Editing Gunpowder Plot (section)

==Aftermath==
{{See also|Gunpowder Plot in popular culture}}
[[File:Sheares Bible Gunpowder Plot.jpg|thumb|"The Gunpowder Treason" in a Protestant Bible of the 18th century.]]
The discovery of such a wide-ranging conspiracy and the subsequent trials led Parliament to consider new anti-Catholic legislation. The event destroyed all hope that the Spanish would ever secure tolerance of the Catholics in England.<ref name="Allen154">{{citation|last1=Allen|first1=Paul C|title=Philip III and the Pax Hispanica, 1598–1621: The Failure of Grand Strategy|page=154|date=2000|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-07682-0}}</ref> In the summer of 1606, laws against recusancy were strengthened; the [[Popish Recusants Act 1605|Popish Recusants Act]] returned England to the Elizabethan system of fines and restrictions, introduced a sacramental test, and an Oath of Allegiance,<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=131}}</ref> requiring Catholics to abjure as a "heresy" the doctrine that "princes excommunicated by the Pope could be deposed or assassinated".<ref name=MarshallP227 /> [[Catholic emancipation]] took another 200&nbsp;years, but many important and loyal Catholics retained high office during James I's reign.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|p=140}}</ref> Although there was no "golden time" of "toleration" of Catholics, which Garnet had hoped for, James's reign was nevertheless a period of relative leniency for Catholics.<ref name="MarshallPP187-188" />

{{Quote box
| quote = Faith, here's an equivocator, <br />that could swear in both the scales against either scale; <br />who committed treason enough for God's sake, <br />yet could not equivocate to heaven
| source = ''[[Macbeth]]'', Act 2 Scene 3
| align = left
}}
The playwright [[William Shakespeare]] seems to have featured the events of the Gunpowder Plot alongside the earlier [[John Ruthven, 3rd Earl of Gowrie|Gowrie conspiracy]] in ''[[Macbeth]]'', written between 1603 and 1607.<ref>{{Harvnb|Haynes|2005|pp=148–154}}</ref>

Interest in the [[Demonology|demonic]] was heightened by the Gunpowder Plot. The King had become engaged in the great debate about other-worldly powers in writing his ''[[Daemonologie]]'' in 1599, before he became King of England as well as Scotland. Inversions seen in such lines as "fair is foul and foul is fair" are used frequently, and another possible reference to the plot relates to the use of [[equivocation]]; Garnet's ''A Treatise of Equivocation'' was found on one of the plotters.<ref>{{citation |last=Huntley |first=Frank L. |title=Macbeth and the Background of Jesuitical Equivocation |jstor=460744 |journal=PMLA |publisher=Modern Language Association |volume=79 |number=4 |date=September 1964 |pages=390–400|doi=10.2307/460744 }}</ref> Poets made a point of describing it as an act so evil that not only was its evil, in [[John Milton]]'s words, ''sine nomine'' in the English language, other neo-Latin poetry described it as (''inaudito''), unheard of, even among the most wicked nations of history:<ref>{{cite book |last1=Herman |first1=Peter C. |title=Unspeakable: Literature and Terrorism from the Gunpowder Plot to 9/11 |date=2020 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York and London |pages=22–23}}</ref>

<blockquote>Neither the Carthaginians infamous in the name of perfidy nor the cruel Scythian nor Turk or the dreaded Sarmatian, nor the Anthropophagi, nurslings of mad savagery, nor any nation as barbarous in the furthermost regions of the world has heard.</blockquote>

Milton wrote a poem in 1626 that one commentator has called a "critically vexing poem", ''[[In Quintum Novembris]]''. Reflecting "partisan public sentiment on an English-Protestant national holiday",<ref>{{Harvnb|Demaray|1984|pp=4–5}}</ref> in the published editions of 1645 and 1673, the poem is preceded by five [[epigram]]s on the subject of the Gunpowder Plot, apparently written by Milton in preparation for the larger work.<ref>{{Harvnb|Demaray|1984|p=17}}</ref> The plot may also have influenced his later work, ''[[Paradise Lost]]''.<ref>{{citation |last=Quint |first=David |title=Milton, Fletcher and the Gunpowder Plot |year=1991 |journal=Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes |volume=54 |pages=261–268|doi=10.2307/751498 |jstor=751498 }}</ref>

