The Romany Rye

  CHAPTER V--SUBJECT OF GENTILITY CONTINUED

  In the last chapter have been exhibited specimens of gentility, soconsidered by different classes; by one class, power, youth, and epauletsare considered the _ne plus ultra_ of gentility; by another class, pride,stateliness, and title; by another, wealth and flaming tawdriness. Butwhat constitutes a gentleman? It is easy to say at once what constitutesa gentleman, and there are no distinctions in what is gentlemanly, {331}as there are in what is genteel. The characteristics of a gentleman arehigh feeling, a determination never to take a cowardly advantage ofanother, a liberal education, absence of narrow views, generosity andcourage, propriety of behaviour. Now a person may be genteel accordingto one or another of the three standards described above, and not possessone of the characteristics of a gentleman. Is the Emperor a gentleman,with spatters of blood on his clothes, scourged from the backs of nobleHungarian women? Are the aristocracy gentlefolks, who admire him? IsMr. Flamson a gentleman, although he has a million pounds? No! cowardlymiscreants, admirers of cowardly miscreants, and people who make amillion pounds by means compared with which those employed to makefortunes by the getters-up of the South Sea Bubble might be called honestdealing, are decidedly not gentle-folks. Now, as it is clearlydemonstrable that a person may be perfectly genteel according to somestandard or other and yet be no gentleman, so is it demonstrable that aperson may have no pretensions to gentility and yet be a gentleman. Forexample there is Lavengro! Would the admirers of the Emperor, or theadmirers of those who admire the Emperor, or the admirers of Mr. Flamson,call him genteel?--and gentility with them is everything! Assuredly theywould not; and assuredly they would consider him respectively as a beingto be shunned, despised, or hooted. Genteel! Why, at one time he is ahack author--writes reviewals for eighteenpence a page--edits a Newgatechronicle. At another he wanders the country with a face grimy fromoccasionally mending kettles; and there is no evidence that his clothesare not seedy and torn, and his shoes down at the heel; but by whatprocess of reasoning will they prove that he is no gentleman! Is he notlearned? Has he not generosity and courage? Whilst a hack author doeshe pawn the books entrusted to him to review? Does he break his word tohis publisher? Does he write begging letters? Does he get clothes orlodgings without paying for them? Again, whilst a wanderer, does heinsult helpless women on the road with loose proposals or ribalddiscourse? Does he take what is not his own from the hedges? Does heplay on the fiddle, or make faces in public-houses, in order to obtainpence or beer? or does he call for liquor, swallow it, and then say to awidowed landlady, 'Mistress, I have no brass'? In a word, what vice andcrime does he perpetrate--what low acts does he commit? Therefore, withhis endowments, who will venture to say that he is no gentleman?--unlessit be an admirer of Mr. Flamson--a clown--who will, perhaps, shout: 'Isay he is no gentleman; for who can be a gentleman who keeps no gig?'{332}

  The indifference exhibited by Lavengro for what is merely genteel,compared with his solicitude never to infringe the strict laws of honour,should read a salutary lesson. The generality of his countrymen are farmore careful not to transgress the customs of what they call gentilitythan to violate the laws of honour or morality. They will shrink fromcarrying their own carpet-bag, and from speaking to a person in seedyraiment, whilst to matters of much higher importance they are shamelesslyindifferent. Not so Lavengro; he will do anything that he deemsconvenient, or which strikes his fancy, provided it does not outragedecency, or is unallied to profligacy; is not ashamed to speak to abeggar in rags, and will associate with anybody, provided he can gratifya laudable curiosity. He has no abstract love for what is low, or whatthe world calls low. He sees that many things which the world looks downupon are valuable, so he prizes much which the world contemns; he seesthat many things which the world admires are contemptible, so he despisesmuch which the world does not; but when the world prizes what is reallyexcellent, he does not contemn it, because the world regards it. If helearns Irish, which all the world scoffs at, he likewise learns Italian,which all the world melts at. If he learns Gypsy, the language of thetattered tent, he likewise learns Greek, the language of the collegehall. If he learns smithery, he also learns--ah! what does he learn toset against smithery?--the law? No; he does not learn the law, which, bythe way, is not very genteel. Swimming! Yes, he learns to swim.Swimming, however, is not genteel; and the world--at least the genteelpart of it--acts very wisely in setting its face against it; for to swimyou must be naked, and how would many a genteel person look without hisclothes? Come, he learns horsemanship; a very genteel accomplishment,which every genteel person would gladly possess, though not all genteelpeople do.

