[Milton-L] Remember, remember . . .

[Conrad Bladey]

Yes indeed tis the day.
I took Guy Fawkes m;annequin down to the Catholic Church Prayer Garden 
on Charles Street in Baltimore. Unfortuantely we were turned away.
We just wanted to sit and pray in the garden. I guess not all that much 
change since 1605.....you can read about it with photos on my blog. A 
quick entry perhaps a few more phots later...

http://fifthofnovember.blogspot.com/

Our celebration is Saturday. We hope to get a few readers to read the 
Milton Gunpowder Plot works in honor of te 400th. Details also on the blog.

Conrad

Carol Barton wrote:

> from the online DNB:
>  
> Fawkes, Guy (bap. 1570, d. 1606), conspirator, only son and second 
> child of Edward Fawkes (d. 1579) of York and his wife, Edith Jackson, 
> was born in the Stonegate district of York and baptized at the church 
> of St Michael-le-Belfrey on 16 April 1570. Edward Fawkes was proctor, 
> later advocate in the consistory court of York, possibly registrar of 
> the exchequer court like his father, and, so far as can now be 
> discerned, a staunch protestant. Guy's paternal grandparents were 
> William Fawkes (d. 1558×63) and Ellen Haryngton (d. 1575), daughter of 
> a prominent York merchant. Edward Fawkes died in January 1579, and was 
> buried in York Minster. By February 1582 his widow had married Denis 
> Bainbridge of Scotton, in the West Riding, and it is supposed that 
> young Guy Fawkes became a Roman Catholic as a result of his connection 
> with this strongly recusant family. He was educated at St Peter's 
> School, in York.
>
>
>     Military career
>
> Guy Fawkes was by profession a soldier. In 1592 he sold the small 
> estate in Clifton which he had inherited from his father and went to 
> fight for the armies of Catholic Spain in the Low Countries; he was, 
> by all accounts, conscientious and brave. He behaved gallantly at the 
> siege of Calais in 1596 but had risen no higher than the rank of 
> ensign by 1602. In 1599 he is described as being ‘in great want’. 
> During the early 1600s Fawkes travelled to Spain on perhaps two 
> separate occasions, in 1603 seeking support from a reluctant Spanish 
> court for another military venture in aid of English Catholics. 
> According to a description from the pen of a Jesuit priest and former 
> schoolfellow, Oswald Tesimond, Fawkes was something of a paragon: 
> devout, patient, ‘pleasant of approach and cheerful of manner, opposed 
> to quarrels and strife … loyal to his friends’, but at the same time 
> ‘a man highly skilled in matters of war’ (Edwards, 68–9). In his 
> character sketches of the Gunpowder Plot conspirators Tesimond is 
> generous with praise and sparing in his censure, but it was just this 
> mix of sound faith, technical expertise, and moral integrity which 
> encouraged the original plotters to seek Fawkes's support in the 
> spring of 1604.
>
>
>     The Gunpowder Plot
>
> Knowledge of the conspiracy in its early days is heavily dependent on 
> the confessions of two surviving ringleaders, Fawkes himself and the 
> still more important Thomas Winter. Winter's confession, probably 
> written for publication, certainly in his own hand, is one of the most 
> remarkable accounts of intended treason in the pages of English 
> history, and while not altogether free from obfuscation, it is 
> substantially true. By comparison, Guy Fawkes's confessions show that, 
> while he was privy to most secrets, he knew less than Winter. Winter, 
> indeed, recruited Fawkes, albeit at the initial recommendation of the 
> conspiracy's mastermind, Robert Catesby. The two men had much in 
> common, both having travelled to Spain on similar missions within the 
> previous two years. They met at Ostend early in 1604, during Winter's 
> latest attempt to establish whether practical support from Spain might 
> still be expected after the Stuart succession. Hugh Owen, the 
> intelligencer on England at the court in Brussels, and Sir William 
> Stanley both spoke highly of Fawkes, considering him entirely 
> trustworthy, so the matter was pursued. In further conversation at 
> Dunkirk, Winter told Fawkes that he and some friends were upon a 
> resolution to ‘doe some whatt in Ingland if the pece with Spaine 
> healped us nott’ (Salisbury-Cecil MS 113/54). After crossing the 
> English Channel together, they called on Catesby at his London lodging 
> late in April 1604.
