² James, Mervyn, ‘English Politics and the Concept of Honour 1485–1642’ first published as Past and Present, supplement no. 3 (1978)Google Scholar and reprinted in Society, Politics and Culture: Studies in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1986), 308–415.

³ See particularly Cust, Richard, ‘Honour and Politics in Early Stuart England: The Case of Beaumont v. Hastings’, Past and Present, no. 149 (11 1995), 57–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gowing, Laura, ‘Gender and the Language of Insult in Early Modern London’, History Workshop Journal, 35 (Spring 1993), 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gowing, Laura, Domestic Dangers: Women, Words and Sex in Early Modern London (Oxford, 1996)Google Scholar; Fletcher, Anthony, ‘Honour, Reputation & Local Officeholding in Elizabethan and Stuart England’, in Order and Disorder in Early Modern England, ed. Fletcher, A. and Stevenson, John (Cambridge, 1985), 92–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fletcher, Anthony, Gender, Sex and Subordination in England 1500–1800 (1995), esp. ch. 7Google Scholar; Hibbard, Caroline, ‘The Theatre of Dynasty’, in The Stuart Court and Europe, ed. Smuts, Malcolm (Cambridge, forthcoming)Google Scholar; Roper, Lyndal, Oedipus & the Devil: Witchcraft, Sexuality and Religion in Early Modern Europe (1994), esp. chs. 3, 5Google Scholar; and the essays in this volume.

⁴ Some of the discussions I have found most useful include Norden, John, The Mirror of Honour (1587)Google Scholar; Ashley, Robert, Of Honour (c. 1596), ed. Heltzel, Virgil B. (San Marino, 1947)Google Scholar; Segar, William, Honour Military and Civil (1602)Google Scholar; John Cleland, Institution of a Young Noble Man (1607; facsimile repr. New York, 1948); Milles, Thomas, The Catalogue of Honour (1610)Google Scholar; Markham, Gervase, Honour in his Perfection (1624)Google Scholar; Markham, Francis, The Book of Honour (1625)Google Scholar; Brathwaite, Richard, The English Gentleman (1630)Google Scholar; Brathwaite, Richard, The English Gentlewoman (1631)Google Scholar; Greville, Fulke, ‘An Inquisition upon Fame and Honour’, and ‘A Letter to an Honourable Lady’, both in Certain Learned and Elegant Works of the Right Honourable Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke (1633)Google Scholar.

⁵ Cleland, , Institution, 10Google Scholar.

⁶ Markham, , Book of Honour 25Google Scholar.

⁷ England was not an honour/shame society in the classic sense, but the insecurity of honour is one way that early modern England does fit the Mediterranean model made famous in Honour and Shame: Values of a Mediterranean Society, ed. Peristiany, J. G. (1965)Google Scholar. This remains the classic anthropological discussion of honour, but for challenges to its wider applicability, see Honour and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean, ed. Gilmore, David (special publication of the American Anthropological Association no. 22, 1987)Google Scholar; Stewart, Frank Henderson, Honour (Chicago, 1994)Google Scholar. Scott Lucas suggested to me that in a society such as early modern England, it might also have been dangerous for writers to deny the validity of any particular claim to honour.

⁸ Neuschel, Kristen, Word of Honour: Interpreting Noble Culture in Sixteenth-Century France (Ithaca, 1989)Google Scholar; Jones, Ann Rosalind, ‘Nets and Bridles: Early Modern Conduct Books and Sixteenth-Century Women's Lyrics’, in The Ideology of Conduct: Essays in the literature and History of Sexuality, ed. Armstrong, Nancy and Tennenhouse, Leonard (1987), 39–72Google Scholar; Sharpe, J. A., Defamation and Sexual Slander in Early Modern England: the Church Courts at York, Borthwick Papers 58 (York, 1980)Google Scholar; Gowing, ‘Language of Insult’; Laura Gowing, ‘Women, Status and the Popular Culture of Dishonour’, in this volume.

