Your thoughts on the modern gentleman?
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:30 am
Kind everyone,
Something i have been pondering about in the past few days.
The 5th edition (1815) of Encyclopaedia Britannica defines a gentelman as such:
"A gentleman is one, who without any title, bears a coat of arms, or whose ancestors have been freemen"
In the 8th edition (1856) the definition remains the same but the writer adds:
"By courtesy this title is generally accorded to all persons above the rank of common tradesmen when their manners are indicative of a certain amount of refinement and intelligence"
This is when the title becomes beautiful to me. A man not of noble blood, at a time in history where hierarchy meant a great deal, can define himself with certain equality by his good manner and taste.
Henry Peacham in his Compleat Gentleman (1634)" Neither must we honour or esteem," he writes, " those ennobled, or made gentle in blood, who by mechanic and base means have raked up a mass of wealth. .. or have purchased an ill coat (of arms) at a good rate; no more than a player upon the stage, for wearing a lord's cast suit: since nobility hangeth not upon the airy esteem of vulgar opinion, but is indeed of itself essential and absolute "
Unfortunately, in modern culture the title has become to mean just about everyone, often used just as a polite form to address someone, in order not to offend. However it always seems to imply a certain degree of refinement in behavior and manners.
The defining values have changed and keep changing as the society changes. For me the title has become to mean something pure, the ideal balance of zeitgeist and beauty of tradition.
Recently i attended a talk by futurelaboratory.com. In their presentation about the emerging social types today, the one that captured my attention most, they had cleverly named an "intelli-gent".
The described person would be very aware of himself integral in his micro environment and global alike. He worked for a living, but it was not a 9-5 affair, but rather an integral part of his style. He appreciated the finer things in a way which was considered and not self-indulgent or selfish. He has a good eye for the new but also for the old. It was illustrated by a series of photos of a gentleman from London who i believe worked as a creative director for a graphic design agency. There were photographs of his home, focusing on the furniture, the clothes he wears (unfortunately i did not spot many articles of envy there, however there were a few smart pieces by some contemporary designers), also photos of his food choices and a selection of brown liquor at the bar (he seemed to favor rum). He was not a perfectly illustrated traditional gentleman by any means, but it certainly had strength.
How would the sirs of LL define a gentleman today?
To what degree do you think it is something that should be manifested through someones style and taste, ones sartorial choices?
How important would Conservative thinking and style be to a gentleman. Is it something that is inherit in his base values or would you consider it rather a restriction of appreciation for eccentricity?
For i believe eccentricity is something vital and personal, a kind of spark that seems to be apparent in many a noted gentleman of the past.
To finish, a beautiful quote from John Walter Wayland:
The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from good will and an acute sense of propriety, and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies; who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity; who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another; who does not flatter wealth, cringe before power, or boast of his own possessions or achievements; who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy; whose deed follows his word; who thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own; and who appears well in any company, a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe.
O. Rüüger
(i am a new member to the LL community, having browsed the forum for about a week, i am in awe and greatly thankful for the shared wealth of information and knowledge by its members)
Something i have been pondering about in the past few days.
The 5th edition (1815) of Encyclopaedia Britannica defines a gentelman as such:
"A gentleman is one, who without any title, bears a coat of arms, or whose ancestors have been freemen"
In the 8th edition (1856) the definition remains the same but the writer adds:
"By courtesy this title is generally accorded to all persons above the rank of common tradesmen when their manners are indicative of a certain amount of refinement and intelligence"
This is when the title becomes beautiful to me. A man not of noble blood, at a time in history where hierarchy meant a great deal, can define himself with certain equality by his good manner and taste.
Henry Peacham in his Compleat Gentleman (1634)" Neither must we honour or esteem," he writes, " those ennobled, or made gentle in blood, who by mechanic and base means have raked up a mass of wealth. .. or have purchased an ill coat (of arms) at a good rate; no more than a player upon the stage, for wearing a lord's cast suit: since nobility hangeth not upon the airy esteem of vulgar opinion, but is indeed of itself essential and absolute "
Unfortunately, in modern culture the title has become to mean just about everyone, often used just as a polite form to address someone, in order not to offend. However it always seems to imply a certain degree of refinement in behavior and manners.
The defining values have changed and keep changing as the society changes. For me the title has become to mean something pure, the ideal balance of zeitgeist and beauty of tradition.
Recently i attended a talk by futurelaboratory.com. In their presentation about the emerging social types today, the one that captured my attention most, they had cleverly named an "intelli-gent".
The described person would be very aware of himself integral in his micro environment and global alike. He worked for a living, but it was not a 9-5 affair, but rather an integral part of his style. He appreciated the finer things in a way which was considered and not self-indulgent or selfish. He has a good eye for the new but also for the old. It was illustrated by a series of photos of a gentleman from London who i believe worked as a creative director for a graphic design agency. There were photographs of his home, focusing on the furniture, the clothes he wears (unfortunately i did not spot many articles of envy there, however there were a few smart pieces by some contemporary designers), also photos of his food choices and a selection of brown liquor at the bar (he seemed to favor rum). He was not a perfectly illustrated traditional gentleman by any means, but it certainly had strength.
How would the sirs of LL define a gentleman today?
To what degree do you think it is something that should be manifested through someones style and taste, ones sartorial choices?
How important would Conservative thinking and style be to a gentleman. Is it something that is inherit in his base values or would you consider it rather a restriction of appreciation for eccentricity?
For i believe eccentricity is something vital and personal, a kind of spark that seems to be apparent in many a noted gentleman of the past.
To finish, a beautiful quote from John Walter Wayland:
The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from good will and an acute sense of propriety, and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies; who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity; who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another; who does not flatter wealth, cringe before power, or boast of his own possessions or achievements; who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy; whose deed follows his word; who thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own; and who appears well in any company, a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe.
O. Rüüger
(i am a new member to the LL community, having browsed the forum for about a week, i am in awe and greatly thankful for the shared wealth of information and knowledge by its members)