Gentleman (Old French:gentilz hom, gentle + man; abbreviatedgent.) is a term for achivalrous,courteous, or honorableman.^[1] Originally,gentleman was the lowest rank of thelanded gentry of England, ranking below anesquire and above ayeoman; by definition, the rank ofgentleman comprised the younger sons of the younger sons of peers, and the younger sons of abaronet, aknight, and an esquire, in perpetual succession. As such, the connotation of the termgentleman captures the common denominator of gentility (and often acoat of arms); a right shared by the peerage and the gentry, the constituent classes of theBritish nobility.

Thus, the English social category ofgentleman corresponds to the Frenchgentilhomme (nobleman), which in Great Britain meant a member of thepeerage of England.^[2] English historianMaurice Keen further clarifies this point, stating that, in this context, the social category of gentleman is "the nearest contemporary English equivalent of thenoblesse of France."^[3] In the 14th century, the termgentlemen comprised the hereditary ruling class, which is whom the rebels of thePeasants' Revolt (1381) meant when they repeated:

When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who was then the gentleman?^[4]

In the 17th century, inTitles of Honour (1614), the juristJohn Selden said that the titlegentleman likewise speaks of "our English use of it" as convertible withnobilis (nobility by rank or personal quality)^[5] and describes the forms of a man's elevation to the nobility in European monarchies.^[2] In the 19th century,James Henry Lawrence explained and discussed the concepts, particulars, and functions ofsocial rank in a monarchy, in the bookOn the Nobility of the British Gentry, or the Political Ranks and Dignities of the British Empire, Compared with those on the Continent (1827).^[6]

InThe Tale of Melibee (c. 1386), Geoffrey Chaucer says: "Certes he sholde not be called a gentil man, that . . . ne dooth his diligence and bisynesse, to kepen his good name"; and inThe Wife of Bath's Tale (1388-1396):

Loke who that is most vertuous alway
Prive and apert, and most entendeth ay
To do the gentil dedes that he can
And take him for the gretest gentilman

In the French allegorical poemThe Romance of the Rose (ca. 1400),Guillaume de Lorris andJean de Meun described the innate character of a gentleman: "He is gentil bycause he doth as longeth to a gentilman."^[7] That definition develops until the 18th century, when in 1710, in theTatler No. 207,Richard Steele said that "the appellation of Gentleman is never to be affixed to a man's circumstances, but to his Behaviour in them." Hence, the apocryphal reply of KingJames II of England to a lady's petition to elevate her son to the rank of gentleman: "I could make him a nobleman, but God Almighty could not make him a gentleman."

Selden said "that no Charter can make a Gentleman, which is cited as out of the mouth of some great Princes [who] have said it," because "they, without question, understood Gentleman forGenerosus in the antient sense, or as if it came fromGenii/[Geni] in that sense." The wordgentilis identifies a man of noble family, a gentleman by birth, for "no creation could make a man of another blood than he is."^[7] In contemporary usage, the wordgentleman is ambiguously defined, because "to behave like a gentleman" communicates as little praise or as much criticism as the speaker means to imply; thus, "to spend money like a gentleman" is criticism, but "to conduct a business like a gentleman" is praise.^[7]

In the 16th century, the clergymanWilliam Harrison said that "gentlemen be those whom their race and blood, or at the least theirvirtues, do make noble and known." In that time, a gentleman usually was expected to have acoat of arms, it being accepted that only a gentleman could have a coat of arms,^[2] as indicated in an account of how gentlemen were made in the day ofWilliam Shakespeare:

