Beginning in the 1970s, the “cultural turn” drew the attention of many historians away from high politics and social change to the study of cultural phenomena, and the concept of honor emerged as an attractive subject. As cultural history acquired more prominence, many scholars turned to Geertzian “thick descriptions” of the ways in which conceptions of honor influenced behavior. The early modern period, dominated by aristocratic culture, where disputes were often settled through face-to-face confrontations rather than anonymous judicial processes, proved to be a particularly fertile ground for such studies.

But in the case of early modern English history, one historian had made the cultural turn before the turn itself, and that historian was Mervyn James. James is one of the more intriguing figures in early modern historiography. He devoted his scholarly life to the study of the Tudor North, and helped make the field a subject of interest, largely by arguing that between 1540 and 1640 the North was transformed from a traditional aristocratic, or, “lineage” society, to a modern civil society upholding values associated with rule of law and centralized authority. The concept of honor as understood and practiced by the northern lords and its role in the “lineage” society played a prominent role in his work. James's work was genuinely interdisciplinary as he made extensive use of the work of anthropologists, including J. G. Peristiany and Julien Pitt-Rivers, both of whom argued that concepts of honor and shame have thrived most often in cultures where society is rural, highly stratified, and lacking in central authority. James found these insights to be particularly useful in understanding the aristocratic culture of the Tudor North. Survival in the north depended in large measure on the power of a lord's reputation to deter disputes. Thus, one's reputation must be guarded fiercely, insults answered immediately, and vengeance and retribution become part of everyday life. James's work had its critics, including the present author, but he clearly had blazed a trail that would be followed by others.

By the mid-nineties a profusion of studies concerning the importance of honor had appeared. Such historians as Richard Cust, Felicity Heal, Cynthia Herrup, and Victor Kiernan produced studies testifying to the multitude of roles played by honor in aristocratic societies. By the late nineties, however, a backlash emerged, as scholars began to focus on the contradictions and inconsistencies found in some early modern conceptions of honor, as well as the difference between theory and practice. Some scholars even concluded that honor was so complex and diverse that it had little usefulness as a historical category.

Thus, Courtney Erin Thomas's book is both timely and welcome. She has attempted to assess the state of the field, and, while she has done significant archival investigation of her own, her book is most valuable as a thoughtful synthesis and assessment of it. Much of her work deals with the advancement of our understanding of issues concerning women's honor. James, for example, appears to have assumed that honor was a concept limited to aristocratic men. But, as Thomas notes, the works of such scholars as Susan Amussen, Laura Gowing, and Linda Pollock have shown that honor was an important cultural construct for women, too, and women were often as eager as men to guard their reputations.

While Thomas grants the existence of overlapping and sometimes contradictory narratives in honor studies, she nonetheless insists that honor remained a central tenet of the lives of early modern elites, who realized the importance of protecting their reputations and were acutely aware of how closely honor and reputation were linked to influence, power, self-esteem, and deference. Anyone who doubted its value had only to lose it to realize its importance. In contrast to Mervyn James, Thomas sees relatively little change in how the concept of honor was regarded between 1540 and 1640. In the face of momentous political, demographic, and social change, honor remained, particularly among English elites, something to be highly desired and defended.

Anyone interested in honor studies will find Thomas's book to be a well-written and welcome addition to the subject, especially as it pertains to women. But, despite the book's many virtues, one cannot help but wonder whether several issues have been slighted. First, honor studies grew largely out of the “cultural turn” and the recognition that other disciplines, especially anthropology, had much to offer historians. It would have been useful to explore what has happened in anthropological studies of honor in recent literature and to address whether they still offer the insights they once did. Second, it must be understood that the demands of lordship were often at variance with concept of honor. Honorable behavior often clashed with the more urgent need to survive. Thomas does devote some attention to this issue (48–53) and provides a pertinent example, but concludes by returning to the more traditional view that the “better sort” still feared that they could lose their honor if they failed to act in accordance with the precepts of honorable behavior. While it is clear that many believed that insults must indeed be answered and reputations guarded, a lord who confronted every threat to his or her honor and reputation was likely to end up a dead lord. Finally, honor might be best understood as a tale elites tell themselves and others to prove they deserve their superior position and privileges. The various conceptions of honor were permeable enough to permit them to believe they had it, even when they did not behave in accordance with its demands.