# What is a gentleman?



## Rico (Oct 14, 2005)

I’ve seen many discussions in this forum on whether such a man is or is not a gentleman, or whether a gentleman would or would not wear such an item. The most recent thread that came to my notice that includes one of those discussions is the “A sad lesson” one.
There doesn’t seem to be an agreement about the definition of “gentleman” among the posters, though. I once read an article that said that there are two kinds of ideal “gentlemen”, one according to women, and one according to men. To women, a gentleman is the man who open doors, walks on the outer side of the pavement, throws his cape over puddles, pulls chairs and kisses hands – that is, he is defined by his attitude towards women (he is probably rich as well – no sense in being a gentleman and having to ask the lady to foot the restaurant bill). To men, it seems there are two different concepts, summed up by these sets of definitions (from the Webster and the American Heritage dictionaries)
1) A man of good breeding, education and manners 
2) A man with an independent income that does not work for a living / A man who considers manual labour to be beneath him.
The first definition doesn’t imply anything about dressing standards – a man could be a gentleman and still wear a baseball cap. Of course, some standards of dressing could be said to be implied within the “manners” item – it would probably be considered bad manners to show up at a funeral wearing a Hawaiian shirt. But this is debatable – I’ve seen many men doing sartorial offences as bad as that and getting away with it (not Hawaiian shirts, though – they are totally unacceptable in Brazil, even on the beaches; they are the mark of the American tourist). It seems that very few people nowadays would say that good dressing has anything to do with good manners.
The second set of definitions probably do imply something about dressing – having “private means” in England meant belonging to a social class with well defined standards on appearance and behaviour. Exemplars of this sort of gentlemen probably are the Wodehouse´s characters, Wooster and his friends – idle half-wits with a “private income”, men who don’t work, are uneducated (despite graduating from Oxbridge), and dress conservatively according to standards that we at the AAAC would certainly approve. Actually, almost all Jeeves stories start with some sort of clash between Bertie and his man about some sartorial detail – some new item Bertie has bought and Jeeves finds “unsuitable”. (Jeeves, BTW, would certainly be a very well-respected member of AAAC). Of course, the picture of these characters is rather distorted – Bertie and the others come out as very likable fellows, which they probably wouldn’t be in real life (according to George Orwell, “Wodehouse´s real sin has been to present the English upper classes as much nicer people than they are”). 

Now, could we thrash this out and see what definition of “gentleman”, if any, would be accepted in this forum?


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

A gentleman is as a gentleman does.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> I once read an article that said that there are two kinds of ideal "gentlemen", one according to women, and one according to men.


Quite possibly; women and men have all sorts of strange notions. But there is only one ideal of gentleman for ladies and gentlemen.



> To men, it seems there are two different concepts, summed up by these sets of definitions (from the Webster and the American Heritage dictionaries)
> 1) A man of good breeding, education and manners
> 2) A man with an independent income that does not work for a living / A man who considers manual labour to be beneath him.


From a real dictionary:



> A man in whom gentle birth is accompanied by appropriate qualities and behaviour; hence, in general, a man of chivalrous instincts and fine feelings.
> In this sense the term is frequently defined by reference to the later derived senses of 'gentle'.
> ...
> *1710* _Tatler_ No. 207 4 The Appellation of Gentleman is never to be affixed to a Man's Circumstances, but to his Behaviour in them. *1743* APPLETON _Serm._ 153 The Gentle-Man will treat every Man with due Respect, and will be friendly, yielding, condescending, obliging, and ready to do a Kindness.
> ...





> The first definition doesn't imply anything about dressing standards - a man could be a gentleman and still wear a baseball cap.


Could he indeed? Perhaps - but only whilst playing baseball. If he is wearing such a cap as part of his everyday dress, then no. He may well be a friendly and good man, but not a gentleman - nor, indeed, would he be likely to cultivate such a conceit.



