decisions on this subject were made." They ruled that the precedent of "once free always free" was no longer the case, overturning 28 years of legal precedent. They told the Scotts they should have sued for freedom in Wisconsin. Justice Hamilton R. Gamble, a future governor of the state, sharply disagreed with the majority decision and wrote a dissenting opinion. The Scotts were returned to their master's wife.

Under Missouri law at the time, after Dr. Emerson had died, powers of the Emerson estate were transferred to his wife's brother, John F. A. Sanford. Because Sanford was a citizen of New York, Scott's lawyers "claimed the case should now be brought before the Federal courts, on the grounds of diverse citizenship."^[3] With the assistance of new lawyers (including Montgomery Blair), the Scotts filed suit in the federal court.

After losing again in federal district court, they appealed to the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford. (The name is spelled 'Sandford' in the court decision due to a clerical error.)

On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion. Taney ruled that:

• Any person descended from Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the Constitution. (Note: Only 3/5ths of a state's slave population total was counted in their population total. Contrary to popular belief, slaves were not counted as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of congressional representation. They were considered property in historic records. There were free blacks in several of the 13 states when the Constitution was written. Their number increased dramatically in the Upper South in the first two decades after the Revolution; for instance, by 1810, fully 10 percent of the population in the Upper South were free blacks, as numerous slaveholders manumitted their slaves in this period, inspired by Revolutionary principles of equality.^[4])
• The Ordinance of 1787 could not confer either freedom or citizenship within the Northwest Territory to non-white individuals.
• The provisions of the Act of 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise, were voided as a legislative act, since the act exceeded the powers of Congress, insofar as it attempted to exclude slavery and impart freedom and citizenship to non-white persons in the northern part of the Louisiana Purchase.^[5]

The Court had ruled that African Americans had no claim to freedom or citizenship. Since they were not citizens, they did not possess the legal standing to bring suit in a federal court. As slaves were private property, Congress did not have the power to regulate slavery in the territories and could not revoke a slave owner's rights based on where he lived. This decision nullified the essence of the Missouri Compromise, which divided territories into jurisdictions either free or slave. Speaking for the majority, Taney ruled that because Scott was simply considered the private property of his owners, that he was subject to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibiting the taking of property from its owner "without due process".

The decision increased tensions between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in both North and South, further pushing the country towards the brink of civil war.^{[citation needed]}

Gravesite

Following the ruling, Scott and his family were returned to Emerson's widow. In the meantime, her brother John Sanford had been committed to an insane asylum. In 1850, Irene Sanford Emerson had remarried. Her new husband, Calvin C. Chaffee, was an abolitionist, who shortly after was elected to the US Congress. Chaffee was apparently unaware that his wife owned the most prominent slave in the United States until one month before the Supreme Court decision. By then it was too late for him to intervene, and Chaffee was harshly criticized for having been married to a slaveholder.^{[citation needed]} He was able to convince his wife Irene to return Scott to his original owners, the Blow family. By this time, The Blow family had relocated to Missouri and become opponents of slavery, granting the Scotts emancipation by Henry Taylor Blow on May 26, 1857, less than three months after the Supreme Court ruling.^{[citation needed]} Scott went to work as a porter in St. Louis for nearly 17 months before he died from tuberculosis in September 1858.^{[citation needed]} Scott was survived by his wife and his two daughters.

Scott was originally interred in Wesleyan Cemetery in St. Louis. When this cemetery was closed nine years later, Taylor Blow transferred Scott's coffin to a plot in the nearby Catholic cemetery, Calvary Cemetery, St. Louis, Missouri, which permitted burial of non-Catholic slaves by Catholic owners.^[6] A local tradition later developed of placing Lincoln pennies on top of Scott's gravestone for good luck.^[6]

Harriet Scott was long thought to be buried near her husband, but it was later proven that she was buried in Greenwood Cemetery in Hillsdale, Missouri. She outlived her husband by 18 years, dying on June 17, 1876.^[7]

Legacy[link]

• In 1997, Dred and Harriet Scott were inducted into the St. Louis Walk of Fame.

• Their daughter Eliza Scott married and had two sons. Lizzie never married, but following her sister's early death, she helped raise her nephews. One of Eliza's sons died young, but the other married and has descendants, some of whom still live in St. Louis as of 2010.^[8]

Aftermath[link]

• The Dred Scott Case ended the prohibition of slavery in federal territories and prohibited Congress from regulating slavery anywhere.^[9]
• The ruling of the court helped catalyze sentiment for Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the three constitutional amendments ratified shortly after the Civil War: the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, abolishing slavery, granting former slaves citizenship, and conferring citizenship to anyone born in the United States.^[9]

See also[link]

• Slavery in the United States
• Charlotte Dupuy
• Polly Berry
• Freedom suits

Further reading[link]

• Swain, Gwenyth (2004). Dred and Harriet Scott: A Family's Struggle for Freedom. Saint Paul, MN: Borealis Books. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/978-0-87351-483-1|978-0-87351-483-1]]. 
• Shurtleff, Mark (2009). Am I Not A Man? The Dred Scott Story. Orem, UT: Valor Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-935546-00-9. 
• Tsesis, Alexander (2008). We Shall Overcome: A History of Civil Rights and the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11837-7. 

References[link]

External links[link]

• "Dred Scott Case Collection": Official Court Documents and Supplementary Information, Washington University in St. Louis
• "Freedom Suits", African-American Life in St. Louis, 1804–1865, from the Records of the St. Louis Courts, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, National Park Service
• Revised Dred Scott Case Collection
• Christyn Elley, "Biography of Dred Scott", Missouri State Archives
• Full text of the Dred Scott v. Sandford, Supreme Court decision Findlaw
• Dred Scott v. Sandford and related resources, Library of Congress
• "Dred Scott Chronology", Washington University in St. Louis
• Harriet Scott's grave located, Afrigeneas Forum
• Dred Scott Heritage Foundation
• Mark Shurtleff, "Am I Not A Man? The Dred Scott Story"
•  "Scott, Dred". Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography. 1900.