Coup

Coup (pronounced koo)

(1) A highly successful, unexpected stroke, act, or move; a clever action or accomplishment; a brilliant and successful stroke or action

(2) As count coup, a brave or reckless deed performed in battle by a single warrior, as touching or striking an enemy warrior without sustaining injury oneself (believed specific to the Plains Indians of North America); a blow against an enemy delivered in a way that shows bravery.

(3) A short form for coup d'état, used (1) literally, in the context of a political takeover or overthrow (a putsch) and, (2) by extension, in business, sport, academia etc.

(4) A rubbish tip.

(5) In Scots, to barter; traffic; deal

(6) As (the unrelated) chicken coop (pronounced koop), a construction made up of an outdoor area, a roosting box, a roosting box support, a nesting box, and a garden above the outdoor area.

(7) In roulette, a single roll of the wheel.

(8) In the French card game rouge et noir, a deal.

(9) In the card-game bridge, one of various named strategies employed by the declarer to win more tricks (such as the Bath coup & Vienna coup).

(10) In billiards, the direct pocketing of the cue-ball, which is a foul stroke.

(11) To perform a coup; to recount or relate the coups one has performed.

1350–1400: From the Middle English coupe (to pay for), from the Old Norse kaupa (to buy, barter) and cognate with the Old English cēapian and the German kaufen.  The use in the modern sense of “blow; strike against” emerged in the 1640s and was from the French coup (literally “blow, stroke”) from the twelfth century Old French colp (a blow, strike), from the Medieval Latin colpus, from the Latin colaphus (blow with the fist; a cuff, box on the ear), from the Greek kólaphos (a blow, buffet, punch, slap) of uncertain origin.  In Modern French the word is regarded as a “workhorse”, used variously to describe physical blows from “a pat on the back” to “a serious assault”, gunshots, sudden, dramatic weather events such as claps of thunder or gusts of wind and moves in games including cards & chess.  Depending on the context, the synonyms include action, plot, revolt, revolution, overthrow, stratagem, accomplishment, upset, stroke, exploit, stunt & deed.  Coup, coupist & coupism are nouns; the plural is coups (pronounced kooz (or koo in French)).

A coup de grâce is a “mercy killing”, a final blow or shot delivered to kill a wounded person or animal, the rationale being it "puts them out of their misery".  Some have been notable: When it became clear to the coup plotters that Unternehmen Walküre (Operation Valkyrie, the 20 July 1944 attempt to overthrow Nazi rule, the success of which was predicated on the assassination of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) had failed, a number of the plotters decided to anticipate the inevitable by committed suicide.  Most succeeded but Colonel General Ludwig Beck (1880–1944), pencilled in as head of state in the provisional government, given permission by his captor to take his own life, shot himself in the head (twice according some accounts) but managed only to wound himself.  That might sound like an indictment of the marksmanship in the senior ranks of the Wehrmacht but it transpires not to be unknown in suicide attempts, especially when the weapon is a small calibre pistol loaded with the steel-jacketed bullets used by the military.  An army sergeant delivered Beck the coup de grâce with a single shot.

The meaning “a sudden decisive act” was first used in 1852 as clipping of coup d'etat.  The linguistic gift was the consequence of the coup d'état of 2 December 1851, staged by Charles-Louis Napoléon Bonaparte (1808–1873; first president of France (1848-1852) and (as the Emperor Napoleon III) the last monarch (1852-1870)).  In the narrow technical sense, political scientists often list the event as a “self coup” because he was at the time serving as President of France (the Second Republic) and the appropriately-named Operation Rubicon was a way to ensure his continuation in office, the president, under the constitution, compelled to relinquish office in 1852.  Charles-Louis was a nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; leader of the French Republic 1799-1804 & Emperor of the French from 1804-1814 & 1815) who would become known as Napoleon I.  Just to emphasize the imperial connection, the coup was timed to coincide with the anniversary of Napoleon I's victory at the Battle Austerlitz (2 December 1805, the so-called “Battle of the Three Emperors”), one of the great set-piece engagements of the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815).

Emperor Donald I in his coronation robes, post coup d'etat (digitally altered image).

The sense of history was real but the motive was more Machiavellian.  Le President liked being head of state, was frustrated his agenda had yet to be implemented and the coup took the course familiar in dozens since, dissolving the parliament & vesting the office of president with the power to rule by decree.  Giving a lesson which would be well-learned by later dictators, within days of the coup the president had conducted a constitutional referendum which (carefully counted) approved his actions and by 14 January 1852 a new constitution had been promulgated (replacing the document of 4 November 1848 which had been the founding text of the Second Republic).  However, even enhanced powers (strengthened still further over the next few months) proved insufficient and, with the concurrence of the Sénat (the unelected upper chamber of the national assembly) and another referendum (one in which who counted the votes was of more importance than who voted), on 2 December 1852, Bonaparte proclaimed himself “Emperor of the French” as Napoleon III.  In the French monarchical tradition, he now thought he had a job for life.  Things didn’t quite work out that way but he was for a while a real emperor which is something few presidents get to be.  When he turns off the light at night, it may be that Donald Trump’s (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) early-morning thoughts turn not to memories of Stormy Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Gregory, b 1979 with whom nothing ever happened) but to Napoleon III.  Were he to follow the business model of 1852, he could be crowned Donald I.

