Anathema

Anathema (pronounced uh-nath-uh-muh)

(1) Something or someone that one vehemently dislikes.

(2) A formal ecclesiastical curse by a leader or governing council of a church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine.

(3) A person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.

(4) A technical definition of any imprecation of divine punishment.

(5) A curse or execration.

1520s: From the Middle English, from the Church Latin anathema (an excommunicated person or the curse of excommunication) derived from Greek anathema (a thing accursed; dedicated to evil, from anatithenai (to dedicate).  Interestingly, the original meaning was "a thing devoted" (literally "a thing set up” (to the gods)).  The construct was ana (up) + tithenai ("to place").  It was originally a votive offering but by the time it reached Latin, the meaning had progressed through "thing devoted to evil," to "thing accursed or damned" and the meaning in the Ancient Greek term was influenced by the Hebrew herem, leading to the sense of "accursed", especially in religious matters.  In later ecclesiastical use, it became applied to persons, institutions and even ideas as a Divine Curse; the technical, legal meaning of “a formal act or formula of consigning to damnation” dating from the 1610s.  One mistake which has endured for centuries is the use of maranatha, taken as an intensified form.  It’s a misreading of the Syriac maran etha "the Lord hath come", which follows anathema in scripture (I Corinthians 16:22) but is no way connected and the error persists because of the large number of references in medieval texts, written by scribes who for years duplicated the original error.  Anathema is a noun, anathematic & anathematical are adjectives, anathematization & anathematizer are nouns, anathematize is a verb and anathematically is an adverb; the noun plural is plural anathemata (because of the special history, the form anathemas is not an alternative).

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

Historically, in the early Christian church, the issue of an anathema signified an exclusion from the community of the faithful on grounds of heresy.  By the late medieval period, canon lawyers had developed a distinction between anathema and excommunication, apparently because of the need for technical devices in the handling of actual heretics (permanently to be excluded from communion) and those behaving badly (subject to a kind of ecclesiastical sin-bin, those punished able to be re-admitted to reception of the sacraments upon repenting).  In the west, the 1917 Roman Code of Canon Law abandoned the distinction between major and minor excommunication but in the east, the Orthodox maintained the rule, something confirmed by Bartholomew I (Dimitrios Arhondonis (b 1940); Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople since 1991) as recently as 2021.  The current (1983) Code of Canon Law does not contain the word anathema but documents of anathema continue to be issued by Orthodox Patriarchs, the most dramatic of which were those around the great disputes within Russian Orthodoxy after the 1917 Russian revolutions.

The Latin forms, for those who think English formations are difficult.

Witenagemot

Witenagemot (pronounced wit-n-uh-guh-moht)

(1) The Anglo-Saxon parliament, the assembly of the witan; the national council attended by the king, aldermen, bishops, and nobles which assembled on several occasions between the sixth and eleventh centuries, initially as a number of bodies which claimed only regional authority, later (and with representative membership), assuming a national jurisdiction.

(2) Any one session of any of these assemblies.

(3) In casual use, other deliberative bodies (obsolete since the late nineteenth centuries).

1585–1595: From the Old English, the construct being witena, (genitive plural of wita (councillor; man of knowledge) + gemōt (assembly, meeting, council), gemōt the source of the Modern English moot.  A learned borrowing the from Old English witena ġemōt, the literal translation was “assembly of the wise”).  The spelling (and capitalization) of Witenagemot was never standardised.  In Modern English, witenagemot was the most common form but historically, more frequently used (in order) were wittenagemot, wittenagemote, wittena-gemote and wittena-gemot, but all of those variations had declined by the early twentieth century and, except in historic citation, are now extinct.  Also long obsolete is the (always rare) use of Witenagemot to describe any institution other than the Anglo-Saxon assembly.  Witenagemot is a noun; the plural is witenagemots.

Anglo-Saxon England.

The Witenaġemot, often in casual conversation spoken of as “the Witan” (which, technically was title granted to the membership), was an embryonic parliament which assembled periodically in England between the late sixth and mid-eleventh centuries.  As an aggregation, it formed by a process of gradual absorption of earlier assemblies with purely regional jurisdiction (Essex, Kent, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex and Wessex) before eventually asserting national jurisdiction.  The closest modern counterparts of its composition and function were probably the colonial legislative councils; political institutions devoted to the deliberative and empowered to advise the executive (the king and his court).  The Witenagemot’s membership reflected the practice many such assemblies and was restricted to the nobility, the landed gentry and senior clergy.  Historians consider the Witenagemot a particularly English development and adaptation of the old (and more widely representative) Germanic assemblies or folkmoots.  In late sixth century England, these folkmoots had assumed a more aristocratic identity as convocations of the most important, influential and powerful in the land.  Although local, regional and local matters were discussed when the Witenagemot convened, it was a body without legislative authority; it was empowered only to “warn, counsel and advise” the king.

William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, stabbing King Harold of England at the Battle of Hastings while fighting on horseback.  Painting held by the British Library Board, Cotton Vitellius A. XIII.