Gentlemen whose ancestors are not known to come in withWilliam duke of Normandy (for of theSaxon races yet remaining we now make none accompt, much less of theBritish issue) do take their beginning inEngland after this manner in our times. Who soever studieth the laws of the realm, who so abideth in theuniversity, giving his mind to his book, or professeth physic and theliberal sciences, or beside his service in the room of a captain in the wars, or good counsel given at home, whereby his commonwealth is benefited, can live without manual labour, and thereto is able and will bear the port, charge and countenance of a gentleman, he shall for money have a coat andarms bestowed upon him by heralds (who in the charter of the same do of custom pretend antiquity and service) and thereunto being made so good cheap be calledmaster, which is the title that men give toesquires and gentlemen, and reputed for a gentleman ever after. Which is so much the less to be disallowed of, for that theprince doth lose nothing by it, the gentleman being so much subject to taxes and public payments as is theyeoman orhusbandman, which he likewise doth bear the gladlier for the saving of his reputation. Being called also to the wars (for with the government of the commonwealth he medleth little) what soever it cost him, he will both array and arm himself accordingly, and show the more manly courage, and all the tokens of the person which he representeth. No man hath hurt by it but himself, who peradventure will go in widerbuskins than his legs will bear, or as our proverb saith, now and then bear a bigger sail than his boat is able to sustain.

In this way,William Shakespeare himself was demonstrated, by the grant ofhis coat of arms, to be no "vagabond", but a gentleman.^[2] The inseparability of arms and gentility is shown by two of his characters:

Petruchio: I swear I'll cuff you if you strike again.
Katharine: So may you lose your arms: If you strike me, you are no gentleman;
And if no gentleman, why then no arms.
—The Taming of the Shrew, Act II, Scene i

However, although only a gentleman could have a coat of arms (so that possession of a coat of arms was proof of gentility), the coat of arms recognised, rather than created, the status (see G. D. Squibb,The High Court of Chivalry, pp. 170–177). Thus, allarmigers were gentlemen, but not all gentlemen were armigers. Hence,Henry V, act IV, scene iii:

For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother: be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition.
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here
And hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks
That fought with us upon St. Crispin's Day.

The fundamental idea of "gentry", symbolised in this grant of coat-armour, had come to be that of the essential superiority of the fighting man, and, as Selden points out (page 707), the fiction was usually maintained in the granting of arms "to an ennobled person though of the long Robe wherein he hath little use of them as they mean a shield." At the last, the wearing of a sword on all occasions was the outward and visible sign of a gentleman; the custom survives in the sword worn withcourt dress.^[2]

A suggestion that a gentlemanmust have acoat of arms was vigorously advanced by certain 19th and 20th century heraldists, notablyArthur Charles Fox-Davies in England andThomas Innes of Learney in Scotland. The suggestion is discredited by an examination, in England, of the records of theHigh Court of Chivalry and, in Scotland, by a judgment of theCourt of Session (per Lord Mackay inMaclean of Ardgour v. Maclean [1941] SC 613 at 650). The significance of a right to a coat of arms was that it was definitive proof of the status of gentleman, but it recognised rather than conferred such a status, and the status could be and frequently was accepted without a right to a coat of arms.

InEast Asia, the characteristics of a gentleman are based upon the principles ofConfucianism, wherein the termJūnzǐ (君子) denotes and identifies the "son of a ruler", a "prince", a "noble man"; and the ideals that conceptually define "gentleman", "proper man", and a "perfect man". Conceptually,Jūnzǐ included an hereditary elitism, which obliged the gentleman to act ethically, to:

• morally cultivate himself;
• participate in the correct performance of ritual;
• show filial piety and loyalty to whom due; and
• cultivate humanity.

The opposite of theJūnzǐ is theXiǎorén (小人), "petty person" and "small person". As in English, in the Chinese usage the wordsmall, can denote and connote a person who is "mean", "petty in mind and heart", and "narrowly self-interested", greedy, materialistic, and personally superficial.

TheSouthern gentleman of theAntebellum South was expected to protect the honor and property of both himself and his family members, acting as achivalric ideal of the whiteplanter class supposedly descended from the knights and cavaliers of the medieval and colonial eras.^[8][9]

Robert E. Lee's definition speaks only to conduct.

The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman.

The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly—the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light.

The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He can not only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others. As quoted byBradford 1912, p. 233

Lee's conception is one of the better known expositions in favor of theSouthern culture of honor.

