Cleo. Still the Thing, whatever it be, which a Man loves, fears, esteems, and consequently reverences, is not without, but within himself. The Object then of Reverence, and the Worshiper, who pays it, meeting and remaining in the same Person, maynot such a Person be justly said to adore himself: Nay, it seems to be the common Opinion, that this is true; for unless some Sort of Divinity was supposed, to reside in Men of Honour, their affirming and denying Things upon that Principle could never be thought an Equivalent for an Oath, as to Some it is allow'd to be. Pray, when a Man asserts a Thing upon his Honour, is it not a Kind of Swearing by himself, as others do by God? If it was not so, and there was supposed to be the least Danger, that Men, endued with the Principle of Honour, could deceive or prevaricate, I would fain know, why it should be binding and acquiesc'd in.
Hor. You may say the same of the Quakers; and that there must be supposed to be some Divinity in them, that their solemn Affirmation should be thought equivalent to an Oath.
Cleo. That's quite another Thing. The Quakers take all Oaths whatever, whether they are made before a Magistrate or otherwise, to be sinful, and for that Reason they refuse to Swear at all. But as it is their avow'd Opinion, that a wilful notorious Lie is not less Criminal in the Sight of Heaven than we take Perjury to be, it is evident, that in giving their Testimony, they stake their Salvation equally with other People that make Oath. Whereas those who, with us, are credited upon their Honour, have no such Scruples, and make Oath themselves on other Occasions: The Reason therefore why they don't try Criminals and pronounce their Judgment upon Oath, as other Judges and Juries do, is not, that they think appealing to God or Swearing by his Name to be Sinful, which is the Case of the Quakers; but because they are supposed to be altogether as credible without it, as if they did. And if there was not some Adoration, some Worship, which Men of Honour pay to themselves, the Principle they act from could not have produced the visible Effects it has in so many different Nations.
Hor. You have said several Things which I cannot disprove, and some of them, I own, are probable enough; but you are like to leave me as you found me. The Principle of Honour has lost no Ground in my Esteem; and I shall continue to act from it as I did before. But since you imagine to have so plainly proved, that we are Idols to our Selves, and that Honour is diametrically opposite to Christianity, I wonder you don't call it the Beast in the Apocalypse, and say, that it is the Whore of Babylon. This would be a notable Conceit, and suit Papists as well as Protestants; nay, I fancy, that the Colour of the Whore, and her Thirst after Blood, might be better accounted for from Duelling, than any other Way that has been tried yet.
Cleo. The Revelations of St. John are above my Comprehension; and I shall never laugh at Mysteries for not understanding them.
Hor. What you say of Mysteries, I think, ought to be more justly applied to the Principle of Honour, which we do understand; for whatever it may be derived from, the Advantages the Civil Society receives from it, both in Peace and War, are so many and so manifest, that the Usefulness of it ought to exempt and preserve it from being ridicul'd. I hate to hear a Man talk of its being more or less portable, the melting of it over again, and reducing it to a new Standard. Cleo. I know, you dislike this in the Fable of the Bees; but if you'll examine into what you have read there, you'll find, that my Friend has ridicul'd Nothing but what deserves it. There is certainly a great Difference between the Men of Honour in former Ages and many of those, who now-a-days assume the Title. A Man in whom Justice, Integrity, Temperance and Chastity are join'd with Fortitude, is worthy of the highest Esteem; but that a debauch'd Fellow, who runs in every Tradesman's Debt, and thinks himself not obliged to pay any Thing but what is borrow'd or lost at Play, should claim the same Regard from us, for no other Reason than because he dares to Fight, is very unreasonable.
Hor. But is he serious, when he speaks of the Men of ancient Honour, of whom he thinks Don Quixot to have been the last?
Cleo. When the Romance-Writers had carried the Prowess and Atchievements of their heroes to an incredible Pitch, was it not ridiculous to see Men in their Senses, not only believe those Extravagancies in good Earnest, but likewise endeavour to imitate those fabulous Exploits, and set about copying after those imaginary Patterns? For it was that which Cervantes exposed in Don Quixot.
Hor. In the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century, the Spaniards were the best Soldiers in the World; they shew'd themselves on many Emergencies to be a grave and wise Nation, and had many real Patterns of strict Honour and great Virtue among them. Things are as often over-done in Satyrs as they are in Panegyricks; and the Likeness of a Caricatura is no more to be trusted to than that of the most flattering Pencil.
Cleo. I shall always bear the highest Esteem for Men of strict Honour and real Virtue, and will never ridicule what is approved of by Custom, and the Consent of several Ages has render'd valuable; but no Title or Dignity, no Name or Distinction can be so honourable, or so eminent, that a serious Enquirer may not have Leave to trace it to the Bottom. I have acknowledged, that the Word Honour, in its first and genuine Sense, is as ancient as the oldest Language in the World. As to my Conjecture concerning the same Word, as it signifies a Principle which Men act from, I leave it entirely to your Judgment: But whatever the Origin may be of either, it is certain, that whatever the Words Honour and Honourable are join'd with, added or applied to, there is plain Design in them of pleasing and gratifying those it concerns, on Account of the Passion of Self-liking, and a palpable Tendency to humour, approve of, or encrease the good Opinion Man has of himself: As you'll find, on the Contrary, that in the Words Dishonour Shame, Ignominy, and whatever is dishonourable, there is an Intention, or Something imply'd, to displease and mortify those it concerns, on Account of that same Passion of Self-liking, and an Endeavour to lessen, contradict or destroy Self-Esteem, which is that good Opinion which Man has of himself from Nature.