One of the Witenagemot’s final acts concerned the royal succession in 1066.  Because Edward the Confessor (circa 1003-1066; King of England 1042-1066) died without an heir, it was a resolution of Witenagemot which confirmed Edward's successor to be his brother-in-law Harold Godwinson (circa 1022-1066; King Harold II of England, Jan-Oct 1066) as king.  With no royal blood and fearing rival claims from the Duke of Normandy and the King of Norway, Harold had himself crowned in Westminster Abbey on 6 January 1066, the day after Edward's death.  In September, a Norwegian army, aided by Harold's alienated brother Tostig, Earl of Northumbria, did invade but at the Battle of Stamford Bridge his force was routed so decisively by Harold that barely two-dozen vessels of the invasion fleet of three-hundred were required to ferry home the survivors.  Meanwhile, the Duke of Normandy, claiming Harold had two years earlier acknowledged him as Edward's successor, landed in Sussex.  Harold rushed his seven-thousand strong army south where, on 14 October 1066, he was defeated by the Normans, falling in battle on the field of Senlac near Hastings; after being struck in the eye by an arrow, he was cut down by Norman swords.  Harold was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England.

Primate

Primate (pronounced prahy-meyt or prahy-mit)

(1) In the ecclesiastical hierarchy, an archbishop or bishop ranking first among the bishops of a province or country (in this context usually pronounced prahy-mit). Primate is a title or rank bestowed on some archbishops in some Christian churches and can, depending on tradition, denote either jurisdictional authority or mere ceremonial precedence.

(2) In zoology, any of various omnivorous mammals of the order primates (including simians and prosimians), comprising the three suborders anthropoidea (humans, great apes, gibbons, Old World monkeys, and New World monkeys), prosimii (lemurs, loris, and their allies), and tarsioidea (tarsiers), especially distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability: a large group of baboons is called a congress which, to some, makes perfect sense.

(3) A chief or leader (archaic).

1175-1225: In the sense of "high bishop, preeminent ecclesiastical official of a province" having a certain jurisdiction, as vicar of the pope, over other bishops in his province, primate is from the Middle English primate & primat, from the Old French primat and directly from the Medieval Latin primatem (church primate), a noun use of the Late Latin adjective primas (of the first rank, chief, principal) from primus (first).  The meaning "animal of the biological order including monkeys and humans" is attested from 1876, from the Modern Latin Primates, the order name (linnæus), the plural of the Latin primas; so called for being regarded as the "highest" order of mammals (the category originally included bats, representing the state of thought in biology at the time).

As an adjective, prime dates from the late fourteenth century in the sense of "first, original, first in order of time" from the Old French prime and directly from the Latin primus (first, the first, first part (figuratively "chief, principal; excellent, distinguished, noble") from the Proto-Italic prismos & priisemos, superlative of the primitive Indo-European preis- (before), from the root per (beyond; before; forward), hence the sense "in front of, before, first, chief".  It was the source also of the Italian and Spanish primo and thus a doublet of primo.  The meaning "of fine quality; of the first excellence" is from circa 1400.  The meaning "first in rank, degree, or importance" was first noted in English circa 1610 whereas in mathematics (as in prime number), it wasn’t in the literature until the 1560s.  The prime meridian (the meridian of the earth from which longitude is measured, that of Greenwich, England) was established in 1878.  Prime time which originally was used to describe "spring time" is attested from circa 1500.  The use in broadcasting in the sense of a "peak tuning-in period" dates from 1961.

Some endangered primates.

As a noun prime referred to the "earliest canonical hour of the day" (6 am), from the Old English prim and the Old French prime or directly from the Medieval Latin prima "the first service" from the Latin prima hora (the first hour (of the Roman day)), from the Latin primus ("first, the first, first part").  In classical Latin, the noun uses of the adjective meant "first part, beginning; leading place".  The noun sense "apostrophe-like symbol" exists because the symbol ′ was originally a superscript Roman numeral one.  By extension, "the first division of the day" (6-9 am) was an early-thirteenth century form whereas the sense of "beginning of a period or course of events" is from the late fourteenth.  From the notion of "the period or condition of greatest vigor in life" there came by the 1530s the specific sense "springtime of human life" (taken usually to mean the ages around 21-28 (the division of live in seven-year chunks a noted motif in English) is from the 1590s and at about the same time, prime came to mean "that which is best in quality, highest or most perfect state of anything".

The use as a verb dates from the 1510s, an invention by the military to describe the process (fill, charge, load) required before a musket or other flintlock weapon could be discharged, the assumption being this was derive from the adjective.  From this by circa 1600 evolved the general sense of "perform the first operation on, prepare something for its intended purpose” (applied especially to wood to make ready for painting)".  To prime a pump is noted from 1769 and meant to pour water down the tube to saturate the sucking mechanism which made it draw up water more readily.  This was later adopted in public finance and economics to describe what is now usually called fiscal stimulus (the idea being a little government money attracting more private investment.  The suffix -ate was a word-forming element used in forming nouns from Latin words ending in -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as estate, primate & senate).  Those that came to English via French often began with -at, but an -e was added in the fifteenth century or later to indicate the long vowel.  It can also mark adjectives formed from Latin perfect passive participle suffixes of first conjugation verbs -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as desolate, moderate & separate).  Again, often they were adopted in Middle English with an –at suffix, the -e appended after circa 1400; a doublet of –ee.

