The Portland daily press., 1880-03-11
The Origin of Titles.


Perhaps in no respect are modern more COM
pletely at variance with historic times than in
the use of titles. The Greeks had none A
Greek had certain name, and that was his
name in the mouth of every one who called
him. There was no intervening title to ind-
cate respect or Difference. If Demosthenes
had clerk, the clerk would have called the
orator Demosthenes, and could have called
him nothing else. The Romans were little
more subtle. What we should call the sur
name was still the mans name; his intimate
friends were at liberty to adopt the prgnonaen
but in neither case was title used The
simple name designated its owner, and, in the
case of Rome, the choice between the two
names showed the extent of the intimacy of
the parties. But when we leave classic soil we
come at once upon the question of title and its
universal use.
The growth was no doubt gradual, and pro-
ceeded in the first instance by inversion. The
population was more extensive than the no.
menclature. We were not good at calling
names; at least, we were not good at inverting
them. And thus there were many duplicates.
Soon bright idea struck the English mind
When man had trade they added his trade
to his name, and thus indicated him clear of
all possible blunder. 1t was John the Smith,
and Peter the Hermit. Robert the Bishop and
Thomas the Earl. Then, in little time, the
more recondite of these indications became i'm
portant and were attached to ideas of dignity
and position. But bishop and earl and such
like, were not strictly titles-that is to say
they were not titles as Mr., Mrs, or Miss are
titles for they indicated an office. The bishop
was bishop, and the earl was an earl. 1t was
not a mere affix; it indicated q position which
has definite meaning, recognized duties.
acknowledged rank and ascertained emolu-
ment. Thus, in fact, titles, strictly speaking,
are enjoyed only by the untitled. A general
is a general, and has military duties as we'll
as military rank; doctor of divinity is what
his name suggests and is called by that name
for that very reason. But a gentleman is
called mister" for no reason whatever except
that it is thought rude to leave the name out
and lady is called "Miss' merely because her
father is called "Mister.''
The objection to simple nomenclature is
rooted. The title, such as it is, has no indi-
may, indeed, be Indifferent Earl Granville
can mean but one nobleman and there is but
one Bishop of Peterborough. Besides this, as
we have shown, these names are not mere
titles. They indicate an office and duty as
well as rank and position. This exists still
in the case of Bishop and once existed in the
case of Earl. But Mr.. John Jones conveys no
more definite idea than John Jones without
the Mr. The explanation of the affix is simply
this: That we consider it rude to call man
from kind OF insane politeness. There is, of
course, the we'll known exception. Very great
men are saved the questionable honor of a
title. We do not say Mr.. Shakespeare or Mr..
Chaucer, and even the author of Childe Har-
old merges hereditary rank in literary fame,
and is known among his admirers simply as
Byron. Here, too, it occurs to one to notice
the democratic influence of literature and art.
1t seems that poets and painters are either TOO
good or too bad for title. 1t is amusing to see
on modern play-bill how the author appears
in print without any addition, while the mer-
est super, who has been promoted to a part,
figures in print as Mr.. The anomaly is car
ried even further, for when the author takes a
ion of the bin as Henry j, Byron, and in a few
lines lower down, as Mr.. H. j. Byron. Ar
lists share with men of letters the distinction
or 1ndignity OF losing the almost universal pre-
fix. In newspaper reviews of picture exhibi-
tions we read constantly of Walter Severn or
Arthur Buges, as if the attempt to reproduce
nature on canvas disentitled man to be called
otherwise than by his Christian and surname.
The use of a title is common to all modern
countries. However derived, it is not merely
usual, but universal. The Germans, indeed,
go little further than other nations, and with
a characteristic love of pomp delight to prefix
the title of even the smallest Office to the name
of the fortunate holder of it. Hermann, the
postman, would be Mr.. Letter Carrier Her.
mann, and his wife would be Mrs. Letter Car
rier Hermann The French at the time of the
Revolution, had brilliant idea They deter
mined to abolish all titles. Even Monsieur
was to be expunged from conversation at the
risk of its owner being regarded dangerous
and royalist. But it is easier to storm a city
than to break a habit. The French abolished
titles-at least so they fondly believed-but
how did they do it? In effect they only sub
stituted one for another. Where a man used
to be called Monsieur he was now called
"Citizen," and the universally of titles was
proved by their uniformity. Dean Swift, in
deed, once suggested a state of things under
which man might lose both his title and his
name. He supposed the case of the heir to a
peerage who the same day should receive It'd
ings of the death of his ancestor and his own
election to a bishopric. The Dean said that
such man could sign no letters. He would
be in very strict sense anonymous. AS
peer he could not sign his Christian name, and
as bishop be could not sign his surname.
We know, however, that this difficulty has
since bean surmounted