"....Who Was Then A Gentleman?"

by

Jean Claude de Pourceaugnac

 

 

O let us love our occupations

Bless the squire and his relations

Live upon our daily rations

And always know our proper stations

(Variously attributed)

 

 

Mr. Caltrap has provided Caltrap's Corner as a gathering of international chivalric scholars joined together to study titles, Orders of Chivalry and related matters. I suggest that it is part of the mission of the Corner to study, and perhaps define, the substrate on which orders of chivalry are erected...The gentleman (perhaps better, The gentleman today or The American gentleman).

In order to understand the concept of the gentleman, one has to define also a class structure, broken into the classic Middletown Study groups: "Upper Upper, Lower Upper, Upper Middle, Lower Middle, Upper Lower, and Lower Lower." Since we are not sociologists, I suggest we combine the Upper Classes and call them "The aristocracy," and discard the Lower Classes (as we shall not be studying them). As America has no official class structure we shall have to start with the Anglo-Celtic tradition and criteria and adapt them to our part of The New World. Let others advise on the Continental model, I do not think it contributes much to our American structure

Nancy Mitford [Noblesse Oblige] describes well the main obstacle in our search; An aristocracv in a republic is like a chicken whose head has been cut off; it may run around in a lively way, but in fact it is dead. There is nothing to stop a Frenchman, German, or Italian [or American] from calling himself the Duke of Carabosse If he wants to, and in fact the Continent abounds with invented titles. But in England the Queen is the fountain of honours and when she bestows a peerage upon a subject she bestows something real and unique.

Overlapping the aristocracy is the nobility, or peerage, The terms are not synonymous; only about half the British nobility are aristocracy, the rest being life peers, and only about a third of the aristocracy are nobility, the rest being families of younger sons, or country squires living in manor houses, some with money and influence far longer than many dukes and earls. [Jilly Cooper, Class. ] Another quote variously attributed has the King saying "I can make a man a nobleman, but I can't make him a gentleman."

In defining a gentlemen most of us draw a line at our own feet. Social mobility is a very middle-class characteristic, so for the purposes of the study, we shall have to be careful not to define to include ourselves, or to exclude someone else.

We may find that we cannot make one definition fit all cases. There may be the historic gentleman, the modern gentleman, the gentleman as defined by the aristocracy, the gentleman as defined by the middle class, for instance. We can start with some folk definitions ranging from the facetious, "A gentleman is a man who knows how to play the bagpipes, but doesn't," the naughty, "...someone who gets out of his bath to go to the toilet," the thoughtful "...someone who is never unintentionally rude to anyone."

There is wisdom in the joke about the newly rich man who bought a yacht, then sported a blazer and yachting cap and announced to his mother that he was now a captain She replied, "Son, by you you're a captain, by me you're a captain, but by a captain are you a captain? " The aristocracy tend to know each other; you may know them, but if they don't know you, are you a gentleman? A gentleman once was defined as a man who didn't have to work for a living. A gentleman did not engage in commerce for his own benefit, except on a huge scale. With exceptions, our upper class have never followed the British practice of serving in the Church, the Armed Forces, or the Foreign Service for nominal pay. Now the young of the class may have to work, but will probably do it in the "clean" business of managing other peoples' money. Their fathers and grandfathers probably managed their own money. Almost anything else, upper and middle echelon management, the professions, is middle-class.

Attributes that gentlemen agree upon. include birth (family), money (old), domiciles, schools, occupation, leisure activities and clubs. Dress and speech are not nearly the indicia in America that they are in the British Isles. An early snag is that for "gentleman", an aristocrat defines himself. Because of his immense sense of security he doesn't care what anybody thinks, he knows who he is and what he is. The middle-class perception that one can become a gentleman by learning how to act like one resembles the code of the Boy Scout [and in fact, Baden-Powell, an aristocrat, may have been trying to teach middle-class boys to behave by giving them an updated code of chivalry].

A definition may be impossible, but we have a new forum and can try to forge one. The hallmark of the upper class is colossal self-confidence...they go through life unafraid, don't question their motives or feel guilty about their actions. They are usually highly opinionated, unimaginative, and unconcerned with what others think of them. They tend to feel they have a duty toward the community and manifest it by espousing and working for charitable causes. They do not seem to be as eager for elected public office as before, but in their community they usually give tone to good works and historic preservation. They have good manners, when they want to, and are scrupulously polite to servants and those beneath them in the social scale. They tend to be reactionary, chauvinistic and publicity-shy. They prefer the company of their own kind, and have no difficulty in recognizing it. Sexually they tend to be amoral, having much more in common with the lower class in that regard.

