When Did Compromise Become Dangerous?
How a word for resolution became a signal of exposure
Compromise didn’t always mean weakness.
Which is the first version of the word that comes to your mind? Were you remembering a moment of mutual agreement with your husband, or maybe successful business negotiation? Were you thinking about garrisoning troops in a compromised position, or how your personal information was stolen from a compromised security network.
I find semantics to be the most fascinating of pedantic topics. Language evolves from natural disasters, emerges organically from cultural beliefs, and sometimes is designed by men behind closed doors. The connection between these two versions of compromise is evident. In common parlance, a good compromise is when both people leave unhappy. Pushing a bit further, we change unhappy to vulnerable and there we have it.
What I’m interested in is which came first, and how the other emerged. The dreaded “why” of this scenario is never definitive but often enlightening. Let’s find some baggage and bend some light.
Tracking Life Lines
I’m not a trained linguist, so you’ll forgive me for my plebian resources. I didn’t even open one dusty tome, and no white gloves or clean rooms were involved in my research. As an armchair pedant, I went to the Oxford English Dictionary which, I might add, I paid a subscription fee for.
Arbitration
The earliest uses of compromise were overwhelmingly legal arbitration. Indeed, the etymological origins are basically ink on contracts. the “lexical cluster” (more than just a word with which I’ll be assaulting my friends) includes such words as compromeflario, “an arbiter or umpire to compromise a thing.” However, since we’re talking about English here, let’s look at one of the earliest uses specifically.
To this present compromise my sayd lorde of glouceter hath sub stribid his name..and in semblable forme my lorde of winchester in a nother compromise substribid wt his hand..to stond at the aduyse ordinaunce and arbitrement of ye parsons aboue sayd.
R. Arnold, Chronicle f. Cxviv/2 - c1503
Isn’t it fun the way people used to talk? Despite the difficult reading, the use of words like “ordinaunce” and “abitrement” provide a welcome light at the end of the tunnel. That’s easy to accept, compromise was formalized as a word for a mutual agreed upon reality. Simple.
Now we know where it began, how did it morph?
Election
When the idea of election by compromise rolled up the screen, I said the magic words of research and science alike “well that’s interesting.” Though first used in 1726, the Catholic Dictionary provides a clear definition in 1885
[Election by] Compromise is, when all the cardinals agree to entrust the election to a small committee of two or three members of the body.
W. E. Addis & T. Arnold, Catholic Dictionary (ed. 3) 204/1- 1726
Sounds like the electoral college, doesn’t it? (My sincere apologies to the non-Americans. Don’t bother researching it, it’s not worth your trouble.)
Already we’re starting to see the shift. No longer are we talking about two individuals with mutual sacrifice and mutual gain, a promise to be held, now we’re basically abdicating our freedom to choose to a small group of others. We are giving up something, for another person to gain something. We can also see how this version of compromise becomes tied to another’s “honor” or social value. By electing them, we lift them upon the pedestal and tying our compromise to that elevation.
Sacrifice
Almost simultaneous with the emergence of election by compromise is the modern idea of mutual necessary sacrifice. Here I’ve been gifted such a perfect quote to display the definition.
All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter..we give and take; we remit some rights, that we may enjoy others.
E. Burke, Speech Resolutions for Conciliation with Colonies 52- 1775
We’re outside the halls of authority, now. We’re speaking of grand truths like virtue and acts. Here we begin to see the touchstones of the Enlightenment, namely the heightening of the individual and our inner world.
Where things get interesting
This is where I reached terminal velocity in the rabbit hole. I found two mentions under the definition “putting in peril or hazard.” The second one, the later one, would have tied up this essay in a neat, happy bow:
Where each could come without compromise of dignity.
C. J. Lever, Tom Burke vol. II. lv. 40 - 1844
That through-line is clean enough to eat off! It’s the second one that spits pink bubble gum into the gears of the elevator I use to descend, sending me flying into the endless abyss of research.
It is absurd..to hazzard and put to comprimise (as it were) our owne reputation and vertue for another man.
P. Holland, translation of Plutarch, The Philosophie, Commonlie Called, The Morals 172 - 1603
1603?? Come on, man…
I got a D in French, but an A in history
I now have three translations of Moralia on my computer. Written in 100 A.D. by Plutarch, a Greek turned Roman late platonic philosopher, this thing is dense whether you’re reading the 1603 translation or one from the 1800’s. Don’t worry, I won’t quote too much. This is a philology post, after all, only one set of “ph” in this word, and not an “s” in sight, so no philosophy (other than my own).
I have these three translations because I do not speak or read ancient Greek, and though I am foolish enough to think I could have figured it out, I couldn’t find a reliable ancient Greek translation.
*phew*
I’m going to skip a bulk of the fascinating but verbose research that came from this “simple” attempt. If you’re interested to know more, please let me know in the comments. I’m always happy to nerd out with a partner in semantic pedantry.
The question isn’t “what was the Greek word originally and what was its definition?” That’s interesting but what we want to know is why P. Holland chose “compromise.” I’m not silly enough to call it the “first use” but it’s the first one I found, so it’s worth looking at. To answer this, we have to shift away from English to French.
Mettre en compromis - risk, hazard, or imperil.
Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales shows this development may arise from the risk associated with submitting yourself and something you value to a third party’s judgment.
Let’s add historical context. During this time, often referred to as Ancien Regime, French royals were working to centralize their power in order to stabilize their coffers and allow them to wage war (more or less). It was a systematic subjugation of any and all enemies of the monarchy through state-level violence in judicial officer’s clothing.
All cases can appeal to the king's Council by means of evocations and custom of Paris tends to establish itself as customary common law.
So, the legal code became more standardized, and way more visible, often walking through the streets. I wonder if they wore fancy colors or just black.
I lied, there’s a little philosophy here
Preparing a series on acceptance has led me to existentialism, and whether coincidence or providence, I believe this is connected. I stare at my Pepe Silvio board and scratch my chin until I find the right thread to trace: Rousseau’s social contract.
The social agreement defined in terms of legal code. That’s how compromise has come down from the mountain of ideas into the pockets of power. The starkest example is another word derived from mettre de compromise: Компромат (kompromat), a Russian NKVD slang term from the Stalin era which translates to “discrediting material.”
Now that there’s a two-foot, William shaped impressive at the floor of the rabbit hole, it’s time to dust myself off and make value of the plummet. I already said there’s no truth here. I am a storyteller, though, so here’s the story I like.
The Enlightenment was a time of individualism explored through the filter of perceived Greco-Roman values. Where once community and society was something of which we were a vital part, and from which we reaped mutual rewards, we began the shift toward a societal contract, whereby we expect something explicit in return for our personal sacrifices.
Necessary mutual compromise has been supplanted by transaction.
What we see in this translation is a subconscious manifestation of that nascent idea. It’s a plank in the bridge from platonic divine virtue, to those that we must define within ourselves, and protect against the other.
Listen for the word compromise. How do you hear it used?
From the Rift,
