4 ms·
It went further than just implying it; they said (paraphrasing, I haven't re-read it) that a gentleman should never take offence at an insult from a pleb. I th
by denton-scratch 4y ago
It went further than just implying it; they said (paraphrasing, I haven't re-read it) that a gentleman should never take offence at an insult from a pleb.
I think there's something in that; if an insult causes you offence, you are implicitly granting that your abuser's opinion deserves consideration. A true gentleman would rise above it - a man of rank need not concern himself with the views of plebs. Plebs always insult gentlemen; if you horsewhipped them every time, you'd need a new horsewhip every week.
- bee_rider 4y agoConveniently this also means that gentlemen don’t have to fight anyone who labors for a living.
- denton-scratch 4y agoWell, yeah. In most of historical warfare, noblemen fought noblemen, yeomen fought yeomen, and peasants fought peasants. When English yeoman archers fired on advancing French cavalry (noblemen) at Agincourt, it was considered awfully bad form. Swords were expensive things, you needed money to own one. And there were many laws restricting who was allowed to carry a sword and who wasn't.