INTRODUCTION

The problem of violence, particularly in relation to politics, is a perennial theme of Tudor historiography, discussion of which has recently been renewed in G. R. Elton's Ford Lectures. These begin with an evocation of the pervasive violence of the Tudor social world. People carried weapons; there was a latent irascibility in the air. Men were prone to brawl and take offence. Silly quarrels escalated into battles in the streets. Conflicts were rapidly translated into the language of the sword. This was particularly so when large issues of politics or religion were at stake. Dissidence could be conceived only in terms of a violent, disruptive stance. It was revolt, “rebellion”, the waging of war against the king. Symbols and scenes of violence figured prominently in manifestations of dissent. There were assemblies of armed men, and banners might be raised. Martial postures and attitudes were assumed. There were sieges and, now and then, battles. But what motivated the pervasive violence? Did it have any method, rhyme or reason? How was the language of the sword translated into politics? It will be suggested below that the root of the matter lies in the mentality defined by the concept of honour. This, emerging out of a long-established military and chivalric tradition, is characterized above all by a stress on competitive assertiveness; it assumes a state of affairs in which resort to violence is natural and justifiable; the recurrence of personal and political situations in which conflict cannot be otherwise resolved than violently.