England doesn’t really have a national holiday. Sure there is St. George’s Day – but I would have to actually check Wikipedia to know when it is. The only sign is usually some white flags with a red cross outside of various pubs. It’s a bit of a shame, really, but that’s a post for another time. Fireworks are usually left to 5 November – Guy Fawkes Night (aka Bonfire night… leave it to the English to put a firework night in the middle of rainy, cold November).
The short version is that Guy Fawkes was a Catholic zealot who plotted to blow up Parliament while the King (James I) was visiting in 1605. (Perhaps he’s now best known as the inspiration for the masks worn by the Anonymous movement that likes to harass Scientology from time to time.) This, the famous “Gunpowder Plot” was aimed at assassinating James and replacing them with a Catholic monarch. The plot was discovered, the perpetrators caught and a huge wave of anti-Catholicism gripped the country.
Even though I’m an exceptionally poor Catholic, I’ve never been particularly happy about attending event that seems to be about happily burning Papists. But that isn’t the only thing that leaves me somewhat uncomfortable with the holiday.
After being caught by the authorities, Fawkes refused to talk or give up any details about the plot. Torture, apparently, was somewhat out of practice by then but could be used in what was felt to be extreme circumstances with permission of the King. In order to gain more information of this subversive plot, torture was introduced into the interrogation – going from “gentler” means until eventually the rack was used. Commentators frequently point to the differences in signature to demonstrate just how broken Fawkes likely was by the time he gave his full confession.
 |
| The before and after torture signatures of Fawkes. |
My concern is that along with the fires, and the poetry (Remember, remember the 5th of November!) that there is a subtext here that torture worked against poor old Guido. Torture against a counter-subversive seems to have saved England from a threat to national security. It sounds like a somewhat familiar and unfortunate refrain.
Would modern counter-terrorism/counter-subversion techniques and modern police/detective work mean that torture would not have to be used against Fawkes? And if so, should there be some kind of moral or ethical footnote to the story? Because aside from keeping me awake tonight as 12 year olds light up fireworks gotten by ill-means outside of my apartment building, I would hate for the lesson of the 5th of November to be that torture is effective and works. Especially when the true lesson should be about how much fun blowing stuff up is.
Hey Stephanie,
You might find this link of interest – https://www.ria.ie/RIA/files/61/61332580-fdd5-49cc-8319-6e47305bbece.pdf for a take on more recent British attitudes to interrogation in anti colonial conflicts culminating in methods used in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s. In case the link does work, the citation is Newbery (2009), “Intelligence and Controversial British Interrogation Techniques, the Northern Ireland case 1971-72; in Irish Studies in International Affairs, Vol 20, pp103-119.
Brilliant – thanks! This is actually very useful for me right now!
1. 5 November was once an anti-papist affair, nowadays most Brits simply regard it as an opportunity to let off fireworks and party on – sadly, we lost our sense of history some time ago. 2. If we are going to hold the use of torture by the English 400 years ago as evidence of our evil nature today, then who shall escape a whipping, because it was universal practice at the time – indeed less used in England than anywhere else in Europe because of the Common Law. If I'm prepared to forgive the modern Papacy for burning Bruno, I guess you ought to be able to forgive the present British government for torturing poor old Guido….
I'm not saying that we hold the UK government accountable for the actions of 400 years ago, (though that could be fun.., could we put someone in the stocks?) I'm saying 1) It's an element of the story that is never really discussed other than the pretty much universally acknowledged fact that they went to town on the guy; 2) It's interesting that there was a ban on torture except in “exceptional” circumstances. In that sense I actually think England was pretty enlightened. I do think that there is some modern relevance here – not in terms of direct accountability, but in the idea of what should/can be done in the name of national security. John Reid (not of the present government, thank goodness) arguments reflected these themes.
I also wonder whether Guy Fawkes was in part a move by Puritans to extinguish any Halloween like celebrations around the same time that would have had pagan overtones – or was halloween a purely Irish affair? Assuming halloween is also not just another invented tradition, that is…Anyone know?
It's arguably worth commemorating what was probably the most ambitious terrorist attempt in history – I mean, take out the head of state and the entire legislature at one go, this is thinking big (imagine blowing up the whole Capitol in the middle of the SotU address).
The argument from Fawkes (who was actually a fairly minor player in the cell) being tortured is stronger, but you could equally argue that English law was more advanced than most in that respect 400 years ago. Read what happened to the guy who killed Henri IV of France if you have a strong stomach. You could be tortured in England ONLY if a specific decision was taken at the highest level, not because some intelligence officer thought it might be fun.
Pedantically, Antonia Fraser (a catholic) argues that it's unlikely Fawkes was racked; the evidence of his handwriting is consistent with the use of manacles, which is bad enough in all conscience.