That a distinct order oflanded gentry existed in England very early has, indeed, been often assumed and is supported by weighty authorities. Thus, the late Professor Freeman (inEncyclopædia Britannica xvii. page 540 b, 9th edition) said: "Early in the 11th century the order of 'gentlemen' as a separate class seems to be forming as something new. By the time of the conquest of England the distinction seems to have been fully established." Stubbs (Const. Hist., ed. 1878, iii. 544, 548) takes the same view. SirGeorge Sitwell, however, has suggested that this opinion is based on a wrong conception of the conditions ofmedieval society and that it is wholly opposed to the documentary evidence.^[2]

The most basic class distinctions in theMiddle Ages were between thenobiles, i.e., the tenants inchivalry, such asearls,barons,knights,esquires, the freeignobiles such as thecitizens andburgesses, andfranklins, and the unfreepeasantry includingvilleins andserfs. Even as late as 1400, the wordgentleman still only had the descriptive sense ofgenerosus and could not be used as denoting the title of a class. Yet after 1413, we find it increasingly so used, and the list of landowners in 1431, printed inFeudal Aids, contains, besides knights, esquires,yeomen and husbandmen (i.e. householders), a fair number who are classed as "gentilman".^[2]

SirGeorge Sitwell gave a lucid, instructive and occasionally amusing explanation of this development. The immediate cause was the statute1 Hen. 5. c. 5. of 1413, which laid down that in all original writs of action, personal appeals and indictments, in which process ofoutlawry lies, the "estate degree or mystery" of the defendant must be stated, as well as his present or former domicile. At this time, theBlack Death (1349) had put the traditional social organization out of gear. Before that, the younger sons of the nobles had received their share of the farm stock, bought or hired land, and settled down as agriculturists in their native villages. Under the new conditions, this became increasingly impossible, and they were forced to seek their fortunes abroad in theFrench wars, or at home as hangers-on of the great nobles. These men, under the old system, had no definite status; but they weregenerosi, men of birth, and, being now forced to describe themselves, they disdained to be classed with franklins (now sinking in the social scale), still more with yeomen or husbandmen; they chose, therefore, to be described as "gentlemen".^[10]

On the character of these earliest gentlemen the records throw a lurid light. Sir George Sitwell (p. 76), describes a man typical of his class, one who had served among the men-at-arms ofLord John Talbot at theBattle of Agincourt:^[7]

the premier gentleman of England, as the matter now stands, is "Robert Ercleswyke ofStafford, gentilman"...Fortunately—for the gentle reader will no doubt be anxious to follow in his footsteps—some particulars of his life may be gleaned from the public records. He was charged at theStaffordshireAssizes with housebreaking, wounding with intent to kill, and procuring the murder of one Thomas Page, who was cut to pieces while on his knees begging for his life.

If any earlier claimant to the title ofgentleman be discovered, Sir George Sitwell predicted that it will be within the same year (1414) and in connection with some similar disreputable proceedings.^[7]

From these unpromising beginnings, the separate order of gentlemen evolved very slowly. The first gentleman commemorated on an existing monument was John Daundelyon ofMargate (diedcirca 1445); the first gentleman to enter theHouse of Commons, hitherto composed mainly of "valets", was William Weston, "gentylman"; but even in the latter half of the 15th century, the order was not clearly established. As to the connection ofgentilesse with the official grant or recognition of coat-armour, that is a profitable fiction invented and upheld by theheralds; for coat-armour was the badge assumed by gentlemen to distinguish them in battle, and many gentlemen of long descent never had occasion to assume it and never did.^[7]

This fiction, however, had its effect, and by the 16th century, as has been already pointed out, the official view had become clearly established that gentlemen constituted a distinct social order and that the badge of this distinction was theheralds' recognition of the right to bear arms.^[7] However, some undoubtedly "gentle" families of long descent never obtained official rights to bear a coat of arms, the family of Strickland being an example, which caused some consternation whenLord Strickland applied to join theOrder of Malta in 1926 and could prove no right to a coat of arms, although his direct male ancestor had carried the English royal banner of St. George at theBattle of Agincourt.^{[citation needed]}

