DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52059#0036
[ 34 ]
he says, “ that no man can be properly called a gentle-
man except he be a gentleman of bloud, possessing
vertue” {Blazon of Gentrie, 1586, p. 87). The contrary
opinion again appears in Selden’s Titles of Honour
(1631) thus : “ Vulgar use now hath so altered the genuine
sense of generosus, that it frequently denotes any kind
of gentleman, either by birth or otherwise, truly enjoying
that name, as well as nobilisT* The reason of these
diverging opinions is, of course, that the word already
included two distinct meanings.
According to Clement Ellis {The Gentile Sinner, 1660,
and frequently, p. 10), there was at one time a great
danger that the word might assume a very bad meaning :
“Never,” he exclaims, “honest name was more abused
than this of gentleman ; indeed it is to be feared that
having been so long misapplied, it wil at last find the
like hard measure with those other once more honest
names of tyrant and sophister, and from a title of honour
degenerate into a term of the greatest disgrace and
infamy. It is, indeed, already made to be of no better
a signification than this, to denote a person of a licentious
and an unbridled life; for though it be, as ’tis used, a
word of a very uncertain and equivocal sound, and given
at random to persons of farre different, nay contrary
both humours, descents, and merits, yet a gentleman
must be thought only such a man, as may, without
controle, do what he lists, and sin with applause : one
that esteems it base and ungentile, to fear a God, to own
a law, or practise a religion.” With this we may com-
pare the following passage, which is found in the Tatler,
1 Both passages are quoted by Mr. Croft in his edition of Elyot’s
Governor, vol. ii. 27.
he says, “ that no man can be properly called a gentle-
man except he be a gentleman of bloud, possessing
vertue” {Blazon of Gentrie, 1586, p. 87). The contrary
opinion again appears in Selden’s Titles of Honour
(1631) thus : “ Vulgar use now hath so altered the genuine
sense of generosus, that it frequently denotes any kind
of gentleman, either by birth or otherwise, truly enjoying
that name, as well as nobilisT* The reason of these
diverging opinions is, of course, that the word already
included two distinct meanings.
According to Clement Ellis {The Gentile Sinner, 1660,
and frequently, p. 10), there was at one time a great
danger that the word might assume a very bad meaning :
“Never,” he exclaims, “honest name was more abused
than this of gentleman ; indeed it is to be feared that
having been so long misapplied, it wil at last find the
like hard measure with those other once more honest
names of tyrant and sophister, and from a title of honour
degenerate into a term of the greatest disgrace and
infamy. It is, indeed, already made to be of no better
a signification than this, to denote a person of a licentious
and an unbridled life; for though it be, as ’tis used, a
word of a very uncertain and equivocal sound, and given
at random to persons of farre different, nay contrary
both humours, descents, and merits, yet a gentleman
must be thought only such a man, as may, without
controle, do what he lists, and sin with applause : one
that esteems it base and ungentile, to fear a God, to own
a law, or practise a religion.” With this we may com-
pare the following passage, which is found in the Tatler,
1 Both passages are quoted by Mr. Croft in his edition of Elyot’s
Governor, vol. ii. 27.