⁹ When Parliament was not in session, peers were tried for felony or treason in a court presided over by a Lord High Steward (who was specially appointed for the occasion) sitting with a number of peers as jurors and the judges of the common law as advisers. See Pike, Luke Owen, A Constitutional History of the House of Lords (1894), ch. XIGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Most serious charges against peers involved treason and/or murder. The most notorious English counterparts to Castlehaven in this period were the earl and countess of Somerset (condemned for murder, but later pardoned); Charles, Lord Stourton and Thomas, Lord Dacre of the South, (each executed for murder);and Walter, Lord Hungerford (executed for treason and sodomy).

¹¹ Among aristocratic trials in this period, only the trial of the earls of Essex and Southampton in 1601 (The Complete Collection of State Trials, ed. Howell, Thomas (1809–1826)Google Scholar [hereafter ST], I, cols. 1333–69) brought more witnesses into court; only the defensive claims of the duke of Norfolk in 1571 (ST, I, cols. 957–1050) and the duke of Somerset in 1550 and 1551 (ST, I, cols. 510–28) were equally sophisticated.

¹² The other incidents involving both male and female peers were the trials of the earl and countess of Somerset, (ST, II, cols. 951–1022)Google Scholar, of QueenBoleyn, Anne (ST, I, cols. 410–34)Google Scholar and of QueenHoward, Catherine (ST, I, cols. 445–52)Google Scholar. However, in the first instance, the pair were not at odds with one another, and in the trials of the two queens, where the king was the accuser, there were denials, but no countercharges.

¹³ Manuscript versions of the trial began to circulate even before the earl was executed, and the first in a series of pamphlets on the case appeared in 1633. A large number of contemporary diaries and letters include comments upon the trial and/or execution. For details, see my work in progress, Sex, Law and Patriarchy: The Trials of the 2nd earl of Castlehaven.

¹⁴ On English peers and the legal autonomy, see Public Record Office State Papers Domestic [hereafter PRO SP] 12/112/51 summarised in Williams, Penry, The Council in the Marches of Wales under Elizabeth I (Cardiff, 1955), 61Google Scholar; Barber, C., The Theme of Honour's Tongue: A Study of Social Attitudes in the English Drama from Shakespeare to Dryden (Gothenburg Studies in English, 1985), 42–3Google Scholar; Stone, Lawrence, The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558–1641 (Oxford, 1965), 235–9, 249ffGoogle Scholar; Hibbard, ‘Theatre of Dynasty’; Kieman, V. G., The Duel in European History: Honour and the Reign of Aristocracy (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar, especially c. 9. See also Schalk, Ellery, ‘Under the Law or Laws unto Themselves: Noble Attitudes and Absolutism in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century France’, Historical Review/Revue Historique, XV, 1 (1988), 279–92Google Scholar; Smith, Jay, ‘Our Sovereign's Gaze: Kings, Nobles and State Formation in Seventeenth-Century France’, French Historical Studies, XVIII, 2 (1993), 396–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar. More work needs to be done on the relationship of elites in England to the law.

¹⁵ The Crown's convenient reinterpretation of the law regarding sodomy did, in fact, come close to endangering the verdict this way. See Herrup, Law, Sex and Patriarchy.

¹⁶ Felicity Heal, ‘Reputation and Honour in Court and Country: Lady Elizabeth Russell and Sir Thomas Hoby’; Faramerz Dabhoiwala, ‘The Construction of Honour, Reputation and Status in Late Seventeenth- and Early Eighteenth-Century England’; Garthine Walker, ‘Expanding the Boundaries of Female Honour in Early Modern England’, all in this volume.

¹⁷ On the ‘problem’ of women in court, see Hawarde, John, Les reportes del cases in Camera Stellata 1593–1609, ed. Baildon, W.P. (1894), 39, 161Google Scholar; Prest, W. R., ‘Law and Women's Rights in Early Modern England’, The Seventeenth Century, VI (1991), 182–3Google Scholar; Lindley, David, The Trials of Francis Howard: Fact and Fiction in the Court of King James (1993), ch. 3, 185–6Google Scholar; cf. Heal, ‘Reputation and Honour’; Gowing, ‘Language of Insult’.