In ''What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded?'' historian [[Ronald Hutton]] concluded that a successful implementation of the plot would have prompted a severe backlash against suspected Catholics, and that without foreign assistance a successful rebellion would have been unlikely; despite differing religious convictions, most Englishmen were loyal to the monarchy. England might have become a more "Puritan absolute monarchy", as "existed in Sweden, Denmark, [[Saxony]], and [[Prussia]] in the seventeenth century", rather than following the path of parliamentary and civil reform that it did.<ref name="hutton">{{citation| last=Hutton | first=Ronald | title=What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded? | url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/gunpowder_hutton_01.shtml | publisher=BBC | date=1 April 2001 | accessdate=7 November 2008 | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090109062537/http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/gunpowder_hutton_01.shtml | archivedate=9 January 2009 | url-status=live | df=dmy-all }}</ref>

===Accusations of state conspiracy===
Many at the time felt that Salisbury had been involved in the plot to gain favour with the King and enact more stridently anti-Catholic legislation. Such [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] alleged that Salisbury had either actually invented the plot or allowed it to continue when his agents had already infiltrated it, for the purposes of propaganda.<ref name="MarshallPP187-188">{{Harvnb|Marshall|2003|pp=187–188}}</ref> The [[Popish Plot]] of 1678 sparked renewed interest in the Gunpowder Plot, resulting in a book by [[Thomas Barlow (bishop)|Thomas Barlow]], Bishop of Lincoln, which refuted "a bold and groundless surmise that all this was a contrivance of Secretary Cecil".<ref name="NorthcoteParkinsonp118">{{Harvnb|Northcote Parkinson|1976|p=118}}</ref>

In 1897 John Gerard of [[Stonyhurst College]], namesake of [[John Gerard (Jesuit)|John Gerard]] (who, following the plot's discovery, had evaded capture), wrote an account called ''What was the Gunpowder Plot?'', alleging Salisbury's culpability.<ref>{{Citation|last=Gerard|first=John|title=What was the Gunpowder Plot? : the traditional story tested by original evidence|publisher=Osgood, McIlvaine & Co|location=London|year=1897}}</ref> This prompted a refutation later that year by [[Samuel Rawson Gardiner|Samuel Gardiner]], who argued that Gerard had gone too far in trying to "wipe away the reproach" which the plot had exacted on generations of English Catholics.<ref>{{Citation|last=Gardiner|first=Samuel|authorlink=Samuel Rawson Gardiner|title=What Gunpowder Plot was |publisher=Longmans, Green and Co|location=London|year=1897}}</ref> Gardiner portrayed Salisbury as guilty of nothing more than opportunism. Subsequent attempts to prove Salisbury's involvement, such as Francis Edwards's 1969 work ''Guy Fawkes: the real story of the gunpowder plot?'', have similarly foundered on the lack of any clear evidence.<ref>{{Citation|last=Edwards|first=Francis|title=Guy Fawkes: the real story of the gunpowder plot?|publisher=Hart-Davis|location=London|year=1969|isbn=0-246-63967-9}}</ref>

The cellars under the Houses of Parliament continued to be leased to private individuals until 1678, when news of the Popish Plot broke. It was then considered prudent to search the cellars on the day before each State Opening of Parliament, a ritual that survives to this day.<ref name="NorthcoteParkinsonp118"/>

===Bonfire Night===
{{Main|Guy Fawkes Night}}
[[File:6 november bonfire from flickr user sjnikon.jpg|thumb|alt=A night-time photograph of a blazing fire is silhouetted by dark figures.|[[Bonfire]]s are lit in Britain every 5 November to commemorate the failure of the plot.]]
In January 1606, during the first sitting of Parliament since the plot, the [[Observance of 5th November Act 1605]] was passed, making services commemorating the event an annual feature of English life;<ref name="parliament">{{Citation|url=http://www.show.me.uk/gunpowderplot/adults_plot_ac.htm |title=Aftermath: Commemoration |date=2005–2006 |publisher=gunpowderplot.parliament.uk |accessdate=31 October 2010 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719141329/http://www.show.me.uk/gunpowderplot/adults_plot_ac.htm |archivedate=19 July 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref> the act remained in force [[Anniversary Days Observance Act 1859|until 1859]].<ref name="factsheet">{{citation|author=House of Commons Information Office |url=http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g08.pdf |title=The Gunpowder Plot |publisher=parliament.uk |date=September 2006 |accessdate=6 March 2007 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050215195506/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g08.pdf |archivedate=15 February 2005 }}</ref> The tradition of marking the day with the ringing of church bells and bonfires started soon after the Plot's discovery, and [[fireworks]] were included in some of the earliest celebrations.<ref name="parliament" /> In Britain, 5 November is variously called Bonfire Night, Fireworks Night, or [[Guy Fawkes Night]].<ref name="factsheet"/>

