Well, now, 'gentleman' is a thing we've made easy to come by. Once upon a time, it meant something. Now it doesn't, really. Is that an improvement? Are we glad about all this progress?
9 comments:
ymarsakar
said...
Your post about Gentleman and the armsmen tradition uniquely parallels that of the samurai condition post Sekigahara 1600.
They dealt with similar problems.
It continued all the way to and past MacArthur's GHQ occupation.
All people have arms, but they generally refer to the tools and weapons attached to the arms.
Thus a bomb is a device, it doesn't have to be attached to a human arm to be used. In fact, it would be more optimal for it not to be such. Thus WMDs and poison gas are out of it, since missiles and even rocket launchers, aren't necessarily attached to arms either.
The progress from the Age of Gold, the Age of Silver, and the Age of Copper is returning itself to the Age of Gold from our Age of Iron.
Thus soon there won't be a need for arms or armor, shields or swords.
Until then, they will still be mighty effective in man killing man. Although these days, people get more kills racked up from abortion centers and laws and police authorities. Instead of telling me to go out in a blaze of glory fighting the Deep State while everyone else sites back talking about how worrisome and dangerous war is, they would have been better to direct the kill count matters to the organizations that had a high kill count already, if that was what mattered to the so called "soldiers and warriors".
While having physical arms and armor might be nice, it pales in comparison to what is known as the Armor and Arms of God, the firepower and Host of the Divine, as Yeshua once noted he had command of.
That term, however, loses all of its meaning when translated to human dimensions. It would be like explaining 4d and 5d battlespace and battlesphere logistics and mechanics to a muscle bound warrior who only knew how iron worked on human flesh, whose logistics came from pillaging and raiding. They may understand 1% of it, but not much more than that.
C.S. Lewis pondered the changed meaning of "gentleman" in one of his essays. He concluded that in changing the meaning, we lost a perfectly good word that described a particular thing, in order to add a new term for something already well covered.
No, I am not happy about this “progress.” In fact, I believe it’s a regression that bodes ill for the health of our society. Yet another indication that we live in a graceless age.
I don't know that gentility is the right mode for Americans. I think we as a nation are more yeomen, with their longbows and independent farms, rather than any form of nobility.
A gentleman under that old meaning was born one in most cases, I believe. The definitions in the dictionary generally refer to breeding and family or social position. It was not the case that everyone could become gentle, so saying that every American can become a gentleman or gentlewoman is as much a change in meaning as the current use of it to mean polite and well-dressed or foppish.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives the following definitions:
1. A man of gentle or noble birth or superior social position: "He's too much a gentleman to be a scholar" (Aphra Behn). 2. A well-mannered and considerate man with high standards of proper behavior. See Usage Note at lady. 3. A man of independent means who does not need to have a wage-paying job. 4. A man: Do you know this gentleman? 5. gentlemen (-mən) Used as a form of address for a group of men. 6. A manservant; a valet.
Here's the Collins English Dictionary entry for yeoman:
1. (Historical Terms) history a. a member of a class of small freeholders of common birth who cultivated their own land b. an assistant or other subordinate to an official, such as a sheriff, or to a craftsman or trader c. an attendant or lesser official in a royal or noble household 2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Britain) another name for yeoman of the guard 3. (Historical Terms) (modifier) characteristic of or relating to a yeoman 4. (Military) a petty officer or noncommissioned officer in the Royal Navy or Marines in charge of signals
Free English men generally had the right to bear arms (weapons) for self-defense, so that too fits the US. There were limits, such as the English Bill of Rights (1689) which limited the right to bear arms to Protestants, but still, the general idea is there.
I used Blackstone's definition because his Commentaries were important to many of the Founders (and even as late as Lincoln). The Founders eliminated titles of nobility, but they didn't intend to eliminate the idea of honor or of honors. Indeed, members of Congress are called "the Honorable" (aspirationally more than deservedly), and Senators inherited the old Roman style, and oaths of office were included in the Constitution because the Founders thought they might be taken seriously by those who swore them. My sense is that they wanted us each to be as good as any; but that means that every American is a peer of the Queen, with a share in sovereignty over a greater nation, not that no American is.
Sure. I'm not challenging your sources or the Founders' intentions. They clearly believed in honor.
My specific points are, first, that to say that any American can be a gentleman / gentlewoman is as much a change of definition as the one you're objecting to, and second, if Americans are analogous to one of the traditional English social classes, we're more properly seen as the yeomanry.
Of course, language is always changing. Maybe the change in meaning of "gentleman" that is now common is for the worse, and maybe the change in meaning you propose would be for the better. Maybe we should adopt your definition, but that's a different question.
