26 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



is the Sanskrit ganaka ; and " in Sanskrit, ganaka means producing, 

 parent, then king." If this is the true derivation, we have simply an 

 alternative title for the head of the family group, of the patriarchal 

 group, and the cluster of patriarchal groups. The only further fact 

 respecting it calling for remark is the way in which it becomes com- 

 pounded to produce a higher title. Just as in Hebrew Abram, meaning 

 " high father," came to be a compound used to signify the fatherhood 

 and headship of many minor groups ; and just as the Greek and Latin 

 equivalents to our patriarch signified, by implication if not directl}'-, a 

 father- of fathers — so in the case of the title " king " it has happened 

 that a potentate recognized as dominant over numerous potentates has 

 in many cases been descriptively called " king of kings." In Abyssinia 

 this compound royal name is used down to the present time ; ancient 

 Eg}^tian monarchs assumed it ; and it occurred also as a supreme title 

 in Assyria. And here again we meet a correspondence between terres- 

 trial and celestial titles. As " father " and " king " are applied in com- 

 mon to the visible and to the invisible ruler, so also is "king of 

 kings." 



This need for marking by a distinct or additional name the ruler who 

 becomes head of many rulers leads to the introduction of other titles of 

 honor. In France, for example, while the king was but a predominant 

 feudal noble, he was addressed by the title of sire^ which was a title 

 borne by feudal nobles in general ; but after the middle of the sixteenth 

 century, when his supremacy became settled, the word "majesty" came 

 into use as distinctively applicable to him. Similarly with the names 

 of secondary potentates. In the earlier stages of the feudal period, the 

 titles baron, marquis, duke, and count, were often confounded : the 

 reason being that their attributes as feudal nobles, as guards of the 

 marches, as military leaders, and as friends of the king, were so far 

 common to them as to yield no clear grounds for distinction. But as 

 the differentiation of functions progressed, these titles differentiated in 

 their meanings. 



" The name 'baron,' " says Ch^ruel, " appears to have been the generic term 

 for every kind of great lord, that of duke for every kind of military chief, that 

 of count and marquis for every ruler of a territory. These titles are used 

 almost indiscriminately in the romances of chivalry. "When the feudal hier- 

 archy was constituted the name baron denoted a lord inferior in rank to a count 

 and superior to a simple knight." 



That is to say, with the progress of political organization, and the 

 establishment of rulers over rulers, certain titles became specialized for 

 the dignifying of the superiors, in addition to those which they had in 

 common with the inferiors. 



As is shown by the above cases, special titles, like general ones, are 

 not made, but grow — they are at first descriptive. Further to exem- 

 plify this descriptive origin, and also to exemplify the undifferentiated 

 use of titles in early days, let me enumerate the several styles by which, 