¹⁸ Pike, Constitutional History; Lovell, Colin Rhys, ‘The Trial of Peers in Great Britain’, American Historical Review, LV (1949), 69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ The prerogatives of English peers were particularly focused on their status before the law. English peers could not be arrested except on allegations of felony, treason or breach of the peace, could not be imprisoned for debt, could not be subjected to torture, could not be oudawed or compelled to testify under oath. They were immune from the power of most forms of summons and could be tried only by other peers, even in civil actions. Bush, Michael, Noble Privilege (New York, 1983), 66–9Google Scholar.

²⁰ Acquittal was so unlikely that Francis Hargrave, one of the early editors of ST, justified the inclusion of the case against William, , Dacre, Lord, despite its ‘triviality’, specifically on that score; ST, I, col. 407Google Scholar.

²¹ The only privy councillors among the English peers not on the jury were the earl of Bridgewater (Castlehaven's brother-in-law), the earl of Exeter and the earl of Lyndsey.

²² Folger Library MS [hereafter Folger MS] V.b.328/2–6v; Northamptonshire Record Office Isham (Lamport) [hereafter NRO IL] MS 3339, 2–5. Throughout this paper, where ever possible I have cited from NRO IL MS 3339, which I believe to be the earliest of the more than forty different extant versions of the trial. However, because the language of die fullest text (Folger MS V.b.328) is clearer, I have sometimes quoted from that, slighdy later, version and then cited the comparable earlier passage. Folger MS V.b.328 is more fully discussed below, see below, pp. 155–56. The best-known printed text of the trial (ST, III, cols. 401–18), a collation of three still later accounts, is neither as complete nor as accurate as the earlier versions. The history and uses of these texts will be discussed more fully in my book. The assistance of Scott Lucas on the genealogy of these manuscripts has been invaluable. Similar preparations accompanied the trials of other peers; cf. ST, I, cols. 296, 957, 1249, 1334–6.

²³ Folger MS V.b.328/5; NRO IL MS 3339, 2–3.

²⁴ Acts of the Privy Council [hereafter APC] entries for 29 Dec. 1630; 23 Feb. 1630/1; 20 April 1631.

²⁵ APC, 20 Dec. 1630; 7 Jan. 1630/1; 10 Jan. 1630/1.

²⁶ PRO SP 16/189/56.

²⁷ Neuschel, , Word of Honour, 169–70Google Scholar; see also Heal, Felicity, Hospitality in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1990), 24–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ Historical Manuscripts Collections [hereafter HMC] Report on the Manuscripts of the Late Reginald Rawdon Hastings (1928–47), ‘Directions of Henry, 5th earl of Huntingdon for the guidance of his Son Ferdinando’, IV, 332.

²⁹ On the family's finances, Stone, Crisis, appendices viii–ix; on precedence: Squibb, G., Precedence in England and Wales (Oxford, 1981), 32nGoogle Scholar, appendix 2.

³⁰ NRO IL MS 3339, 2–3.

³¹ NRO IL MS 3339, 5.

³² NRO IL MS 3339, 6.

³³ For similar tactics, see the trials of the earl of Arundel, (ST, I, cols. 1252–3)Google Scholar and of the earl of Somerset, (ST, II, col. 970)Google Scholar.

³⁴ NRO IL MS 3339, 5; Henry E. Huntington Library Ellesmere [hereafter HEH EL] MS 7976/12. The importance of Englishness appears as well in the trials of the duke of Norfolk, (ST, I, col. 969)Google Scholar and of the earl of Somerset, (ST, II, cols. 970–1)Google Scholar.

³⁵ NRO IL MS 3339,5. The relation between birth and merit as grounds for honour was one of the subject's most heated areas of early modern discussion.

³⁶ HEH EL MS 7976/11.

³⁷ Ashley, , Of Honour, 30Google Scholar.

³⁸ In addition to felony, Castlehaven was accused of diverting his son's inheritance and encouraging the adultery of his daughter-in-law; NRO IL MS 3339, 7–8, 12; BL Hargrave MS 226/31 IV, 312–12V. On the particular horror of such accusations, see Barber, , Honour's Tongue, 36–7Google Scholar; Greville, , ‘Letter to an Honourable Lady’, 290Google Scholar.

