AMERICAN TITLES AND DISTINCTIONS. 315 



welfare of the race. Every one understands that social usage often 

 suggests words, phrases and sentences which imply more or less covert 

 flattery. Indulgence in them is not only pardonable, but often de- 

 manded by an unwritten law, even if they are not accordant with the 

 severest requirements of truth. They give pleasure without really 

 deceiving; they excite laughter without derision; they hide sorrow; 

 they brighten life. Much title-giving has been the outcome of an 

 unselfish desire to express appreciation and good will. It may not 

 be wise, but it is a good-natured attempt to give pleasure by covert 

 flattery. 



This unselfish basis for the giving of titles constitutes a sufficient 

 explanation of that gradual diffusion and degradation of all distinc- 

 tions that time invariably develops. A familiar example to all who 

 have had experience in educational work is found in the class-room 

 marking system, by which distinctions are based upon attainment in 

 scholarship. Nearly a century ago the trustees of an academy well 

 known in Virginia prescribed for the teachers a system of marking 

 which was made up of three degrees of merit, bonus, melior, optimus, 

 and three of demerit, malus, pejor, pessimus. If we apply to this the 

 mathematical principle forming the basis of the theory of probabilities, 

 it is easy to show that about 30 per cent, of all students examined 

 ought to be graded tonus, and the same percentage malus, the sum of 

 these two groups forming thus nearly two thirds of the whole. About 

 16 per cent, should be graded melior and the same percentage pejor; 

 not quite 4 per cent, optimus and the same percentage pessimus. But 

 what was the actual working of the system? The historian, Henry 

 Euffner, says: ''The continual tendency was to mark inferior scholars 

 too high. Thus it came to pass that not half the bad scholars got 

 malus, the worst almost never fell below it, and bonus, though a mark 

 of approbation, came to be considered as a disgrace, while optimus 

 which ought to have been reserved for scholars of the highest merit, 

 was commonly bestowed on all who rose above mediocrity." When 

 Dr. Euffner in 1829 became temporary president of the college into 

 which this academy had developed, he secured the abolition of the dis- 

 credited marking system, and the substitution of three grades: 'Dis- 

 approved,' 'Approved' and 'Distinguished.' According to the mathe- 

 matical theory about 60 per cent, should have been approved, about 20 

 per cent, disapproved and 20 per cent, distinguished. But he writes 

 that 'within two or three years some bad scholars were approved, and 

 good scholars were nearly all distinguished.' 



This continual temptation to grade as many as possible in the 

 highest class is by no means based on selfishness alone, or even to any 

 large extent on selfishness, though personal pride is one element. It 

 is impossible for an examiner to make an exact numerical statement of 



