The feudal past explained how Church of England clergy, army officers and members of Parliament were considered gentlemen in this time period. Since all of these occupations were for virtuous men, those who were fearless and bold yet compassionate and honorable, these men were considered gentlemen. However, members of the society such as John Ruskin argued: "The essence of the gentleman is what the word says, that he comes from a pure gens, or is perfectly bred" (qtd. in Cody). This assumption of noble qualities in those belonging to the upper classes was the result of political or economic power. These two opposites, quality and heredity, caused confusion among members of Victorian society. Some authors of the time attempted to unite the two notions that kind qualities derived from social standards and defined morality. Lauren Goodland sought to interpret what a gentleman represented in this era, arguing that it was both empirical and education-based, yet mystified and genetic-based (Landow, “The Political Function of the Gentleman”). This distorted perception of what a gentleman was denied prevented people from accepting the fact that the poor could be gentlemen while the rich could be rude and lacking in morals. It is this same ignorance that leads Pip in Great Expectations to fail to see that "...violence and refinement, Magwitch and Estella, are not warring opposites but intimately and inextricably bound together" (Gilmour). The two stark contrasts of what being a gentleman entailed therefore led to the confusion of those who attempted to pursue