Ars Recte Vivendi | Page 6

another.
There will be no further recitation today. The class is dismissed.
(March, 1888)

THE SOUL OF THE GENTLEMAN
To find a satisfactory definition of gentleman is as difficult as to
discover the philosopher's stone; and yet if we may not say just what a
gentleman is, we can certainly say what he is not. We may affirm
indisputably that a man, however rich, and of however fine a title in
countries where rank is acknowledged, if he behave selfishly, coarsely,
and indecently, is not a gentleman. "From which, young gentlemen, it
follows," as the good professor used to say at college, as he emerged
from a hopeless labyrinth of postulates and preliminaries an hour long,
that the guests who abused the courtesy of their hosts, upon the late
transcontinental trip to drive the golden spike, may have been persons
of social eminence, but were in no honorable sense gentlemen.
It is undoubtedly a difficult word to manage. But gentlemanly conduct
and ungentlemanly conduct are expressions which are perfectly
intelligible, and that fact shows that there is a. distinct standard in every
intelligent mind by which behavior is measured. To say that a man was
born a gentleman means not at all that he is courteous, refined, and
intelligent, but only that he was born of a family whose circumstances
at some time had been easy and agreeable, and which belonged to a
traditionally "good society." But such a man may be false and mean,
and ignorant and coarse. Is he a gentleman because he was born such?
On the other hand, the child of long generations of ignorant and
laborious boors may be humane, honorable, and modest, but with total
ignorance of the usages of good society. He may be as upright as
Washington, as unselfish as Sidney, as brave as Bayard, as modest as
Falkland. But he may also outrage all the little social proprieties. Is he a
gentleman because he is honest and modest and humane? In describing
Lovelace, should we not say that he was a gentleman? Should we
naturally say so of Burns? But, again, is it not a joke to describe George
IV. as a gentleman, while it would be impossible to deny the name to
Major Dobbin?
The catch, however, is simple. Using the same word, we interchange its
different meanings. To say that a man is born a gentleman is to say that
he was born under certain social conditions. To say in commendation
or description of a man that he is a gentleman, or gentlemanly, is to say
that he has certain qualities of character or manner which are wholly
independent of the circumstances of his family or training. In the latter

case, we speak of individual and personal qualities; in the former, we
speak of external conditions. In the one case we refer to the man
himself; in the other, to certain circumstances around him. The quality
which is called gentlemanly is that which, theoretically, and often
actually, distinguishes the person who is born in a certain social
position. It describes the manner in which such a person ought to
behave.
Behavior, however, can be imitated. Therefore, neither the fact of birth
under certain conditions, nor a certain ease and grace and charm of
manner, certify the essential character of gentleman. Lovelace had the
air and breeding of a gentleman like Don Giovanni; he was familiar
with polite society; he was refined and pleasing and fascinating in
manner. Even the severe Astarte could not call him a boor. She does
not know a gentleman, probably, more gentlemanly than Lovelace. She
must, then, admit that she can not arbitrarily deny Lovelace to be a
gentleman because he is a libertine, or because he is false, or mean, or
of a coarse mind. She may, indeed, insist that only upright and
honorable men of refined mind and manner are gentlemen, and she may
also maintain that only men of truly lofty and royal souls are princes;
but there will still remain crowds of immoral gentlemen and unworthy
kings.
The persons who abused the generous courtesy of the Northern Pacific
trip were gentlemen in one sense, and not in the other. They were
gentlemen so far as they could not help themselves, but they were not
gentlemen in what depended upon their own will. According to the
story, they did not even imitate the conduct of gentlemen, and Astarte
must admit that they belonged to the large class of ungentlemanly
gentlemen.
(December, 1883)

THEATRE MANNERS
An admirable actress said the other day that the audience in the theatre
was probably little aware how much its conduct affected the
performance. A listless, whispering, uneasy house makes a distracted
and ineffective play. To an orator, or an actor, or an artist of any kind
who appeals