  Again as to associates: if he holds communion when a boy with Murtagh,the scarecrow of an Irish academy, he associates in after life withFrancis Ardry, a rich and talented young Irish gentleman about town. Ifhe accepts an invitation from Mr. Petulengro to his tent, he has noobjection to go home with a rich genius to dinner; who then will say thathe prizes a thing or a person because they are ungenteel? That he is notready to take up with everything that is ungenteel he gives a proof, whenhe refuses, though on the brink of starvation, to become bonnet to thethimble-man, an office which, though profitable, is positively ungenteel.Ah! but some sticker-up for gentility will exclaim, 'The hero did notrefuse this office from an insurmountable dislike to its ungentility, butmerely from a feeling of principle.' Well! the writer is not fond ofargument, and he will admit that such was the case; he admits that it wasa love of principle, rather than an over-regard for gentility, whichprevented the hero from accepting, when on the brink of starvation, anungenteel though lucrative office, an office which, the writer begs leaveto observe, many a person with a great regard for gentility, and noparticular regard for principle, would in a similar strait have accepted;for when did a mere love for gentility keep a person from being a dirtyscoundrel, when the alternatives apparently were 'either be a dirtyscoundrel or starve'? One thing, however, is certain, which is, thatLavengro did not accept the office, which if a love for what is low hadbeen his ruling passion he certainly would have done; consequently, herefuses to do one thing which no genteel person would willingly do, evenas he does many things which every genteel person would gladly do, forexample speaks Italian, rides on horseback, associates with a fashionableyoung man, dines with a rich genius, et cetera. Yet--and it cannot beminced--he and gentility with regard to many things are at strangedivergency; he shrinks from many things at which gentility placidly humsa tune, or approvingly simpers, and does some things at which gentilitypositively sinks. He will not run into debt for clothes or lodgings,which he might do without any scandal to gentility; he will not receivemoney from Francis Ardry, and go to Brighton with the sister of AnnetteLe Noir, though there is nothing ungenteel in borrowing money from afriend, even when you never intend to repay him, and something poignantlygenteel in going to a watering-place with a gay young Frenchwoman; but hehas no objection, after raising twenty pounds by the sale of thatextraordinary work 'Joseph Sell,' to set off into the country, mendkettles under hedgerows, and make pony and donkey shoes in a dingle.Here, perhaps, some plain, well-meaning person will cry--and with muchapparent justice--how can the writer justify him in this act? Whatmotive, save a love for what is low, could induce him to do such things?Would the writer have everybody who is in need of recreation go into thecountry, mend kettles under hedges, and make pony shoes in dingles? Tosuch an observation the writer would answer that Lavengro had anexcellent motive in doing what he did, but that the writer is not sounreasonable as to wish everybody to do the same. It is not everybodywho can mend kettles. It is not everybody who is in similarcircumstances to those in which Lavengro was. Lavengro flies from Londonand hack authorship, and takes to the roads from fear of consumption; itis expensive to put up at inns, and even at public-houses, and Lavengrohas not much money; so he buys a tinker's cart and apparatus, and sets upas tinker, and subsequently as blacksmith; a person living in a tent, orin anything else, mu
st do something or go mad; Lavengro had a mind, as hehimself well knew, with some slight tendency to madness, and had he notemployed himself, he must have gone wild; so to employ himself he drewupon one of his resources, the only one available at the time.Authorship had nearly killed him, he was sick of reading, and had besidesno books; but he possessed the rudiments of an art akin to tinkering; heknew something of smithery, having served a kind of apprenticeship inIreland to a fairy smith; so he draws upon his smithery to enable him toacquire tinkering, and through the help which it affords him, owing toits connection with tinkering, he speedily acquires that craft, even ashe had speedily acquired Welsh, owing to its connection with Irish, whichlanguage he possessed; and with tinkering he amuses himself until he laysit aside to resume smithery. A man who has any innocent resource, hasquite as much right to draw upon it in need, as he has upon a banker inwhose hands he has placed a sum; Lavengro turns to advantage, underparticular circumstances, a certain resource which he has, but people whoare not so forlorn as Lavengro, and have not served the sameapprenticeship which he had, are not advised to follow his example.Surely he was better employed in plying the trades of tinker and smiththan in having recourse to vice, in running after milk-maids for example.Running after milk-maids is by no means an ungenteel rural diversion; butlet any one ask some respectable casuist (the Bishop of London forexample), whether Lavengro was not far better employed, when in thecountry, at tinkering and smithery than he would have been in runningafter all the milkmaids in Cheshire, though tinkering is in generalconsidered a very ungenteel employment, and smithery little better,notwithstanding that an Orcadian poet, who wrote in Norse about eighthundred years ago, reckons the latter amongst nine noble arts which hepossessed, naming it along with playing at chess, on the harp, andravelling runes, or as the original has it 'treading runes'--that iscompressing them into a small compass by mingling one letter withanother, even as the Turkish caligraphists ravel the Arabic letters, moreespecially those who write talismans.

