The OED gives these two senses (among others) for esquire:
2. A man belonging to the higher order of English gentry, ranking
immediately below a knight.
Of esquires, legally so called, there are, according to some
authorities, five classes: ‘(1) younger sons of peers and their eldest
sons; (2) eldest sons of knights, and their eldest sons; (3) chiefs of
ancient families (by prescription); (4) esquires by creation or office,
as heralds and sergeants of arms, judges, officers of state, naval and
military officers, justices of the peace, barristers-at-law; (5)
esquires who attend the Knight of the Bath on his installation usually
two specially appointed’ (Encycl. Brit., s.v.). The correctness of this
enumeration, however, is greatly disputed; it would be impossible here
to state the divergent views on the subject. In heraldic Latin the
equivalent of esquire was armiger, properly = ‘armour-bearer’, but often
taken in the sense ‘one bearing (heraldic) arms’; hence, in 16th and
17th c. esquire was sometimes explained as meaning a man entitled to
coat-armour; but by accurate writers this is condemned as involving the
confusion between ‘esquire’ and ‘gentleman’.
3. As a title accompanying a man's name. Originally applied to those who
were ‘esquires’ in sense 2; subsequently extended to other persons to
whom an equivalent degree of rank or status is by courtesy attributed.
For gentleman, the first sense is "A man of gentle birth, or having the
same heraldic status as those of gentle birth; properly, one who is
entitled to bear arms, though not ranking among the nobility (see quot.
1882), but also applied to a person of distinction without precise
definition of rank." But one of the subsequent senses is "A man of
superior position in society, or having the habits of life indicative of
this; often, one whose means enable him to live in easy circumstances
without engaging in trade, a man of money and leisure." -- that would
explain why a banker was not designated as a gentleman, since he had a
trade.
AAY
Ruth Paley wrote:
> I too was brought up to believe it was rude to address letters to Mr
> rather than esq; but that's a sign of age 'cos it isn't any more. At
> one stage (perhaps still is) the usage in the USA was that esq was for
> lawyers.
>
> In the long 18th century and presumably therefore in the early 19th,
> Mr was lowly, gent was better and esq was better still. After that
> it's the knights, baronets and peers.
>
> I think the right choice of address was as much a minefield for people
> in the past as it is now. I have seen vestry minutes where the
> attendance lists show that vestrymen were suddenly transformed from
> gent to esq. The reason was that the man in question had become a
> justice of the peace. JPs were definitely socially superior
> individuals. I wonder if your esqs were JPs? Being in the commission
> of the peace does not mean they were active JPs but
> it does help confirm social status. As for your man at the Inner
> Temple, my guess would be that he was an attorney or solicitor (that's
> as in English usage, a lawyer without rights of audience in a court);
> barristers were definitely esq.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Regards
> Ruth Paley
> British Association for Local History
--
Abigail Ann Young (Dr), Associate Editor/ Records of Early English Drama/
Victoria College/ 150 Charles Street W/ Toronto Ontario Canada
Phone (416) 585-4504/ FAX (416) 813-4093/ [log in to unmask]
List-owner of REED-L <http://www.reed.utoronto.ca/reed-l.html>
http://www.reed.utoronto.ca/ => REED's home page
http://www.reed.utoronto.ca/stage.html => our Web guide
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~young => my home page
|