Homage (pronounced hom-ij,
om-ij or oh-mahzh)
(1) Respect or reverence paid or rendered.
(2) In feudal era custom & law, the formal public
acknowledgment by which a feudal tenant or vassal declared himself to be the
man or vassal of his lord, owing him fealty and service; something done in
acknowledgment of vassalage (archaic).
(3) The relation thus established of a vassal to his lord
(archaic).
(4) Something done or given in acknowledgment or
consideration of the worth of another.
(5) To render homage to (archaic except in artistic or
historic use).
(6) An artistic work imitating another in a flattering
style.
(7) A (sometimes controversial) way of describing an
imitation, clone or replica of something.
(8) A demonstration of respect, such as towards an
individual after their retirement or death (often in the form of (an obviously retrospective)
exhibition).
1250–1300: From the Middle English hommage, omage & umage
(the existence of “homage” is contested), from the Old French homage & hommage, from the Medieval Latin homināticum (homage, the service of a vassal or 'man'), the
construct being (h)ome (man), from the from Latin hominem, accusative of homō (a man (and in Medieval Latin “a
vassal”)) + -āticum (the noun-forming
suffix) (-age). The
suffix -age was from the Middle English -age,
from the Old French -age, from the
Latin -āticum. Cognates include the French -age, the Italian -aggio, the Portuguese -agem,
the Spanish -aje & Romanian -aj.
It was used to form nouns (1) with the sense of collection or
appurtenance, (2) indicating a process, action, or a result, (3) of a state or
relationship, (4) indicating a place, (5) indicating a charge, toll, or fee,
(6) indicating a rate & (7) of a unit of measure. The verb homage was derived
from the noun in the late sixteenth century (the agent noun homager noted from the turn of the
fifteenth). In Scots
the spelling was homage and in Irish, ómós and
the old synonym manred has been
obsolete since the fourteenth century. The
predominately US pronunciation with a silent
h happened because of a conflation with the nearly synonymous doublet hommage, pronounced thus. Homage is a noun & verb, homager is a noun, homaged & homaging are verbs and homageable is an adjective; the noun plural is homages. Despite the esistance of homager, the noun homagee seems never to have been acknowledged as a standard form.
By convention, the modern use of the form is usually as “pay
homage to” but because of the variations in pronunciations (the h silent and
not), homage is sometimes preceded by the article “a” and sometimes by “an” and
under various influences in popular culture, the French pronunciation has in
some circles become fashionable. The
term “lip homage” is much the same as “lip service”: something expressed with “mere
words”. In Middle English, the meanings
variously were (1) an oath of loyalty to a liege performed by their vassal; a
pledge of allegiance, (2) money given to a liege by a vassal or the privilege
of collecting such money, (3) a demonstration of respect or honor towards an
individual (including prayer), (4) the totality of a feudal lord's subjects
when collected and (5) membership of an organized religion or belief system. In feudal times, an homage was said to be an “act of
fealty”. The Middle English noun fealty dates from the twelfth century
and was from feaute, from the Old
French feauté, from fealte (loyalty, fidelity; homage sworn
by a vassal to his overlord; faithfulness), from the Latin fidelitatem (nominative fidelitas)
(faithfulness, fidelity), from fidelis
(loyal, faithful), from the primitive Indo-European root bheidh- (to trust, confide, persuade). In feudal law, to attorn was to “transfer homage or allegiance to another lord”. The verb attorn
(to turn over to another) was from the Middle English attournen, from the Old French atorner
(to turn, turn to, assign, attribute, dispose; designate), the construct being a- (to) + tourner (to turn), from the Latin tornare (to turn on a lathe) from tornus (lathe), from the Greek tornos
(lathe, tool for drawing circles), from the primitive Indo-European root tere- (to rub, turn). Attornment was a part English real property
law but was not directly comparable with the operation of those laws which in matters
of slavery assigned property rights over human beings which technically were no
different than those over a horse. Attornment
recognized there was in the feudal system some degree of reciprocity in rights & obligations and it was held to be unreasonable a tenant
should become subject to a new lord without their own approval. At law, what evolved was the doctrine of
attornment which held alienation could not be imposed without the consent of
the tenant. Given the nature of feudal
relations it was an imperfect protection but a considerable advance and attornment
was also extended to all cases of lessees for life or for years. The arrangement regarding the historic feudal
relationships lasted until the early eighteenth century but attornment persists
in modern property law as a mechanism which acts to preserve the essential
elements of commercial tenancies in the event of the leased property changing
hands. It provides for what would now be
called “transparency” in transactions and ensures all relevant information is
disclosed, thereby ensuring the integrity of the due diligence process.