³⁹ Feltham, Owen, Resolves: A Duple Century One New an Other of Second Edition (1628), 86Google Scholar. Feltham's work was originally published in 1620. The 1628 edition was dedicated to Thomas, Lord Coventry, the man later to preside over Castlehaven's trial. On loss of honour as a slippery slope to anarchy, see Markham, Gervase, Honour in his Perfection, 4Google Scholar; Herrup, Law, Sex and Patriarchy.

⁴⁰ See the trials of the duke of Somerset, (ST, I, col. 520)Google Scholar, the duke of Norfolk, (ST, I, cols. 965–7, 985, 992, 1001–2)Google Scholar and the earl of Arundel, (ST, I, cols. 1253–64)Google Scholar. Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, accused of treason in connection with the Wyatt Rebellion0.0000000 in 1554, mounted the most elaborate and most successful defence of the day; see ST, I, cols. 869–902, and Patterson, Annabel, Reading Holinshed's Chronicles (Chicago, 1994), c. 8Google Scholar.

⁴¹ On how shame could offer an opportunity to display one's sense of honour, see Miller, William Ian, Humiliation and Other Essays on Honour, Social Discomfort and Violence (Ithaca, 1993), 117–24Google Scholar.

⁴² British Library [hereafter BL] Cotton MS Titus B, X/210. Linda Levy Peck first suggested that I look through these papers.

⁴³ PRO SP 14/71/39, 40.

⁴⁴ He preferred a bill against high legal fees and moved to broaden restrictions on luxurious apparel; Proceedings of the Parliament 1614 ed. Jansson, Maija (Philadelphia, 1988), 75Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ PRO SP 16/189/25.

⁴⁶ Folger MS V.b.328/20v; NRO IL MS 3339, 11–12.

⁴⁷ Ibid. The tensions inherent in a family structure so tied to the dissemination of property have been much studied; for important recent assessments, see Linda Pollock, ‘Domestic Dissidence: Women Versus Women and Women Versus Men in the Early Modern Elite Home’, unpublished paper presented to the North American Conference of British Studies; Harris, Barbara J., Of Noble and Gentle Birth: English Aristocratic Women 1450–1550, to be published by Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar; Heal, ‘Reputation and Honour’.

⁴⁸ NRO IL MS 3339, 12; Folger MS V.b.328/21. On the added dishonour of making private business public, see Pollock, Linda, ‘Living on the Stage of the World: Concepts of Privacy among the Elite in Early Modern England’, in Rethinking English Social History, ed. Wilson, Adrian (1993), 88–9Google Scholar; Fletcher, , Gender, 144–5Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Leicestershire Record Office DE 3128/184.

⁵⁰ Folger MS V.b.328/24; NRO IL MS 3339,12; BL Hargrave MS 226/312V–13.

⁵¹ NRO ILMS 3339, 11.

⁵² James, , ‘Concept of Honour’, 339–40Google Scholar. One of the striking aspects of the Castlehaven case is that the son's honour, despite making accusations that impugned his intimates, and declared his own cuckoldry, seems not to have been permanently damaged. He regained his English tide and most of his father's property. His younger siblings married well. I have found no libels at his expense and the gossip surrounding the case generally ignores him. For his later history, colourful in its own right, see Herrup, Law, Sex and Patriarchy.

⁵³ Having debated for more than two hours, the jurors convicted the earl on the count of rape by twenty-six votes to one and on the counts of sodomy by fifteen votes to twelve. PRO Baga de Secretis KB 8/63mio; HEH Hastings Manuscripts Legal Papers Box 5(2) #2.

⁵⁴ On the merits of those complaints, see Herrup, Law, Sex and Patriarchy. Anxiety about exposure from wives and from servants certainly had some resonance. On wives, see Fletcher, Gender, c. i; Foyster, Elizabeth, ‘A Laughing Matter? Marital Discord and Gender Control in Seventeenth-Century England’, Rural History, IV, 1 (1993), 5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elizabeth Foyster, ‘Male Honour, Social Control and Wife Bearing in Late Stuart England’, in this volume; Gowing, ‘Women’; on servants, HMC Hastings, IV, 333; on the view from service, Hodgkin, Katharine, ‘Thomas Whythorne and the Problems of Mastery’, History Workshop Journal, XXIX (1990), 20–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and more generally, Cust, , ‘Honour and Polities’, 81–3Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Roper, , Oedipus, 61Google Scholar; Wyatt-Brown, Bertram, Southern Honour: Ethics and Behaviour in the Old South (New York, 1982), 303–4Google Scholar, for similar results in different settings.