5 November firework displays and bonfire parties are common throughout Britain.<ref name="factsheet"/> Traditionally, in the weeks running up to the 5th, children made "guys"—[[effigies]] supposedly of Fawkes—usually made from old clothes stuffed with newspaper, and fitted with a grotesque mask, to be burnt on bonfires. These "guys" were exhibited to collect money for fireworks, although this custom has become less common.<ref name="icons">{{citation |url=http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/bonfire-night/features/a-penny-for-the-guy-in-progress |title=Bonfire Night: A penny for the Guy |publisher=icons.org.uk |accessdate=6 October 2009 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20091113083659/http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/bonfire-night/features/a-penny-for-the-guy-in-progress |archivedate=13 November 2009 }}</ref> The word ''guy'', in the 19th century, thus came to mean an oddly dressed person and, in the 20th and 21st centuries, any male person.<ref name="factsheet"/>
{{Quote box
| quote = <poem>Remember, remember,
The Fifth of November,
Gunpowder treason and plot;
For I see no reason
Why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.</poem>
| source = [[Nursery rhyme]]<ref>''Notes and queries'' (Oxford University Press, 1857), [https://books.google.com/books?id=YfnfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA450#v=onepage p. 450]</ref>
| align = right
}}

According to the biographer [[Esther Forbes]], Guy Fawkes Day in the pre-revolutionary American colonies was a very popular holiday. In [[Boston]], the revelry on "[[Pope Night]]" took on anti-authoritarian overtones, and often became so dangerous that many would not venture out of their homes.<ref>{{Harvnb|Forbes|1999|p=94}}</ref>

===Reconstructing the explosion===
[[File:Itv gunpowder plot mike slee.jpg|left|thumb|alt=Viewed from a distance, with a telephoto lens, a large explosion is captured in its early stages. In the foreground, assorted building materials are visible. In the background, a hillside is partially covered by a forest.|A photograph of the explosion, moments after detonation]]

In the 2005 [[ITV (TV network)|ITV]] programme ''[[The Gunpowder Plot: Exploding the Legend]]'', a full-size replica of the House of Lords was built and destroyed with barrels of gunpowder, totalling 1 [[tonne]] of explosives. The experiment was conducted on the [[Advantica (UK)|Advantica]]-owned [[RAF Spadeadam|Spadeadam test site]] and demonstrated that the explosion—if the gunpowder had been in good order—would have killed all those in the building.<ref name=Times>{{citation | url = http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article584830.ece | title = Gunpowder plotters get their wish, 400 years on | last = Sherwin | first = Adam | publisher = [[The Times]] | date = 31 October 2005 | access-date = 18 January 2008 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110604000218/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article584830.ece | archive-date = 4 June 2011 | url-status = dead | df = dmy-all }}</ref> The power of the explosion was such that of the {{convert|7|ft|adj=on}} deep concrete walls making up the undercroft (replicating how archives suggest the walls of the old House of Lords were constructed), the end wall where the barrels were placed, under the throne, was reduced to rubble, and the adjacent surviving portions of wall were shoved away. A piece of the head of the dummy representing King James, which had been placed on a throne inside the chamber, was found a considerable distance from its initial location. According to the findings of the programme, no one within {{convert|330|ft}} of the blast could have survived, and all of the stained glass windows in [[Westminster Abbey]] would have shattered. The explosion would have been seen from miles away and heard from further still. Even if only half of the gunpowder had gone off—which Fawkes was apparently prepared for—everyone in the House of Lords would have been killed instantly.<ref name=Times/>

The programme also disproved claims that deterioration in the quality of the gunpowder would have prevented the explosion. A portion of deliberately deteriorated gunpowder, of such low quality as to make it unusable in firearms, still created a large explosion. The impact of even deteriorated gunpowder would have been magnified by its containment in wooden barrels. The compression would have created a cannon effect, with the powder first blowing up from the top of the barrel before, a millisecond later, blowing out. Calculations showed that Fawkes, who was skilled in the use of gunpowder, had deployed double the amount needed.<ref>{{citation| url = https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1501865/Guy-Fawkes-had-twice-the-gunpowder-needed.html | title = Guy Fawkes had twice the gunpowder needed | first = Fiona | last = Govan | publisher = telegraph.co.uk | date = 31 October 2005 | accessdate = 18 January 2008 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20120523012931/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1501865/Guy-Fawkes-had-twice-the-gunpowder-needed.html | archivedate = 23 May 2012 | url-status = live | df = dmy-all }}</ref>
{{Clear}}