>
> Winter's conclusion that Spain was manifestly unwilling to support the 
> intransigent English Catholics seems to have persuaded Catesby that 
> there was now only one way forward. Dreams that a Spanish army might 
> invade England, overturn the heretic regime, and restore Catholicism 
> along with a Catholic monarch were now effectively shattered. Catesby 
> and his friends realized that they would now have to act on their own. 
> So far Catesby had disclosed his plan to destroy parliament with 
> gunpowder to no one apart from Winter and John Wright, but when 
> another friend, the earl of Northumberland's cousin and estate 
> officer, Thomas Percy, visited him in May fulminating against the 
> inactivity of right-thinking Catholics, Catesby took the opportunity 
> to take both Fawkes and Percy into his confidence, making sure that 
> both had first taken an oath of secrecy. The scheme seems to have been 
> well received. On 24 May 1604 Percy, trading on the personal goodwill 
> of Dudley Carleton and John Hippesley, fellow officers in 
> Northumberland's household, leased a small house adjacent to the 
> Lords' chamber from one Henry Ferrers of Baddesley Clinton, who in 
> turn rented the property from John Whynniard, keeper of the Old Palace 
> of Westminster.
>
> The initial idea was that the plotters should drive a mine from the 
> cellars of this dwelling straight under the Palace of Westminster, 
> through the foundations of parliament house. Fawkes, ‘becaus his face 
> was the most unknowen’, adopted the name John Johnson and took charge 
> of the building, pretending to be Percy's servant (Salisbury-Cecil MS 
> 113/54). Catesby's house in Lambeth—the old Vauxhall manor house on 
> the south bank of the Thames—offered a convenient store for gunpowder 
> and mining paraphernalia; it was a comparatively straightforward task 
> to ferry these over to Westminster at dead of night. A sixth man, 
> Robert Keyes, was brought into the conspiracy in order to look after 
> the Lambeth end of the operation. When they heard that a severe 
> outbreak of plague in the city had prompted a further prorogation of 
> parliament, until February 1605, the plotters dispersed into the 
> countryside, gathering once again in London at the start of the 
> Michaelmas law term.
>
> For a time their schemes were frustrated: Scottish commissioners 
> negotiating the proposed union between England and Scotland took over 
> Percy's conveniently located lodgings for their deliberations. Just 
> before Christmas, however, the conspirators began to dig their mine. 
> By Christmas eve they had tunnelled up to the wall of parliament, but 
> then news came through of yet another prorogation and work was 
> suspended until early February. At this point they rowed all the 
> gunpowder over from Lambeth and concealed it in Percy's house. Here 
> was a decision born of pragmatism: as Winter explained, ‘wee were 
> willing to have all our dainger in one place’ (Salisbury-Cecil MS 
> 113/54). Another fortnight passed in laborious efforts to hack their 
> way through solid foundations. Alarmed by the slow progress, the 
> plotters secured the services of three new recruits, Christopher 
> Wright (John's brother), Robert Winter (Thomas's brother), and John Grant.