Lindsay Lohan and a large primate, King Kong premiere, Loews E-Walk and AMC Empire 25 Theaters, New York City, December 2005.

The Roman Catholic Church

In the Roman Catholic Church, a Primate is almost always an Archbishop though the title is occasionally bestowed on the (Metropolitan) bishop of an Episcopal see who has precedence over the bishoprics of one or more ecclesiastical provinces of a particular historical, political or cultural area.  Also sometimes created are primates where the title is entirely honorific, granting only precedence in on ceremonial occasions and, in the case of the Polish Primates, the privilege of wearing cardinal's crimson robes (though not the skullcap and biretta).  The Vatican likes the old ways and many primates are vested not in the capitals of countries but in those places which were the centres of the country when first Christianized.  For that reason there still exists the Primate of the Visigothic Kingdom, and the Primate of the Gauls.

Some of the leadership functions once exercised by Primates have now either devolved to presidents of conferences of bishops or to Rome itself.  Modern communications as much as reform of canon law have influenced these developments and most changes were effected between the publication of the Code of Canon Law in 1917 and the late twentieth-century implementation of Vatican II’s more arcane administrative arrangements.  Rome has never seemed quite sure how to deal with England.  Unlike in the secular US, where the Holy See’s grant of precedence to the Archbishop of Baltimore dates from 1848, the Archbishop of Westminster has not been granted the title of Primate of England and Wales but is instead described as that of Chief Metropolitan.  Rome has never exactly defined the implications of that though it has been suggested the position is “…similar to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury.”  Most helpful.

If the position in England remains vague, that of some of the orders is opaque.  The loose structures of the Benedictine Confederation made Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903; pope 1878-1903) exclaim that the Benedictines were ordo sine ordine (an order without order), something about which he subsequently did little.  The Benedictine Abbot Primate resides at Sant'Anselmo in Rome and takes precedence of all other abbots and is granted authority over all matters of discipline, to settle difficulties arising between monasteries, to hold a canonical visitation, exercise a general supervision for the regular observance of monastic discipline.  However, his Primatial powers permit him to act only by virtue of the proper law of the autonomous Benedictine congregations, most of which does not exist.  Charmingly, the Benedictine Order appears still to operate as it’s done for the last few centuries, untroubled by tiresome letters from Rome although other orders have embraced modern ways.  The Confederation of Canons Regular of St Augustine democratically elects an Abbot Primate, though his role, save for prerogative reserve powers, is ceremonial.

The Church of England

Some endangered Primates at the Lambeth Conference, London, 1930.  The once almost exclusively white, male and middle class world of Anglican bishops has in recent decades become increasingly black, evangelical and even female.  It seems likely it may also become increasingly gay.  Although rarely spoken of, it's an open secret the Anglican church in England depends for its operation on its many gay clergy and it may be it will require only the natural processes of generational change for gay bishops to become an accepted thing.  Before that, a state of tolerance or peaceful co-existence may be next step.

Anglican usage styles the bishop who heads an independent church as its primate, though they always hold some other title (archbishop, bishop, or moderator).  In Anglicanism, a primate’s authority is not universally defined; some are executives while others can do little more than preside over conferences or councils and represent the church ceremonially.  However, the when the Anglicans convene a Primates' Meeting, the chief bishop of each of the thirty-eight churches that compose the Anglican Communion acts as its primate, though they may not be that within their own church.  For example, the various United Churches of the sub-continent are represented at the meetings by their moderators though they become primates for the purposes of Anglican conferences.  Primates are thus created for photo-opportunities.

Winds of change: Primates at the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), Jerusalem, 2018.

In both the Churches of England and Ireland, two bishops have the title of primate: the archbishops of Canterbury and York in England and of Armagh and Dublin in Ireland.  The Archbishop of Canterbury, considered primus inter pares (first among equals) of all the participants, convenes meetings and issues invitations.  The title of primate in the Church of England has no direct relationship with the ex-officio right of twenty-six bishops to sit in the House of Lords; were the church to do away with the title, it would not at all affect the constitutional position.

The Orthodox Church

In the Orthodox Church, a primate is the presiding bishop of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction or region.  Usually, the expression primate refers to the first hierarch of an autocephalous or autonomous Orthodox Church although, less often, it’s used to refer to the ruling bishop of an archdiocese or diocese.  In the first hierarch, the primate is the first among equals of all his brother bishops of the jurisdiction or diocese of which he is first, or primary, hierarch, and he is usually elected by the Holy Synod in which he will serve.  All bishops are equal sacramentally, but the most important administrative tasks are undertaken by the bishop of the most honored diocese.  The primate of an autocephalous church supervises the internal and external welfare of that church and represents it in its relations with other autocephalous Orthodox churches, religious organizations, and secular authorities.  During liturgical services, his name will be mentioned by the other bishops of the autocephalous church and the primate mentions the names of the other heads of autocephalous Orthodox churches at Divine services.

