The Rules of the Gentleman

[Peter Crowe]

When I first read the list, I didn't agree with, or fit into all of the "Rules," nor did I feel inferior for failing to meet them precisely, but I chuckled because I think I knew where this set of rules was going and it struck a chord with me.

Obviously from the typesetting they were not the original poster's personal opinion, but rather something he had found that struck a chord with him too. In my mind, they brought forward a general sense of something that while it has morphed over time (thus, I think, many of the disagreements) still remains true in its essence - not its detail. A focus on the small disagreements I believe may inadvertently diminish something that while no longer contemporary, is nonetheless valuable.

Thank you, Bold Highlander, for posting something that reaches back into time to pull forward, not an accurate definition, but an accurate sense of something that may yet be lost if we get too fussy about detail. The general concept is worth keeping. Those who cannot see or understand it may need to watch some old Gary Cooper and Bing Crosby movies!

Bill

Well stated Bill. The problem with a term like gentleman is that it has evolved in meaning over centuries from someone who could live independently from an income derived from landholding in early modern Europe to evolving codes of socially perceptive and considerate behaviour. I am also aware that the concept (however defined) can be traced further back in many cultures and was something Confucius treated of in his writings in ancient China. One common feature of a gentleman throughout history is a concern with mutual relationships and obligations which are not necessarily legally mandated.

Although difficult to adequately define, I believe most of us recognize a gentleman (or a lady for that matter) when we meet one. I may be biased but both my father and late grandfathers are/were gentlemen in terms of how they conducted themselves, and along with my late mother (who was very definitely a lady) endeavored to bring me up and mentor me to be such. Their level of success or otherwise is for others to judge.

As for what the OP stated it was the general message rather than the particulars (some of which I also found anachronistic) which struck a chord with me.

[Tobus]

The problem with a term like gentleman is that it has evolved in meaning over centuries from someone who could live independently from an income derived from landholding in early modern Europe to evolving codes of socially perceptive and considerate behaviour.

Whee! I was wondering how long it would take for this to come up. I've known good and decent men who would take great offense to being labeled as gentlemen. To them, that word means someone who is rich, a bit of a dandy, who has never done an honest day's work in his life. To others, it may simply mean a polite person who is of decent and moral character. The word gentleman is just one of those words which, as you said, has evolved over the centuries, and has many different connotations.

There were certainly some "gentlemen" in past centuries who may have been rich but were absolutely lacking in morals or courteous behaviour. Just as there are some "gentlemen" today who are dirt-poor but are honest, chivalrous, and upstanding. And what's interesting is that the definition of a gentleman doesn't seem to necessarily be split by nationality (unlike many of the other words we often find have completely different meanings between the UK and USA). It seems to have different definitions across society, even amongst people of the same social station. 'Twould make for a very interesting sociological study, I think!

One might even make the case that it's tied to the cultural sense of honour, which is equally ambiguous across social strata. Whilst one man may consider himself a gentleman, defending his honour, by engaging in a fist-fight or a duel over a slight verbal insult, another man may consider it most ungentlemanly and dishonourable to do so. And these fellows could even live in the same town. It just depends on how they were raised, what they believe, and how they view the world.

[Peter Crowe]

Whee! I was wondering how long it would take for this to come up. I've known good and decent men who would take great offense to being labeled as gentlemen. To them, that word means someone who is rich, a bit of a dandy, who has never done an honest day's work in his life. To others, it may simply mean a polite person who is of decent and moral character. The word gentleman is just one of those words which, as you said, has evolved over the centuries, and has many different connotations.

There were certainly some "gentlemen" in past centuries who may have been rich but were absolutely lacking in morals or courteous behaviour. Just as there are some "gentlemen" today who are dirt-poor but are honest, chivalrous, and upstanding. And what's interesting is that the definition of a gentleman doesn't seem to necessarily be split by nationality (unlike many of the other words we often find have completely different meanings between the UK and USA). It seems to have different definitions across society, even amongst people of the same social station. 'Twould make for a very interesting sociological study, I think!

One might even make the case that it's tied to the cultural sense of honour, which is equally ambiguous across social strata. Whilst one man may consider himself a gentleman, defending his honour, by engaging in a fist-fight or a duel over a slight verbal insult, another man may consider it most ungentlemanly and dishonourable to do so. And these fellows could even live in the same town. It just depends on how they were raised, what they believe, and how they view the world.

I agree with most of what you say Tobus, but the class of gentleman who were landowners in early modern Europe and North America (even allowing that some of their number may have been supercilious and arrogant) by and large had a sense of duty and obligation to the common weal or the general good of their society as well as a particular obligation to their tenants and/or economic and social dependents.

They were a distinct group from the grandees or high nobility and often opposed to them politically. The Spanish Hidalgo exemplified by Cervantes Alonso Quixano/Don Quixote is a literary description of such a character. In Scottish History, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun (1653-1716) would be an example, in England, Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), or in the early United States, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

[Gryphon57]

I wanna know what you're all doing with the missing letters...

