equal

one; you must consider the rest. One of the marks of what we now call a true gentleman is his consideration of others. It is a mark of good manners neither Gentlemen to cringe or be embarrassed before others, nor to put are on airs of superiority. We can show respect to age or learning or genuine ability of any sort without losing our self-respect. This trait of the gentleman was at first shown only toward his own class; with the growth of democracy we have learned that it need not be so limited. We believe him to be the finest type of gentleman who treats all men with respect for their good qualities, and (perhaps this is the finest touch of all) treats men as though he assumed them to be worthy of respect even when they forget themselves and do not treat themselves with respect. A true gentleman will not treat a woman with disrespect.

More particularly, membership in an upper class Dignity based not on wealth but on military or political power has given rise to three traits. The first is a certain dignity and sense of balance or fitness. A gentleman would not make his clothes showy, for this would look as though the clothes were more important than the man who wears them. He would not make his house or its furnishings impressive by their costliness so much as by their fitness, for he does not value money as highly as skill. He would not boast, or speak loudly, for such conduct seems to indicate that he is not sure of himself, or is not sure that others will appreciate him unless he calls attention to himself. He would not break his word, for this would seem to show either that he did not know what he was doing when he gave it or else was too weak or fearful to carry out what he promised.

The second trait was not so fine. As a member of

Dueling

Contempt

for

labor

Gentleman and

pioneer

a superior fighting class he scorned to submit to those laws which he considered were meant for common people. He insisted on fighting duels if he conceived that his honor had been insulted, and this is still regarded in some countries of Europe as the only course open for a gentleman. In the early years of this country dueling was not uncommon, but when Alexander Hamilton, who had been one of our most prominent statesmen, was killed in a duel by Aaron Burr, there was a great outburst of condemnation for the practice.

A third trait already mentioned was that the gentleman despised manual labor because this was done by peasants; he also despised trade because shop keeping or bargaining was a lower class occupation. This contempt naturally called out angry feeling in the despised classes. An early rhyme runs :

"When Adam delved and Eve span,

Who was then the gentleman?

But it was the life of the emigrants and pioneers in America that did most to break down the idea in this country that the gentleman must do no work with his hands. Few indeed of the colonists were of the gentry, though there were more in Virginia and South Carolina than in the other colonies. But life in the new country-clearing forests, building houses, plowing and harvesting-was not fitted to keep up a separate class. All worked with axe and hoe and scythe, and then all met in town meeting-at least in some of the colonies-to govern. The real business of living had then little place for the man who despised work. The gentleman had to prove his title in other ways.

This description of the ideals and traits of the warriors, knight and gentleman, has been drawn chiefly

from Western Europe, for that is where most of our ancestors lived, and it was from England that our early settlers in America brought not only their language but their laws and ideals. Yet it is of interest to note that Greece and Japan have had very similar classes with similar ideals. The Japanese in fact have a word, Bushido, which, like chivalry, means the code or standard of those who ride on horses. It emphasized loyalty above everything else. Indeed, a Japanese knight regarded it as a fine example of devotion to put himself to death when his lord died.

Courage, loyalty, protection for the weak, chivalry toward women, courtesy, a sense of honor, consideration for others-these are the ideals which we Owe largely to the Middle Ages, ideals which we ought not to forget, any more than we should forget its wonderful cathedrals, or its beginnings of law and justice. On the other hand, class pride, exclusiveness, contempt for labor, and for those not in our set, have no place in a democracy.

A final word on the influence of class is suggested by some of our words of reproach. One of the worst things to say of a man is to call him a "villain," which originally meant the unfree tenant on the manor. We now spell the word in one meaning "villain," and in the other "villein," but there used to be no difference. A "knave" meant just a servant, a "blackguard " meant one who guarded kettles, a "rascal" one of the common herd, and "vulgar" what was characteristic of common people. No doubt the common people were in many respects inferior to the gentry. In some cases they may have been naturally slower and less. alert. Their hard work and meager opportunities would keep them down. But to lump them all as a

Gentleman

and labor

66

villain or a wretch

class and think of a man as a 66
just because the gentleman or his ancestor had con-
quered him and shoved him down shows the bad effects
of class pride.

It is class which more than anything else makes the difference in our standards about work and wealth. No one feels it a disgrace to work if all work. No one feels it a disgrace to be poor if all are poor. This has been the case over and over in American life in frontier communities. But when one class feels that the only worthy business is to fight, govern, and hunt, then labor becomes a mark of an inferior class. When one is rich and on that account has the right to the service of the other, then the upper class feels proud and the lower feels oppressed. At first the difference may be accepted as the outcome of a war in which the weaker has been beaten. But after several generations, it seems to be purely the accident of birth, and then, if possible, it becomes worse than at first. At least it seems more difficult to justify, for the warrior at least had to have some energy and take some risks. The man who belongs to a class merely because he inherits money or a title does not necessarily have either brains or courage. The spirit of democracy is opposed to this kind of class distinction.

CHAPTER VIII

THE NEW COÖPERATION: TOWN LIFE, TRADE,

CRAFTS

FTER agriculture, the next great step in the
way of getting a living was by trade and handi-

A

I crafts. Trade and handicrafts flourish best in towns and cities. Here then are three new things which go together: trade, handicraft, town life.

These three things made two great social changes. Before the rise of towns, and of trade, and of handicraft, there were chiefly two great classes: warriors and farm laborers, or gentry and peasants. The merchants and craftsmen-tailors, weavers, smiths, carpenters-belonged to neither of the two old classes. They made a new middle class. This was a step toward democracy. And another social change was that living together in towns meant a new kind of union or society.

One way of looking at these changes is to think of The new them as coming from a new kind of coöperation-co- coöperaoperation by exchanging goods. The clan would not tion have a variety of products to exchange, as would merchants coming from different places. Exchange of goods means that some merchants and craftsmen travel or send their products from town to town, or country to country; at the same time it means that some set up their shops and live together in towns. Coöperation by exchange of goods, and the living together in towns and cities which goes with the coöperation, bring about exchange of ideas as well as of goods. They