The liturgical duties vary between jurisdictions but, normally, the hierarch is responsible for such tasks as the consecration and distribution of the Holy Chrism and providing the diocesan bishops with the holy relics necessary for the consecration of church altars and holy antimins.  To this may extend other administrative duties including convening and presiding over the meetings of the Holy Synods and other councils, receiving petitions for admission of clergy from other Orthodox churches, initiating the action to fill vacancies in the office of diocesan bishops, and issuing pastoral letters addressed to the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church.  He will also advise his brother bishops, and when required, submits their cases to the Holy Synod. He has the honor of pastoral initiative and guidance, and, when necessary, the right of pastoral intervention, in all matters concerning the life of the Church within the structure of the holy canons.

Trumpery

Trumpery (pronounced truhm-puh-ree)

(1) Something without use or value; rubbish; trash; worthless stuff.

(2) Nonsense; twaddle; foolish talk or actions.

(3) Worthless finery; a mere trinket (archaic).

(4) Deceit; fraud (obsolete).

1425–1475: From the late Middle English trompery (deceit) from the Middle French tromperie from tromper (to cheat).  The construct of tromperie was tromper ((from the Middle & Old French tromper (to tramp, delude; literally “to play on the trumpet”), from trompe (trump, trumpet), from the Frankish trumpa (trump, trumpet), from a common Germanic word akin to the Old High German trumba & trumpa (trump, trumpet); ultimately an imitative form) +‎ -erie (from the Old French -erie, inherited the from Latin -arius & -ator; the suffix denoting, inter alia, nouns describing qualities or properties).  The plural is trumperies.

In English, the original meaning of the mid-fifteenth century noun trumpery was deception & trickery and as late as 1847, British statesman and novelist Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881; prime-minister Feb-Dec 1868 & 1874-1880) wrote of a political movement being condemned as “…fraud and trumpery”.  The French original (tromperie from the verb tromper) also meant “to deceive” but its original, literal meaning was “to blow a trumpet” so tromper quelque chose (literally “to trump something”) meant to announce something to the sound of a trumpet, and tromper quelqu’un, (literally “to trump someone”), meant “to announce something to someone to the sound of a trumpet.  Etymologists believe the figurative sense of tromper (“to deceive”) emerged because the perception evolved that such announcements were often false, truth thought likely to be in inverse proportion to the volume of the advertising.

The English noun trump is now obsolete in the senses related to trumpets except in the Biblical expression “the last trump” (Revelation 11:15), denoting the trumpet blast that will wake the dead on Judgment Day.  Trump continues in English in card games in the sense a playing card of a suit that ranks higher than any other suit but that meaning developed separately and is a variant of triumph, once used in card games in the same sense; the French and Italian masculine nouns triomphe and trionfo were used in the same way.  The first known user of trump in the sense of a winning card was the English Protestant prelate and martyr Hugh Latimer (circa 1485-1555) in the first of his Sermons on the Card (circa 1529): “We must say to ourselves, “What requireth Christ of a christian man?” Now turn up your trump, your heart (hearts is trump, as I said before), and cast your trump, your heart, on this card; and upon this card you shall learn what Christ requireth of a christian man.”

At the GOP Shop, every card was once a Trump.  Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the GOP Shop seems to have removed all Donald Trump merchandise from its catalogue but the decks of waterproof Donald Trump 24k gold plated playing cards have been off-loaded and are available on Amazon at US$7.88, only a little more than when last advertised by the GOP Shop when they listed at US$6.25 (reduced from US$19.95).

A deck of waterproof Donald Trump 24k gold plated playing cards for US$7.88 would seem good value because a 54 card (52 + 2 jokers) Lindsay Lohan deck costs US$36.

Duplicity

Duplicity (pronounced doo-plis-i-tee or dyoo-plis-i-tee)

(1) Deceitfulness in speech or conduct, as by speaking or acting in two different ways to different people concerning the same matter; double-dealing.

(2) An act or instance of such deceitfulness.

(3) In law, the act or fact of including two or more offenses in one count, or charge, as part of an indictment, thus violating the requirement that each count contain only a single offense.

1400–1450: From the Late Middle English, from the Old French duplicite, from the Late Latin duplicitatem (nominative duplicitas (doubleness)).  Technically, the word wa borrowed from Latin duplicāre (double), present active infinitive of duplicō and the Medieval Latin duplicitās differed with ite replacing itās.  The notion is of being "double" in one's conduct ultimately is derived from the Ancient Greek diploos (treacherous, double-minded) which translates literally as "twofold, double".  Related in Medieval Latin was ambiguity, noun of quality from duplex, genitive (duplicis (two-fold)).

Duplicity good and bad

Because such conduct is inherent to human interaction, there are many words either similar in meaning or a synonym of duplicity.  Duplicity is the form of deceitfulness that leads one to give two impressions, either or both of which may be false.  Deceit is the quality that prompts intentional concealment or perversion of truth for the purpose of misleading.  The quality of guile leads to craftiness in the use of deceit; one uses guile and trickery to attain one's ends. Hypocrisy is the pretence of possessing virtuous qualities such as sincerity, goodness or devotion.  Fraud refers usually to the practice of subtle deceit or duplicity by which one may derive benefit at another's expense.  Trickery is the quality that leads to the use of tricks and habitual deception.  In modern English usage, the most common sense of duplicity is “deceitfulness.”  The roots of this meaning are in the initial dupl from the Latin duplex (twofold, or double).  We do seem a duplicitous lot.