>
> Now, however, fortune smiled. As they were tunnelling they heard a 
> rushing sound over their heads. Fearing discovery they sent Fawkes—the 
> unknown face—out to reconnoitre, but he came back with encouraging 
> news that the tenant of a ground-floor vault below the Lords' chamber, 
> a coal merchant appropriately named Ellen Bright, was vacating her 
> premises. Percy at once set about securing the lease from Whynniard 
> and the conspirators gratefully abandoned their mine, planning instead 
> to stack up their powder in the vault. All of a sudden there was 
> nothing to do but wait, and plan for success. Hours spent in the mine 
> had allowed the plotters many opportunities to work out how best to 
> capitalize on their deadly strike, but it is fair to say that their 
> strategy was never really thought through. They hoped to kidnap the 
> next heir and worked on the assumption, by no means a secure one, that 
> Prince Henry would be blown up with his father. Percy, who thanks to 
> Northumberland's patronage was a gentleman pensioner (one of the 
> king's personal bodyguard), undertook to abduct James's second son, 
> Prince Charles, the duke of York, hastening him away from court in the 
> general confusion under colour of conducting the boy to a place of 
> safety. However, Percy's colleagues appear to have doubted the 
> feasibility of this scheme—London was enemy territory, far from their 
> Catholic refuges in the midlands. They pinned their hopes on securing 
> the young Princess Elizabeth, then residing with John, Lord Harington, 
> at Combe, 4 miles from Coventry. The means to this end would be an 
> armed force of mounted Catholic gentry, and Catesby invited friendly 
> midland squires to gather—ostensibly to hunt—near his home at Ashby St 
> Ledgers on 5 November.
>
> A young girl, though, could not rule alone; she would stand in need of 
> champions, or, indeed, a protector, a man of birth and political 
> stature. Minor gentlemen could not fill such a role, but if the 
> plotters themselves were unable to take on the task, who could? Here 
> is entered a dark country. The same question was asked over and again 
> by the Jacobean government in the months following the discovery of 
> the plot, but never received a satisfactory answer. Indeed, if the 
> surviving conspirators are to be believed, the matter was glossed over 
> with extraordinary insouciance. All that Fawkes and Winter would say 
> later was that a decision had been deferred until after the blast, 
> when it might be clear which noblemen were still available. In 
> principle, they had agreed to preserve as many peers ‘as were 
> Catholick or so disposed’ (Salisbury-Cecil MS 113/54). More than once 
> Catesby assured new recruits who scrupled at the possible deaths of 
> patrons and friends that favoured noblemen would be dissuaded by 
> ‘tricks’ from attending the opening of parliament. However, it is 
> doubtful if he meant to honour such pledges. Robert Keyes recalled one 
> occasion on which the mask slipped. Speaking contemptuously of the 
> English nobility, Catesby ‘made accompt of them as of atheists, fools 
> and cowards’. Rather than risk failure he was fully prepared to see 
> each and every man among them blown to perdition (TNA: PRO, SP 
> 14/216/126).
>
> Summer was spent far from London, in the countryside or, in Fawkes's 
> case, overseas. He was in Flanders from Easter to August 1605, keeping 
> his head down. But the time was not all wasted. While in Brussels he 
> acquainted Hugh Owen with the plotters' design, in order that Owen 
> might speak for them in the courts of continental Europe after the 
> fact. At home, meanwhile, Catesby took stock of an increasingly 
> pressing problem. He had borne the financial burden alone for upwards 
> of one year and was unable to do so much longer. With the agreement of 
> his colleagues, Catesby now widened the circle of conspirators in an 
> attempt to bring in wealthy supporters—men who might foot the bill for 
> the projected rebellion in the midlands. Late in the summer he 
> confided his secret to Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Everard Digby, and, 
> fatally, Francis Tresham, having sworn all three to secrecy.
>
> None took the news particularly well, although Digby and Rookwood were 
> soon persuaded that cruel necessity must have its way. Tresham, while 
> apparently honouring his vow of silence, was clearly much perturbed, 
> promising Catesby large sums of money if he would only call a halt to 
> so perilous an enterprise. Catesby dissembled, but had no intention of 
> backing down. Fawkes and Winter brought fresh gunpowder into the 
> vault, fearing with good reason that the existing stock might have 
> become damp. On 3 October parliament was once again prorogued, this 
> time for a month. The new date for the state opening was set at 5 
> November. Winter, attending the ceremony in Lord Monteagle's 
> entourage, must have taken comfort in the presence of Salisbury and 
> other leading members of the council.
