Every year on the 5th of November, people across Britain light bonfires, set off fireworks, and burn effigies of a man who died more than four centuries ago. Guy Fawkes, as the supposed mastermind of the Gunpowder Plot, has become a symbol of treachery and failed rebellion. Yet I can't help wondering, was Guy Fawkes really so bad?
Before anyone misunderstands me, let me be clear. Violence has no place in political campaigning. Explosives are not tools for social change. Fawkes's plan to blow up Parliament and the king was wrong. There were and still are no excuses for such actions. But recognising that fact does not mean we should be comfortable with what his annual condemnation still represents. For what we celebrate on November 5th is not merely the defeat of a terrorist plot. It is, in effect, a ritual reaffirmation of a one-sided history which conveniently ignores the politics that created men like Fawkes in the first place.
First, Fawkes lived in an era of persecution. Catholics in early seventeenth-century England were disenfranchised, fined, and excluded from public life. Religion was politics, and politics was religion. Loyalty to the Pope was treated as treason. When Fawkes and his co-conspirators sought to challenge this system, however misguidedly, they were responding to profound structural injustice, not unlike those in every age who find themselves pushed beyond lawful means because lawful means have been closed to them. To commemorate their failure without acknowledging the repression that provoked it is to falsify history.
Second, the continuing ritual of burning an effigy of Guy Fawkes, often quite explicitly referred to as a Catholic, should trouble us. However secularised Bonfire Night may now seem, its origins lie in sectarian triumphalism. To burn an image of the defeated enemy within is not an act of innocent fun. It normalises the idea that dissent can be crushed, that opposition can be caricatured, and that persecution can be celebrated. It trains generations to cheer the punishment of the outsider.
Third, what does it say about our present politics that this tradition endures so comfortably? We live in a country where protest is increasingly criminalised, where whistleblowers are demonised, and where dissenting voices are treated as threats to what is euphemistically called national security. The Fawkes story, with its easy villains and supposedly righteous victors, suits those who prefer obedience to conscience. It reinforces the idea that rebellion is always wrong and that authority is always right. That is a myth worth challenging.
Fourth, there is another lesson here. The Gunpowder Plot failed because it was desperate and disconnected. It was a violent fantasy born of political exclusion. But the deeper failure was England's refusal to reform. Rather than ask what had driven such anger, the state tightened its grip. The cycle of persecution deepened, and as is clear from a great deal of history when viewed impartially, this is what too often happens when governments silence legitimate dissent. The result is that supposedly illegitimate resistance then grows. The same pattern can, of course, be seen today, whether with regard to economic protest, environmental activism, or struggles for democratic renewal.
So what if we reimagined November 5th? Instead of celebrating the suppression of rebellion, perhaps we could remember it as a warning about the consequences of injustice. We could use it to talk about tolerance, representation, and the right to dissent, which are the very principles that a democratic society should defend. Fawkes's mistake was to choose violence. Our mistake is to pretend that violence happens in a vacuum.
In the end, Guy Fawkes was not a hero, but neither was he simply a villain. He was a symptom of a broken political order; a man driven by conviction in an age of cruelty. If we still burn him in effigy four hundred years later, maybe it says less about him and more about us; that we remain too fond of simple stories, and too reluctant to face the injustices that make rebellion seem necessary.
It is time, I think, to rethink Guy Fawkes Night. Not to celebrate his act, but to reflect on the society that made it imaginable. That, surely, would be a far better way to light the fire.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Agree with many of the sentiments. In England, politically, the 17th century was mostly a struggle between parliament and the King & his courtiers – who rules – who calls the shots. James 1st could have eased Catholic persecution – but didn’t so a reaction was inevitable. In turn, this set the scene for .. Charles 1st – “l’etat est moi” style of, until it wasn’t.
Particularly likes this: “Our mistake is to pretend that violence happens in a vacuum”. Last observation: once large-scale violence starts – it can be very difficult to stop – 30 years war – main problem towards the end – all parties utterly exhausted & wanted peace: main problem what to do with the armies? Once started, violence is difficult to stop.
“main problem what to do with the armies?”
Exactly.
They are still there in Northern Ireland, still being paid, still meting out punishment,
Horrible to see.
But now focussed on drugs etc….
“James 1st [& 6th] could have eased Catholic persecution – but didn’t”
Not just “could have”, but actually promised to…. …and didn’t. When assuming the English throne, he promised all things to all men, to avoid dissent. However, he didn’t follow through on the promises to Catholics; preferring instead to carry on their persecution from the last few English monarchs.
One comment on Guy Fawkes Night is that its about the last true ‘British’ celebration that hasnt been commercialised as you cant sell fireworks to children.
There is a very old tradition though of lighting bonfires in celebration and its the last occasion we mark in this way.
If he had managed to carry out the plot though it would have taken out most of London and possibly brought down dreadful revenge in the Catholic Community.
I attended a talk by Professor Ronald Hutton on festivals.
Bonfires were not common until after William III took the crown from James II & VII. That marked the so called Glorious Revolution- a bloodless change of government-in 1688. He landed in Torbay on November 5th -some say delaying a day for the symbolism of a previous defeat of Catholicism. PR was around then too.
Remembering the dead in the autumn goes back to Celtic times with bonfires in the face of encroaching winter.
In our part of the world Guy Fawkes is hardly celebrated any more. It is all Halloween. And we now have a modern ritual when we chose to remember the dead on November 11th -in the US they do in May. The November date in the US is Veterans Day.
