3 ms·
Nothing in the paragraph indicates an origin for the connection to the legal profession. In fact, later in the piece they explicitly state that the origin of t
by CarelessExpert 6y ago
Nothing in the paragraph indicates an origin for the connection to the legal profession.
In fact, later in the piece they explicitly state that the origin of that connection is unknown:
> Successive writers tried to pin down what it actually meant, with no great success. Ferne, who was himself also a lawyer, noted that it was often used by those in the legal profession. Later definitions suggest someone adjacent to power, maybe the son of a knight or the younger son of a titled noble who would receive no other title of his own. But also, consistently, it included someone in a legal profession: a justice of the peace, a barrister, a sergeant-at-law. It was never recorded, explicitly, why this might be.
- pseudolus 6y agoPerhaps instead of stating "that the title has arisen as a result of a form of professional jealousy" I should have stated "that use of the title has arisen as a result of a form of professional jealousy" which is entirely consistent with the author implying that lawyers need to signal that what they do is special".
- CarelessExpert 6y agoSo if your comment is about "what does the title mean", yup, no argument there. Today, it means lawyer. The article is about why. And the article explicitly states we have no idea why the term is now attached to the legal profession. Again, all we know is: knights got rich, squires became a thing, people started using "esquire" to appear rich adjacent, then ... esquire == lawyer. That's it. That's all the article gives us as far as the origin story goes. But maybe you're not talking about the origin and instead just talking about contemporary use, in which case we're in violent agreement! :)