The historical concepts of homage and tribute are
sometimes confused. Homage was a formal ritual
performed by a vassal to pledge loyalty and submission to a lord or monarch. There were variations but the classic model
was one in which the vassal would kneel before the lord, place his hands
between the lord's hands, and swear an oath of loyalty and service. That was not merely symbolic for it signified
the vassal's acknowledgment of the lord's authority and their willingness to
serve and protect the lord in exchange for a right to live on (and from) the land.
The relationship was that creature of
feudalism; something both personal and contractual. Tributes were actual payments made by one
ruler or state to another as a sign of submission, acknowledgment of
superiority, or in exchange for protection or peace. Tribute could be paid in gold, other mediums
of exchange or in the form of goods or
services. Tribute was something imposed
on a subordinate entity by a dominant power, either as a consequence of defeat
in war or as a way of avoiding being attacked (ie a kind of protection racket). The meaning of homage in feudal property law was
quite specific but synonyms (depending on context) now include deference,
tribute, allegiance, reverence, loyalty, obeisance, duty, adoration, fealty,
faithfulness, service, fidelity, worship, adulation, honor, esteem, praise,
genuflection, respect, awe, fidelity, loyalty & devotion. However, those using homage for anything
essentially imitative might find out other synonyms include fake (and more generously faux, tribute, reproduction, pastiche, clone or replica).
One
implication of the acceptance of both pronunciations (the “H” silent and not)
is that both “a homage” and “an homage” are acceptable in written form although
in oral use the later must use the silent “H”.
In US use “an homage” is common with no suggestion of deliberately
“formal” use or artistic association although elsewhere in the English-speaking
world that does seem the case, movie critics everywhere usually careful to
write “an homage” though the style guides seem all to be permissive and caution
only that use should be consistent. There
are in English other words where the choice between “a” & “an” is dictated
by pronunciation and
frequently they’re those where the status of the initial “h” is contested. Although there are still prescriptive pedants,
informally at least there seems to be a general acceptance “H-optional” words do
exists and use is a thing of dialect, register or even personal preference. They wiser style guides also suggest avoiding
the “H war” which is the battle over whether the letter “H” should be
pronounced aitch or haitch, the former long classed a “U
word” as part of “correct” RP (received pronunciation) while the latter was
thought “a bit common”. Historically, the evolution wasn’t quite that
linear but in some places (notably Australia where “haichers” were associated
with (1) Irish ancestry and (2) being a product of the Roman Catholic education
system) the class-identifier sometimes assumed a political dimension. The modern principle is to accept however
individuals choose to “H” and treat it as part of the rich diversity of life.
Other “optional
H” words include “herb” (especially in US use), “historic” (which can be tricky
because the structure of some sentences bests suits “a historic” while in
others “an historic” sounds “natural” and that’s a better guide (at least in
oral use) that any “rule”) and “hotel” (although “an hotel” seems used only in
poetry or as a deliberate archaism). The
most common mistake is probably with “heir” (pronounced air, that correct use rather cruelly applied by the Duchess of
Windsor (Wallis Simpson); 1896–1986) who was known to complain her husband (the
former King Edward VIII (1894–1972) “wasn’t “heir conditioned”). The guiding principle remains to use “a”
before words starting with a consonant sound, and “an” before those starting
with a vowel sound, a “rule” applied regardless of spelling although in scientific,
literary and poetic use there have been exceptions. Although “a hypothesis” is now the standard
form, “an hypothesis” does appear in older texts and it does better suits some
sentences. In poetry both “an harangue”
and “an harbinger” were used because metrically things flowed better but euphony
in poetry is a special case and in general oral and written use the conventional
forms are better. For historic reasons
some outliers do endure such as “an hymn” or “an harlot”, the latter because it’s
set in the linguistic stone of the King
James Version of the Bible (KJV, 1611) but not even the popular use by contemporary
critics of “an horrible” this and
that when writing of William Shakespeare’s (1564–1616) more torrid scenes has
been enough for that to remain respectable.
Sample from Ariana Grande’s (b 1993) Thank U, Next (2018).