Alexander Haig (1924–2010; US Secretary of State 1981-1982) & Ronald Reagan (1911–2004; US President 1981-1989) (left) and Lord Carrington (1919–2018; UK Foreign Secretary 1979-1982) & Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013; UK Prime Minister 1979-1990) (right).

To accuse someone duplicity is usually to allege or suggest something negative, the idea that someone has acted in a manner perhaps not dishonest but certainly misleading or dishonorable.  However there are fields of endeavor where the successfully duplicitous are often admired and the most Machiavellian can be held in awe.  In international relations, it’s true in the upper reaches of diplomacy.

Duplicity, art and science: Haig and Carrington, the White House, 26 February 1981.

More than General Colin Powell (b 1937; US Secretary of State 2001-2005) and more even than General Dwight Eisenhower (1890–1969; US President 1953-1961), General Alexander Haig (1924-2010) was an exemplar of that uniquely Washington DC creature, the political soldier, whose career shuttled between the military, diplomacy and politics.  After a meeting in 1981, Haig was heard to remark the UK Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, was a "duplicitous bastard".  Beyond the beltway, that would be a disparaging comment, but, in the world of international diplomacy, it’s more an expression of admiration of professional skill.

Mean Girls (2004), a story of duplicity, low skulduggery, Machiavellian manipulation, lies & deceit.  As a morality tale, the message can be reduced to: “Women would rather hear brilliant lies than honest truths”.

Draft

Draft (pronounced drahft)

(1) An initial drawing, sketch, or design.

(2) A first or preliminary form of any writing, subject to revision.

(3) The act of drawing; delineation.

(4) A current of air in any enclosed space, especially in a room, chimney, stove or through a door or window frame; a current of air moving in an upward or downward direction.

(5) A device for regulating the current of air in a stove, fireplace etc.

(6) The act of drawing or pulling loads; something that is drawn or pulled; a haul; an animal or team of animals used to pull a load.

(7) The force required to pull a load; in rail transport, the pulling force (tension) on couplers and draft gear during a slack stretched condition.

(8) The taking of supplies, forces, money etc, from a given source.

(9) A selection or drawing of persons, by lot or otherwise, from a subset of the population; levy; conscription or the persons so selected; in professional sport, the selecting or drawing of new players from a choice group of amateur players by professional teams, especially a system of selecting new players so that each team in a professional league receives some of the most promising players.

(10) In military use, a selection of persons already in military service to be sent from one post or organization to another; detachment.

(11) A written order drawn by one person upon another; a writing directing the payment of money on account of the drawer; bill of exchange; A drain or demand made on anything.

(12) As draft beer, a type drawn from a keg or barrel rather than glass or can.

(13) Something that is taken in by drinking or inhaling; a drink; dose.

(14) A quantity of fish caught; the catch or haul (archaic).

(15) In admiralty use, the depth to which a vessel is immersed when bearing a given load.

(16) In Metallurgy, the slight taper given to a pattern so that it may be drawn from the sand without injury to the mold; also called leave.

(17) In steel fabrication, the change in sectional area of a piece of work caused by a rolling or drawing operation.

(18) In stone masonry, a line or border chiseled at the edge of a stone, to serve as a guide in leveling the surfaces.

(19) In the production of textiles, the degree of attenuation produced in fibers during yarn processing, expressed either by the ratio of the weight of raw to the weight of processed fiber, or by the ratio between the varying surface speeds of the rollers on the carding machine.

(20) An allowance granted to a buyer for waste of goods sold by weight.

(21) Ad drafting, in cycling & motorsport, to drive or ride close behind another car so as to benefit from the reduction in air pressure created behind the car or bike ahead; also called slipstreaming.

(22) In hydrology, the divergent duct leading from a water turbine to its tailrace.

(23) To separate a group of livestock from the rest of the herd (Australia & NZ).

(24) In apothecarial use, a measured portion of a liquid or aerosol medication; a dose.

(25)In politics, a system of forcing or convincing (at least nominally unwilling) people to take an elected position.

(26) A checker: a game piece used in the game of draughts.

(27) In medicine, a mild vesicatory (UK, obsolete).

(28) An outhouse: an outbuilding used as a lavatory (obsolete).

(29) In pre-modern military use, a sudden attack upon an enemy (obsolete).

Circa 1500: A spelling variant of the Middle English draught, from Old English dræht, related to dragan (to draw, drag), from Proto-Germanic drahtuz, noun form of draganą.  Root in English is draw, from the Middle English drawen, draȝen, dragen, from Old English dragan (to draw, drag, pull”), from Proto-Germanic draganą, from the primitive dreǵ (to draw, pull).  It was cognate with the West Frisian drage, the Dutch dragen, the German tragen (to carry), the Danish drage, the Albanian dredh (to turn, spin), the Old Armenian դառնամ (daṙnam) (to turn) and the Sanskrit ध्रजस् (dhrájas) (gliding course or motion).  Draught is a variant spelling of draft and is normally pronounced the same way (draft or drahft or with a vowel somewhere between “a” and “ah”). The pronunciation drawt is sometimes heard for draught, perhaps because “aught” is frequently pronounced awt elsewhere, as in caught and taught.

Caught in the draft:  A Lindsay Lohan wardrobe malfunction, MTV Movie Awards, 2008.

