Definition Of A Gentleman

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

For those of you who have read some of my posts or who know me, I have a philosophic bend. Recently, I have overheard people complaining (and rightfully so) about most men and how they fail to respect those around them (I even spotted a topic that one phatmasser started that had a video of a few good men trying to get the message out that people should be respected and not treated as objects). I started re-examining my understanding of what a gentleman was and thinking about it in order to make my understanding a coherent and systematic whole rather than just a random assortment of axioms and went back to this little speech, which I had come across while I was in college. I thought perhaps we could discuss this topic together in hopes that we all might replace axioms for a coherent, systematic whole. I propose we start with this article I have been re-reading. Any ideas or additions?

[b]"Definition of a Gentleman"[/b] by Cardinal Newman, from [i]The Idea of a University[/i], a series of lectures given in Ireland, 1852.
[quote]Hence it is that it is almost a definition of a gentleman to say that he is one who never inflicts pain. This description is both refined and, as far as it goes, accurate. He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him; and he concurs with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself. His benefits may be considered as parallel to what are called comforts or conveniences in arrangements of a personal nature; like an easy chair or a good fire, which do their part in dispelling cold and fatigue, though nature provides both means of rest and animal heat without them. The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast --- all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern being to make every one at his ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. He makes light of favors while he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring. He never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort; he has no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and interprets everything for the best. He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp saying for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out. From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend. He has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, he is too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. He is patient, forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles; he submits to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is his destiny.

If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds; who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it. He may be right or wrong in his opinion, but he is too clear-headed to be unjust; he is as simple as he is forcible, and as brief as he is decisive. Nowhere shall we find greater candor, consideration, indulgence: he throws himself into the minds of his opponents, he accounts for their mistakes. He knows the weakness of human reason as well as its strength, its province and its limits.

If he be an unbeliever, he will be too profound and large-minded to ridicule religion or to act against it; he is too wise to be a dogmatist or fanatic in his infidelity. He respects piety and devotion; he even supports institutions as venerable, beautiful, or useful, to which he does not assent; he honors the ministers of religion, and it contents him to decline its mysteries without assailing or denouncing them. He is a friend of religious toleration, and that, not only because his philosophy has taught him to look on all forms of faith with an impartial eye, but also from the gentleness and effeminacy of feeling, which is the attendant on civilization.[/quote]

Edited July 1, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[aalpha1989]

Can't beat that definition.

Though in truth it all boils down to this: a gentleman is on the path to God by way of virtue. Plenty of spiritual books have made this a systematic whole.

Edited July 1, 2010 by aalpha1989

[Arco]

A gentleman is a member of the landed aristocracy with or without pretensions of nobility, and likely believes in the inherent right of the leisured gentry to rule.

Anything else is trying to fit the notion of gentility into something other than what it is.

[cmotherofpirl]

Historically yes, presently - no.
A gentleman today is simply a male who has good manners ; he thinks of other people before himself.

[Hassan]

I assume this thread is about me?

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Hassan' date='01 July 2010 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1278004562' post='2136626']
I assume this thread is about me?
[/quote]

Only if you are willing to be classified as an it. "Definition of a Gentleman: What is it?"

Though I am glad you have thoughts to add to or constructive criticisms of the article by Cardinal Newman, of happy memory.

[CatherineM]

My husband is one, as was my father.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Arco' date='01 July 2010 - 08:44 AM' timestamp='1277999058' post='2136576']
A gentleman is a member of the landed aristocracy with or without pretensions of nobility, and likely believes in the inherent right of the leisured gentry to rule.