People have a way of adapting the old to modern conditions. But I am not sorry to see Guy Fawkes pass. It was celebrate the defence of Protestantism. England is hardly a Christian country let alone a Protestant country any more. We live in a time of major shifts.
And there is a view that the plot was a false flag operation, encouraging known dissidents so as to capture them in the act to have an excuse to arrest leading Catholics. But that’s another story
Ian,
Re your last point:
“And there is a view that the plot was a false flag operation, encouraging known dissidents so as to capture them in the act to have an excuse to arrest leading Catholics. But that’s another story”
I have long thought, but haven’t found any conclusive evidence, that the term “fallguy” derives from the fate of Guy Fawkes, who was the ultimate patsy in the whole Gunpowder plot.
The most plausible version of the “false flag theory” I think is that the plot was definitely real (Fawkes wasn’t a leading conspirator by the way but somebody brought in late because of his expertise in explosives) but the government under Cecil rumbled it fairly early on and then let it proceed until the very eve of the opening of Parliament in order to maximise the anti-Catholic propoganda value.
For a long time, the symbolism of bonfire night was lost on me.
Of late, I have seen the act of building fires at events like this as act of cleansing? Deep down, what is being burnt and cleansed is our oppressor. Burning the old in order to create the new.
Putting the old enmity to Catholics aside (and they are not my favourite bunch of Christians to be honest with a weird mix of practices that if Michael Hudson is right, came out of Rome), I have never ever wished to see a human beings burned alive. I also never saw a Guy Fawkes go up in flames and thought or heard anything bad said about Catholics. They are human beings for goodness sake, flawed and who isn’t? And Catholic churches at a local level serve many communities well. It is the institution of Catholicism that fails, as has the CoE and much else non-religious.
What I am prepared to see maybe are the physical assets and bases of institutions that are horrible to us and oppress us go up in flames. Rather buildings than people. There is a symbolism to it. Stripping down these temples and palaces of corruption means that those who hide and consort against us in them are made to face us and see us and be accountable for once and meet our needs.
That is what bonfire night has come to represent to me. A form of imagined freedom from persecution for just living by people who think they are superior and more deserving of life than me and most of us for some reason.
You mentioned environmental activism as an example of today’s “supposedly illegitimate resistance”. Perhaps a small ray of hope, then, that the other day three JSO activists were acquitted of causing a public nuisance by spraying orange powder on Stonehenge.
This is from the BBC’s report:
“Giving his legal directions to the jury, Judge Paul Dugdale said they had to determine whether a conviction would be a ‘proportionate interference’ with the protestors rights and said ‘everyone’s entitled to express their own opinion’ even if we disagree.
“‘If individuals disagree with what our Government is doing on certain matters they are entitled to protest about the Government’s actions or inactions,’ he said.
“‘There are times when protecting the right to freedom of speech and freedom to protest can mean that activity that would otherwise be unlawful would be regarded as lawful by the court to protect those rights,’ he added.”
Perhaps they just got lucky with this particular judge – or perhaps things are starting to change?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjekdqj7529o
I cheered this – a rare reaction to television news these days.
Not commercial? I had my usual walking route across North London disrupted by miles of temporary fencing enclosing the entirety of Alexandra Palace park, and no amount of discussion with the security guard at ‘gate 7’ would get him to accept that this was a public right of way . They had their very commercial fireworks last night – sounded like the Somme.
There may have been differences between different parts of the country – as kids we constructed our own bonfires – after spending days and weeks roaming the countryside dragging tree branches for miles. In our part of West Yorkshire that was known as ‘chumping’. Nov 4th was ‘mischief night’ posting fireworks through letterboxes etc.
Catholics were never mentioned – he was just a Guy.
It was tradition – we had no idea of the historical context or significance that Richard points out.
As someone here says – pagan seasonal traditions get intermingled with religious ones etc etc.
Ely’s Cherry Hill was shut off for the same reason yesterday.
In the North East of England we shared the same tradition Andrew. It was a community effort organised and carried out by the kids. On the 5th the fireworks display was supervised by parents all the rest was up to us, including roasting spuds to eat in the actual bonfire. Last night I was sent a video of our grandchildren, with sparklers, standing behind a high metal fence with the distant glow of a rather small bonfire in the distance.
Oops, we didn’t actually eat them in the bonfire, I guess people would realise my little mistake.
In Northern Ireland the Protestants burn an effigy of the Pope, not Guy Fawkes. It is anachronistic to see the relatively mild persecution of Roman Catholics (who were mainly country house gentry and aristos by the 17th century) in England without reference to the mass slaughter of Protestants in the 30 Years War in Europe, which was largely a result of the Counter Reformation. Only a tiny proportion of the people of the British Isles are still fighting the battles of the 17th century. We have ogres of our own.
I’ve always thought of bonfire night as a celebration of the struggle against oppression.
It’s worth noting that while we always associate the 5th November with Fawkes, he was recruited to do the job. The man behind it was Robert Caitsby — Fawkes was a foot soldier, a believer in the Catholic cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Catesby
Fawkes was caught on the night, imprisoned, tortured, found guilty and executed.
Catesby was eventually hunted down and killed in a shoot out. His body was exhumed, and posthumously executed, his severed head put on a spike and displayed outside the Houses of Parliament as a warning to others.
I think if most people were to be asked who was responsible for the Gunpowder Plot, they would say Guy Fawkes.
It’s the foot soldier that is remembered, not those behind it.
It is, as you say, a ritual reaffirmation of a one-sided history which conveniently ignores the politics that created men like Fawkes in the first place.