  'Nine arts have I, all noble; I play at chess so free, At ravelling runes I'm ready, At books and smithery; I'm skill'd o'er ice at skimming On skates, I shoot and row, And few at harping match me, Or minstrelsy, I trow.'

  But though Lavengro takes up smithery, which, though the Orcadian ranksit with chess-playing and harping, is certainly somewhat of a grimy art,there can be no doubt that, had he been wealthy and not so forlorn as hewas, he would have turned to many things, honourable, of course, inpreference. He has no objection to ride a fine horse when he has theopportunity: he has his day-dream of making a fortune of two hundredthousand pounds by becoming a merchant and doing business after theArmenian fashion; and there can be no doubt that he would have been gladto wear fine clothes, provided he had had sufficient funds to authorizehim in wearing them. For the sake of wandering the country and plyingthe hammer and tongs he would not have refused a commission in theservice of that illustrious monarch George the Fourth, provided he hadthought that he could live on his pay, and not be forced to run in debtto tradesmen, without any hope of paying them, for clothes and luxuries,as many highly genteel officers in that honourable service were in thehabit of doing. For the sake of tinkering he would certainly not haverefused a secretaryship of an embassy to Persia, in which he might haveturned his acquaintance with Persian, Arabic, and the Lord only knowswhat other languages, to account. He took to tinkering and smithery,because no better employments were at his command. No war is waged inthe book against rank, wealth, fine clothes, or dignified employments; itis shown, however, that a person may be a gentleman and a scholar withoutthem. Rank, wealth, fine clothes, and dignified employments, are nodoubt very fine things, but they are merely externals, they do not make agentleman, they add external grace and dignity to the gentleman andscholar, but they make neither; and is it not better to be a gentlemanwithout them than not a gentleman with them? Is not Lavengro, when heleaves London on foot with twenty pounds in his pocket, entitled to morerespect than Mr. Flamson flaming in his coach with a million? And is noteven the honest jockey at Horncastle, who offers a fair price to Lavengrofor his horse, entitled to more than the scoundrel lord, who attempts tocheat him of one-fourth of its value.