Anything else is trying to fit the notion of gentility into something other than what it is.
[/quote]


[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='01 July 2010 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1278000919' post='2136595']
Historically yes, presently - no.
[/quote]

And thus is the fall of the English language.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Arco' date='01 July 2010 - 10:44 AM' timestamp='1277999058' post='2136576']
A gentleman is a member of the landed aristocracy with or without pretensions of nobility, and likely believes in the inherent right of the leisured gentry to rule.
[/quote]

I wish I were that kind of gentleman.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Arco' date='01 July 2010 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1277999058' post='2136576']
A gentleman is a member of the landed aristocracy with or without pretensions of nobility, and likely believes in the inherent right of the leisured gentry to rule.

Anything else is trying to fit the notion of gentility into something other than what it is.
[/quote]


[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 July 2010 - 12:58 AM' timestamp='1278043083' post='2136853']
I wish I were that kind of gentleman.
[/quote]

Personally, I'd be more than happy to be Cardinal Newman's understanding of a Gentleman. To be like that, that sounds to me like a life lived well. To truly be noble and virtuous, whether I have land or not, to cast myself in to the mind of my opponent and account for their mistakes by knowing weaknesses and strengths of reason, and to be too clear headed to ever be unjust even if I am mistaken in my opinion, what a perfection of the soul to strive for! Imagine, to achieve being a one who has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. I strive for this patience, forbearing, and resignation to life and its suffering, on philosophical principles, and thus to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is our destiny. But to achieve it, what a blessing that would be to oneself and even to one's loved one's, since one would bring comfort to others by being such a gentleman. Ah, to achieve such a dream...

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' date='02 July 2010 - 12:23 AM' timestamp='1278048210' post='2136871']
Personally, I'd be more than happy to be Cardinal Newman's understanding of a Gentleman. To be like that, that sounds to me like a life lived well. To truly be noble and virtuous, whether I have land or not, to cast myself in to the mind of my opponent and account for their mistakes by knowing weaknesses and strengths of reason, and to be too clear headed to ever be unjust even if I am mistaken in my opinion, what a perfection of the soul to strive for! Imagine, to achieve being a one who has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. I strive for this patience, forbearing, and resignation to life and its suffering, on philosophical principles, and thus to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is our destiny. But to achieve it, what a blessing that would be to oneself and even to one's loved one's, since one would bring comfort to others by being such a gentleman. Ah, to achieve such a dream...
[/quote]

My dream, on the other hand, is to be so wealthy that, although I do not work, I am still able to live extravagantly.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 July 2010 - 12:28 AM' timestamp='1278048512' post='2136872']
My dream, on the other hand, is to be so wealthy that, although I do not work, I am still able to live extravagantly.
[/quote]
Yep, that's the new American Dream. Used to be to work hard, and do a bit better than your parents, and to save money to leave some to your kids, so that they could do a bit better than you have.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='02 July 2010 - 02:46 AM' timestamp='1278049607' post='2136877']
Yep, that's the new American Dream. Used to be to work hard, and do a bit better than your parents, and to save money to leave some to your kids, so that they could do a bit better than you have.
[/quote]

Agreed. The American Dream has become the American Nightmare in which people want to get as much as possible while doing as little as possible. So much for the American value of hard work.

[Innocent]

[quote name='Arco' date='01 July 2010 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1277999058' post='2136576']
A gentleman is a member of the landed aristocracy with or without pretensions of nobility, and likely believes in the inherent right of the leisured gentry to rule.

Anything else is trying to fit the notion of gentility into something other than what it is.
[/quote]


Since the meaning of the word has changed now, I don't think it would be a fault to use the word gentleman to mean something roughly like "virtuous rational man with good social address."

C.S. Lewis mentioned this in the Preface to Mere Christianity:

[quote]Far deeper objections may be felt-and have been expressed- against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?" or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every amiable quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said-so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully-"Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?"

They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A "nice" meal only means a meal the speaker likes.)

A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge.

It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
[/quote]

That it has been accepted for quite some time now that the word "gentleman" means one who is polite and agreeable can be seen from this snippet from [url="http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5141"][i]What Katy Did At School[/i].[/url]


[quote]"How can Clarence behave so?" said Katy, when she and Clover were alone.