Their possessions and money are old and inherited. Since they have no need to impress anyone, their clothes tend away from high fashion toward the well-used. Though comfortable, the gentleman is never sloppy in personal grooming; hair, nails and shoes are well-kept. The dowdy look is abandoned when he dons resort wear. The standard white trousers of yesterday have given way to the spectrum that has followed Breton (or Nantucket) red through pastel shades, little sailboat or whale patterns, even four-color panels. The "in" item is abandoned as soon as the middle class begins wearing it.

Religion once played a larger part in defining class than it does now. Though not especially religious, the gentleman supports the Church, stemming from the days when it was his duty to set an example for the lower classes. I cannot provide hard figures, but everyone's perception of the religion of the upper classes is that it is Episcopalian. Even the radical change (or change by radicals) of the church's liturgy, theology, Holy Orders and the introduction of "Liberation Theology" has been accepted by most of its members, because the characteristic of the Episcopalian is that he will put up with anything so long as he can continue to be identified as one. Other Protestant denominations are no doubt represented amongst the American gentry but not in significant numbers. One possible exception would be in bygone Boston, where the liberal upper classes had an admixed intellectual strain, and Congregationalism and Unitarianism attracted a few.

Roman Catholicism as a class index is interesting. It was perceived in the late 19th-early 20th Centuries as the religion of the immigrant from Southern and Eastern Europe; the rich knew it mainly as the amusing superstition of their servants. In England, however, recusant families were among the cream of Society. Title-hunting at the end of the century introduced upper class Americans to Catholics of good and noble European families, and prejudice softened a little, at least to them. As the hard-working immigrants prospered, so did their religion; the onset of easy tolerance of everything in the 60's just about laid religious prejudice to rest. Today it is perfectly socially respectable to be a Roman Catholic.

Though shying away from intellectualism, the gentleman is conventionally educated; St. Grottlesex and Ivy League; for ladies, private schools bearing someone's name and certain women's colleges. A luncheon club at Harvard or a secret society at Yale is all right, but fraternities are very middle class. Team sports are not their milieu, but racquet and ball ones are.

Speech, accent, or the words one uses have not nearly the significance in America that they do in Britain. "U" (upper class usage) speech was codified in a paper printed in Helsinki in 1954 by Professor Alan Ross of Birmingham University. The late (the Hon.) Nancy Mitford wrote an article, "The English Aristocracy" in Encounter based on Professor Ross's treatise. If one surveys the original, the Mitford setting, and all comments on them since. one detects certain characteristics of "U" speech which translate to behavior as well. "U" speakers shun verbiage, pretension, cliche and jargon in speech. "Pardon?" to indicate non-comprehension is replaced by the "U" "What?" for instance. It is difficult to import word usage, but the principle seems applicable. Pretentiousness in thought, word and deed, is middle class.

From the shunning of pretentiousness comes one of the hallmarks of the upper class British. They have been maligned by a world which does not comprehend their apparent indolence. They have absolutely nothing against excelling personally at games and in life. They are brought up to believe that success must be effortless, and their reaction to success must be offhand and modest. Hence the "typical" BrItish understatement. "How was Dunkerque, my lord?" "Oh, It was all right. But, my dear, the noise. and the people!" An American counterpart translates; "Never let them see you sweat." Hence Lord Melbourne's defense of being awarded the Garter; "It's all right, you see - none of this damned nonsense about merit."

The American gentleman certainly has incorporated British diffidence into his ethos. Wit, wisdom, and achlevements must not "reek of the lamp." Anything worked hard for, or connived at, is not worth having, Anything worth having is not displayed ostentatiously, but worn easily, like an old tweed jacket.

Because of our vast geography and the free intermingling of the classes, and the levelling effects of television, the movies and homogenization of our schools it is hard to pin down strictly upper class usages and accents. Definite traces of accent exist in the East; the oft-parodied "Locust Valley Lockjaw" when spoken makes every woman sound like Katherine Hepburn. An "Old New York" accent is often mistaken for posh English. Usage traces probably exist; on the whole the upper classes shun pseudogenteelisms and retain some traces of well-brought-up English usage.

Dwelling places are characteristic and vary considerably with locality so only general rules can be given. Direct mail salesmen can tell a person's class by his zip code; for instance, in New York the most posh are to be found in 10021. In any town or city, locals can tell you instinctively within a street or two where the gentry live. Houses (not "homes") are set within ample grounds and screened from the road. They are old by preference, though it is all right for their young to build anew on suitable locations. They turn up their noses at houses with names, but forgive those who are stuck with named dwellings built long ago by newly-rich ancestors. Naturally a Southern plantation with a name would be all right, as would any property too big to need a street number. Furniture tends to be old and valuable, for comfort and not for show. Signs of wear are part of the package.

