Talk:Henry Garnet

Untitled

Several miracles attributed to Fr. Henry Garnet propelled his legacy and sustained English Catholicism much to the annoyance of the Elizabethan authorities, proving the quote attributed to African American civil rights activist Medgar Evers (1925 – 1963): “You can kill a man but you can't kill an idea.” As well as the piece of blood-stained corn hay used as flooring on the execution platform that developed a likeness of Garnet's face, there was Garnet’s head and a book believed to be bound in his skin. Garnet’s head was placed atop a pole near London Bridge and shocked people by remaining lifelike and refusing to rot. A book containing accounts of speeches and evidence from the trials was made by Robert Barker, the king's printer, months after Garnet's execution: "A True and Perfect Relation of the Whole Proceedings Against the Late Most Barbarous Traitors, Garnet a Jesuit and His Confederates". Barker’s “Relation of . . Garnet” measures about 6 inches by 4 inches and is bound in human skin believed to be that of Garnet. This macabre artefact came up for auction in London in 2007 where it went to an unnamed private collector for 5,400 pounds (€8,000/$11,000). It was common for the skins of executed leading criminals to be used to cover books about their lives, a process called anthropodermic binding. That a book bound in human skin is unsettling is added to by a ghostly image on the front possibly of the executed Jesuit priest.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0706792.htm This link has news coverage of the auction

http://philobiblos.blogspot.com/2007/11/garnet-book-images.html This link has photos showing the early 17th book where the grisly phenomenon is visible. You can be the judge of what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.208.188 (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

new version

I've been writing a new version of this article in my userspace. It still needs a fair bit of work but it's approaching the point now where I think it's worthy of copying here. All critiques welcome, if nobody objects I plan to copy it across in the next day or two. Parrot of Doom 14:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This is probably good enough to copy across now, so if nobody has any objections I'll do this tomorrow. It still needs work but its good enough I think. Parrot of Doom 00:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Stuff not included in the new version (not through lack of agreement I might add) copied below. Parrot of Doom 12:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Authorities

Of the great number of works embodying the controversy on the question of Garnet's guilt the following may be mentioned, in order of date:

• A True and Perfect Relation of the whole Proceedings against ... Garnet a Jesuit and his Confederates (1606, repr. 1679), the official account, but incomplete and inaccurate
• Apologia pro Henrico Garneto (1610), by the Jesuit Andreas Eudaemon-Joannes, and Robert Abbot's reply, Antilogia versus Apologiam Eudaemon-Joannes.
• Henry More, Historia Provinciae Anglicanae Societatis (1660)
• David Jardine, Gunpowder Plot (1857)
• John Morris, SJ, Condition of the Catholics under James I (1872), containing Father Gerard's narrative
• John Hungerford Pollen, Father Henry Garnet and the Gunpowder Plot (1888)
• S. R. Gardiner, What Gunpowder Plot war (1897), in reply to John Gerard, SJ, What was the Gunpowder Plot? (1897)
• J. Gerard, Contributions towards a Life of Father Henry Garnet (1898)

See also State Trials II., and Cal. of State Papers Dom., (1603–1610). The original documents are preserved in the Gunpowder Plot Book at the Record Office.

• A more recent version of Henry Garnett's story can be found on the website of the /Heanor & District Local History Society.
• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• Philip Caraman, Henry Garnet: 1555–1606 and the Gunpowder Plot (1964)
• From the History News Network regarding a 17th century book about the execution of Henry Garnet. 28 November 2007. [1]
• Ceri Sullivan, Dismembered Rhetoric. English Recusant Writing, 1580–1603 (Madison/London: Associated University Press, 1995) studies Garnet's prose style.

Martyr

His name was included in the list of the 353 Roman Catholic martyrs sent to Rome from England in 1880, and in the 2nd appendix of the Menology of England and Wales compiled by order of the cardinal archbishop and the bishops of the province of Westminster by R Stanton in 1887, where he was viewed as a Catholic martyr. His cause was forwarded to Rome for investigation.

