Who is an Esquire or a Gentleman?

I was trained as a lawyer and have been licensed in some states to practice law. I receive a lot of correspondence in which the title "Esquire" is appended to my name. When I worked for the Court of Claims of West Virginia, I was sometimes referred to as "Squire" by the country folk in the same way that they referred to local Magistrates. It all seems a little silly to me, and I do not believe that I am worthy of the title Squire or Esquire. In fact, I have never met any lawyer who is worthy of the title.

An Esquire is someone who is more than a gentleman but less than a knight. I understand that lawyering was once considered a respectable profession for men of quality and that the practice of law was conducted in a more gentlemanly manner. In my lifetime, however, lawyering has been entirely a commercial affair, and lawyers are simply tradesmen due no more respect than any other sort of shopkeeper or service provider. The practice of law would probably be distasteful to a man of quality nowadays. Anybody can go to law school and become licensed to practice, even sons of working men such as myself. And success in lawyering is largely a matter of commercial savvy in generating revenue. I suppose that a man of quality might practice law pro bono publico in furtherance of some noble objective, but I have not been privileged to meet such a man. For the reasons cited, I do not see that anyone is entitled to the rank of Esquire solely by virtue of being a lawyer.

Indeed, most lawyers are not even gentlemen. A gentlemen is properly understood as being an untitled member of the aristocracy and who, by virtue of his wealth, is not obliged to work for a living. Both independent means and high birth are required. I have neither; therefore, I am not a gentleman. There is no meritocratic way to become a gentleman, and there is no authority which can confer this honor upon one. You are born a gentleman (if you are), and you remain one until you somehow disgrace yourself.

I consider myself a yeoman, a tradesman of the middle class, and the scion of more or less respectable working men and women and small farmers. There is nothing to be despised in being a yeoman, and pretensions to more exalted rank show considerable disrespect for what is probably the most productive class in our society.

Failure to observe appropriate distinctions in rank also leads to the misassignment of roles to meritocratic pretenders that properly belong to the aristocracy. Where are our great men who ought to serve as statesmen and leaders in our communities? The usurpation of the roles of the aristocracy has allowed and encouraged the upper classes to evade their responsibilities. What man of quality would stand for Congress when that institution is populated by striving meritocrats and has become a den of corruption and thievery? What man of quality would accept a commission in the armed forces when commissions can be had by anyone and when service has become a job?

So, don't call me Esquire or even Mister. Just call me by my given name. Respect me if I am respectable for who I am, not for what I might pretend to be.