  Millions, however, seem to think otherwise, by their servile adoration ofpeople whom, without rank, wealth, and fine clothes, they would considerinfamous; but whom, possessed of rank, wealth, and glitteringhabiliments, they seem to admire all the more for their profligacy andcrimes. Does not a blood-spot or a lust-spot on the clothes of ablooming emperor give a kind of zest to the genteel young god? Do notthe pride, superciliousness, and selfishness of a certain aristocracymake it all the more regarded by its worshippers? And do not theclownish and gutter-blood admirers of Mr. Flamson like him all the morebecause they are conscious that he is a knave? If such is the case--and,alas! is it not the case?--they cannot be too frequently told that fineclothes, wealth, and titles adorn a person in proportion as he adornsthem; that if worn by the magnanimous and good they are ornaments indeed,but if by the vile and profligate they are merely san benitos, and onlyserve to make their infamy doubly apparent; and that a person in seedyraiment and tattered hat, possessed of courage, kindness, and virtue, isentitled to more respect from those to whom his virtues are manifestedthan any cruel profligate emperor, selfish aristocrat, or knavishmillionaire in the world.

  The writer has no intention of saying that all in England are affectedwith the absurd mania for gentility; nor is such a statement made in thebook; it is shown therein that individuals of various classes can prize agentleman, notwithstanding seedy raiment, dusty shoes, or tatteredhat--for example, the young Irishman, the rich genius, the postillion,and his employer. Again, when the life of the hero is given to theworld, amidst the howl about its lowness and vulgarity, raised by theservile crew whom its independence of sentiment has stung, more than onepowerful voice has been heard testifying approbation of its learning andthe purity of its morality. That there is some salt in England--mindsnot swayed by mere externals--he is fully convinced; if he were not, hewould spare himself the trouble of writing; but to the fact that thegenerality of his countrymen are basely grovelling before the shrine ofwhat they are pleased to call gentility he cannot shut his eyes.

  Oh! what a clever person that Cockney was, who, travelling in theAberdeen railroad carriage, after edifying the company with his remarkson various subjects, gave it as his opinion that Lieutenant P--- {337}would, in future, be shunned by all respectable society! And what asimple person that elderly gentleman was, who, abruptly starting, asked,in rather an authoritative voice, 'And why should Lieutenant P--- beshunned by respectable society?' and who, after entering into what wassaid to be a masterly analysis of the entire evidence of the case,concluded by stating, 'that having been accustomed to all kinds ofevidence all his life, he had never known a case in which the accused hadobtained a more complete and triumphant justification than LieutenantP--- had done in the late trial.'

  Now, the Cockney, who is said to have been a very foppish Cockney, wasperfectly right in what he said, and therein manifested a knowledge ofthe English mind and character, and likewise of the modern Englishlanguage, to which his catechist, who, it seems, was a distinguishedmember of the Scottish Bar, could lay no pretensions. The Cockney knewwhat the Lord of Session knew not--that the British public is gentilitycrazy--and he knew, moreover, that gentility and respectability aresynonymous. No one in England is genteel or respectable that is 'lookedat,' who is the victim of oppression. He may be pitied for a time, butwhen did not pity terminate in contempt? A poor, harmless youngofficer!--but why enter into the details of the infamous case? They arebut too well known, and if ever, cruelty, pride, and cowardice, andthings much worse than even cruelty, cowardice, and pride, were broughtto light, and at the same time countenanced, they were in that case.What availed the triumphant justification of the poor victim? There wasat first a roar of indignation against his oppressors, but how long didit last? He had been turne
d out of the service, they remained in it withtheir red coats and epaulets; he was merely the son of a man who hadrendered good service to his country, they were, for the most part,highly connected; they were in the extremest degree genteel, he quite thereverse. So the nation wavered, considered, thought the genteel side wasthe safest after all, and then, with the cry of, 'Oh, there is nothinglike gentility,' ratted bodily. Newspaper and public turned against thevictim, scouted him, apologized for the--what should they be called?--whowere not only admitted into the most respectable society, but courted tocome, the spots, not merely of wine, on their military clothes givingthem a kind of poignancy. But there is a God in heaven; the Britishglories are tarnished--Providence has never smiled on British arms sincethat case--oh, Balaklava! thy name interpreted is net of fishes, and welldost thou deserve that name. How many a scarlet golden fish has of lateperished in the mud amidst thee, cursing the genteel service and thegenteel leader which brought him to such a doom!

