Yet another book on the Gunpowder Plot. Of the three I’ve read so far, this is the most straightforward; a direct account of the plot without going too far into the background or results. The account of the Plot is clear and readable. Author Alan Hayes refutes a couple of the charges made by conspiracy theorists (you would think nobody would care much about a 400-year-old conspiracy, but apparently not) who contend that the Plot was actually initiated by the British government (sometimes specifically by the Cecil family) to provide an excuse to suppress Catholics; sort of a 1605 version of the Reichstag Fire. The specific charges discussed are:


* Did the plotters start to mine under Parliament before realizing that they could rent a cellar directly beneath it? The “mine” figured heavily in government propaganda, depicting the plotters as hellish subterranean dwellers. Conspiracy theorists claim that there was no evidence of such a mine; Hayes refutes this.


* Was gunpowder a government monopoly, implying that the government must have supplied it to the plotters? Hayes notes that the government had granted a private firm a monopoly on the production of gunpowder in the London area, but the firm could sell to anybody and there’s plenty of evidence that they did.


* Was the Monteagle letter, sent to warn Catholic Lord Monteagle to avoid Parliament (Monteagle immediately turned it in), actually forged by the government? The letter is not in the handwriting of any of the known plotters, and is written on paper made in the Spanish Netherlands; the government had an outstanding forger in Thomas Phelippes (who is thought to have forged additions to some of Mary Queen of Scots letters to provide evidence for treason). Various suggestions have been made: one of the plotters (sometimes specifically Francis Tresham) writing in a disguised hand; Monteagle himself, who supposedly learned of the plot and wrote himself a letter so he could turn it in and disassociate himself; and miscellaneous other parties. Hayes is hesitant but comes out in favor of a government forgery. It’s very probable that the government already knew of the plot before the Monteagle letter was delivered due to the incompetence of the plotters; Salisbury turned the letter over to King James without too much comment, supposedly to allow James to figure out things for himself.


Hayes closes with an interesting epilogue; the possibility that the plot heavily influenced Macbeth. This was discussed in the Shakespeare-as-cryptoCatholic book Shadowplay, but Hayes comes to the opposite conclusion; Shakespeare was a firm Protestant and scenes from Macbeth mock and denigrate the plotters. I find these arguments pretty farfetched – contending that the “…farmer who hanged himself on the expectation of plenty” in the drunken porter scene is Jesuit Father Garnet because he sometimes used the alias “Farmer”, or that Birnam Wood signifies the tree that John Streete was standing behind when he shot Thomas Catesby and Thomas Percy with a single bullet, seems to be straining a little.


If you’re only interested in one book on the Plot, this one would be a good choice. ( )