>
> At the end of October the principal plotters began to converge on 
> London. About the 26th Catesby and Fawkes returned to White Webbs in 
> Enfield Chase, home of the Catholic Anne Vaux. There they had news 
> from Winter that Prince Henry would not be accompanying his father to 
> parliament on 5 November. Catesby at once resolved to attempt the 
> capture of the heir apparent, but once again there does not seem to 
> have been anything in the way of precise planning. On the night of 
> Sunday 27 October Winter learned from someone in the peer's household 
> that Monteagle had received a general warning against attending the 
> opening of parliament, and had immediately taken the message to court. 
> Winter panicked. He went to White Webbs, trying to persuade Catesby 
> that the game was up, but Catesby showed a steady nerve. He would, he 
> declared, ‘see further as yett’, sending Fawkes out on reconnaissance 
> (Salisbury-Cecil MS 113/54). No one ever questioned Fawkes's courage: 
> he duly put his head in the noose, checking the cellar and reporting 
> that nothing had been disturbed.
>
> On Friday 1 November Winter and Catesby met an agitated Tresham at 
> Barnet. They accused him of betrayal; he denied it, redoubling his 
> efforts at dissuasion. Winter was by now inclined to discretion 
> himself, but Catesby remained determined to give the plot every 
> opportunity for success. The final chance to abandon the enterprise 
> passed on the evening of 3 November, at a meeting between Winter, 
> Catesby, and Thomas Percy, recently arrived from the north. It was 
> Percy who said what Catesby clearly wanted to hear, that they should 
> see the business to its conclusion. He went to Syon House to dine with 
> Northumberland on 4 November—a point that would tell heavily against 
> the earl thereafter—and returned to his colleagues declaring that all 
> seemed well (TNA: PRO, SP 14/216/126). So Fawkes took up his station 
> in the vault, with a slow match, and a watch, sent to him by Percy via 
> Robert Keyes ‘becaus he should knowe howe the time went away’ (TNA: 
> PRO, SP 14/216/100).
>
> Meanwhile the privy council was treading carefully, anxious not to 
> alarm any conspirators into premature flight, but still half believing 
> that the curiously worded ‘Monteagle letter’ signified little. On the 
> afternoon of 4 November the earl of Suffolk—who in his capacity as 
> lord chamberlain had responsibility for ensuring that arrangements for 
> the new session were in hand—made a tour of inspection, accompanied 
> among others by Monteagle. They looked over the Lords' chamber, and 
> then descended into the ground-floor cellars which ran the length of 
> the building. Inevitably, they noticed the unusually large pile of 
> firewood covering the gunpowder, and asked Fawkes, in his guise as 
> John Johnson, whose fuel this was. Hindsight later prompted Suffolk to 
> record that the servant was ‘a very tall and desperate fellow’, but to 
> all outward appearances the party was satisfied when Fawkes told them 
> the wood belonged to his master Thomas Percy (Oldys, 3.256). Returning 
> to court, however, Monteagle expressed surprise that Percy, an old 
> acquaintance, rented property in Westminster. He also mentioned that 
> Percy was a Catholic.
>
> That sufficed to stir King James's latent fears, and he ordered a 
> further search of the vaults which, still with an eye to avoiding 
> undue alarm, was to be carried out under the pretence of looking for 
> some ‘stuff’ and hangings that had strayed from the wardrobe stores 
> (Oldys, 3.257). The task fell to a Westminster magistrate and 
> gentleman of the privy chamber, Sir Thomas Knyvett, keeper of the 
> Palace of Westminster. In contemporary accounts of the subsequent 
> search chronology varies slightly, but no more than one might expect 
> given the scope for rumour and embellishment in so thrilling a tale 
> (Gardiner, 114–37). About midnight Knyvett led his party into the 
> cellar. They met Fawkes, fully clothed and in his boots, emerging from 
> the room. Thinking him oddly dressed for so late an hour Knyvett had 
> the suspect arrested, while his men hauled away the faggots and 
> brushwood, uncovering thirty-six barrels—nearly a ton—of gunpowder.