  Whether the rage for gentility is most prevalent amongst the upper,middle, or lower classes it is difficult to say; the priest, in the text,seems to think that it is exhibited in the most decided manner in themiddle class; it is the writer's opinion, however, that in no class is itmore strongly developed than in the lower; what they call being well borngoes a great way amongst them, but the possession of money much farther,whence Mr. Flamson's influence over them. Their rage against, and scornfor, any person who by his courage and talents has advanced himself inlife, and still remains poor, are indescribable: 'He is no better thanourselves,' they say; 'why should he be above us?' For they have noconception that anybody has a right to ascendancy over themselves exceptby birth or money. This feeling amongst the vulgar has been, to acertain extent, the bane of the two services, naval and military. Thewriter does not make this assertion rashly; he observed this feeling atwork in the army when a child, and he has good reason for believing thatit was as strongly at work in the navy at the same time, and is still asprevalent in both. Why are not brave men raised from the ranks? isfrequently the cry; why are not brave sailors promoted? The Lord helpbrave soldiers and sailors who are promoted! They have less to undergofrom the high airs of their brother-officers, and those are hard enoughto endure, than from the insolence of the men. Soldiers and sailorspromoted to command are said to be in general tyrants; in nine cases outof ten, when they are tyrants, they have been obliged to have recourse toextreme severity in order to protect themselves from the insolence andmutinous spirit of the men: 'He is no better than ourselves; shoot him,bayonet him, or fling him overboard!' they say of some obnoxiousindividual raised above them by his merit. Soldiers and sailors, ingeneral, will bear any amount of tyranny from a lordly sot, or the son ofa man who has 'plenty of brass'--their own term--but will mutiny againstthe just orders of a skilful and brave officer who 'is no better thanthemselves.' There was the affair of the _Bounty_, for example: Blighwas one of the best seamen that ever trod deck, and one of the bravest ofmen; proofs of his seamanship he gave by steering, amidst dreadfulweather, a deeply-laden boat for nearly four thousand miles over analmost unknown ocean; of his bravery at the fight of Copenhagen, one ofthe most desperate ever fought, of which, after Nelson, he was the hero;he was, moreover, not an unkind man; but the crew of the _Bounty_mutinied against him, and set him, half-naked, in an open boat, withcertain of his men who remained faithful to him, and ran away with theship. Their principal motive for doing so was an idea, whether true orgroundless the writer cannot say, that Bligh was 'no better thanthemselves'; he was certainly neither a lord's illegitimate, norpossessed of twenty thousand pounds. The writer knows what he is writingabout, having been acquainted in his early years with an individual whowas turned adrift with Bligh, and who died about the year '22, alieutenant in the navy, in a provincial town in which the writer wasbrought up. The ringleaders in the mutiny were two scoundrels, Christianand Young, who had great influence with the crew, because they weregenteelly connected. Bligh, after leaving the _Bounty_, had considerabledifficulty in managing the men who had shared his fate, because theyconsidered themselves 'as good men as he,' notwithstanding that to hisconduct and seamanship they had alone to look, under heaven, forsalvation from the ghastly perils that surrounded them. Bligh himself,in his journal, alludes to this feeling. Once, when he and hiscompanions landed on a desert island, one of them said, with a mutinouslook, that he considered himself 'as good a man as he'; Bligh, seizing acutlass, called upon him to take another and defend himself, whereuponthe man said that Bligh was going to kill him, and made all manner ofconcessions. Now, why did this fellow consider himself as good a man asBligh? Was he as good a seaman? No, nor a tenth part as good. As bravea man? No, nor a tenth part as brave; and of these facts he wasperfectly well aware, but bravery and seamanship stood for nothing withhim, as they still stand with thousands of his class. Bligh was notgenteel by birth or money, therefore Bligh was no better than himself.Had Bligh, before he sailed, got a twenty thousand pound prize in thelottery, he would have experienced no insolence from this fellow, forthere would have been no mutiny in the _Bounty_. 'He is our betters,'the crew would have said, 'and it is our duty to obey him.'