I suspect they are being sold to the Welsh.

No offense intended to the Welsh. Some of them are probably related to me.

[Tobus]

I agree with most of what you say Tobus, but the class of gentleman who were landowners in early modern Europe (even allowing that some f their number may have been supercilious and arrogant) by and large had a sense of duty and obligation to the common weal or the general good of their society as well as a particular obligation to their tenants and/or economic and social dependents.

One would like to think so, but the sad fact of the matter is that their actions often ran counter to this. One needn't look much further than the Highland Clearances for examples. But then again, I'm sure there's an argument to be made that the clearances actually were in the best interest of the greater good (economically, at least). It's a subject I am fascinated by in my reading, though I admit that valid points are made on both sides.

[Peter Crowe]

One would like to think so, but the sad fact of the matter is that their actions often ran counter to this. One needn't look much further than the Highland Clearances for examples. But then again, I'm sure there's an argument to be made that the clearances actually were in the best interest of the greater good (economically, at least). It's a subject I am fascinated by in my reading, though I admit that valid points are made on both sides.

Ah, but we are perhaps understanding the early modern meaning of gentleman in different economic and social contexts. To confuse matters more, in the Scottish Highlands (especially prior to the 45), many Clansmen who were related to the House of their Chief and carried a sword were regarded in their rarified society as Hieland Chentlemen even though they were poor tenants or cattle drovers. Outside of that particular society they were regarded as presumptuous by Lowland Scots and English alike. The past is as full of ambiguities as the present.

As to the Clearances many of those landowners were 'grandees' or financial houses, of the traditional 'gentry' left many were already squeezed in the same process. The Highland Clearances were also post the 'Early Modern' period when the traditional land-owning definition of a 'gentleman' had already begun it's process of change.

[Deirachel]

Finally, with regards to all the other cowboy codes, etc...I find it quite remarkable the amount of "social programming" that was inserted into TV shows and other forms of media in the 50's and 60's (though I guess it's no different today...many of us just don't like the modern messages). This was clearly a concerted effort to shape the values of a generation (or two)...much the same that the Scouting movement aims to do that very same thing. The difference between them, however, is that in Scouting, this is a stated objective of the program...it's quite overt. In these other programs/codes, it's almost subliminal and covert. Who was behind these efforts? Was it just the great idea of a bunch of producers? Was it an orchestrated effort by the US Government? I'm not a conspiracy theorist...but I do find this to be interesting food for thought.

It is all a part of McCarthyism. Just look at the various visual and textual arts from prior the 50s and during the 50s/60s. It was part of making the enemy evil (at the time the USSR. Make communism more atheist and it's more evil, because everyone knows we aren't atheists!). If the show had a clear cut pro-(Christian) American push, then McCarthyists wouldn't target it.

We see effects of this today (look at the inclusion of "Under God" in the Pledge in 1954, "In God We Trust" as the official motto in 1956, et al.). It's still a pretty common thing today. (Look at the somewhat common, and unfortunate, demonization of Islam today.)

[BoldHighlander]

It is all a part of McCarthyism. Just look at the various visual and textual arts from prior the 50s and during the 50s/60s. It was part of making the enemy evil (at the time the USSR. Make communism more atheist and it's more evil, because everyone knows we aren't atheists!). If the show had a clear cut pro-(Christian) American push, then McCarthyists wouldn't target it.

We see effects of this today (look at the inclusion of "Under God" in the Pledge in 1954, "In God We Trust" as the official motto in 1956, et al.). It's still a pretty common thing today. (Look at the somewhat common, and unfortunate, demonization of Islam today.)

This could quickly slip unto thin ice, so the only comment I'll make is that Gene Autry's code (as well as Hopalong & Roy Rogers) pre-date the 50s & McCarthyism. I also have a Junior G-Man code (that is all about law & order) that is circa 1936.

Cheers.

[BoldHighlander]

About four minutes ago I received the following from my sister (via email) with a note attached that read: "I thought of you when I read this."

"Being manly is not being macho. Manliness is the positive qualities of decisiveness, strength in one's convictions, confidence, self-reliance, high moral qualities, self discipline, honesty and integrity. A man who is manly has courage to be able to deal with difficulty, pain or danger without backing away despite his fear." - Unknown

Sounds like the epitome of a gentleman to me.

[CopperNGold]

About four minutes ago I received the following from my sister (via email) with a note attached that read: "I thought of you when I read this."

"Being manly is not being macho. Manliness is the positive qualities of decisiveness, strength in one's convictions, confidence, self-reliance, high moral qualities, self discipline, honesty and integrity. A man who is manly has courage to be able to deal with difficulty, pain or danger without backing away despite his fear." - Unknown

Sounds like the epitome of a gentleman to me.

Your sister obviously adores you, BoldHighlander! That was a great quote!