The younger sons of noble families becameapprentices in the cities, and there grew up a newaristocracy oftrade. Merchants are still "citizens" to William Harrison; but he adds "they often change estate with gentlemen, as gentlemen do with them, by a mutual conversion of the one into the other."^[7]

A frontier line between classes so indefinite could not be maintained in some societies such as England, where there was never a "nobiliary prefix" to stamp a person as a gentleman, as opposed toFrance orGermany. The process was hastened, moreover, by the corruption of theHeralds' College and by the ease with which coats of arms could be assumed without a shadow of claim, which tended to bring the science ofheraldry into contempt.^[7]

The prefix "de" attached to some English names is in no sense "nobiliary". In Latin documentsde was the equivalent of the English "of", asde la for "at" (sode la Pole for "Atte Poole"; compare such names as "Attwood" or "Attwater"). In English this "of" disappeared during the 15th century: for example the grandson ofJohannes de Stoke (John of Stoke) in a 14th-century document becomes "John Stoke". In modern times, under the influence ofromanticism, the prefix "de" has been in some cases "revived" under a misconception, e.g. "de Trafford", "de Hoghton". Very rarely it is correctly retained as derived from a foreign place-name, e.g. "de Grey".^[7] The situation varies somewhat in Scotland, where theterritorial designation still exists and its use is regulated by law.

With the growth of trade and theIndustrial Revolution from 1700 to 1900, the term widened to include men of the urban professional classes: lawyers, doctors and even merchants. By 1841, the rules of the new gentlemen's club atOotacamund was to include: "...gentlemen of the Mercantile or other professions, moving in the ordinary circle of Indian society".^[11]

At severalmonarchs' courts, various functions bear titles containing such rank designations as gentleman (suggesting it is to be filled by a member of the lower nobility, or acommoner who will be ennobled, while the highest posts are often reserved for the higher nobility). In English, the terms for the English/Scottish/British court (equivalents may includeLady for women,Page for young men) include:

• Gentleman at Arms
• Gentleman-in-waiting
• Gentleman of the bedchamber
• Gentleman of theChapel Royal
• Gentleman-usher

InFrance, gentilhomme

• ... rendered as "gentleman-in-ordinary"
• ... as gentleman of the bed-chamber

InSpain, e.g.,Gentilhombre de la casa del príncipe, "gentleman of the house[hold] of the prince"

Such positions can occur in the household of a non-member of a ruling family, such as aprince of the church:

• Gentiluomo of the Archbishop of Westminster

The wordgentleman as an index of rank had already become of doubtful value before the great political and social changes of the 19th century gave to it a wider and essentially higher significance. The change is well illustrated in the definitions given in the successive editions of theEncyclopædia Britannica. In the 5th edition (1815), "a gentleman is one, who without any title, bears acoat of arms, or whose ancestors have beenfreemen." In the 7th edition (1845) it still implies a definite social status: "All above the rank ofyeomen." In the 8th edition (1856), this is still its "most extended sense"; "in a more limited sense" it is defined in the same words as those quoted above from the 5th edition; but the writer adds, "By courtesy this title is generally accorded to all persons above the rank of common tradesmen when their manners are indicative of a certain amount of refinement and intelligence."^[7]

TheReform Act 1832 did its work; themiddle classes came into their own, and the wordgentleman came in common use to signify not a distinction ofblood, but a distinction of position,education andmanners.By this usage, the test is no longer good birth or the right to bear arms, but the capacity to mingle on equal terms in good society.^[7]

In its best use, moreover,gentleman involves a certain superior standard of conduct, due, to quote the 8th edition once more, to "that self-respect and intellectual refinement which manifest themselves in unrestrained yet delicate manners." The wordgentle, originally implying a certain social status, had very early come to be associated with the standard of manners expected from that status. Thus, by a sort ofpunning process, the "gentleman" becomes a "gentle-man".^[7]

In another sense, being a gentleman means treating others, especially women, in a respectful manner and not taking advantage or pushing others into doing things they do not wish to do. The exception, of course, is to push someone into something they need to do for their own good, such as a visit to the hospital, or pursuing a dream they have suppressed.