> Of course, some standards of dressing could be said to be implied within the "manners" item -_ it would probably be considered bad manners to show up at a funeral wearing a Hawaiian shirt._ But this is debatable - I've seen many men doing sartorial offences as bad as that and getting away with it (not Hawaiian shirts, though - they are totally unacceptable in Brazil, even on the beaches; they are the mark of the American tourist).


_Probably_ bad manners? My dear sir, it would be atrocious manners. What's right is not always popular, and what's popular is not always right. Not only would such a creature most certainly _not_ be a gentleman, he would neither be a man in any meaningful sense, for a real man must possess at least a shred of dignity.



> It seems that very few people nowadays would say that good dressing has anything to do with good manners.


Good manners and good dressing are related to a high degree. Dressing is a form of communication, too, and no communication can skirt the rules of manners without consequence.


> The second set of definitions probably do imply something about dressing - having "private means" in England meant belonging to a social class with well defined standards on appearance and behaviour. Exemplars of this sort of gentlemen probably are the Wodehouse´s characters, Wooster and his friends - idle half-wits with a "private income", men who don't work, are uneducated (despite graduating from Oxbridge), and dress conservatively according to standards that we at the AAAC would certainly approve.


It is rude and stupid to categorically imply that men of private means are 'idle half-wits' and 'uneducated'.



> Actually, almost all Jeeves stories start with some sort of clash between Bertie and his man about some sartorial detail - some new item Bertie has bought and Jeeves finds "unsuitable". (Jeeves, BTW, would certainly be a very well-respected member of AAAC). Of course, the picture of these characters is rather distorted - Bertie and the others come out as very likable fellows, which they probably wouldn't be in real life (according to George Orwell, "Wodehouse´s real sin has been to present the English upper classes as much nicer people than they are").


You seem to have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction.



> Now, could we thrash this out and see what definition of "gentleman", if any, would be accepted in this forum?


What, no 'please'?


----------



## Rico (Oct 14, 2005)

First of all, I think I´ve made a mistake and posted this on the wrong forum - I think it should be moved to the "Interchange", isn´t it? Is there a way a could do it?

Thanks JLPWCXIII for your detailed reply, but I think you misunderstand me at some points.



JLPWCXIII said:


> " it would probably be considered bad manners to show up at a funeral wearing a Hawaiian shirt. But this is debatable"
> 
> _Probably_ bad manners? My dear sir, it would be atrocious manners.


I agree with you, but I think most people wouldn´t. I once saw a friend of mine attending his father´s funeral wearing a bright yellow shirt, and no-one seemed to think it amiss - not even his mother and sisters (he was not a boy at the time, but about 40). I´ve read a lot of discussions here at AAAC about the adequate level of dressing at restaurants, and it seems no one cares. I do - I still think people should take some care about their appearance in public - and you and AAAC member, too, but it seems the vast majority of people simply ignores the issue.



JLPWCXIII said:


> It is rude and stupid to categorically imply that men of private means are 'idle half-wits' and 'uneducated'.


Please don´t distort my meaning - I am not saying anything about "men of private means", but about Bertie and his friends, who is definitely a nitwit, and so regarded by his several aunts and by Jeeves.



JLPWCXIII said:


> What, no 'please'?


Ok, I stand corrected: please!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

In my mind, a gentleman is someone who respects others and treats them with courtesy. Most gentlemen would probably dress at least close to our standards here, especially when decorum would require it at nice restaurants, weddings, funerals and other similar occasions.

However, you can dress totally according to AAAC recommendations, but not be a gentleman is you behave badly and treat others poorly.

There is a LOT more than the clothing to being a gentleman .


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

There seems to be a common error in defining gentlepersons. It is the intertwining of perceptions of gentleman and sophisticate leading to the greatest distortion. Then we have the matter of chance station at birth coming in third.
To keep it short and simple, a gentleman is considerate of his guests and charges. A sophisticate uses ornamentation to project an impression. I will skip the matter of birth since that varies with the culture in which one is born.

