Honour in George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire
by
Dan Haggard
The central theme in George R.R. Martin’s fantasy epic ‘A Song of Ice and Fire‘ (ASIF) is the concept of honour (or ‘honor’ by the American spelling). But what is honour? The concept is so alien to modern, western sensibility that there is a lot of misunderstanding about it. In this post I’m going to explore the concept of honour as it is presented in Martin’s story. ASIF is as good a fictional representation as any you’ll find since the Arthurian legend was born. But why would we need to understand the concept of honour? Why would such a story resonate so strongly with so many of us? In my opinion, honour is a concept that is vital for understanding the modern culture that came after it in our own history. There is something important that we lost when the honour culture collapsed – something that our modern ideas of truth, reason and virtue could not replace. But to understand all this we’re going to need to know what honour is and why it involves a system of thinking so different to the one to which we are accustomed.
(Once again – SPOILERS. If this concerns you – go out and buy the books now and start reading).
Honour and Morality
Honour consists largely in the obligations we have to the groups to which we belong. As such, it is a concept that is designed to tie individuals to one another. It binds people together.
It is not in any sense a moral concept. What is honourable is not necessarily the ‘right’ thing to do. Martin demonstrates this neatly with the character Jaime Lannister. Prior to the events detailed in the books, Jaime takes an oath to defend the King Aerys Targaryen II. But when the King learns that a major battle in the war against a rebel faction has been lost, he orders that King’s Landing be burnt to the ground, as opposed to being allowed to be captured by the rebels. Jaime learns of this plot and intercepts the messenger carrying the orders and kills him. He then proceeds to kill the King. From then on, Jamie is known as the Kingslayer as a permanent reminder of the failure to keep his oath in protecting the king.
Many would feel that Jamie did the right thing. The lives of the thousands of innocent people that would have been killed by the fire surely justifies the slaying of the mad king. Nevertheless, this does not allow Jaime to keep his honour. His duty to the king is unconditional. Honour is first and foremost a tie between individuals and groups of individuals – not a way of determining who is right, what is best for the realm, or what in fact is the truth.
Honour and Truth
This is further reinforced by the way the honour system decides guilt or innocence. Jaime’s dwarf brother Tyrion is twice subjected to trial by combat. The idea being that if his champion can best the champion of his accuser, then this is enough to prove his innocence. To modern sensibility this method seems entirely primitive. How could combat ever decide the truth of any thing besides the skill of the combatants? But it’s not actually as primitive as we might think when we consider what the true purpose of the honour system was – to bind people together.
When seen this way – trial by combat is an effective way to cure the schism that has arisen between the accuser and accused. What matters most of all is not the absolute justice concerning the crime as we conceive it nowadays, but that the schism is promptly healed. And that it is promptly healed is vital, lest the clans of the disputants become involved and cause a much wider conflict.
How does one explain the fact that honour cultures considered this a way of determining the truth? Why didn’t they just see it as a way of healing rifts between people like I just explained? As some characters in Martin’s story see it – the gods will intervene on the side of the just combatant – thereby determining what the truth of the conflict actually is. The answer is that without the pretence of truth, it would be difficult to actually settle the grievances of the various parties involved. Belief in an absolute arbiter – a god – makes the decision procedure effective.
A really extreme example of this comes from the first known English version of the Arthurian legend written by Sir Thomas Mallory in the fifteenth century. James Bowman describes the plot well in his book ‘Honor: A History’:
In Malory’s version of the story, everyone at Arthur’s court acknowledges that Launcelot is the king’s best knight. He is also generally known to be the adulterous lover of Arthur’s queen, Guenevere, in spite of his oaths of fealty and allegiance to the king. Malory portrays a system of honor in which what is known privately by everyone nevertheless does not matter or even exist, in some important sense, so long as it is not spoken of publicly. For anyone to mention the liason would be to invite Launcelot, whose fighting prowess makes him the most honorable of all knights to call him a liar. The charge of lying against any knight would in turn have obliged that knight to challenge Launcelt to single combat to the death, or else to be forever dishonred himself as one who has allowed himself to be “given the lie”… Since Launcelot is the world’s best (and therefore most honorable) knight, he is sure to kill his accuser or “prove it upon his body,” as the saying goes, that he lies – though of course everyone knows he doesn’t. But the public nature of truth under an honor system allows launcelot and everyone else to treat his oath to the king as remaining intact, since no one dares to aver the contrary.
I’ll be returning to the Arthurian legend in my next post – when I look at how Martin critiques the concept of honour – but for now it’s worth noting that in some cases the self deception involved in maintaining the honour system can be extraordinary. Even though everyone knows what the real truth is – the only ‘truth’ that actually matters is the one agreed upon by the group. In this way does honour trump the notion of truth as we understand it – something which is not determined at all by agreement, but by objective reality.