Singer Ariana Grande’s (b 1993) song Thank U, Next
(2018) was one of the year’s big successes and the video included
well-constructed references to a number of early-century pop culture products
including Legally Blonde (2001) and Mean Girls (2004). Within popular culture, there seems to be a
greater tolerance of works which are in some way an homage, the term “sampling” presumably
chosen to imply what was being done was (1) taking only a small fragment of
someone else’s work and (2) for all purposes within long established doctrine
of “fair use”. Interestingly, instead of
regarding sampling as fair use, US courts initially were quite severe and in
many early cases treated the matter as one of infringement of copyright,
apparently because while a attributed paragraph here and there in a paper of
dozens or hundreds of pages could reasonably seen as “fair use”, a recurring
snatch of even a few seconds in a song only three minutes long was not. Of late, US appeal courts seem to have been
more accommodating of sampling and have taken the view the legal doctrine of de minimis which has been used when
assessing literary or academic works should apply also to sampling but the
mechanics of calculating “fair use” need to be considered in the context of the
product. The Latin phrase de minimis (pertaining to minimal things)
was from the expressions de minimis non
curat praetor (the praetor does not concern himself with trifles) or de minimis non curat lex (the law does
not concern itself with trifles) and was an exclusionary principle by which a
court could refuse to hear or dismiss matters to trivial to bother the justice
system. One Queen of Sweden preferred
the more poetic Latin adage, aquila non
capit muscās (the eagle does not catch flies). As a legal doctrine, it actually predates its
fifteenth century formalization in the textbooks and there are records in civil,
Islamic and ecclesiastical courts of Judges throwing out cases because the
matters involved were of such little matter.
In many jurisdictions, governments now set a certain financial limit for
the matters to be considered, below which they are either excluded or referred
to a tribunal established for such purposes.
One suspects artists, architects, film directors and such
are inclined to call their work an homage (or probably the French hommage (pronounced omm-arge)) as a kind
of pre-emptive strike against accusations of plagiarism or a lack of
originality. Car manufacturers are apt
to do it too, examples in recent decades including the BMW Mini, Volkswagen
Beetle, Dodge Challenger and Chevrolet Camaro, all of which shamelessly
followed the lines of the original versions from generations earlier. The public response to these retro-efforts
was usually positive although if clumsily executed (Jaguar S-Type) derision
soon follows. Sometimes, it’s just a
piece which is homaged. On the Mercedes-Benz
CL (C215 1998-2006), the homage was to the roofline of the W111 & W112
coupés (1961-1971), especially the memorable sweep of the rear glass although
all of that was itself an homage to the 1955 Chryslers. It was a shame the C215 didn’t pick up more
of the W111’s motifs, the retrospective bits easily the best.
1969 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 (left) and 2023 Chevrolet
Camaro.
The original Chevrolet Camaro (1966-1969)
was a response to the original Ford Mustang (1964) which had given the "pony-car" segment both its name and instant popularity. It was a profitable place to be and while the Camaro's lines were different while adhering to the concept, Chevrolet for 1970 abandoned the look for something almost Italianesque, just as Chrysler picked-up and perfected the cues for the Dodge Challenger & Plymouth, both of which debuted with a splash but didn't last even to the end of 1974 (even Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974 lasting a little longer), early victims of what would prove a difficult decade. Chevrolet however picked them up again in 2010 but their homage to 1966 was
perhaps a little too heavy-handed, dramatic though the "chop-top" effect was. Still, the result doubtlessly was better that what would have been delivered had the designers come up with anything original and that's not a problem restricted cars. One wishes architects would more often pay homage to mid-century modernism or art deco but the issue seems to be all the awards architects give each other are only for originality, thus the assembly line of the ugly but distinctive.
1970 Dodge Challenger (left) and 2023 Dodge
Challenger (right).
The original
Challenger (and its corporate companions the Plymouth Barracuda & Cuda) was
an homage to the 1966 Camaro and so well executed that Chrysler’s pair are
thought by many to be the best looking pony cars of the muscle car era. In 2008 when the look was reprised, it was thought a most a accomplished effort and better received than would be the
new Camaro two season later. Chevrolet
must have been miffed Dodge was so praised for paying homage to what in 1969
had been borrowed from their 1966 range.
1979 Volkswagen Beetle Cabriolet by Karmann (left) and 2015
Volkswagen Beetle Cabriolet (right).
First produced in 1938, Volkswagen clung to the rear-engine / air-cooled
formula so long it almost threatened the company’s survival and while the
public showed little enthusiasm for a return to the mechanical configuration (the
Porsche 911 crew are a separate species which, if they had their way, would still
not have to bother with cooling fluid), the shape of the Beetle did appeal and
over two generations between 1997-2019, the company sold what was initially
called the “New Beetle”. Despite the
pre-war lines imposing significant packaging inefficiencies, it was popular
enough to endure for almost two decades although the mid-life re-styling never quite succeeded in increasing the appeal to male drivers; to this day the New Beetle remains a quintessential "girl's car".
1966 Austin Mini-Cooper 1275 S (left) and 2001 BMW Mini
(right).