The emergence of draft circa 1500 reflected a change in pronunciation although both it and draught are now pronounced the same.  The meanings "rough copy of a writing" and “something drawn" is attested from the fourteenth century; that of "preliminary sketch from which a final copy is made" is from the 1520s; that of "flow of a current of air" was first noted circa 1770.  The descriptor of a type of beer is from the 1830s, in reference to the method of "drawing" it from the cask.  As applied to a bank draft, later extended to bills of exchange, meaning emerged in 1745. The meaning "a drawing off a group for special duty" is from 1703 and applies especially to military service; the verb in this sense first recorded 1714.  Related forms are the adjectives draftable, undraftable, undrafted & antidraft, the nouns drafter & redraft (also a verb) and the verb redraft.

Except in the US and places which have adopted US English, draft and draught seem now to be alternative spellings and while the old distinctions of use remain technically correct, modern practice appears to be to use them interchangeably.  Draft almost universal in American English and draught persists elsewhere for purposes where the historical association is most strong (draught horse, draught beer etc).  Draftee (person conscripted for military purposes) dates from 1864 in US English, the adjectival homophone drafty (exposed to drafts of air) is from the 1580s, draftiness a few years later.  Updraft (US) and updraught (rising air current) is from 1909, one of a rush of words created or adapted from others to serve the new field of aviation.  Draftsman (one who draws or prepares plans, sketches, or designs) is from the 1660s, a variant of the earlier draughtsman.  In finance, overdraft (action of overdrawing an account) dates from 1841 and by 1891 the meaning had extended to "amount by which a draft exceeds the sum against which it is drawn".  Unrelated was the use by 1884 of overdraft to describe “a draft of air passing over, but not through, the ignited fuel”, a use applied to ovens & furnaces.

Draught (act of pulling or drawing; quantity of liquid that one drinks at a time), the source of all this dates from circa 1200, from the Old English dreaht & dræht and related to dragan (to draw, drag).  The oldest recorded sense besides that of "pulling" is of "drinking", one suggestion being the idea of "so much as is drawn down the throat at once", a similar relationship drag has to the act of inhaling from a cigarette.  Draught is attested from circa 1300 as having some connection with "that which is drawn or written" although it seems clear the original meaning referred to writing in general, not “first draft” as is now understood.  In the UK, more than anywhere else, draught retains the functions (horses, beer etc) that did not branch off with draft.

Catching the draft, the Mercedes-Benz of Valtteri Bottas & Lewis Hamilton, Italian Grand Prix qualifying, Monza, September 2020.

In motorsport, drafting (also called slipstreaming) is a driving technique which exploits being in the slipstream of the vehicle to reduce the drag suffered by one’s own vehicle.  As a general principle, the higher the speeds involved, the lower the average energy expenditure required to maintain a certain speed.  Because it can have the effect also of reducing the turbulence between the vehicles, it can also offer a slight advantage to the lead vehicle.  The advantage gained in reducing the energy expenditure manifests as reduced fuel consumption which can be a strategic advantage but the most dramatic effect of “catching the draft” is the so-called “slingshot effect” whereby a vehicle coming out of the slipstream can use the conserved power to pass the vehicle it’s been deliberately following.

Six-Pack: Three drafters and three draftees drafting, Daytona 500, Daytona Beach, Florida, 2011.

The technique began to be well-understood in the 1960s but wasn’t without risk.  A vehicle of one shape could produce a different slipstream than another and at high-speed, slight differences can have a pronounced effect, the results for the trailing car unpredictable.  Additionally, sitting in the draft, enjoying the lower wind-resistance, although it allowed a higher speed to be attained, also meant a reduction in down-force and consequent instability.  The advantages and dangers are best illustrated on the faster oval speedways used by NASCAR.  On the straights, two or more vehicles will race faster when aligned front-to-rear than a single car, the low-pressure wake behind the leading car reducing the aerodynamic resistance on the front of the trailing car allowing the second car to pull closer.  As the second car nears the first it pushes high-pressure air forward so less fast-moving air hits the lead car's spoiler.  The result is less drag for both cars, allowing faster speeds.  On curves however, the load on one side of the car is higher, this accentuated by changes caused by the draft: the leading car has normal front downforce but less rear downforce.  The trailing car has less front downforce but normal rear downforce.  In a group of three or more, the vehicles with drafting partners both ahead and behind will lose downforce front and rear.

Firecracker 400, Daytona Beach, Florida, 1974.

In NASCAR’s 1974 Firecracker 400, the lead changed forty-five times, a record which would stand until 2010 and it’s remembered also for one of the sport’s most audacious uses of drafting.  As he was about to start the final lap, David Pearson (1973 Mercury #21) feigned engine troubles by slowing and dropping low on the track, forcing the slipstreaming Richard Petty (1974 Dodge #43) to swerve into the lead.  Person then was able to sit in Petty’s slipstream, drafting past on the final corner to win the race.  Petty’s reaction, recorded in the press box after the race, was so memorable it was transcribed and published in next morning’s Orlando Sentinel.

Doomsday

Doomsday (pronounced doomz-dey)

(1) In Christian eschatology, the day of the Last Judgment, at the end of the world (sometimes capital letter); the end of days; the end of times.