⁵⁶ This possibility was first suggested to me by my colleague, Kristen Neuschel. The sense of the earl's disruptiveness may have been heightened further by the dissension his case caused among his jurors; see above n. 53.

⁵⁷ APC, 14 Dec. 1630; 31 Dec. 1630.

⁵⁸ APC, 23 Dec. 1630; 23 Feb. 1630/1; 25 Feb 1630/1; PRO SP16/198/18.

⁵⁹ HEH EL MS 7976/9V; Gowing, ‘Women’, and the sources cited above, n. 17.

⁶⁰ See, for example, Dabhoiwala, ‘The Construction of Honour’, and Walker, ‘Expanding the Boundaries of Female Honour’, in this volume. The circumstances of this case would have made untenable two of the alternative possibilities for claims to honour suggested by Walker, good housewifery and good mothering. Additional alternative measures of female honour might include the defence of property, the honourableness of one's children (especially sons) or the redeeming of one's spouse or child by pardon or petition. It is worth noting the greater emphasis on familial achievement than in comparable male options, although Scott Lucas has pointed out to me that literary patronage provided at least one non-familial arena for the indirect attainment of honour by a woman.

⁶¹ Barber, , Honour's Tongue, 36, 47Google Scholar; Lindley, Trials; Thomas, Keith, ‘The Double Standard’, Journal of the History of Ideas, XX (1959), 195–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harris, Of Noble and Gentle Birth. See also Wyatt-Brown, Southern Honour; Nye, Robert, Masculinity and Male Codes of Honour in Modetn France (New York, 1993)Google Scholar.

⁶² Folger MS V.b.328/11 for the first and last quotes; NRO IL MS 3339, 7 for the second.

⁶³ Squibb, , Precedence, 62–6Google Scholar; appendix 1. Nor did she petition for a return to her original status after her second husband's death.

⁶⁴ NRO IL MS 3339,8. Folger MS V.b.328/16v adds her claim that the earl told her that if ‘it were his will to have it so, she must obey, and do it’; HEH EL MS 7976/10 has the countess adding that although she deferred to her husband's wishes, ‘she never consented in her heart’.

⁶⁵ Harris, Of Noble and Gentle Birth; Pollock, Linda, ‘Teache her to Live under Obedience: The Making of Women in the Upper Ranks in Early Modern England’, Continuity & Change, IV (1989), 231–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wall, Alison, ‘Elizabethan Precepts and Feminine Practice: The Thynne family of Longleat’, History, LXXV (1990), 23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Barbara Donagan reminded me of the particular exemption for acts against divine law. That claim never surfaced in contemporary comment about the case.

⁶⁶ Greville, , ‘Letter to an Honourable Lady’, 277, 278, 279Google Scholar; Thomas, , ‘Double Standard’, 196, 214Google Scholar, citing the marquis of Halifax and Juan Luis Vives offering similar advice; Snawsell, Richard, A Looking Glass for Married Folks… (1610Google Scholar; repr. 1631), n.p.; Roper, , Oedipus, 109–10Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Greville, , ‘Letter to an Honourable Lady’, 266Google Scholar; Hawarde, , Reportes, 241Google Scholar; cf. Harris, Of Noble and Gentk Birth.

⁶⁸ HMC, The Manuscripts of his Grace the Duke of Portland (1891–1931), II, 122Google Scholar. A few texts suggest that he did ask for pardon or exile; see HEH EL MS 7976/14, 15 as an example. The king did respite the form of execution, but it is unclear at whose request, PRO E371/818m7–8.

