245
CHAPTER XVIII.
OF HONOUR[1] IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITIES.
It would seem that men employ two very distinct methods in the
public estimation of the actions of their fellow-men; at one time
they judge them by those simple notions of right and wrong which
are diffused all over the world; at another they refer their decision
to a few very special notions which belong exclusively to
some particular age and country. It often happens that these two
rules differ; they sometimes conflict; but they are never either
entirely identified or entirely annulled by one another.
Honour, at the periods of its greatest power, sways the will more than the belief of men; and even while they yield without hesitation and without a murmur to its dictates, they feel notwithstanding, by a dim but mighty instinct, the existence of a more general, more ancient, and more holy law, which they sometimes disobey although they cease not to acknowledge it. Some actions have been held to be at the same time virtuous and dishonourable—a refusal to fight a duel is a case in point.
I think these peculiarities may be otherwise explained than by the mere caprices of certain individuals and nations, as has hitherto been the customary mode of reasoning on the subject. Mankind is subject to general and lasting wants that have engendered moral laws, to the neglect of which men have ever and in all
- ↑ The word Honour is not always used in the same sense either in French or English. 1. It first signifies the dignity, glory, or reverence which a man receives from his kind; and in this sense a man is said to acquire honour. 2. Honour signifies the aggregate of those rules by the assistance of which this dignity, glory, or reverence is obtained. Thus we say that a man has always strictly obeyed the laws honour; or a man has violated his honour. In this chapter the word is always used in the latter sense.