"I don't know," replied Clover. "He's such a nice boy, sometimes; but when he isn't nice, he's the horridest boy I ever saw. I wish you'd talk to him, Katy, and tell him how dreadfully it sounds when he says such things."

"No, indeed! He'd take it much better from you. You're nearer his age, and could do it nicely and pleasantly, and not make him feel as if he were being scolded. Poor fellow, he gets plenty of that!"

Clover said no more about the subject, but she meditated. She had a good deal of tact for so young a girl, and took care to get Clarence into a specially amicable mood before she began her lecture. "Look here, you bad boy, how could you tease poor Lilly so yesterday? Guest, speak up, sir, and tell your massa how naughty it was!"

"Oh, dear! now you're going to nag!" growled Clarence, in an injured voice.

"No, I'm not,--not the least in the world. I'll promise not to. But just tell me,"--and Clover put her hand on the rough, red-brown hair, and stroked it,--"just tell me why you 'go for to do' such things? They're not a bit nice."

"Lilly's so hateful!" grumbled Clarence.

"Well,--she is sometimes, I know," admitted Clover, candidly. "But because she is hateful is no reason why you should be unmanly."

"Unmanly!" cried Clarence, flushing.

"Yes. I call it unmanly to tease and quarrel, and contradict like that. It's like girls. They do it sometimes, but I didn't think a boy would. I thought he'd be ashamed!"

"Doesn't Dorry ever quarrel or tease?" asked Clarence, who liked to hear about Clover's brothers and sisters.

"Not now, and never in that way. He used to sometimes when he was little, but now he's real nice. He wouldn't speak to a girl as you speak to Lilly for any thing in the world. He'd think it wasn't being a gentleman."

"Stuff about gentleman, and all that!" retorted Clarence. "Mother dings the word in my ears till I hate it!"

"Well, it is rather teasing to be reminded all the time, I admit; but you can't wonder that your mother wants you to be a gentleman, Clarence. It's the best thing in the world, I think. [color="#FF0000"]I hope Phil and Dorry will grow up just like papa, for everybody says he's the most perfect gentleman, and it makes me so proud to hear them."

"But what does it mean any way! Mother says it's how you hold your fork, and how you chew, and how you put on your hat. If that's all, I don't think it amounts to much."

"Oh, that isn't all. It's being gentle, don't you see? Gentle and nice to everybody, and just as polite to poor people as to rich ones," said Clover, talking fast, in her eagerness to explain her meaning,-- "and never being selfish, or noisy, or pushing people out of their place. Forks, and hats, and all that are only little ways of making one's self more agreeable to other people. A gentleman is a gentleman inside,--all through! Oh, I wish I could make you see what I mean!"

"Oh, that's it, is it?" said Clarence. Whether he understood or not, Clover could not tell;[/color] or whether she had done any good or not; but she had the discretion to say no more; and certainly Clarence was not offended, for after that day he grew fonder of her than ever. Lilly became absolutely jealous. She had never cared particularly for Clarence's affection, but she did not like to have any one preferred above herself.

[/quote]



[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 July 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1278048512' post='2136872']
My dream, on the other hand, is to be so wealthy that, although I do not work, I am still able to live extravagantly.
[/quote]

Knowing well from Catholic theology the power of concupiscence, shouldn't you be worried that in such a situation, you might be tempted severely to lead a dissipated lifestyle?

Edited July 2, 2010 by Innocent

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Innocent' date='02 July 2010 - 01:15 AM' timestamp='1278051325' post='2136894']
Knowing well from Catholic theology the power of concupiscence, shouldn't you be worried that in such a situation, you might be tempted severely to lead a dissipated lifestyle?
[/quote]

I'm not terribly worried about ever being in such a situation since, unfortunately, I cannot ever see myself acquiring the millions of dollars I would like to have without working for them. In which case I wouldn't be a leisurely gentleman, but rather an overworked professional.