what was being said to reflect on subtle differences and changes in implication from one context to another.
Nevertheless, people are eternally assessing each other's conduct, and by living among people one learns much more than is to be found in one's notebooks. Yet it is almost impossible, even with impeccable information, to discuss concepts of this kind without implying that they are a great deal more consistent and explicit than in fact they are.
Two sets of concepts are used side by side for assessing conduct, which although not explicitly distinct are yet not altogether mutually consistent. One is a scale of sin (günah) and merit (sevap) backed, according to belief, by God's authority through the Book. This set of concepts is itself complex.
Moral decency, compassion, kindliness, neighbourliness, forgiveness, longsuffering, honesty, a proper respect for the rights of others, these are good because God ordained them so they are sevap, meritorious. Ritual duties, the performance of regular prayers, of ablutions, of the major anniversaries of Islam, of the fast, are also good, meritorious, because God ordained them so. It appears to follow that the villagers do not distinguish moral virtue from ritual conscientiousness. Certainly, in discussion they sometimes asserted or implied that no distinction can be made. In practice they know a mean, sly man who is meticulous in all religious duties from a generous reliable man who is not. But they see the whole business of sin and merit as a single balance sheet on which ritual merit can outweigh moral failures; one's ultimate fate at the Last Judgement depends on this balance, tempered by the Mercy of God.
Overlapping yet in some points contradicting this measure of conduct, is another based not on religion but on the notion of honour, namus. An honourable man is ready to fight, resentful of insults, able to keep his women pure from all taint of gossip, if necessary by killing them, and incapable of underhand and deceitful practices. The opposite. of namuslu, honourable, are namussuz, without honour, or ayip, shameful. These two words are in constant use, mainly for reproving children or for critical gossip. Except in jest, they are not said lightly by an adult to a social equal. They imply both internal personal rottenness, and at the same time a loss of public face. They are used to children to inculcate conventions - for example the correct greeting for p231] elders - as well as for the really serious matters of uprightness and sexual propriety.
On one occasion, two men were arguing more or less rationally, if heatedly, about the rights and wrongs of a piece of land to which they both laid claim. Then one used the word namussuz. The other immediately flew into a rage, threatened violent reprisal for such an insult, and broke off the discussion. He resented the implication that he was resorting to deceit and underhand arguments to make out his case. This aspect of honour clearly overlaps with religious injunctions to honesty and uprightness. But in another matter the codes are in clear contradiction. Honour requires intransigence and implacability; insults must be pursued and avenged, and never taken lying down. On the other hand, God is merciful, and it is the duty of a good Muslim likewise to be merciful, and to live in peace. When people are seeking to compose a quarrel, as they often are, they use the arguments from religion against the arguments from honour.
Peristiany and Pitt-Rivers have pursued these concepts of honour in other parts of the Mediterranean seaboard far more thoroughly than I have.1 Both point out that virility and a man's honour are closely connected. This holds for Turkey too. Sexual prowess is discussed, mainly measured by procreative success. But whether a man earns a reputation by successful extra-marital sexual adventures, I find it very hard to decide. Within the group of kin and neighbours, certainly, to approach other men's women is dishonourable; urban whoring is not an honourable activity, though many adopt a neutral attitude towards it. To make approaches to the women of known enemies or outsiders would be manly and courageous, perhaps even honourable in some contexts. On the whole, virility seems to be no more than one element in the concept of male honour.
Women's honour is more closely tied to sex; that is to modesty and an undefiled reputation. Namus, honour, is said to be the most important quality of a bride. The whole social system with its segregation of men and women, and its insistence on constant companionship, especially among the women, makes it