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 etc) 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”.
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 (although many popes must have lamented their authority over their flock (or even their bishops) seems a long way from "absolute"). 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.
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 most imaginative of the MAGA Republicans have of Joe Biden (b 1942; US president 2021-2025) 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 the intrinsic right. Thus, what 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 although it was at the time noted by Vaticanologists that having "a pope emeritus" living there in a sort of "papal granny flat" and always available for cardinals and others to "pop in for a yarn" must, if only somewhat, have constrained Francis (1936-2025; pope 2013-2025) in his attempts at reform.
