The Rules of the Gentleman

[zirrow]

Wear Sunscreen

not really gentlemen's etiquette, but several of the lists posted remind me of this, "song"

[Bill aka Mole]

Between my Dad and my Uncle Elbert; the majority of these were instilled early through my observation of them. My choice to join the Navy reinforced some more than others but the Art of Arms is not a Gentlemanly way in many respects.

A Gentleman may be found in many clothing styles and locations that one would not expect. A Gentleman can be in most any profession and social status.

And from what I've read in history, I'm guessing that there might be two Wild Bill Hickocks.

[Tartan Tess]

I have never seen the Lone Ranger creed, thanks Steve.
And Wild Bill Hickock....that must have been from a television show (I had sheriff John)
because the real Wild Bill might have had a whole different set of rules.......
Yeeha!

[BoldHighlander]

And Wild Bill Hickock....that must have been from a television show (I had sheriff John)
because the real Wild Bill might have had a whole different set of rules.......

Indeed it was a tv show

[Brett]

I always really liked the sentiment of :

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good".

It's been attributed to both Samual Johnson and Anne Landers. Regardless, It distills down for me the qualities of a true gentleman. While I appreciate many of the longer lists, many of the items can be fairly well faked.

[creagdhubh]

Very nice!

Cheers,

[Tartan Tess]

Good point Longhuntr74

[Father Bill]

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

[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.

[Bugbear]

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. ...

It's not Confucius, but I suppose "gentleman" could be substituted in to this; hope it's all right to quote.

1. The skilful traveller leaves no traces of his wheels or footsteps; the skilful speaker says nothing that can be found fault with or blamed; the skilful reckoner uses no tallies; the skilful closer needs no bolts or bars, while to open what he has shut will be impossible; the skilful binder uses no strings or knots, while to unloose what he has bound will be impossible. In the same way the sage is always skilful at saving men, and so he does not cast away any man; he is always skilful at saving things, and so he does not cast away anything. This is called 'Hiding the light of his procedure.'

2. Therefore the man of skill is a master (to be looked up to) by him who has not the skill; and he who has not the skill is the helper of (the reputation of) him who has the skill. If the one did not honour his master, and the other did not rejoice in his helper, an (observer), though intelligent, might greatly err about them. This is called 'The utmost degree of mystery.' (ch. 27)

I'm quoting from the old James Legge translation of Lao-Tze's The Tao Teh King (Project Gutenberg EBook #216).