>
>
>     Imprisonment, trial, and execution
>
> There followed Fawkes's finest hour. Examiners wrote grudgingly of his 
> fortitude, his ‘roman’ resolution (Oldys, 3.258). Confronted with a 
> barrage of questions he refused to implicate his colleagues, apart 
> from Percy, whose crimes were manifest. Fawkes admitted having 
> recently travelled to Flanders, but when pressed for a reason mocked 
> his examiners, declaring that he had set out ‘to see the countrey and 
> to passe away the time’ (TNA: PRO, SP 14/216/6). When he did speak 
> plainly, it was to express his dislike of Scots, evident in his 
> communications to the Spanish crown in 1603. According to tradition 
> Fawkes wasted no time in telling the horrified king that he would have 
> blown both James and his fellow countrymen at the court back to their 
> northern mountains. Otherwise, he remained silent, muttering 
> defiantly: ‘you would have me discover my frendes’ (TNA: PRO, SP 
> 14/216/16A). Not until 7 November would he admit to his real name, and 
> he did this only when the shaken interrogators, at last getting round 
> to examining the contents of his pockets, found a letter addressed to 
> a Mr Fawkes.
>
> It soon became clear that these heroics were in vain. The midland 
> rising headed by the principal conspirators rapidly fizzled out in 
> mass desertion and a brief skirmish at Holbeach House in 
> Staffordshire, where Catesby, Percy, and the brothers Wright all 
> perished. Winter was among those taken prisoner. News of this 
> denouement filtered through to London on the 9th. On the one hand this 
> made Fawkes's testimony still more important, since he was one of the 
> two surviving members from the conspiracy's inner ring, but on the 
> other all conceivable danger was now past, and the authorities held 
> the precious prize of Thomas Winter. The privy council now relaxed a 
> little and were prepared to wait, looking on Fawkes's testimony given 
> on 7, 8, and 9 November as a provisional summary of the treason (TNA: 
> PRO, SP 14/216/49 and 54). It seems almost certain that torture of 
> some kind had been employed in those critical days when king and 
> council faced revolt in the shires. James had authorized its use, 
> recommending that the ‘gentler tortures’ be tried first, progressing 
> to something more savage should the prisoner prove reticent. Once the 
> menace of a midland insurrection had passed, such extremities were set 
> aside: Fawkes alone suffered in this way.
>
> The surviving principal conspirators languished in the Tower until 
> January 1606. Then the assembly of a parliament eager to see the 
> plotters receive their just deserts, and only too ready to pick up an 
> infelicitous suggestion by the king in his November prorogation speech 
> that the prisoners should be tried in parliament, spurred the council 
> into action. On 27 January eight gunpowder plotters stood trial in 
> Westminster Hall on charges of high treason. All but Sir Everard Digby 
> pleaded not guilty, refuting certain points within the indictment 
> while—inevitably—admitting to the whole. The trial lasted a day and 
> commanded high prices as a public spectacle, one MP complaining that 
> while he had paid 10s. for standing room, others had been let into the 
> same enclosure for much smaller sums (Parliamentary Diary of Robert 
> Bowyer, ed. D. H. Willson, 1931, 10). Both king and queen are supposed 
> to have attended in private (John Hawarde, Les reportes del cases in 
> camera stellata, 1894, 257). The attorney-general, Sir Edward Coke, 
> launched into the prisoners in his usual bombastic style and the earl 
> of Northampton delivered an immensely tedious speech defending the 
> king from charges made by Digby that James had gone back on promises 
> of toleration for English Catholics. The outcome of the trial was 
> never in doubt, and verdicts of guilty were duly returned. Four of the 
> condemned men were executed on 30 January in St Paul's Churchyard. The 
> following day Thomas Winter, Ambrose Rookwood, Robert Keyes, and, 
> finally, Fawkes suffered the same fate in the Old Palace Yard, 
> Westminster; his body was quartered, in fulfilment of his sentence.
