Civic honor has the widest sphere of all.  It consists in the assumption that we shall pay unconditional respect to the rights of others, and, therefore, never use any unjust or unlawful means of getting what we want.  It is the condition of all peaceable intercourse between man and man; and it is destroyed by anything that openly and manifestly militates against this peaceable intercourse, anything, accordingly, which entails punishment at the hands of the law, always supposing that the punishment is a just one.

The ultimate foundation of honor is the conviction that moral character is unalterable:  a single bad action implies that future actions of the same kind will, under similar circumstances, also be bad.  This is well expressed by the English use of the word character as meaning credit, reputation, honor.  Hence honor, once lost, can never be recovered; unless the loss rested on some mistake, such as may occur if a man is slandered or his actions viewed in a false light.  So the law provides remedies against slander, libel, and even insult; for insult though it amounts to no more than mere abuse, is a kind of summary slander with a suppression of the reasons.  What I mean may be well put in the Greek phrase—­not quoted from any author—­[Greek:  estin hae loidoria diabolae].  It is true that if a man abuses another, he is simply showing that he has no real or true causes of complaint against him; as, otherwise, he would bring these forward as the premises, and rely upon his hearers to draw the conclusion themselves:  instead of which, he gives the conclusion and leaves out the premises, trusting that people will suppose that he has done so only for the sake of being brief.

Civic honor draws its existence and name from the middle classes; but it applies equally to all, not excepting the highest.  No man can disregard it, and it is a very serious thing, of which every one should be careful not to make light.  The man who breaks confidence has for ever forfeited confidence, whatever he may do, and whoever he may be; and the bitter consequences of the loss of confidence can never be averted.

There is a sense in which honor may be said to have a negative character in opposition to the positive character of fame.  For honor is not the opinion people have of particular qualities which a man may happen to possess exclusively:  it is rather the opinion they have of the qualities which a man may be expected to exhibit, and to which he should not prove false.  Honor, therefore, means that a man is not exceptional; fame, that he is.  Fame is something which must be won; honor, only something which must not be lost.  The absence of fame is obscurity, which is only a negative; but loss of honor is shame, which is a positive quality.  This negative character of honor must not be confused with anything passive; for honor is above all things active in its working.  It is the only quality which proceeds directly from the man who exhibits it; it is concerned entirely with what he does and leaves undone, and has nothing to do with the actions of others or the obstacles they place in his way.  It is something entirely in our own power—­[Greek:  ton ephaemon].  This distinction, as we shall see presently, marks off true honor from the sham honor of chivalry.