Why is it so hard to develop a basic set of character traits from an agnostic cosmology, not dependent upon either revealed or mystical bedrock, using minimalist epistemological standards? This leaves room to both admire the old gentlemanly virtues and valuing their many accomplishments, while still holding him, and his false and, for many, offensive sense of certainty, to task for his many, many faults. Why do we seem so stuck between zero credibility for individual morality and 100% certainty on our current pabulum collectivism? It’s starting to look like the Weimar Republic here in the USA with the Bolsheviks inside the gates busy writing checks with my and my child’s future as though we were cogs in their machine. Is my choice their way or their way, force or force, faith or faith, the “old gentleman?” (backed by a cop with a stick) or the new technocrat (backed by a cop with a gun), swine or swine? Ugg & Dispair!

In this discussion I am much reminded of George Orwell, who compared the picaresque popular literature of the Edwardian Era to that of his own by setting "Raffles" against the works of James Hadley Chase, and came away from it by saying that Raffles was obviously a criminal and not to be admired, but because he had a sense of "gentlemanliness," a sense that certain thing were just "never done," Raffles at least acknowledged that there were certain virtues that in his case were in fact honoured rather in the breach than observance, but that they did objectively exist. Chase, on the other hand, featured protagonists for whom "anything went," who would laugh at the idea of a Raffles. Orwell found this to be telling as far as the British concept of what's "done" and "not done" having evolved in 40 years and not for the better. Orwell seemed to think that, while most people probably did share raffles' cultural assumptions, the fact that a Chase could write the stuff he did and have it be popular spoke to some dark place in the British nay human soul. Apropos of probably nothing, in connection with the concept of aspiring to be a more virtuous person than you think you otherwise would be without the effort to be so, let me conclude by paraphrasing Bela Lugosi as the Sayer of the Law: "Are we not gentlemen?" may be a mantra we should like to employ to resolve all doubt as to how to deal with things when we have the time and foresight enough to do so.

Is there any real difference between the term “gentleman” and “traditionalist” in this article? I'm not sure we can equate being a gentleman with just being old-fashioned, and even if you could, it would be a good idea - most people want to inhabit the age they live in, not the one that came before. For the gentleman to continue into the present century, I think it's essential that people re-envisage what that term might mean for themselves. Probably not a very original interpretation, but for my money, I'd say that a gentleman – as the term suggests – is just a person who is gentle; regardless of the artificial boundaries of religion, politics, or class.

One aspect of being a gentleman is chivalry which requires physical toughness and fighting skills in order to protect a lady's honour. Historically gentlemen were taught boxing and fencing. The problem is now that many men lack the physical toughness and fighting skills to defend's a lady's honour. The old saying " I do not want to fight but I will I have to " which was based on an ability to fight but a preferance to settle disputes peacefully is very rare nowadays.

A gentleman or gentlewoman is a person who always strives to to the right thing even if it doesn't serve their own direct interest. Polite, considerate, not unkind. Many religious creeds may encourage these virtues but an athiest is just as worthy of the attempt. Nationality, colour, wealth, education are all equally irrevalent. But no real gent could ever claim to be one, the accolade is given by others

A voice from America: My late and adored father- in-law J. Randall Williams was a man who could best be described as a "gentleman." He had every quality one might ascribe to the type, including dignity, sagacity, kindness,courage, learning, ability and wit. It is to the point that he was born in the early years of this century in an "old" Philadelphia family (in other words, a WASP), and educated at the elite Episcopal prep school St. Paul's, and did a year's graduate work in education at Oxford before entering the publishing profession. Something rare and irreplacable went out of the world when he died five years ago. We shall not see his like again, etc. Now, is this a lament for the almost vanished WASP ascendancy in the United States? Not entirely, as I am myself an Irish Catholic and the meritocracy has been very kind to me. But my father-in-law in so many ways was a distillate of all that was valuable in his class, and we could sure use some of that now.

and, should any reader quibble quietly that Christian is at least applicable as a cultural category to many names derived from biblical tradition, they must face down insistence that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Josephine, Mary and Elisabeth should properly celebrate their poorly pronounced Hebrew (and others their Greek, Aramaic or German, etc.). There's a lot in a name. Narrowing it down is not so innocent.

The Gentleman is the sole flame of the world. He burns himself up to give light to the world. But please notice he burns. A Gentleman is supposed to not let his mind sway towards his emotions. He is supposed to always set an example of unbiasedness through his own sufferings and sacrifices. A Gentleman though lives for only one thing and that is, to be known as The Gentleman.

I enjoyed this, being more habitual a reader of rags like the Guardian, but I was thrown by the close of that paragraph on Christianity. Do we really need secular intellectuals to inform us that labeling as 'Christian' a non-Christian's given name could likely give rise to umbrage fairly taken? Insisted upon, I should call such obtuse chauvinism ungentlemanly. But I doubt you'll find an apostate or heathen bothered by an actual Christian's espousal of the epithet. My suspicion is that what's at issue is the common, say, liberal (minded) criticism of a generalised category, say, for forms that need filling in by any number of unspecified individuals. In that instance, it were simply a matter to be decided between pragmatic insistence on a mean/median/mode norm (your average Englishman probably is at least of Christian stock), and affording a more careful, artfully mannered hospitality to accommodate a relatively vast set of outliers, or just others. Surely the gentlemanly, indeed, the Christian choice in that case is clear? The latter seems the only option if one essays adherence to a much needed and noble ideal of good conduct.

The English Gentleman was someone who, upon knicking the ball to the wicketkeeper, walked off without looking at the umpire.