⁶⁹ BL Additional MS. 17, 017/1–2; On the importance attached to style in death in early modern England, see Langston, Beach, ‘Essex and the Art of Dying’, Huntington Library Quarterly, II (1950), 109–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ustick, W.L., ‘Changing Ideals of Aristocratic Character and Conduct in Seventeenth-Century England’, Modern Philology, XXX (1932–1933), 149–50Google Scholar. For a provocative discussion of the possibilities of such a moment, see Barton, Carlin, ‘Savage Miracles: The Redemption of Lost Honour in Roman Society & the Sacrament of the Gladiator and the Martyr’, Representations, XLV (Winter 1994), 41–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁰ Lindley, , Trials, 182ffGoogle Scholar, on such publications as mechanisms to restore reputation. Though never published, the Castlehaven text has narrative qualities that suggest it was compiled for publication. In addition to the trial, the fullest and most common versions recount the earl's execution, the trial and execution of his co-defendants, the earl's confession of faith, his last letters to his son and to his sisters, the petition to King Charles from Castlehaven's sisters for his pardon and ‘a compendious description of Mervin, late earl of Casdehaven, wherein the true picture of his mind and affections towards the latter end of his time is faithfully represented’. Folger MS V.b.328 seems to be the earliest version of this text, but there are many variants, all undated. See Herrup, Law, Sex and Patriarchy for a fuller discussion.

⁷¹ Folger MS V.b.328/37, 37V, 38V, 39V.

⁷² The Civil Conversation (1581), 30–1, cited in Lindley, , Trials, 171Google Scholar; Greville, ‘Letter to an Honourable Lady’, chs. 2, 4; cf. Harris, Of Noble and Gentle Birth.

⁷³ At the earl's trial, there were two potential witnesses in the charge of rape: the countess and Giles Broadway, the servant actually accused of the act. After the earl's execution, however, the countess was the only witness, and so her presence, particularly when Broadway requested it, was critical to the case. She came to court, confirmed and clarified her earlier examination, affirmed her shame, her lack of malice and her respect for God, and then left ‘with as much privacy as might be into her coach’. ST, III, col. 419.

⁷⁴ Folger MS V.b.328/34–v; cf. ST, III, col. 424, where she has become ‘the wickedest woman in the world’, someone ‘wholly delighting in lust’.

⁷⁵ PRO SP16/192/11.

⁷⁶ PRO C66/2578m6.

⁷⁷ PRO Prob 11/174 (70 Goare). Her income from her jointure lands was something less than £1,000 per year, a modest, but not impossible income for the wife and daughter of peers; cf. Stone, Crisis, appendices XXXI and XXXII; Erickson, Amy L. ‘Common Law Versus Common Practice: The Use of Marriage Settlements in Early Modern England’, Economic History Review, 2nd series, XLIII, 1 (1990), 30Google Scholar. My colleague Bill Reddy pointed out to me how difficult it is to distinguish what in Lady Castlehaven's later actions results from shame and what from an honourable withdrawal from society.

⁷⁸ BL Additional MS 69, 919; Woe to the House (1633), The Word of God to the Citie of London, from the Lady Eleanor: Of the earl of Castlehaven… (1644/5).

⁷⁹ Folger MS V.D.328/38V–9.

⁸⁰ ‘I need no trophies to adorn my hearse / My wife exalts my homes in every verse / And placeth them so full upon my tombe. / That for my arms there is no vacant room. / Who will take such a countess to his bed / That first gives homes, & then cuts off the head’ BL Harleian MS 738/328 among many other places. On the libels surrounding the trial, see Herrup, Law, Sex and Patriarchy.

⁸¹ House of Lords Record Office Parchment 179/21; Main Papers Parchments/60.

⁸² PRO Prob 11/174 (70 Goare); Esdaile, Katherine A., English Church Monuments 1510–1840 (1946)Google Scholar; Pevsner, N., Middlesex. Buildings of England, III (Harmondsworth, 1951)Google Scholar. Nigel Llewellyn's presentation at the conference for which this paper was originally written inspired me to consider further the meaning of the Derby monument.

⁸³ Dabhoiwala, ‘The Construction of Honour’, and Walker, ‘Expanding the Boundaries of Female Honour’, in this volume; Gowing ‘Language of Insult.’

⁸⁴ Cust, ‘Politics and Honour’; Hibbard, ‘Theatre of Dynasty’; Heal, ‘Reputation and Honour’.