The bottom line is that it is mindset and deeds that create a gentleman. Make note that consideration of guests includes their protection. Thus weakness is not a quality of the gentleman.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Rico said:


> First of all, I think I´ve made a mistake and posted this on the wrong forum - I think it should be moved to the "Interchange", isn´t it? Is there a way a could do it?


As the gentleman wishes...it is now moved,


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

May I suggest reading Psalm 15?


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*True colors...*



medwards said:


> A gentleman is as a gentleman does.


Your clothes, your shoes, your money... dont impress me

But your true color does.

...from paris


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

We once had a thread along these lines on Dandyism.net.

As I understand the matter a "gentleman" was originally someone who did not have a title of nobility but was entitled to a coat of arms.

From that it gradually devolved to denote a man of breeding, taste, refinement and impeccable manners, whether armigerous or not.

Then it became used for any nice, polite man.

From there, it degenerated into simply a synonym for "man," as on the signs on public toilets. Worse yet, there is the tendency of newcasters to say, "The police apprehended this gentleman [sic] just after he had robbed and shot up a 7-11."

Finally, there is the horrible perversion of the term "gentleman's club" from a club for real gentlemen (of at least the first and second type) into a synonym for a flesh den!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Rico said:


> A man who considers manual labour to be beneath him.


Conceited and a snob?

Not my idea of a gentleman.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

lovemeparis said:


> Your clothes, your shoes, your money... dont impress me
> 
> But your true color does.
> 
> ...from paris


Well done!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

My true colour is green.


----------



## PreppyBoy (Jan 1, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> In my mind, a gentleman is someone who respects others and treats them with courtesy. Most gentlemen would probably dress at least close to our standards here, especially when decorum would require it at nice restaurants, weddings, funerals and other similar occasions.
> 
> However, you can dress totally according to AAAC recommendations, but not be a gentleman is you behave badly and treat others poorly.
> 
> There is a LOT more than the clothing to being a gentleman .


Great answer!


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

*My point of view of what a gentleman is.*

I once read this in a French book to which I concurred:

A gentleman is a nobility of heart and soul. The finest compliment one can pay to a man is to consider him a gentleman. The qualities to which one must possess in order to merit this title is, unfortunately, fast disappearing from our daily habits and morals.

Courtesy: A gentleman is more often standing than seated, and he is a good listener. He accords his fellow companions et al with respect.

Relaxed good manners: A gentleman is at ease and confident of being welcome everywhere.

Generosity, not extravagance: A gentleman knows the value of every service and doesn't need to over tip in order to attract the attention that is his due.

Elegance, moral as well as physical: The 'gentleman gangster' is nothing but a fictitious character in cheap novels.

While most self-made men are rich in other qualities, few of them are authentic gentlemen, for this requires certain nonchalance and a habit of command.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*In the French book...*



Hedonist said:


> I once read this in a French book to which I concurred:Courtesy: A gentleman is more often standing than seated, and he is a good listener. He accords his fellow companions et al with respect.


Hello gentlemen,

Could someone help me to find this book please...?

I would love to read more about being a "real" gentleman, and how to apply it or doing it not just by reading it. Afterall, action does count... ya know.

...from paris


----------



## SunderLander (Oct 26, 2006)

A real gentleman? 
"You'll know one when you smell one" my father used to say. Meaning that a gentleman was one who didn't smell of the land or of work. 
He himself bred horses, an occupation which is not without a certain aroma!


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*all about horses...*



SunderLander said:


> A real gentleman?
> "You'll know one when you smell one" my father used to say. Meaning that a gentleman was one who didn't smell of the land or of work.
> He himself bred horses, an occupation which is not without a certain aroma!


I dont know much about horses... but I've started to like them a lot.

Please tell me more of this aroma... as an occupation. What are the special skills or talents involved?

... from paris


----------

