The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-10-13

described are lew oil the many curi0sties of
the code of honor.
The explanation OF all this les in the origin
of the modern idea of honor and it is to this
that we must retrace our steps If we desire to
understand what is otherwise inexplicable.
Historically, one may go back to the days
when q semi-baIbarous feudal nobility ruled
over a completely barbarous peasantry, and
domineered, as far as they were able, over the
first nascent element of an industrious middle
class. Honor then meant what a well-armed
gentleman OF degree, proud of his person and
his position. felt that he owed to his own dig
nifty. Honor in such an age had not much
necessarily in common with the hOnestum of
Cicero or Horace. All that it enjoined went
a very short way beyond what might be en-
Joined by vanity or pride. The hdlt courage
of which Mr.. Kingsley is so fond, in
its primitive form was not a very splen-
did virtue. 1t consisted chiefly of an
innate arrogant resolution to hold the field
against any single conner, and never in any
case to give way to fear of rival mortal
man. An indomitable temper-stOmGchu
cedere nesciuS-was one OF honor's common
forms, and moral code springing from such
a personal principle of independence could
not but be full OF glaring absurdities, none of
which would stand the test OF common sense
Truth incidentally became one of the charac-
teristic good qualities of such code, simply
because a lie, when probed to its foundation,
implies usually some sort of timidity at bot
tom. So far as falsehood was cowardly it
was acknowledged to be Objectionable, but
where 1T implied no cowardice it rose to the
position of a venial vice. Cruelty in like
manner was hardly dishonorable atRll. HGut
courage was quite as capable of bullying a
Jew as Mr. Kingsley is of trying to bully
Roman Catholic perv ert. The influence of
women sottened and corrected this law
less manly spirit; but chivalry, as its
ciU taH Of
ierocous virtues of noble who
fought on horseback and despised the
humber man-at-arms who did battle upon foot.
AS manners improved, the law of honor grew
refined along with them, but the sense of per-
sonal dignity continued to be the dom nant
idea which gave life to all the code. Even
among the gracious and courteous principles
which pervade some of the exquisite old
romances that are imbedded in the literature
OF every civilized European country, curious
paradoXes are to be discovered, which
show that honor at the best, was a strange
thing. The lady to whom one knight openly
proiessed loyal love, was as often as not
the wife of the knights neighbor; who, on
her part, felt no scruple at returning the Pla-
tonic passion, provided that 1t was confined
within Platonic bouQds. Love among the
troubadours did not always wear matrlmo-
NAL dress. According to a famous sentence
of the Court of Love, the mistress who
married her adorer in gaining husband
lost lover. and was bound in cour-
tesy to take another. King Matran's wife
admits with pride and pleasure to her
welded lord that the conquering Roland
is the chaste object of her fancy and her
thoughts, and reminds the monarch that his
proper place is in the battlefield, and that it
is not for him to interfere with the feminine
business of romance. Angry as he is at the
announcement, Matran knows better than to
crI1ta tha IicIto tod Of
and leaves his queen in possession of the con-
troversial field. Such, in Provencal poetry,
is the law of honor and if "Othello" had only
taken lesson from the troubadours, "Desde-
mona" would have been permitted in peace to
virtues and nobility Of "Cassio.d What per-
sonal dignity allows, depends in every age
upon the customs of the time, and where the
customs of the time are antiquated, the law
of honor is antiquated too.
AS mans honor depends on the received
opinions about the dignity OF men, woman's
honor, after a like fashion, varies according to
the estimate of the true mission of woman.
If the rules of honor were entitled 10 rank as
precepts of q moral code, they would be Of
universal obligation, and would know no
differences of sex. But differences of sex in
matters that relate to honor seem to make all
the difference in the world. From a religious
or moral point of view, chastity, for Instance,
would seem to be as incumbent on the one
| sex as it confessedly is upon the other. No
| doubt, in the case of individuals, a lapse from
| purity on the part of woman appears to lead
| to graver social consequences than similar
masculine declension Yet the fault in every
instance is bllateral, and if the chastity Of
woman is of Importance to the world, the man
who sins against it is responsible for half the
injury that is done to society by each indi-
| Vdual offense. Honor does not reason accord
! ing to ethics, nor even according to logic. 1t
merely looks at such things according to pre-
conceived notions about a man and woman's
dignity. Feminine frailty is crime against
feminine prestige, and therefore honor pun
ishes it with severity, while it inflicts no like
penalty on mans falling When once It is
admitted that personal dignity is the centre
round which the whole teaching of honor
revolves, honor begins TO appear moral
guide of uncertain and even questionable au-
thority. Ideas OF personal dignity require to
be pruned by reason, or they may easily be-
come a barrier and an obstacle to the pro-
eress of civilization. When they assume an
exaggerated shape, they are nuisance and q
hindrance to the world. So far as honor is q
sentiment based on a rational sense OF what
men and women ought to be, so far ii may be
trusted but honor in a rude and uncultivateC
Orm will scarcely carry us much beyond the
virtues OF a savage. Like many other instinc
tive feelings, it is valuable when it consists o
a subtle sense in harmony with the latest col
lectiVe wisdom of mankind, but all instinctiv,
feelings need to be continually reformed BY
the light OF judgment and OF reason to pre-
vent them from hindering that advance il
me- rails which they ought to further ant
assist
I,1s It,.