was reached at all in regard to the part played by riches, it was, perhaps, that though they could add in no degree to gentry, yet they permitted certain virtues pertaining to it to be practised, which poverty did not allow. A mere vulgar exhibition of wealth was, however, frowned on severely, while those who called themselves gentlemen, simply because they could afford to live idly, were sharply censured.1 Underneath the surface, especially during the latter half of the sixteenth century, a strong democratic tendency can be observed, which revealed itself chiefly in the growing importance assigned to such qualities in the individual as were independent of birth. Humble parentage had never been a bar to success in England where real ability forced its way to the front at all times, and especially in the sixteenth century, when many commoners were ennobled. It was usually accepted that children of men of distinction were gentlemen, regardless of their parents' birth. The new Italian idea of gentlemanliness, which was penetrating England, was to include, moreover, such men as had formerly been debarred in theory. Whoever had studied the laws of the realm, had been at the university, or professed the liberal sciences, whoever could live without manual labor, and bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman should be taken for one.3 A reaction naturally followed; men complained that the old ideal of gentlemanliness had been suffered 1 Romei, p. 226 et seq. 2 Institution of a Gentleman. Sir Thomas Smith, Commonwealth of England, p. 37. F to decay, that many who were no better than handicraftsmen had assumed the title and bore the arms which rightly belonged to the old gentry. "As for gentlemen, they be made good cheap in England," wrote Sir Thomas Smith,' with ill-concealed dislike for this new democratic movement. More and more, however, new tests of learning, civility and virtue were applied to the judgment of the gentleman. It was even maintained that only such as excelled in an art or science acquired thereby a true nobility, far superior to one of birth or descent." This nobility should spring from inward virtue, and not consist merely of outward form. Men were to be respected not by reason of their ancestors, but for such virtues as were within them. The self-made gentleman possessed a twofold advantage over the gentleman only by birth: the first was virtue, the other courtesy, "the right ornament of a gentleman; for of courtesy and gentleness, he is termed a gentleman." Some even argued that it was an impossibility for men to be gentlemen who had no other qualification than their birth. "If they be uncivil how are they gentlemen? and if they be gentlemen how are they uncivil?... Gentry and renown is not got by our birth but by our life, yea, and sometimes by our death." 5 1 Commonwealth of England, p. 37. Humphrey, op. cit. * Guazzo, ff. 85 6, 88. ↳ Ibid., ff. 85 b, 92. A loftier and more democratic ideal of what the perfect gentleman ought to be had arisen in Italy, and found its way to England. It was no longer sufficient to follow in the footsteps of worthy predecessors : “Whoso vaunteth of his ancestors seemeth without any good thing of his own."1 The new conception of gentlemanliness by personal effort, which sprang up, looked rather to individual virtù than to outward factors. This feeling was well expressed by a contemporary writer: "If it be a great delight for a man to know that from time to time out of his house (as out of the Trojan horse) there have issued captains, colonels, and knights, . . . how much more shall it be to him, who may say that he hath, according to the proverb, wings broader than the nest, and by the excellence of his deeds, and sufficiency in learning and feats of arms, hath surpassed the deserts, dignities, and degrees of his predecessors, and alone, as it were, carried away the prize. "2 The influence of this new democratic doctrine of the Renaissance extended beyond the Alps. Even though in practice it was not to be realized till centuries later, it yet found frequent expression in literature and life. At the very court of Elizabeth it was echoed by William Segar, almost as a promise of the future liberty and freedom of the individual to rise by his own merits. The doctrine upheld by the Italians of the Renaissance was later to be realized among English-speaking people. "I say that the true no1 Segar, Book of Honor, p. 34. 2 Guazzo, f. 87. bility of man is virtue, and that he is truly noble that is virtuous, be he born of high or low parents; and the more highly he be born, the worse reputation he meriteth, if he cannot continue the honor left him by his ancestors."1 III The Renaissance, more than any period in the modern world, endeavored to develop, as far as possible, the different faculties of man. The ideal of universality, once aimed at, was consciously pursued and attained by the best spirits of the age. This was especially true in Italy, where the perfect man of the Renaissance strove for excellence in every branch of human activity, both intellectual and physical, trying at the same time to be statesman and athlete, poet and scientist, philosopher and courtier. The excellence of the courtier, however, was by no means limited to the qualities of his mind. He was to possess every grace and accomplishment, but never to push into undue prominence what he did well; nor even appear to have given much time or study to it, since that would have spoiled the artistic effect produced on the spectator. Everything was therefore to be done with grace, as though presenting no difficulty. He was to be nimble, quick and light, continually showing pluck and spirit; good at all games and excelling at the tourney, in hunting, swimming, leaping, running and casting the stone; even tennis and vaulting 2 Castiglione, p. 115. 1 Segar, p. 34. 1 were recommended. On the other hand, tumbling, climbing a rope and jugglers' tricks should never be practised by the courtier, who ought to preserve his dignity in all his actions. Above everything else, the superiority of his station in life was to be real, not merely a matter of convention; thus, if he wrestled or ran with countrymen, he should appear to do so for courtesy only, and not to win; but first he must be sure of himself; "for it is too ill a sight. . . to see a gentleman overcome by a carter, and especially in wrestling." This scorn of social inferiority, it may be remarked, was by no means universal. In later years, especially, a kindlier and more democratic view was often taken of the relations which ought to exist between the different classes. Gentlemen were urged not to despise the society of their social inferiors, who would love and honor them in consequence. "There is no more difference between the gentleman and the yeoman than there is between two bricks made of selfsame earth, whereof the one is set in the top of a tower, the other in the bottom of a well." 2 It is curious to think that England, which to-day claims superiority in sport, should have submitted in the sixteenth century to Italian methods and instruction. The accomplishments and pleasures of the courtly life had, however, first been systematized in Italy, and in sport, as well, its guidance was supreme. Even in horsemanship, Edward the Sixth had his Italian ridingmaster at the court; another Italian, known as Alex2 Guazzo, f. 90 b. 1 Castiglione, p. 115. |