(2) Any day of judgment or sentence (sometimes initial capital).

(3) In casual use, the destruction of the world, since the 1950s, by means of nuclear weapons.

(4) As doomsday weapon(s), the device(s) causing the destruction of the world; anything capable of causing widespread or total destruction.

(5) Given to or marked by forebodings or predictions of impending calamity; especially concerned with or predicting future universal destruction.

(6) As Doomsday Clock, a symbolic warning device indicating how close humanity is to destroying the world, run since 1947 as a private venture by the members of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Pre 1000: A compound from the Middle English domes + dai from the Old English construct dom (judgment) + dæg (day), dōmesdæg (sometimes dōmes dæg) (Judgment Day) and related to the Old Norse domsdagr.  Dome was borrowed from the Middle French dome & domme (which survives in Modern French as dôme), from the Italian duomo, from the Latin domus (ecclesiae) (literally “house (of the church)”), a calque of the Ancient Greek οἶκος τῆς ἐκκλησίας (oîkos tês ekklēsías); doublet of domus.  Dom was from the Proto-West Germanic dōm and was cognate with the Old Frisian dōm, the Old Saxon dōm, the Old High German tuom, the Old Norse dómr and the Gothic dōms.  The Germanic source was from a stem verb originally meaning “to place, to set”, a sense-development also found in the Latin statutum and the Ancient Greek θέμις (thémis).  Dai had the alternative forms deg, deag & dœg all from the Proto-West Germanic dag; it was cognate with the Old Frisian dei, the Old Saxon dag, the Old Dutch dag, the Old High German tag, the Old Norse dagr and the Gothic dags.

In medieval England, doomsday was expected when the world's age had reached 6,000 years from the creation, thought to have been in 5200 BC and English Benedictine monk, the Venerable Bede (circa 672-735) complained of being pestered by rustici (the "uneducated and coarse-mannered, rough of speech"), asking him "how many years till the sixth millennium be endeth?"  However, despite the assertions (circa 1999) of the Y2K doomsday preppers, there is no evidence to support the story of a general panic in Christian Europe in the days approaching the years 800 or 1000 AD.  The use to describe a hypothetical nuclear bomb powerful enough to wipe out human life (or all life) on earth is from 1960 but the speculation was the work of others than physicists and the general trend since the 1960s has been towards smaller devices although paradoxically, this has been to maximize the destructive potential through an avoidance of the "surplus ballistic effect" (ie the realization by military planners that blasting rubble into to smaller-sized rocks was "wasted effort and bad economics").

The Domesday Book

Domesday is a proper noun that is used to describe the documents known collectively as the Domesday Book, at the time an enormous survey (a kind of early census) ordered by William I (circa 1028-1087; styled usually as William the Conqueror, King of England 1066-1087) in 1085.  The survey enumerated all the wealth in England and determined ownership in order to assess taxes.  Domesday was the Middle English spelling of doomsday, and is pronounced as doomsday.

Original Domesday book, UK National Archives, London.

The name Domesday Book (which was Doomsday in earlier spellings) was first recorded almost a century after 1086.  An addition to the manuscript was made probably circa 1114-1119 when it was known as the Book of Winchester and between then and 1179, it acquired the name by which it has since been known.  Just to clarify its status, the Treasurer of England himself announced “This book is called by the native English Domesday, that is Day of Judgement” (Dialogus de scaccario), adding that, like the Biblical Last Judgment, the decisions of Domesday Book were unalterable because “… as from the Last Judgment, there is no further appeal.”  This point was reinforced by a clause in the Dialogue of the Exchequer (1179) which noted “just as the sentence of that strict and terrible Last Judgement cannot be evaded by any art or subterfuge, so, when a dispute arises in this realm concerning facts which are written down, and an appeal is made to the book itself, the evidence it gives cannot be set at nought or evaded with impunity.”  It was from this point that began in England the idea of the centralised written record taking precedence over local oral traditions, the same concept which would evolve as the common law.

The Doomsday Book described in remarkable detail the landholdings and resources of late eleventh century England and is illustrative of both the power of the government machine by the late medieval period and its deep thirst for information.  Nothing on the scale of the survey had been undertaken in contemporary Europe, and was not matched in comprehensiveness until the population censuses of the nineteenth century although, Doomsday is not a full population census, the names appearing almost wholly restricted to landowners who could thus be taxed.  It was for centuries used for administrative and legal purposes and remains often the starting point for many purposes for historians but of late has been subject to an increasingly detailed textual analysis and it’s certainly not error-free.

The Doomsday Clock

The Doomsday Clock is a symbol that represents the likelihood of a man-made global catastrophe.  Maintained since 1947 by the members of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BOTAS), the clock was created as a metaphor for threat to humanity posed by nuclear weapons.  On the clock, a hypothetical global catastrophe is represented as the stroke of midnight and BOTAS’s view of the closeness to that hour being reached by the number of minutes or seconds to midnight.  Every January, BOTAS’s Science and Security Board committee meets to decide where the second-hand of the clock should point and in recent years, other risk factors have been considered, including disease and climate change, the committee monitoring developments in science and technology that could inflict catastrophic damage.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

These concerns do have a long history in philosophy and theology but the use in 1945 of nuclear fission to create atomic weapons focused the minds of many more on the possibilities, the concerns growing in the second half of the twentieth century as the bombs got bigger and proliferated extraordinarily to the point where, if all were detonated in the right place at the right time, almost everyone on Earth would have been killed several times over.  At least on paper, the threat was real and even before Hiroshima made the world suddenly aware of the matter, there had been some in apocalyptic mood: Winston Churchill's (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) “finest hour” speech in 1940 warning of the risk civilization might “…sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science”.  It had been a growing theme in liberal interwar politics since the implications of technology and the industrialisation of warfare had been writ large by the World War I (1914-1918).

