[Ansteorra] Honor: [was: Wanting Awards]

Diane Rudin serena1570 at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 29 09:05:41 PDT 2006


--- Michael Silverhands <silverhands at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> By the way... a quibble: you used a common turn of phrase, "refuse 
> the honour", which I assume you used as a harmless figure of
> speech.  
> But in this case I will beg to differ with that word choice. You  
> aren't refusing "honor", because that's a gift that only you can
> give  
> yourself and has nothing to do with awards. For most awards, what
> you  
> are refusing is "glory" -- and I think that's the point that "Pat" 

> was trying to make.

A quibble with your quibble:

Until the very end of the SCA period, honor was an external thing. 
The idea of honor as arising from within is a Renaissance concept,
part of the humanist movement.  It has become, and remains, the most
common modern meaning of the word.  That's one of the reasons most
professional historians today refer to the "early modern" period.

>From the OED: the noun honour as "1. high respect, esteem, or
reverence, *accorded to* exalted worth or rank; deferential
admiration or approbation. ... as felt or entertained in the mind
*for* some person or thing ...[or 1.b.] as rendered or shown, the
expression of high extimation" both date to 1375; 1. c. "as received,
gained, held, or enjoyed; Glory, renown, fame; credit, reputation,
good name" dates to 1300. [Emphases mine; "accorded to", "for" are
external terms.]

Whereas honour as "2. Personal title to high respect or esteem;
honorableness; elevation of character; 'nobleness of mind, scorn of
meanness, magnanimity'; a fine sense of and strict allegiance to what
is due or right (also, to what is due according to some conventional
or fashionable code of conduct)" dates to 1548.

Further, honour as "3. (of a woman) chastity, purity, as a virtue of
the highest consideration; reputation for this virtue, good name"
dates to 1390; and honor as "4. Exalted rank or position; dignity,
distinction" dates to 1300.  Both of these are discussing external
criteria.  Honor as "5. Something conferred or done as a token of
respect or distinction; a mark or manifestation of high regard; esp.
a position or title of rank, a degree of nobility, a dignity" dates
to sometime in the 1300's.

Even further, the verb honour as "1. To do honour to, pay worthy
respect to (*by some outward action*); to worship, perform one's
devotions to; to do obeisance or homage to; to celebrate" dates to
1290. [Again, emphasis mine, to draw attention to the external
nature]

All discussions of honor in the Renaissance began with Aristotle:
"Honor is the prize of virtue and is paid to none but the good." 
Only in the Renaissance did they start considering honor the virtue
itself rather than the prize paid by others to the virtuous.  At that
time (1500's Italy), the internal virtue was named "onesto", to
distinguish it from "onora", which was the public reputation, and the
true honor.  [This is the thesis of Frederick Bryson in his
dissertation, *The Point of Honor in Sixteenth-Century Italy*,
printed in the early 20th century.]

So, actually, the original writer of "refuse the honor" was using it
in a most common period, as well as modern, meaning.  Honor was
something accorded to others, not something arising from within. 
Behaviors could be deemed honorable; they were external things. 
There were citations in the OED for the external meanings of honor up
through the 20th century.

In conclusion, both meanings of honor, external and internal, are in
use today, and it is perfectly acceptable to use it either way.

--Serena Lascelles

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



More information about the Ansteorra mailing list