>
>
>     Historical significance
>
> On 5 November 1605 the inhabitants of London were encouraged to light 
> bonfires in celebration of the king's apparently providential 
> deliverance, always provided that ‘this testemonye of joy be carefull 
> done without any danger or disorder’. The citizens were happy to 
> oblige, John Chamberlain marvelling at the ‘great ringing and as great 
> store of bonfires as ever I thincke was seene’ (CLRO, journal of 
> common council, 27, fol. 4; The Letters of John Chamberlain, ed. N. F. 
> McClure, 2 vols., 1939, 1.213) . Bonfires and the anniversary of the 
> Gunpowder Plot have gone hand in hand ever since, a curious 
> circumstance given that by any objective assessment the plot was just 
> another in a line of failed conspiracies against the state. Right at 
> the start it was the lingering uncertainties, the unresolved loose 
> ends, and the king's own perception of God's divine hand which 
> nourished collective memory. James saw great significance in the fact 
> that he had been delivered from both Gowrie conspiracy and Gunpowder 
> Plot on a Tuesday the 5th. Parliament passed an act for an annual 
> public thanksgiving, gunpowder sermons were preached at court 
> throughout his reign, and although the wording changed over time, 
> prayers of thanksgiving for deliverance from the plot remained in the 
> calendar of the established church until 1859.
>
> Over a much longer timescale, numerous circumstances have conspired to 
> preserve commemoration in some form or other of events on 5 November 
> 1605. Among these the most important have been repeated attempts 
> either by the state or by some particular group within the country to 
> focus the minds of Englishmen on a particularly horrific manifestation 
> of Catholic perfidy. Gunpowder Plot commemoration was appropriated by 
> the puritans in the 1630s and 1640s as they countered the creeping 
> popery perceived in Charles I's court. Fireworks are observed from at 
> least the 1650s, and the burning of effigies became fairly common 
> after the much publicized torching of the ‘whore of Babylon’—adorned 
> with symbols of papal office—by London apprentices in 1673, following 
> the conversion to Catholicism of the heir presumptive, James, duke of 
> York. The Popish Plot frenzy and the exclusion struggles generated a 
> fresh intensity in 5 November celebrations. James II's government 
> failed in its attempt to ban fires and fireworks, and the fact that 
> William of Orange landed at Torbay on 5 November 1688 once again 
> magnified the date in the minds of many protestant Englishmen. From 
> that day to this, as the old rhyme observes, gunpowder treason has 
> ‘never been forgot’. The fifth of November persisted as a day on which 
> rowdy youths took the opportunity for challenging local authorities up 
> and down the land: at that level there was little perception of the 
> original conspiracy, just as today the historical facts are, for many, 
> submerged beneath spectacle and consumerism. Commemoration was given 
> yet another lease of life in the 1850s by the antagonisms generated by 
> Catholic emancipation, and the re-establishment of a Catholic 
> religious hierarchy in England.
>
> In 1790 The Times recorded boys begging in the street ‘to burn Guy 
> Faux’. By Victoria's reign, Fawkes—the cloaked figure in the 
> cellar—was burnt in effigy almost everywhere, rather than the pope or 
> the devil, and he has, in an increasingly secular and religiously 
> tolerant age, held his place of dishonour atop the bonfires ever 
> since, joined occasionally by the transient demon-figures of state 
> politics or the popular press: suffragettes, the Kaiser, and Margaret 
> Thatcher among them. Through the twentieth century celebrations have 
> become more orderly, more tame. Even back-garden firework displays, 
> widespread as late as the 1970s, have been frustrated by safety 
> considerations, and the pull of large, organized shows. Those few 
> surviving examples of vehement anti-Catholic ritual on bonfire 
> night—at Lewes in Sussex, for example—are noteworthy in their rarity. 
> Gunpowder Plot day has become Guy Fawkes' night, bonfire night, or 
> firework night, but the durability of this particular manifestation of 
> Englishness—its ability to reinvent a reason for continuing—remains 
> remarkable.