HG Wells’ (1866–1946) last book was Mind at the End of its Tether (1945), a slim volume, best remembered for the fragment “…everything was driving anyhow to anywhere at a steadily increasing velocity”, seemingly describing a world which had become more complicated, chaotic and terrifying than anything he had prophesized in his fiction. In this it’s often contrasted with the spirit of cheerful optimism and forward-looking stoicism of the book he published a few months earlier, The Happy Turning (1945), but that may be a misreading.  Mind at the End of its Tether is a curious text, easy to read yet difficult to reduce to a theme; in his review, George Orwell (1903-1950) called it “disjointed” and it does have a quality of vagueness, some chapters hinting at despair for all humanity, others suggesting hope for the future.  It’s perhaps the publication date that tints the opinions of some.  Although released some three months after the first use of atomic bombs in August 1945, publishing has lead-times and Wells hadn’t heard of the A-bomb at the time of writing although, he had in 1914 predicted such a device in The World Set Free.  In writing Mind at the End of its Tether, Wells, the great seer of science, wasn’t in dark despair at news of science’s greatest achievement, nuclear fission, but instead a dying man disappointed about the terrible twentieth century which, at the end of the nineteenth, had offered such promise.

In 1947, though the USSR had still not even tested an atomic bomb and the US enjoyed exclusive possession of the weapon, BOTAS was well aware it was only a matter of time and the clock was set at seven minutes to midnight.  Adjustments have been made a couple of dozen times since, the most optimistic days being in 1991 with the end of the Cold War when it was seventeen minutes to midnight and the most ominous right now, BOTAS in 2023 choosing 90 seconds, ten seconds worse than the 100 settled on in 2020.

The committee each year issues an explanatory note and in 2021 noted the influences on their decision.  The COVID-19 pandemic was a factor, not because it threatened to obliterate civilization but because it “…revealed just how unprepared and unwilling countries and the international system are to handle global emergencies properly. In this time of genuine crisis, governments too often abdicated responsibility, ignored scientific advice, did not cooperate or communicate effectively, and consequently failed to protect the health and welfare of their citizens.  As a result, many hundreds of thousands of human beings died needlessly”.  COVID-19 they noted, will eventually recede but the pandemic, as it unfolded, was “a vivid illustration that national governments and international organizations are unprepared to manage nuclear weapons and climate change, which currently pose existential threats to humanity, or the other dangers—including more virulent pandemics and next-generation warfare—that could threaten civilization in the near future”.  In 2023, the adjustment was attributed mostly to (1) the increased risk of the use of nuclear weapons after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, (2) climate change, (3) biological threats such as COVID-19 and (4) the spread of disinformation through disruptive technology such as generative AI (artificial intelligence).

The acceleration of nuclear weapons programs by many countries was thought to have increased instability, especially in conjunction with the simultaneous development of delivery systems increasingly adaptable to the use of conventional or nuclear warheads.  The concern was expressed this “may raise the probability of miscalculation in times of tension”.  Governments were considered to have “…failed sufficiently to address climate change” and that while “fossil fuel use needs to decline precipitously if the worst effects of climate change are to be avoided”, instead “…fossil fuel development and production are projected to increase”.  Political factors were also mentioned including the corrosive effects of “false and misleading information disseminated over the internet…, a wanton disregard for science and the large-scale embrace” of conspiracy theories often “driven by political figures”.  They did offer a glimmer of hope, notably the change of administration in the US to one with a more aggressive approach to climate change policy and a renewed commitment to nuclear arms control agreements but it wasn’t enough to convince them to move the hands of the clock.  It remains a hundred seconds to midnight.

The clock is not without critics, even the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) expressing disapproval since falling under the control of Rupert Murdoch (b 1931).  There is the argument that after seventy years, its usefulness has diminished because over those decades it has become "the boy who cried wolf": a depiction of humanity on the precipice of the abyss yet life went on.  Questions have also been raised about the narrowness of the committee and whether a body which historically has had a narrow focus on atomic weapons and security is adequately qualified to assess the range of issues which should be considered.  Mission creep too is seen as a problem.  The clock began as a means of expressing the imminence of nuclear war.  Is it appropriate to use the same mechanism to warn of impending climate change which has anyway already begun and is likely accelerating?  Global thermo-nuclear war can cause a catastrophic loss of life and societal disruption within hours, whereas the climate catastrophe is projected to unfolds over decades and centuries.  Would a companion calendar be a more helpful metaphor?  The criticism may miss the point, the clock not being a track of climate change but of political will to do something to limit and ameliorate the effects (everyone having realised it can’t be stopped).