  The wonderful power of gentility in England is exemplified in nothingmore than in what it is producing amongst Jews, gypsies, and Quakers. Itis breaking up their venerable communities. All the better, someone willsay. Alas! alas! It is making the wealthy Jews forsake the synagoguefor the opera-house, or the gentility chapel, in which a disciple of Mr.Platitude, in a white surplice, preaches a sermon at noon-day from adesk, on each side of which is a flaming taper. It is making themabandon their ancient literature, their 'Mischna,' their 'Gemara,' their'Zohar,' for gentility novels, 'The Young Duke,' the most unexceptionablygenteel book ever written, being the principal favourite. It makes theyoung Jew ashamed of the young Jewess; it makes her ashamed of the youngJew. The young Jew marries an opera dancer, or if the dancer will nothave him, as is frequently the case, the cast-off Miss of the HonourableSpencer So-and-so. It makes the young Jewess accept the honourable offerof a cashiered lieutenant of the Bengal Native Infantry; or if such aperson does not come forward, the dishonourable offer of a cornet of aregiment of crack hussars. It makes poor Jews, male and female, forsakethe synagogue for the sixpenny theatre or penny hop; the Jew to take upwith an Irish female of loose character, and the Jewess with a musicianof the Guards, or the Tipperary servant of Captain Mulligan. Withrespect to the gypsies, it is making the women what they never werebefore--harlots; and the men what they never were before--carelessfathers and husbands. It has made the daughter of Ursula the chaste takeup with the base-drummer of a wild-beast show. It makes Gorgiko Brown,{340} the gypsy man, leave his tent and his old wife of an evening, andthrust himself into society which could well dispense with him.'Brother,' said Mr. Petulengro the other day to the Romany Rye, aftertelling him many things connected with the decadence of gypsyism, 'thereis one Gorgiko Brown, who, with a face as black as a tea-kettle, wishesto be mistaken for a Christian tradesman; he goes into the parlour of athird-rate inn of an evening, calls for rum-and-water, and attempts toenter into conversation with the company about politics and business.The company flout him or give him the cold shoulder, or perhaps complainto the landlord, who comes and asks him what business he has in theparlour, telling him if he wants to drink to go into the tap-room, andperhaps collars him and kicks him out, provided he refuses to move.'With respect to the Quakers, it makes the young people, like the youngJews, crazy after gentility diversions, worship, marriages, orconnections, and makes old Pease do what it makes Gorgiko Browndo--thrust himself into society which could well dispense with him, andout of which he is not kicked, because, unlike the gypsy, he is not poor.The writer would say much more on these points, but want of room preventshim; he must therefore request the reader to have patience until he canlay before the world a pamphlet, which he has been long meditating, to beentitled 'Remarks on the strikingly similar Effects which a Love forGentili
ty has produced, and is producing, amongst Jews, Gypsies, andQuakers.'

  The Priest in the book has much to say on the subject of this gentilitynonsense; no person can possibly despise it more thoroughly than thatvery remarkable individual seems to do, yet he hails its prevalence withpleasure, knowing the benefits which will result from it to the church ofwhich he is the sneering slave. 'The English are mad after gentility,'says he; 'well, all the better for us. Their religion for a long timepast has been a plain and simple one, and consequently by no meansgenteel; they'll quit it for ours, which is the perfection of what theyadmire; with which Templars, Hospitalers, mitred abbots, Gothic abbeys,long-drawn aisles, golden censers, incense, et cetera, are connected;nothing, or next to nothing, of Christ, it is true, but weighed in thebalance against gentility, where will Christianity be? why, kickingagainst the beam--ho! ho!' And in connection with the gentility nonsensehe expatiates largely, and with much contempt, on a species of literatureby which the interests of his church in England have been very muchadvanced--all genuine priests have a thorough contempt for everythingwhich tends to advance the interests of their church--this literature ismade up of pseudo-Jacobitism, Charlie o'er the waterism, or nonsenseabout Charlie o'er the water. And the writer will now take the libertyof saying a few words about it on his own account.