Students of the history of
design insist the BMW Mini was not so much an homage to the British Motor
Corporation’s (BMC) original Mini (1959) but actually to some of the conceptual
sketches which emerged from the design office between 1957-1958 but were judged
too radical for production. That was true but there are enough hints and clues in the production models for
nobody to miss the point.
1965 Jaguar 3.8 S-Type (left) and 1999 Jaguar S-Type.
Released in 1963, the Jaguar S-Type was an
updated Mark 2 with the advantage of more luggage space and markedly improved
ride and handling made possible by the grafting on of the independent
rear-suspension from the E-Type (XKE) and Mark X (later 420G).
The improvements were appreciated but the market never warmed to the
discontinuity between the revised frontal styling and the elongated rear end,
the latter working better when a Mark X look was adopted in front and released as
the 420. Still, although never matching
the appeal of the classic Mark 2 with its competition heritage, it has a period
charm and has a following in the Jaguar collector market. According to contemporary accounts, the homage
launched in 1999 was a good car but it seemed a curious decision to use as a
model a vehicle which has always been criticized for its appearance although
compared with the ungainly retro, the original S-Type (1963-1968) started to
look quite good, the new one the answer to a question something like "What would a Jaguar look like if built by Hyundai?". As an assignment in design school that would have been a good question and the students could have pinned their answers to the wall as a warning to themselves but it wasn't one the factory should ever have posed. Quietly, the new S-Type was dropped
in 2007 after several seasons of indifferent sales.
1956 Chrysler 300B (left), 1970 Mercedes-Benz 280 SE Coupé (centre) and 2005 Mercedes-Benz SL65 (right).
The 1955-1956 Chryslers live in the shadow cast by the big fins which sprouted on the 1957 cars but they possess a restraint and elegance of line which was lost as a collective macropterous madness overtook (most of) the industry. Mercedes-Benz in 1961 paid due homage when the 220 SE Coupé (W111; 1961-1971) was released and returned to the roofline with the C215 (1998-2006). The big coupé was the closest the factory came to styling success in recent years (although the frontal treatment was unfortunate) but one must be sympathetic to the designers because so much is now dictated by aerodynamics. Still, until they too went mad, the BMW design office seemed to handle big coupés better.
In the collector market, there are many low-volume models
which have become highly prized. Some
were produced only in low numbers because of a lack of demand, some because the
manufacturer needed to make only so many for homologation purposes and some
because production was deliberately limited.
Such machines can sell for high prices, sometimes millions so, especially
where such vehicles are based on more mundane models produced in greater
numbers, many are tempted to “make their own”, a task which car range from the
remarkably simple to the actually impossible.
Those creating such things often produce something admirable (and
technically often superior to the original) and despite what some say, there’s
really no objection to the pursuit provided there is disclosure because
otherwise it’s a form of fraud. When
such machines are created, those doing the creating seldom say fake or faux and
variously prefer tribute, clone, recreation, homage or replica and those words in
this context come with their own nuanced meanings, replica for example not meaning exactly
what it does in geometry or database administration.
A 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO in silver (US$70 million) and a fine replica by Tempero of a 1963 model in rosso corsa (racing red) (US$1.2 million). Even the Ferrari cognoscenti concede the craftsmanship in a Termero replica is of a higher standard than the original.
As an extreme example of the homage was inspired by the Ferrari
250 GTO, of which it’s usually accepted 36 were built although there were
actually 41 (2 x (1961) prototypes; 32 x (1962–63) Series I 250 GTO; 3 x
(1962–1963) “330 GTO”; 1 x (1963) 250 GTO with LM Berlinetta-style body & 3
x (1964) Series II 250 GTO). The 36 in
the hands of collectors command extraordinary prices, chassis 4153GT in June
2018 realizing US$70 million in a private sale whereas an immaculately crafted
replica of a 1962 version by Tempero (New Zealand), said to be better built
than any original GTO (although that is damning with faint praise, those who
restore pre-modern Ferraris wryly noting that while the drive-trains were built
with exquisite care, the assembly of the coachwork could be shoddy indeed) was
listed for sale at US$1.3 million. Even
less exalted machinery (though actually more rare still) like the 1971 Plymouth
Hemi Cuda convertible also illustrate the difference for there are now
considerably more clones / replicas / recreations etc than ever there were
originals and the price difference is typically a factor of ten or more. On 13 November 2023, the market will be
tested when a Ferrari 250 GTO (chassis 3765LM) will be auctioned in New York, RM
Sotheby’s, suggesting a price exceeding $US60 million. A number which greatly exceeds or fails by much to
make that mark will be treated a comment on the state of the world economy.
