Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November (British History)

[DPCrisp]

I was looking for the earliest reference to November 5th as Bonfire Night. "Guy" referring to the effigy is on record from 1806: very late. In 1660, Pepys says

"This 5th of November is observed exceeding well in the City; and at night great bonfires and fireworks."

But bonfire.org says

"The tradition of Guy Fawkes-related bonfires actually began the very same year as the failed coup. The Plot was foiled in the night between the 4th and 5th of November 1605. Already on the 5th, agitated Londoners who knew little more than that their King had been saved, joyfully lit bonfires in thanksgiving. As years progressed, however, the ritual became more elaborate."
That's not something you make up on the spot!

If it's on record that the bonfires were lit on November 5th, 1605, then the 5th must have been D-Day, already a (pagan) fire festival {Perhaps that's why it wasn't 1604 or 1606: the State Opening happened to coincide in 1605. -- Unless Bonfire Night had already (for who knows how long) been moved officially to coincide with the opening of Parliament, which is itself a "New Year" sort of event.}: and I suppose they waited 'til the last minute to catch him red-handed {For all we know, they raided the cellar every day for a week, but he just wasn't there.} It strikes me as unlikely that Catholics would be protesting at the perpetuation of a pagan observance: that's the sort of charge levelled by Protestants at Catholics, innit?

What better time to shake up the regime than New Year? But that would mean early November (which means Month of Nine or New, remember) was New Year as far as the conspirators were concerned. Sure does sound like a Wiccan thing.

[Ishmael]

The more I read about this event, the more impressed I am with the historical detail available. That is itself is rather discouraging in terms of finding some deeper mystery associated with the plot itself -- though it hardly rules out the notion that bonfire night is older than the events it supposedly commemorates.

[DPCrisp]

...reaffirming the right of the 'real' king to continue for another year.

Yeah, nice one, Hatty.

D'ya reckon the events of 1605/1606 were about this, i.e. part of a continuous tradition of the Feast of Fools or somesuch... or was the continuous, timeless tradition somehow confused with or perverted into a historical account pinned on a certain year? (Cf. Jesus.)

Something to do with Protestant-Catholic vacillations, no doubt. When was Protestantism finally settled on?

[Hatty]

D'ya reckon the events of 1605/1606 were about this, i.e. part of a continuous tradition of the Feast of Fools or somesuch... or was the continuous, timeless tradition somehow confused with or perverted into a historical account pinned on a certain year?

It seems altogether reasonable to me to surmise that 5th November has its origins in pagan/fertility rites. The Gunpowder Plot would be the rationale, to explain an otherwise inexplicable fire festival - it always struck me as a bit odd that a plot to destroy king and parliament should be celebrated so riotously, we don't have an annual celebration of,say, the King's Beheading.

When was Protestantism finally settled on?

Difficult to say, under the Tudors there were numerous self-styled Catholic insurgencies, though whether they were power struggles using the tag 'Catholic' rather than a genuine attachment to the Catholic religion is debatable... probably safe to say Protestantism was accepted under William of Orange.

[Ishmael]

Hatty wrote: ...it always struck me as a bit odd that a plot to destroy king and parliament should be celebrated so riotously,

Yes. This was the initial puzzle that spurred my originating commentary and this entire investigation.

It seems altogether reasonable to me to surmise that 5th November has its origins in pagan/fertility rites. The Gunpowder Plot would be the rationale, to explain an otherwise inexplicable fire festival...

Yes. And this is the "simple" explanation as I have previously outlined. It makes perfect sense. But there are certain anomalous aspects of the plot that just don't fit well with the simple explanation.

Guy Fawkes' name (which now we have even linked with "Fall Guy" -- an idiot sacrificed in the place of the king -- which is exactly what happened to our man Fawkes who died instead of the King he plotted to murder). Guy Fawkes' father's name as well -- Dionyses. The fact that the word Guy has now been proven to have a lineage and a link with burning effigies far older than Guy Fawkes.

These facts, combined with other incidental data associated with the matter (False Cross Popes and formerly Catholic, Protestant Kings, famed for an obsession with witchcraft, from nations formerly excommunicated from Catholicism), makes the possibility of something more significant very plausible indeed. A conspiracy? A complete historical invention? Almost anything is possible at this point.

[DPCrisp]

Is it all about engineering the Scottish king into a secure position in England? (Elizabeth was a hard act to follow.)

If so, was Fawkes a mythical character or a hapless pawn?

Was it about establishing the Divine Right of the king and co-opting the pagan folklore into a literal context? "I'm not just some generic king, I am THE fucking KING! (Popular affections should be directed towards me.)"

[Mick Harper]

Protestantism and Divine Right go together. Formerly, the King was ex officio a priest (via the coronation ritual) and therefore de jure subject to the Pope. No matter how he wriggled the nexus could never quite be broken. Orthodox Protestantism did break this particular yoke but only to rein in the king with a different one - scriptural authority. You see this with the Prussian, Swedish, Dutch kings et al who, by selecting Lutheranism or Calvinism etc. off the peg, were forever up against their native Churches.

Now the English were unique in squaring the circle. By making Henry VIII and his successors Head of the Church they introduced proper Absolutism (albeit King and Parliament) with no extra-territorial or spiritual appeal. This is a very powerful recipe for statecraft and was, eventually, followed by all other nation-states.

My guess is that this all-invested-in-the-king theory is what gave the Old Religion its power. Probably in the form of King-plus-Druids.

[Hatty]

Dan wrote: Is it all about engineering the Scottish king into a secure position in England? (Elizabeth was a hard act to follow.)

It's a valid point, after all not only was Elizabeth the people's queen but her death signalled the end of a dynasty and the English throne would have been up for grabs if the new dynasty, the Stuarts, headed by the unheroic person of James failed to establish a strong monarchy.

Maybe the Plot wasn't consciously linked to a pagan past but it might have 'struck a chord' with the common people (cf. flowers deposited at roadside accident spots after Diana's death) and thereafter been deliberately, cynically even, exploited as part of the Stuart popularity campaign.

[Ishmael]

Hatty wrote: Maybe the Plot wasn't consciously linked to a pagan past but it might have 'struck a chord' with the common people (cf. flowers deposited at roadside accident spots after Diana's death) and thereafter been deliberately, cynically even, exploited as part of the Stuart popularity campaign.

If that is the case then I would expect our man Guy to have had a different name. Is he actually another person altogether? Did some other famous individual disappear from history at this point and a new man invented?

If Guy Fawkes really was the birth name of this "Fall Guy" then it's either a huge coincidence or a huge conspiracy. And if the latter, how was it engineered? Who took part? And for what true purpose was it done?

So many questions. All built one atop the other.

[Martin]

He signed himself Guido Fawkes. Was he also known as Guy? Or was this something that happened after the event?

[Ishmael]

[Mick Harper]

[Martin]

Isn't it the medieval form of Dennis/Denis?

[Mick Harper]

Martin, I am always in favour of the prosaic replacing the fanciful (even when it's our fancy) but we need a bit more than this. When did Denis replace Dionysius (i.e. was our Dionysius being deliberately antique?). Is the fact that France's Patron Saint is named after a pagan god signficant? etc etc

In fact it's your job (now, you started it) to be this site's official expert on all-things-Denis.

[Hatty]

Martin wrote: