Table of Contents : Articles : Submissions : Contributors :Order : Links : Miscellania : Manifesto : Contact

Caption TK

Displacing the monarch as the embodiment of this new aesthetics-based ideology, the gentleman now steps on stage. Where the monarch had been the singular, almost Platonic ideal of humanness, the gentleman was generic, understated. He set a standard of utility and of moderation that was not synonymous with mediocrity.

For the gentleman conventionality and common sense were guarantees of good character and right-mindedness. Just as the Puritans had looked to outward signs for clues to their predestined fate, so emergent Britons sought to display their moral and cultural bona fides through their affiliations and professions. Paradoxically, the cultural drive for consensus and homogeneity produced a vast taxonomy of human types, as nuances of belonging and difference took on greater significance. Dandies, dilettantes, and gentlemen were not the only new species. Georgian England was awash in private and professional associations—The Royal Society, Freemasonry, exclusive clubs, casinos, salons, cafés. England at that time was a society of joiners unrivaled until the age of Babbit, Rotarians, Elks, and Shriners.

In this climate, even aristocrats needed job descriptions, which is essentially what Dashwood’s dilettante provided. Independently wealthy, impractically educated, over-refined, dilettante simply named a thread that had always been woven into the upper classes. Even as the term has evolved, it still retains at its core the quintessentially aristocratic values of amateurism and intellectual independence (or at least freedom to be eccentric).