Your thoughts on the modern gentleman?

[OliverRuuger]

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)

[culverwood]

"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"

The 1856 definition in not too out of date. A little editing:
"By courtesy this title is generally accorded to all persons when their manners are indicative of a certain amount of refinement and intelligence"

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.

A particular style or taste, conservative thinking, eccentricity are all irrelevant to being a gentleman in my opinion. They may be relevant to being a character or to progress in a particular profession on the other hand.

[OliverRuuger]

Do you not think a gentlemans views to be present in his style and his dress? Always modest, held back, always appropriate and considered. Never flashy or foppish? Should he not show his consideration and eye for form and function in what he wears, his style of hair, the drink he orders at the restaurant, his fluidity of speech etc.

Let me ask it this way:

Sir B. appreciates the beauty of the bespoke trade. However he is well informed on the art of the contemporary "fashion" designers and combines the two by wearing for instance a beautiful bespoke sports coat from sir Poole with a pair of dark denim pants from Maison Martin Margiela alongside with a Comme des Garcons for Brooks Brothers button down, both of which he has had tailored to fit. According to occasion, he would wear the appropriate attire, never unintentionally offending,

How would you consider such a gentleman?

-Oliver

[RWS]

. . . . [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.

I am in large agreement with this description (there can be no definition of this word, I think) and would be grateful for a citation to the source.

[OliverRuuger]

. . . . [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.

I am in large agreement with this description (there can be no definition of this word, I think) and would be grateful for a citation to the source.

Funnily enough i believe the quote first appeared in The Baltimore Sun in 1899 as part of a competition for the best definition of a true gentleman with Wayland's submission being crowned the winner.

-Oliver

[alden]

I don't think these words have lost any of their appeal:

IF

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!

--Rudyard Kipling

[culverwood]

Sir B. appreciates the beauty of the bespoke trade. However he is well informed on the art of the contemporary "fashion" designers and combines the two by wearing for instance a beautiful bespoke sports coat from sir Poole with a pair of dark denim pants from Maison Martin Margiela alongside with a Comme des Garcons for Brooks Brothers button down, both of which he has had tailored to fit. According to occasion, he would wear the appropriate attire, never unintentionally offending,

How would you consider such a gentleman?

If his manners indicated a certain amount of refinement and intelligence I would consider him a gentleman whether he was wearing the finest suit or dressed as a transvestite.

I think John Wayland's definition is wishful thinking and more a definition of an ideal way to behave than of a gentleman. Kipling's is similar but also some of the most stirring verse in the English language.

A cad can also be a gentleman.

[iammatt]

I remember memorizing The True Gentleman.

[Droogie]

I also like Charlemagne's code of chivalry.

To fear God and maintain His Church
To serve the liege lord in valor and faith
To protect the weak and defenseless
To give succor to widows and orphans
To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
To live by honor and glory
To despise pecuniary reward
To fight for the welfare of all
To obey those placed in authority
To guard the honor of fellow knights
To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
To keep faith
At all times to speak the truth
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To respect the honor of women
Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
Never to turn the back upon a foe

[Cufflink79]

In my opinion a gentleman is someone who is thoughtful of others, and takes good care of himself so he may be of service to others.

A gentleman is also a man's man, in which he knows how to deal with certain situations, and knows when to stay out of them as well.

A gentleman treats a lady with respect, and other fellow gentlemen the same.

To quote Nick Carraway from "The Great Gatsby" "My father gave me some advice when I was growing up, he said before you criticize anyone just remember that they may not of had the same opportunities you may of had in life."

Best Regards,

Cufflink79

[couch]

Excellent thread, utopian though the project be. And welcome, OliverRuuger. An auspicious maiden post.

Two thoughts to contribute: On the question of how dress and presentation relate to gentlemanliness, I'm reminded of Ben Franklin (that republican!) and his injunction to be, rather than to seem. As alden has oft noted, elegant dress is the expression of character, rather than the other way round.

I've also always admired the economy of Dorothy Sayers's dictum via Lord Peter Wimsey: "A gentleman never insults anyone inadvertently." The achievement of this ideal requires the deployment of many of the qualities cited above, from awareness and consideration of others, to conscious command of one's self-presentation and speech, to self-restraint under pressure--and the feeling that when one is forced by a boorish interlocutor to slip in the metaphorical blade, it's an occasion for regret rather than self-congratulation.

[OliverRuuger]

Wonderfully put, Mr. Couch!

However, on the subject of regret, how would one avoid both, the "metaphoric blade" and the dropping the gauntlet if satisfaction was to be had? Difficult, no?
...

"Savile Row suits, snuff from Smiths and the membership of a London Club were the essential requisites of a traditional gentleman."

Found this quote on Gieves & Hawkes. Can anyone shed some light as to who might have said it and where?

-Oliver

[MTM]

These are all great. I also like Aristotle on virtue,
particularly, in this case, on magananimity.

[HappyStroller]

Every one here, I agree, subscribes to the idea of what a true gentleman should be, in terms of sterling qualities.

If I may point out, the 5th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica seems to contradict the definition of an esquire as bearing a coat of arms while a gentleman does not. But somehow it feels strange to say members of the peerage are not gentlemen.

Also, I thought one entered the word Gentleman for one's occupation in an income tax return if he did not have to work for a living.

[quote="OliverRuuger"]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"

...<snipped>...

[couch]

However, on the subject of regret, how would one avoid both, the "metaphoric blade" and the dropping the gauntlet if satisfaction was to be had? Difficult, no?

-Oliver

Difficult, indeed. But I think (see alden's Kipling quote above) the idea is that the modern (British, at least) gentleman does not wear his "honor" on his sleeve, so that the concept of "satisfaction" and the ritual panoply of dueling, metaphorical or otherwise, would not come into play. If one were so provoked, so backed into a corner, that the public good or some worthy cause (such as the defense of another) required a response despite one's willingness to accept personal abuse and attempts to turn the subject, then it's likely that the provoker (my "boorish interlocutor") would not recognize a challenge (the gauntlet), metaphoric or otherwise, and therefore would not proceed according to any code of honor anyway. At that point one simply slips in the blade.

It's been a long time since I read the scene from Sayers, but as I recall the aphorism comes up in the context of someone behaving in such a way that Wimsey says in effect "the fellow was so uncivil as to force me to remind him who I was." Who he was being a wealthy nobleman with access to great power and resources. It's distasteful to Wimsey, Sayers's beau ideal of a gentleman, that this ever need be made explicit. There's a link here, perhaps, to alden's post on "seen and not seen." The "quality" of a gentleman is evident from his presentation, bearing, and manners, but anything so obviously a status marker as to make others uncomfortable in his presence would be avoided as inconsiderate and thus ungentlemanly.