Honour and Autonomy
Another aspect of honour culture which seems quite alien to us nowadays is the way in which it can be taken from an individual – irrespective of whether or not that individual is responsible in anyway for that which took the honour away. It is yet another example of how the concept of honour involves the ties between people. We are used to thinking of concepts like ‘integrity’ which we think of as being inalienable so long as we behave in the correct way. But honour doesn’t work like this.
There are countless examples of this in ASIF. When Tyrion Lannister is arrested by Catelyn Stark his father Tywin starts a war against Riverrun the ancestral home of Catelyn. Tyrion remarks later to his father:
Nice of you to go to war for me.
His father replies:
You left us no choice. The honour of the house was at stake.
By accusing Tyrion of murder, Catelyn jeopardises the honour of house Lannister. In order to defend that honour, Tywin is forced to start a war between the houses. Part of the problem is that Catelyn doesn’t trust the regime to dispense the proper justice – so she takes Tyrion to her sister in the Vale – far away from Kings Landing. The trial by combat which takes place is at a great distance – and so the reconciliation that it could achieve is denied.
Accusation is therefore an easy way to steal the honour of a person – if you ignore war or combat as a possible consequence. But it is not the only way you can steal a person’s honour. Since it is the tie that binds individuals together, it is also that which binds a lord to those who serve under him. The honour of a lord demands that he take responsibility for the actions of those he rules. As such, when a subject dishonours themselves, they rob their lord of his honour. It is for this reason that Eddard Stark personally beheads a deserter from the Night’s Watch. As warden of the North it is HIS honour which is at stake. It is also for this reason that Eddard Stark’s son Robb beheads one of his banner men for murdering some captured Lannister children. Robb even tells the banner man before he does it that he has been robbed of his honour because of the crime.
Another way in which a person’s honour can be stolen is in the case where a noble born woman is raped. It is not the man’s honour that is at stake in such a case – but the honour of the woman. This is perhaps one of the aspects of honour cultures that seems the most barbaric to modern sensibilities. Not only does a woman have to suffer the horror of rape itself – she is then subjected to the shame and humiliation that a loss of honour involves – which in effect makes the woman an outcast.
There are many places in the world where this sort of thing still occurs regularly. There is a particularly horrifying example documented by (once again) James Bowman:
On June 22, 2002, in the village of Meerwala near Multan in the Punjab province of Pakistan, a twenty-eigth year old divorcee named Mukhtaran Bibi… of the Gujar tribe was gang-raped on the order of a tribal council dominated by members of the higher-caste Mastoi clan. The Mastoi had accused her twelve-year-old borther, Abdul Shakur, of an impermissible contact with a Mastoi woman… Miss Mukhtaran went to the council with her father to plead for her brother, whose punishment was as yet undetermined. Some reports suggest that on this occasion there was talk of a settlement by which her brother would marry Salma Naseen and she would marry one of the Mastoi men. ”When I appeared before the tribal council,’ she later testified, one of the elders said that “since the girl has come here, therefore, we should pardon her… But suddenly a man stood and said we will rape her.” The sentence was immediately carried out by Abdul Khaliq and three other men… After the men had raped her, she was forced to walk home nearly naked to the jeers of the assembled villagers to complete her humiliation before the Mastoi and “to avenge their tribal honor.”
The senselessness of this account can be made more understandable (though not more defensible) when we consider in what way a woman possesses honour in these cultures. Women are used through marriage to seal bonds between different houses. Since it is in this way that women can tie people together – it is in this way in which they possess honour.
Virginity is often an important component of a woman’s honour as well (although it doesn’t seem as important in the previous example). In ASIF – the marriage is only legitimate, and the union between houses cemented, only if the man to which the woman is married is able to take her virginity. Marriages can be annulled where this does not occur. It’s for this reason that Tywin warns Tyrion because the latter refuses to have sex with Sansa Stark after the two are forced by Tywin to be married. Similarly, Queen Cersei tries to find evidence that Lady Margaret is not a virgin after she is married to Cersei’s son, the boy king Tommen. When Cersei can obtain no hard evidence, she hires people to try to seduce Margaret before her son comes of age.
But there is one other example that shows that honour can be something which is completely divorced from individual choice – something that remains out of reach of some people no matter how well or loyal they behave. This is the lot of the bastards – those born out of wedlock.
There are many bastards in ASIF – but none more sympathetic than Jon Snow – the bastard son of Eddard Stark. He is as loyal and honourable in practice as his father – but he is without honour. He does not sit at the same table in the meal hall as the other Stark children. He is hated by Catelyn (Ned’s wife) because he is a constant reminder of how Ned dishonoured her. He can’t even carry the name “Stark”. Officially he is not a part of the family. He is without honour – the tie that binds him to that group. It is because of this that he ultimately decides to take the black and join the Night’s Watch. In this he obtains a kind of honour in servitude to the realm that he never could in serving his family.