9 comments:
Your post about Gentleman and the armsmen tradition uniquely parallels that of the samurai condition post Sekigahara 1600.
They dealt with similar problems.
It continued all the way to and past MacArthur's GHQ occupation.
All people have arms, but they generally refer to the tools and weapons attached to the arms.
Thus a bomb is a device, it doesn't have to be attached to a human arm to be used. In fact, it would be more optimal for it not to be such. Thus WMDs and poison gas are out of it, since missiles and even rocket launchers, aren't necessarily attached to arms either.
The progress from the Age of Gold, the Age of Silver, and the Age of Copper is returning itself to the Age of Gold from our Age of Iron.
Thus soon there won't be a need for arms or armor, shields or swords.
Until then, they will still be mighty effective in man killing man. Although these days, people get more kills racked up from abortion centers and laws and police authorities. Instead of telling me to go out in a blaze of glory fighting the Deep State while everyone else sites back talking about how worrisome and dangerous war is, they would have been better to direct the kill count matters to the organizations that had a high kill count already, if that was what mattered to the so called "soldiers and warriors".
While having physical arms and armor might be nice, it pales in comparison to what is known as the Armor and Arms of God, the firepower and Host of the Divine, as Yeshua once noted he had command of.
That term, however, loses all of its meaning when translated to human dimensions. It would be like explaining 4d and 5d battlespace and battlesphere logistics and mechanics to a muscle bound warrior who only knew how iron worked on human flesh, whose logistics came from pillaging and raiding. They may understand 1% of it, but not much more than that.
C.S. Lewis pondered the changed meaning of "gentleman" in one of his essays. He concluded that in changing the meaning, we lost a perfectly good word that described a particular thing, in order to add a new term for something already well covered.
No, I am not happy about this “progress.” In fact, I believe it’s a regression that bodes ill for the health of our society. Yet another indication that we live in a graceless age.
I don't know that gentility is the right mode for Americans. I think we as a nation are more yeomen, with their longbows and independent farms, rather than any form of nobility.
A gentleman under that old meaning was born one in most cases, I believe. The definitions in the dictionary generally refer to breeding and family or social position. It was not the case that everyone could become gentle, so saying that every American can become a gentleman or gentlewoman is as much a change in meaning as the current use of it to mean polite and well-dressed or foppish.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives the following definitions:
1. A man of gentle or noble birth or superior social position: "He's too much a gentleman to be a scholar" (Aphra Behn).
2. A well-mannered and considerate man with high standards of proper behavior. See Usage Note at lady.
3. A man of independent means who does not need to have a wage-paying job.
4. A man: Do you know this gentleman?
5. gentlemen (-mən) Used as a form of address for a group of men.
6. A manservant; a valet.
Here's the Collins English Dictionary entry for yeoman:
1. (Historical Terms) history
a. a member of a class of small freeholders of common birth who cultivated their own land
b. an assistant or other subordinate to an official, such as a sheriff, or to a craftsman or trader
c. an attendant or lesser official in a royal or noble household
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Britain) another name for yeoman of the guard
3. (Historical Terms) (modifier) characteristic of or relating to a yeoman
4. (Military) a petty officer or noncommissioned officer in the Royal Navy or Marines in charge of signals
Free English men generally had the right to bear arms (weapons) for self-defense, so that too fits the US. There were limits, such as the English Bill of Rights (1689) which limited the right to bear arms to Protestants, but still, the general idea is there.
Tom:
I used Blackstone's definition because his Commentaries were important to many of the Founders (and even as late as Lincoln). The Founders eliminated titles of nobility, but they didn't intend to eliminate the idea of honor or of honors. Indeed, members of Congress are called "the Honorable" (aspirationally more than deservedly), and Senators inherited the old Roman style, and oaths of office were included in the Constitution because the Founders thought they might be taken seriously by those who swore them. My sense is that they wanted us each to be as good as any; but that means that every American is a peer of the Queen, with a share in sovereignty over a greater nation, not that no American is.
Sure. I'm not challenging your sources or the Founders' intentions. They clearly believed in honor.
My specific points are, first, that to say that any American can be a gentleman / gentlewoman is as much a change of definition as the one you're objecting to, and second, if Americans are analogous to one of the traditional English social classes, we're more properly seen as the yeomanry.
Of course, language is always changing. Maybe the change in meaning of "gentleman" that is now common is for the worse, and maybe the change in meaning you propose would be for the better. Maybe we should adopt your definition, but that's a different question.
Post a Comment