>
> Perhaps this is only right. Though a failure, the plot came very close 
> to success. Theories, as old as the treason itself, that the 
> government either knew of the conspiracy from an early stage, or that 
> it actually manipulated the conspirators through one or more agents 
> provocateurs, draw unwarranted conclusions from the surviving 
> evidence, fail to advance any credible motive for such chicanery, and 
> were, indeed, effectively demolished long ago by S. R. Gardiner (in 
> What Gunpowder Plot Was, 1897; see Nicholls, 213–20) . The magnitude 
> of Fawkes's intended treason should never be underestimated. Ordnance 
> records state that the 18 hundredweight of powder transferred from the 
> cellar to the Tower of London was ‘decaied’, but modern calculations 
> suggest that, decayed or not, few if any in the Lords that afternoon 
> would have survived a combination of devastating explosion and the 
> noxious fumes thrown out by the combustion of seventeenth-century 
> gunpowder. Guy Fawkes, the experienced soldier, knew this only too well.
>
> Mark Nicholls
>
>
>     Sources  
>
> Gunpowder Plot book, TNA: PRO, SP 14/16, 14/216 · Hatfield House, 
> Hertfordshire, Salisbury–Cecil MSS · M. Nicholls, Investigating 
> Gunpowder Plot (1991) · The Gunpowder Plot: the narrative of Oswald 
> Tesimond alias Greenway, ed. and trans. F. Edwards (1973) · His 
> majesties speach in this last session of parliament … together with a 
> discourse of the maner of the discovery of this late intended treason, 
> joyned with an examination of some of the prisoners (1605); repr. in 
> W. Oldys, ed., The Harleian miscellany, 10 vols. (1808–13), vol. 4 · 
> State trials · A. J. Loomie, ‘Guy Fawkes in Spain: the “Spanish 
> treason” in Spanish documents’, BIHR, special suppl., 9 (1971) [whole 
> issue] · S. R. Gardiner, What Gunpowder Plot was (1897) · D. Jardine, 
> Criminal trials, 2 vols. (1832–5) · H. Garnett, Portrait of Guy 
> Fawkes: an experiment in biography (1962) · W. Oldys and T. Park, 
> eds., The Harleian miscellany, 10 vols. (1808–13), vols. 3–4 · R. 
> Davies, The Fawkes's of York (1850) · D. Jardine, A narrative of the 
> Gunpowder Plot (1857) · K. M. Longley, ‘Three sites in the city of 
> York’, Recusant History, 12, 1–7 · N. A. M. Rodger, ‘Ordnance records 
> and the Gunpowder Plot’, BIHR, 53 (1980), 124–5 · S. Middelboe, ‘Guy 
> certainly was not joking’, New Civil Engineer, 5 (1987), 32–4 · D. 
> Cressy, Bonfires and bells: national memory and the protestant 
> calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England (1989), 68–90 · D. Cressy, 
> ‘The fifth of November remembered’, Myths of the English, ed. R. 
> Porter (1992), 68–90 · R. Hutton, The stations of the sun: a history 
> of the ritual year in Britain (1996), chap. 39 · J. Wolffe, The 
> protestant crusade in Great Britain, 1829–1860 (1991)
>
>
>     Likenesses  
>
> group portrait, line engraving, c.1605 (The Gunpowder Plot 
> conspirators, 1605), NPG [see illus.]
>
> © Oxford University Press 2004–8 <file:///C:/oxforddnb/legal/>
> All rights reserved: see legal notice <file:///C:/oxforddnb/legal/> 
> Oxford University Press <http://www.oup.com/>
>  
>
> Mark Nicholls, ‘Fawkes, Guy (bap. 1570, d. 1606)’, Oxford Dictionary 
> of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, 
> Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/9230, accessed 5 Nov 2008]
>
> Guy Fawkes (bap. 1570, d. 1606): doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/9230
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Milton-L mailing list
>Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
>Manage your list membership and access list archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>
>Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>