report of the invasion of Italy, fled to Ravenna, where he resided till his death on the 27th of August 423.
See Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chs. 28-33; J. B. Bury, Later Roman Empire, i. chs. 1-5, ii. chs. 4, 6; E. A. Freeman, “Tyrants of Britain, Gaul and Spain” in Eng. Hist. Review (January 1886); T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders (Oxford, 1892), i. chs. 13, 15-18.
HONOUR (Lat. honos or honor, honoris; in English the
word was spelled with or without the u indifferently until
the 17th century, but during the 18th century it became fashionable
to spell the word “honor”; Johnson’s and Webster’s
Dictionaries stereotyped the English and American spellings
respectively), a term which may be defined as respect, esteem
or deference paid to, or received by, a person in consideration
of his character, worth or position; also the state or condition
of the person exciting the feeling or expression of such esteem;
particularly a high personal character coupled with conduct
in accordance with or controlled by a nice sense of what is right
and true and due to the position so held. Further, the word is
commonly used of the dignities, distinctions or titles, granted
as a mark of such esteem or as a reward for services or merit,
and quite generally of the credit or renown conferred by a
person or thing on the country, town or particular society to
which he or it belongs. The standard of conduct may be laid
down not only by a scrupulous sense of what is due to lofty
personal character but also by the conventional usages of society,
hence it is that debts which cannot be legally enforced, such
as gambling debts, are called “debts of honour.” Similarly
in the middle ages and later, courts, known as “courts of honour,”
sat to decide questions such as precedence, disputes as to coat
armour &c. (see Chivalry); such courts, chiefly military,
are found in countries where duelling has not fallen into desuetude
(see Duel). In the British House of Lords, when the peers
sit to try another peer on a criminal charge or at an impeachment,
on the question being put whether the accused be guilty or not,
each peer, rising in his place in turn, lays his right hand on his
breast and returns his verdict “upon my honour.” As a title
of address, “his honour” or “your honour” is applied in the
United States of America to all judges, in the United Kingdom
only to county court judges. In university or other examinations,
those who have won particular distinction, or have undergone
with success an examination of a standard higher than
that required for a “pass” degree, are said to have passed
“with honours,” or an “honours” examination or to have taken
an “honours degree.” In many games of cards the ace, king,
queen and knave of trumps are the “honours.”
Funeral or military honours are paid to a dead officer or soldier. The usual features of such a burial are as follows: the coffin is carried on a gun-carriage and attended by troops; it is covered by the national flag, on which rests the soldier’s head-dress, sword or bayonet; if the deceased had been a mounted soldier, his charger follows with the boots reversed in the stirrups; three volleys are fired over the grave after committal, and “last post” or another call is sounded on the bugles or a roll on the drums is given.
A military force is said to be accorded “the honours of war” when, after a specially honourable defence, it has surrendered its post, and is permitted, by the terms of capitulation to march out with colours flying, bands playing, bayonets fixed, &c. and retaining possession of the field artillery, horses, arms and baggage. The force remains free to act as combatants for the remainder of the war, without waiting for exchange or being considered as prisoners. Usually some point is named to which the surrendering troops must be conveyed before recommencing hostilities; thus, during the Peninsular War, at the Convention of Cintra 1808, the French army under Junot was conveyed to France by British transports before being free to rejoin the combatant troops in the Peninsula. By far the most usual case of the granting of the “honours of war” is in connexion with the surrender of a fortress. Of historic examples may be mentioned the surrender of Lille by Marshal Boufflers to Prince Eugene in 1708, that of Huningen by General Joseph Barbanègre (1772–1830) to the Austrians in 1815, and that of Belfort by Colonel P. Denfert Rochereau to the Germans in 1871.
In English law the term “honour” is used of a seigniory of several manors held under one baron or lord paramount. The formation of such lordships dates back to the Anglo-Saxon period, when jurisdiction of sac and soc was frequently given in the case of a group of estates lying close together. The system was encouraged by the Norman lords, as tending to strengthen the principles of feudal law, but the legislation of Henry II., which increased the power of the central administration, undoubtedly tended to discourage the creation of new honours. Frequently, they escheated to the crown, retaining their corporate existence and their jurisdictions; they then either remained in the possession of the king or were regranted, diminished in extent. Although an honour contained several manors, one court day was held for all, but the various manors retained their separate organizations, having their “quasi several and distinct courts.”
HONOURABLE (Fr. honorable, from Lat. honorabilis, worthy
of honour), a style or title of honour common to the United
Kingdom, the British colonies and the United States of America.
The terms honorabilis and honorabilitas were in use in the middle
ages rather as a form of politeness than as a stereotyped style;
and though Gibbon assimilates the late Roman title of clarissimus
to “honourable,” as applied to the lowest of the three grades
of rank in the imperial hierarchy, the analogy was good even in
his day only in so far as both styles were applicable to those who
belonged to the less exalted ranks of the titled classes, for the
title “honourable” was not definitely confined to certain classes
until later. As a formal address it is found frequently in the
Paston Letters (15th century), but used loosely and interchangeable
with other styles; thus John, Viscount Beaumont, is
addressed alternately as “my worshipful and reverent Lord”
(ii. 88, ed. 1904) and as “my right honorabull Lord” (ii. 118),
while John Paston, a plain esquire, is “my right honurabyll
maister.” More than two centuries later Selden, in his Titles
of Honor (1672), does not include “honourable” among the
courtesy titles given to the children of peers. The style was,
in fact, used extremely loosely till well on into the 18th century.
Thus we find in the registers of Westminster Abbey records of the
burial (in 1710) of “The Hon. George Churchill, Esq.,” who was
only a son of Sir Winston Churchill, and of “The Hon. Sir
William Godolphin,” who had only been created a baronet;
in 1717 was buried “The Hon. Colonel Henry Cornwall,” who
was only an esquire and the son of one; in 1743 a rear-admiral
was buried as “The Hon. Sir John Jennings, Kt.”; in 1746
“The Hon. Major-General Lowther,” whose father was only a
Dublin merchant; and finally, in 1747, “The Hon. Lieutenant-General
Guest,” who is said to have begun life as an hostler.
From this time onwards the style of “honourable” tended to
become more narrowly applied; but the whole matter is full
of obscurity and contradictions. The baronets, for instance,
allege that they were usually styled “the honourable” until
the end of the 18th century, and in 1835 they petitioned for the
style as a prefix to their names. The Heralds’ College officially
reported on the petition (31st of October 1835) that the evidence
did not prove the right of baronets to the style, and that its use
“has been no more warranted by authority than when the same
style has been applied to Field Officers in the Army and others.”
They added that “the style of the Honourable is given to the
Judges and to the Barons of the Exchequer with others because by
the Decree of 10 James I., for settling the place and precedence
of the Baronets, the Judges and Barons of the Exchequer were
declared to have place and precedence before the younger sons
of Viscounts and Barons.” This seems to make the style a
consequence of the precedence; yet from the examples above
given it is clear that it was applied, e.g. in the case of field
officers, where no question of precedence arose. It is not, indeed,
until 1874 that we have any evidence of an authoritative limitation
of the title. In this year the wives of lords of appeal, life
peers, were granted style and precedence as baronesses; but
it was provided that their children were not “to assume or use
