"ESQUIRE" AND "GENTLEMAN."
The custom of addressing almost every man above the rank of an artizan or a huckster as "Esquire," seems now to be settled as a matter of ordinary politeness and courtesy; whilst the degradation of the gentleman into the "Gent," has caused this term, as the title of a social class, to have fallen into total disuse. Originally, they were terms that had their respective meanings as much as Duke, Knight, Yeoman, or Hind; but now they simply mean courtesy or contempt towards the person to whom they are applied,—with the exception, indeed, of certain combinations of circumstances under which the word "Gentleman" is applied as a character.
It would be an interesting occupation to trace the mutations of meaning which these words have undergone, and the circumstances which gave rise to the successive applications of them. The subject has been often touched upon more or less slightly; but I know of no work in which it is discussed fully, though, indeed, there may be such. Of course, many of your readers are men whose pursuits have lain in other directions than social customs, social language, and social tastes; and, as one of them, I may be permitted to ask either where a full discussion can be found, or that some of your correspondents will furnish through your medium a clear and tolerably full exposition of the question. I believe it would be of general and public interest.
We naturally expect, that in official correspondence, the public boards, through their proper officers, would be very precise in assigning to every person his proper title, in the address of a letter. Yet nothing can be more negligent and capricious than the way in which this is done. I have held an appointment in the public service, which is generally considered to carry with it the title of "Esquire," (but really whether it do or not, I am unable to tell), and have at different times had a good deal of official correspondence, sometimes mere routine, and sometimes involving topics of a critical character. From my own experience I am led to think that no definite rule exists, and that the temper of the moment will dictate the style of address. For instance, in matter-of-course business, or in any correspondence that was agreeable to official persons, I was addressed as "Esq.;" but if the correspondence took a turn that was unpleasant, it was "Mr. ——;" and on one occasion I received a note addressed with my name denuded of all title whatever, even of the office I filled. The note, I hardly need say, was "full of fire and fury;" and yet, in less than half an hour, I received a second (the writer having discovered his mistake), opening with "My dear Sir," and superscribed with the "Esquire" at full length. This, I think, proves the capriciousness of men in public stations in their assignment of titles of this kind.
I certainly expected to find, however, in the "List of the Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries," due attention paid to this circumstance. The one just circulated was therefore referred to, and it would seem to be as full of anomalies as a "Court Guide" or a "Royal Blue Book." We have, indeed, the Knights and Baronets duly titled, and the Peers, lay and spiritual, sufficiently distinguished both by capitals and mode of insertion. All those who have no other title (as D.D. or F.R.S.) recognised by the Society, are courteously designated by the affix "Esq." In this, it will be strange indeed if all be entitled to the appellation in its legitimate sense; or, in other words, if the principle of courtesy does not supersede, amongst the otherwise untitled mass of Fellows, the principle of social rank. To this in itself, as the distinction of "Gent" after a man's name has become derogatory, there cannot be the least objection; for antiquarianism does not palliate rudeness or offensive language.
At the same time, the adoption of this principle should surely be uniform, and invidious distinctions should not be made. The title "Esq.," should not be given to one man, and left out in designating another whose social position is precisely the same. For instance, we find in this list "——, M.D.," and "——, Esq., M.D.," employed to designate two different Doctors in Medicine. We find "——, F.R.S." and "——, Esq., F.R.S." to designate two Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries, who are also Fellows of the Royal. We see one or two D.D.'s deprived of their titles of "Rev.," and, as if to make amends (in point of quantity at least), we have one Fellow with titles at each end of his name that seem incompatible with each other, viz., "Rev. ——, Esq."
Anomalies like these can only be the result of sheer carelessness, or of the ignorance of some clerk employed to make out the list without adequate instructions given to him. It has, in my hearing, been held up as a specimen of invidious distinction to gratify some petty dislike; but this notion is simply absurd, and deserves no notice. At the same time, it betokens a carelessness that it is desirable to avoid.
As a mere question of dignity, it appears to me to savour too much of Clapham-Common or Hampstead-Heath grandeur, to add much to our respectability or worldly importance. It would, indeed, be more "dignified" to drop, in the lists, all use of "Esq." under any circumstances; or, if this be objected to, to at least treat "M.A.," "D.D.," "F.R.S." as higher titles, in which the "Esq." may properly be merged, and thus leave the appellation to designate the absence of any higher literary or scientific title.
A good deal of this is irrelevant to the primary object of my letter; but certainly not altogether irrelevant to the dignity of the highest English representative body of archæology, the Society of Antiquaries. I hope, at least, that this irrelevancy will give neither pain nor offence to any one, for nothing could be further from my wish or intention than such an effect. I have only wished to illustrate the necessity for an accurate description of what are really the original, subsequent, and present significations of the words "Esquire" and "Gentleman," and to urge that either some definite rule should be adopted as to their use in official and semi-official cases, or else that they should be discontinued altogether.
BROWN RAPPEE.
April 18.