Abnegate

Abnegate (pronounced ab-ni-geyt)

(1) To refuse or deny oneself (privileges, pleasure, rights, conveniences etc); reject; renounce.

(2) To relinquish; give up.

1650–1660: From the Latin abnegātus (denied), past participle of abnegāre (to deny), the construct being ab- + negate.  The Ab- prefix was from the Latin ab-, from the primitive Indo-European hepo (off, away) and a doublet of apo- and off-.  The alternative prefixes were (1) a- (with root words starting with m, p, or v) & (2) abs- (with root words starting with c or t).  Ab- was used to convey (1) “from” & (2) “away from” & “outside of”.  Negate was from then Latin negātus, past participle of negāre (to deny, refuse, decline), reduced from nec-aiare (or some similar form), the construct being nec (not, nor) + aiere (to say).  Abnegate is a verb, abnegated & abnegating are verbs & adjectives, abnegation & abnegator are nouns; the most common noun plural is abnegations.

Abnegate should not be confused with abdicate.  Dating (perhaps surprisingly) only from 1541, abdicate was from the Latin abdicātus (renounced), perfect passive participle of abdicō (renounce, reject, disclaim), the construct being ab + dicō (proclaim, dedicate, declare), akin to dīcō (say).  Abdicate now (except informally) is used almost exclusively to refer to a reigning monarch renouncing their throne in favour of a successor (chosen or imposed) but was once applied with greater latitude.  Between the mid-sixteenth & early nineteenth centuries, it was used to mean “to disclaim and expel from the family” (as a parent might of a child) and when this is done now, one is said to have disowned (as a statement of family & social relations) or disinherited (at law in the matter of inheritance).  Between the mid-sixteenth & late seventeenth centuries it could mean “formally to separate oneself from or to divest oneself of”.  Between the early seventeenth & late eighteenth centuries, it could mean “to depose” which meant (1) remove from office suddenly and forcefully (ie what might now be thought a forced (or “constructive”) abdication or (2) in law, to testify to or give evidence under oath (usually in writing).  Between the mid-sixteenth & late seventeenth centuries it could mean “to reject; to cast off; to discard (an object, an association, an obligation etc).

The modern meaning has existed since the mid-sixteenth century (though not commonly used for another two-hundred odd years) and means “to surrender, renounce or relinquish, as sovereign power; to withdraw definitely from filling or exercising, as a high office, station, dignity.  This can apply to anyone personally exercising sovereign authority (kings, queens, popes, tsars et al) and is the act of renouncing the throne (and thus sovereignty).  Procedurally, most monarchies have detailed administrative procedures (and abdication has of late assumed a new popularity) to ensure the transfer from old to new is legally identical in consequence to what happens in the case of a sovereign dying but the lawyers have previously resolved cases where formalities were lacking.  In the matter of James VII and II (1633–1701; King of England and King of Ireland (as James II) & King of Scotland (as James VII) 1685-1688 who left the throne in the circumstances of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the act of “abandonment” or “forfeiture”, even in the absence of any formal mechanism, was held to be an abdication, albeit one that might (analogously with use in other aspects of law) be styled a “constructive abdication”.

Pope Benedict XVI in Popemobile (Mercedes-Benz ML 430 (W163)), 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC, 2008.

Although the term abdication is sometimes used of papal resignations, the Vatican is emphatic the word is not used in any official documents of the Church.  This imprecise use of abdication is attributable to the Holy See being (as well as the universal government of the multi-national Roman Catholic Church) the authority ruling the Vatican City State, a sovereign, independent territory since the Lateran Concordat of 1929.  The Pope is thus the ruler of both Vatican City State and the Holy See; collectively an absolute theocracy.  It’s thus a fine point and were the Holy See to prefer “abdicate” to “resign”, it would seem not a substantive change and the fact the office is elected and not dynastic is not significant, Holy Roman emperors and the some early kings of England all elected. 

Pope Benedict XVI in Popemobile, Seravalle stadium, San Marino, 2011.

What none can deny is that the Holy See has a long (if of late infrequent) history of precedent, five popes between the tenth & fifteenth centuries resigning with a further four between the third & eleventh possibly having done so.  Mysteriously, there’s even another event which may or may not have been a resignation and indeed the subject may not even have been a pope but rather an anti-pope, somewhat analogous with the idea the MAGA Republicans have of Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) being an anti-president.  The revisions to canon law in 1917 and 1983 only clarified certain aspects of the resignation process and had no effect on anything definitional.  Thus, what Pope Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) did when renouncing office in 2013 was an act of abnegation and not an abdication and that he chose subsequently to be styled pope emeritus remains of no legal or constitutional significance.