In some cases, its meaning becomes twisted through misguided efforts to avoid offending anyone; a news report of a riot may refer to a "gentleman" trying to smash a window with a dustbin in order to loot a store. Similar use (notably betweenquotation marks or in an appropriate tone) may also be deliberateirony.

Another relatively recent usage ofgentleman is as a prefix to another term to imply that a man has sufficient wealth and free time to pursue an area of interest without depending on it for his livelihood. Examples includegentleman scientist,gentleman farmer, gentleman architect,^[12] andgentleman pirate. A very specific incarnation and possible origin of this practise existed until 1962 incricket, where a man playing the game was a "gentleman cricketer" if he did not get asalary for taking part in the game. By tradition, suchgentlemen were from the Britishgentry oraristocracy - as opposed toplayers, who were not. In the same way in horse racing a gentleman rider is an amateur jockey, racing horses in specific flat and hurdle races.

The termgentleman is used in the United States'Uniform Code of Military Justice in a provision referring to "conduct befitting an officer and a gentleman."

The use of the termgentleman is a central concept in many books ofAmerican Literature:Adrift in New York, byHoratio Alger; "Fraternity: A Romance of Inspiration, by Anonymous, with a tipped in Letter from J.P. Morgan (1836);Gone with the Wind, byMargaret Mitchell (1936). It relates to education and manners, a certain code of conduct regarding women that has been incorporated in the U.S. into various civil rights laws and anti-sexual-harassment laws that define a code of conduct to be followed by law in the workplace.^{[citation needed]}Scarlett O'Hara inGone with the Wind states "You're no gentleman" on occasions when a lack of manners and respect toward her causes her to feel insulted.

"Ladies and gentlemen" is a common salutation used in formal speeches and other public addresses, sometimes followed by "boys and girls".

In its original, nobiliary sense, the term "Gentleman" is still used by theCommission and Association for the Armigerous Families of Great Britain, Britain'sCILANE member association, as well as those orders of chivalry that require nobility for admission to their higher grades.^[13] Gentlemen in this sense form the lowest rank of theBritish historical nobility. It is the only social rank in Britain that is transmissible to all (male-line) descendants, not just by primogeniture. The class of Gentlemen under this definition usually consists ofGentlemen Armigers, i.e. all those who are entitled toarmorial bearings, through grant or inheritance. As arms are stillgranted by theCollege of Arms andLord Lyon, the British gentry remains open to new families unlike its Continental equivalents, which are usually not renewed by new ennoblements anymore either because the monarchy that would have the right to do so has been abolished or because the government has adopted a policy of treating the nobility as a closed and purely historical class.^[14]

Gentlemen possess gentility, that is, the condition corresponding to untitled nobility on the Continent. A grant of arms, at least in the English sense, does notconfer gentility but ratherconfirms that it has been earned or demonstrated by the recipient. The evalutation of eligibility for a grant is, in fact, a test of gentility. Practically, this means that a grant of arms will consolidate gentility which has been acquired under one of the above definitions and turn it into a hereditary quality that is henceforth demonstrated by the grantee's descendants by proving the right to inherited arms (or, in Scotland, to matriculate a differenced version of his arms).

Gentility is also automatically accorded with certain offices and ranks, such as that of abarrister. It is however not hereditary in that case, and will not suffice for admission to most strictly "noble" organisations, unless a grant of arms is sought which gives hereditary gentility.

Formal gentility is of less social importance on the British Isles than on the Continent, and it is but one of the many factors that determine membership in theupper classes. However, those who belong to the upper or upper middle class are typically eligible for a grant of arms should they apply for it, and would then be able to use it as a formal proof of status in the Continental context.

• Roetzel, Bernhard (2009).Gentleman: A Timeless Guide to Fashion (3rd ed.). Köln: h. f. Ullmann.ISBN 9780841608931.OCLC 501389868.

•   The dictionary definition ofgentleman at Wiktionary