All this is not to say that there are no choices to be made when it comes to honour. Often characters get to choose to whom they will swear their allegiance. Jaime, for instance, chooses to disappoint his father and give up his inheritance by choosing to become a member of the Gold Cloaks – the elite group of knights that swear direct and lifelong fealty to the King. They give up all claims of title and inheritance in so doing. Such a choice is seen as an honourable one by the community because of the higher status involved in servitude to the King – even though it is a kind of betrayal to the house to which Jaime belongs.
Another example is the choice that Jon Stark faces when he learns his brother has marched to war. He almost breaks his oath to the Night’s Watch before his brothers (from the Night’s Watch) convince him to return.
Honour, Status and Belonging
One thing that confuses people about honour culture is what it is that motivates people to defend their honour so vigorously. It mostly has to do with the fact that their honour represents their connection to the rest of the group. If you lose your honour, then you lose that connection. This might mean the loss of the esteem of your family. It might mean that your banner men will no longer follow you into battle should you command it. Those that value these things are the ones that will defend their honour with the greatest vigour.
Interestingly, sometimes things move in the opposite direction. Tyrion the Imp, the youngest son of Tywin Lanister, is effectively an outcast because of his appearance – even though he exists in a world of extreme privilege. The worst is always assumed of him and he never manages to earn the respect and good favour of his father – no matter how well he performs the tasks set for him. As a result, Tyrion assumes a defensive mask that mocks the honourable sensibilities of the culture that has rejected him. He is frequently rude, lewd and bawdy – and indulges frequently with whores on account of his inability to curry favour from women in any regular fashion. Because combat is the arbiter of honour, Tyrion is completely ill-suited to participate in an honour culture. So he develops a shield of wits and reason to protect himself in his day to day life. Both emotionally and intellectually he is completely estranged from the community in which he is situated.
It could be argued that Tyrion’s rejection of honour culture – his adoption of reason and the lewd – is a direct consequence of his estrangement. So while for most a loss of honour causes one to be estranged from the community, for Tyrion the estrangement from his community has led to a rejection of the concept of honour.
An interesting comparison can be made with Jon Snow. Snow is also an outcast, yet he does not reject the honour culture in the way that Tyrion does. This is probably because of the two key differences between the two characters. Jon is still loved by his father and most of the rest of his family (with the exception of Catelyn) and he is a very good swordsman. He is able to act honourably, even if his bastard status block him from being honourable in the eyes of those around him. Tyrion on the other hand is badly treated by his family and is not capable of participating in combat.
We get a sense that Jon is the sort of man that Tyrion would have been had those two things been different – and this no doubt explains the friendship that develops between the two at the beginning of the first book, even though they belong to two houses in conflict with one another.
Honour and Combat
What about this relationship between honour and combat? Why are the two so inextricably linked? It likely has to do with the way early societies managed to develop the sort of cohesion required to form larger societies, institutions and governments. As Hobbes wrote, life for people in the state of nature was nasty, brutish and short. People needed protection from all the other tribes that would regularly come along with intent of murder and rapine. As this desired security was the pre-condition for any other activity whatsoever, the most valued asset among people was physical strength and skill in combat. Those who possessed this skill could provide security for others and many of them likely did. When larger groups of people began to form – they likely did around such people. And hence we have the origins of the feudal system in Europe after the collapse of the Roman empire. (An example of the fact that humans had to go through the process multiple times before an institutional structure to replace the honour based one could be developed).
As such, the existence of the group itself – depended entirely on the security provided by the warrior class. It’s for this reason that honour and combat are so intimately connected. It’s also explains why the honour culture is a masculinist culture. Men are better at combat. So they are the ones around which people gathered. They were the ones that became absolute rulers.
(And if you think that we are so far removed from this reality – remember – we’ve only had a very small number of women in the roles of the highest levels of political authority – and only within the last fifty years.)
This brute fact of life for early peoples might help you understand also the strange conception of truth in the honour system. Without honour – without your connection to the group, and the lord/chief who kept you safe – you were likely dead. There was little experience of a reality independent of the ties one had to your tribe. What sense was there to be made of a reality outside of honour? It was simply beyond the experience of most people.
Critiquing Honour
What we begin to see as we explore the concept of honour is that it is a system that developed to facilitate cohesion between groups of people. In this respect, it was an important advance over the sort of signalling procedures that I examined in an earlier post about Dunbar’s Number.
Martin’s story is not a mere presentation of the concept of honour – it is a critique. In fact, the entire fantasy saga is best read as an allegory for the collapse of honour culture as it occurred in our own history. By studying it we learn something of the weaknesses of the honour system and the challenges faced by the concepts of reason, truth and virtue that we used to replace it. It is to this subject that I will turn in my next post.