The gentleman belongs to several clubs, ranked in a hierarchy; in New York, The Brook, The Knick(erbocker), The Union, the Racquet Club. The Somerset in Boston attracts the same types. A London club, while not a necessity, is a great convenience, especIally for those not owning a flat in Mayfair, Kensington or Chelsea, and will be White's, Brooks', Buck's, Boodles and/or the Beefsteak. In San Francisco the Pacific Union Club compares. I suppose there are clubs in other American cities. Newport, the summer retreat of the wealthy and some gentry, is a specialized case, and has the tripos of The Reading Room, The Clambake Club, and The SpoutIng Rock Beach Association.

The "in" sports now are "real tennis" and croquet. Anything to do with riding is "U," but mistakes can be made owing to the mingling about stables of the very highest, the lowest, and some in between with an easy familiarity but not mutual acceptance. Golf and lawn tennis have become hopelessly plebian but still may be all right, depending on where they are played.

The gentleman is comfortable with the concept of "family," and when he trots out a pedigree it is to explain, not to impress. They are all related to each other, and tend almost exclusively to marry each other's sisters or cousins. Though "all families are 'old'," the difference in his "old" is that it has been distinguished for a long time. Genealogy per se doesn't interest him except for a purpose, and he shuns lineal societies with the exception of the Cincinnati, which is very ok, being hereditary. He has no need of titles because he is equal or superior, but is amused by his relationships to them, resulting from the wholesale marriages of daughters to British and Continental nobility at the end of the last century. He would certainly not buy, adopt or acquire even a legitimate title. The same attitude applies to orders and decorations; he doesn't need them, so what's the point. He would value an OBE earned for being a branch head of the English Speaking Union , or the Legion of Honor for some romantic service, like the Resistance, but is not afflicted with Ordenshunger.

The middle-class concept of being "descended from Royalty" representing as it does plugging in to Edward II or III through a long line of nobodies, doesn't interest him in the least. The man from Burke's or Debrett's who compiles a pedigree for each newly-elected American president, gave it away when he announced that President George Bush was the 13th cousin fourth removed of Queen Elizabeth II. Then he added, "But so is almost everybody else." I know a woman who is the daughter of the holder of one of the oldest peerages, born "the Honorable," styles herself "Mrs." Surely a lesson to us all. Think of all the people in our sphere of interest who try out imaginary titles on us!

Gentlemen believe that only cads use socially military titles acquired from militia or state organizations or short service as a junior reservist. Buying a lordship of the manor or Scottish barony is a good excuse for a party but using the title is not done. I like to point out that holders of lordships of the manor and Scottish baronies rank in the table of precedence below members of British orders of chivalry, such as The Beatles, MBE. Nowadays there is a fad among poseurs for using titles acquired in the Republic of Ireland.

Strangely, at least to someone not "on the square," like their British counterparts, many gentlemen are caught up in Masonry. There is a very definite upper-class, even noble, and occasional Royal, component in britain. The Orange Lodge in New Yrok contains many recognizable upper class American names.

The politics of the American gentleman has been predominantly Republican since that party defined itself as it is today. Notable exceptions come to mind, but the attitude that "Franklin Roosevelt was a traitor to his class" still sums up upper-class political thinking.

Noblesse oblige is still a characteristic of the American gentleman, mostly in support of charities and civic good works. In fact, the technique used by the parvenu to try to gain acceptence into Society is to do time as scut worker for upper-class charities. The American aristocracy do not supply younger sons to the Church and regular army as was traditional for their British counterparts, but a fair number of gentlemen have suceeded in government, both appointive and elective.

None of the characteristics above pertains to the stratum perceived as upper class by readers of slick "Society" magazines or gossip and film columns. Once they were "Cafe Society," then "Jet Set," "Beautiful People" and "Eurotrash." Whatever they are called now, their activities are well publicized and predictable and they are very rich. Their way of life is seductive and the milieu attracts many real gentlemen, but other than wealth they have none of the other characteristics of the upper classes.

I have in this short article, tried to put the American class system into perspective, at least as I see it. It is hard to separate the concept of the gentleman from that of the upper class or aristocracy. The strict constructionist would say that one is a gentleman because his father was, ie, by birth. With barriers dropping everywhere perhaps some leeway should be allowed and a gentleman should be defined partly by what he is not, creating le bourgeois gentilhomme.