Comments (from sandbox talk page)

• You should add either Father and/or "S.J." at several points to several people - SJ would be easier.
• Round "Wisbech stirs" - need to explain that the CC had not appointed catholic bishops to the English sees since the death of Mary I, & had ?when placed the Jesuits in overall charge of the English Mission. "They wanted the society's administration of continental seminaries ended, the Jesuits removed from the Catholic mission, and the restoration of ordinary episcopal governance in England.[nb 1] In spring 1598, Rome made George Blackwell archpriest in England, provided him with twelve assistants, and urged him to take advice from the Jesuit superior. This role fell to Garnet. Robert Parsons, disliked by the Appellants,[4] was made prefect in England by Acquviva, and Joseph Creswell and William Holt vice-prefects on the continent. Not everybody was happy with Rome's actions; some accused the English Jesuits of foisting a puppet on the English church, while claiming that they were loyal Catholics, as opposed to Jesuit traitors. Supporters of Blackwell called these claimants scismatics. The matter was finally resolved in October 1602. A papal brief affirmed the new structure. It removed the requirement for the archpriest to consult with the Jesuit superior, while keeping Jesuits in the mission. The appellants' hopes that the English government might support them were confounded on 5 November, when a royal proclamation ordered appellants and Jesuits out of the country.[1] " - all rather confusing, especially "some accused the English Jesuits of foisting a puppet on the English church, while claiming that they were loyal Catholics, as opposed to Jesuit traitors" - Who, what?
• You want to get some sources that aren't just about the Gunpowder plot. I see there is "Henry Garnet: 1555-1606 and the Gunpowder Plot", by Philip Caraman SJ, presumably a full bio, if no doubt partisan. John Bossy, of "The English Catholic community, 1570-1850" and other works, is the senior figure in the field, but there are others. He spent 14 years in England after his return from Europe.
• Some of the "superiors", "prefects" etc are confusing - presumably ad hoc managerial titles rather than regular ranks. Nowadays Jesuits have a "Provincial" in charge of eg England & Wales or Scotland, which is effectively what Garnet was, but I don't know if that was his title then.
• Was he baptised as a Catholic in Rome? Need to be clear.

Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Issues with the history

I'd like to bring up a few things on the new version, in some sort of controlled order. There is probably more to say about Garnet and Robert Southwell, as in Anne M. Sweeney's 2006 book Robert Southwell. Easier to do that, which relates to Garnet's early career, when I've had a look at the article on Southwell. There are also things to say about Garnet's reputation and the allegiance oath controversy, but I intend to add something about how that went in the article. So these can be parked just for the moment.

I created Wisbech Stirs. Garnet didn't have a major role there. My comment would be that it is true that John Mush calmed things down in October of the relevant year 1595, after Garnet hadn't really been effective in sorting it out in February. But it's a bit tricky to say that the Wisbech business was over at that point, (a) because it flared up again (and no one is quite sure why), and (b) the Flanders and English College in Rome squabbles were all part of the same unrest. This really needs some defensive wording, because for the period 1595-8 there is no reputable (not involving OR) formulation of the conflicts. Thomas Graves Law said it was all "Jesuits versus secular priests" but I sense that is a Victorian explanation, not so acceptable now. So I would perhaps limit the commentary.

When it comes to the Bye Plot, Garnet's role is more interesting. I'll try to reference below the assertion that what he did was to contact his Vatican superior. He didn't restrain Gerard, it seems clear. But of the two priests, George Blackwell needs a mention here. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So, Garnet and the Bye Plot. What I was thinking of is in Alice Hogge, God's Secret Agents (2005), p. 311 footnote. It's not absolutely clear, but as far as Garnet's actions are concerned it indicates that Gerard told Garnet what he knew (this would be early June, probably); Garnet contacted the Vatican in a letter that can't now be traced; and it got to the nuncio in Brussels who wrote back in late July (perhaps to Blackwell). In any case it is not claimed that Garnet's positive actions did anything more than damp down the plot. Blackwell was the actor in this who told the government. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've taken this as far as I'm able, so feel free to change whatever you like. The old version just looked shoddy compared to the other Gunpowder Plot related articles. Parrot of Doom 22:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Henry Garnet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) 04:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Nothing in the article compels me to not pass this article. Good job.

Inconsistency

In the article Society of Jesus, it says that Garnet was executed for "misprison of treason". In this article, Henry Garnet, it says that Garnet was "guilty of treason". In the article Misprison of treason, it implies that misprison of treason was a "non-capital felony" in England after "1554-1555". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.231 (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Anthropodermic bibliopegy

There is a book supposedly made from Garnets skin (see Anthropodermic bibliopegy) that has been sold at auction twice and was extensively covered by reputable outlets. I think this is definitely notable enough to be added to the death section BBC, BBC, Guardian, Archdiocese of Baltimore

--jonas (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Garnet Can anyone tell me more?31.94.57.210 (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)