The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-12-13
Common Titles,

Butn0w comes another of our anon-
allies which greatly puzzles European
and which is not always
fully grasped even by our American
kinsfolk. This is the nature of the
ESQUIRE. a class of people are habit
ually called plain Mr." in ordinary |
talk, who would be greatly offented |
iftheir letters were so addressed. L
am not speaking of those who claim |
a higher adjective descriptions; L
mean those who are spoken OF as
'Mr. a. B. but who, in any for
mai description from the address OF
a letter upward, must be described as
"a. B., Esq" In itself esquire, like
knight, is title If not of office. of
something ve!y like Office; and IL
would not have been wonderful Ii 1t
had been usual to call men knight
A." and Esquire B." But knight
A. seems never to have been in use;
and Esquire" or rather Esquire b.,
can hardly be said to have ever been
in polite Use. Men like Hampton,
who would have ranked as mobiles
anywhere out OF the British king
dOms, were simply "Mr. Hampden,
and the like.
To be sure "Mr." was then more OF
distinct title than it is now. have
| seen somewhere in the early records
OF New England colony an order. IN
which, among other. pains and PENAL
! ties decreed against a certain man, IL
is forbidden to speak OF him any
longer as "Mr." Possibly, though
used to he spoken Of as "Mr.," he did
not hold the technical rank OF "ES"
quire." For esquire is a technical
rank, as much as earl or knight; and
one odd thing is that when the word
in contracted shape is put before d
name, it means something different
from that technical rank. Many people
put esq" after their names, not by
mere assumption or conventionallty,
but of perfect right, to whom no liv-
ing soul would ever think Of lacking
on Squire" before their names
esquire A." marks position which, ii
not strictly official, certainly comes
very near it, Il position which IS moi
held by all who are described as es'
ouires even by strict formal right
But the thing that most puZzels
the foreigner IS the presence OF the
distinctive title after the sname, OF
; rather its absence before the name
He is ready to write "Mr. a. Is. Esq,
Ii IS nara TO purSudue MIN W WITH
"a i. ESQ., with nothing more thar
A. b. And 10 wonder, for it is de
, scription altogether without parable
among continental descriptions. W.
are so used to it that we hardly thinl
| of its siDgularity. 1t fails to do, a
: least it seems us if it were going tt
: fail to do, the very thing which title.
were invented to do. Lord, ''Sir,
= Mr." stand as guardians before tn
: name, to show that the mere name j
t not going to be used. But the nam
OF the esquire stands bare, Withou
any protection. We do. in fact cal
him by his mere name, though W
stick on his description afterwarC
Esquire" las no feminine; otherwls
: | II W0uId be curious see whether
woman's name could be allowed t
stand unsheltered in the same way
How singular our treatment af the es
= quire is seen at once if we fancy
: like treatment of the rank next abov
him. We speak to man as INF. A
:: b." and we address our letters to hill
! as ga. B. Esq. 1t would be an exat
L parallel, if we spoke Of a man as "Si
, 4. b." and addressed our letters
: 4. Is. Knight.