The coup d'état (pronounced koo dey-tahz or ku-deta (French)) is the sudden, unlawful (although this is often retrospectively “fixed”) often violent, decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.  In French, unlike English, the word État (sovereign political entity) is capitalized.  As a political tactic, coup d'état has existed probably since the first forms of government emerged but the phrase is recent, apparently unknown in English prior to 1802 when, finding no better phrase in English to convey the idea, the French form was adopted.  Neither coup d'état nor putsch have ever been defined in international law and tend to be used interchangeably, any variation in use tending to occur according to the linguistic traditions of the country in which the event happens rather than any differences in practice.  Technically, both are any sudden, decisive political act but are usually used to describe an attempt, successful or not, to overthrow a government or leader.  In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état (sometimes truncated to coup) or putsch, does not involve a mass uprising, being instead usually an action where a small group arrests, executes or in some way disposes of incumbent leaders, seizing the institutions of the state and proclaims themselves in power.  That’s the essence of the coup d'état, it’s the takeover of the state, usually by one or more of the constituent institutions of the state.  Debate continues about whether Nacht der langen Messer ((Night of the Long Knives, also called Unternehmen Kolbri (Operation Hummingbird), the bloody purge between 30 June-2 July 1934, when the Nazi regime carried out a number of extrajudicial executions, ostensibly to crush what was referred to as “the Röhm Putsch”) should be called a “pre-emptive” or “preventative” strike.  All the evidence suggests there was no likelihood of a coup in the immediate future but that it wasn’t something which could in the future be thought impossible.  Most settle on “preventative”.

Nice day for a coup d'état.  Air Marshal Perence Shiri (1955-2020, left) and the late Robert Mugabe (1924–2019; prime minister of Zimbabwe 1980-1987, president 1987-2017, right).

Occasionally, there’s the curious case of the military coup where both the soldiers and the deposed deny it was any such thing.  In 2017 the Zimbabwe Army’s high command engineered the “retirement” of Robert Mugabe and most unusually, it was greeted with almost universal local and international approval, despite a consensus that military overthrows are pretty bad form and not to be encouraged.  This was a special case, everyone preferring to welcome the outcome and not dwell too long on the process.  As military coups go, it wasn’t too bad and to smooth the process, Mr Mugabe’s was granted a “severance package” along the lines of that Mr Putin offered to some annoying types: “We know what you’ve stolen over the years but you stole it fair and square so you can keep it but you have to go away and keep quiet.”  Despite the generosity of that, within a few months he was complaining he’d been the “victim of a coup d'état.”

Coups d'état (coup d'états the alternative plural in English) also attract modifiers.  A “colonels' coup” is a military coup in which the dominant players are not from the most senior ranks (ie not the Generals or Admirals).  The classic example was the Greek coup of 21 April 1967 which was staged by literally a number of colonels, the resulting right-wing military dictatorship often dubbed the “Regime of the Colonels”.  In 1973, the generals got their revenge, overthrowing the colonels and in the jargon of political science, a “generals’ coup” is one considered to have been instigated by the military establishment rather than a faction meaning a coup led by only a couple of generals is not a “generals’ coup” but a “military coup” which happens to have been staged by generals.  Political scientists enjoy distinctions like this and they really like “soft-coup” which describes an overthrow which is essentially administrative.  The political demise of both Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013; UK prime-minister 1979-1990) and Jim Bolger (b 1935; prime-minister of New Zealand 1990-1997) were achieved by way of soft-coup, a pack of colleagues assembled to tell the leader they “no longer have the numbers”.  The number of failed soft-coups is legion but, when the first fails, the second often succeeds.  The soft-coup is also a favorite of conspiracy theorists who see in all that is wrong in the world the hand of the “deep state” (or else the Freemasons, the Jews, the Jesuits or the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d’Or).  They're probably right about the Freemasons.

Lindsay Lohan never forgave Hosni Mubarak (1928–2020; president of Egypt 1981-2011) for shouting at Bill Clinton (b 1946; US president 1993-2001).  When told in 2011 he’d fallen from power as one of the victims of the Arab Spring, she responded: “Cool.”  When told it was brought about by a military coup she replied: “Gross!”  Lindsay Lohan doesn’t approve of Coups d'état and believes in due constitutional process.   

A “palace coup” is one staged by those who were already part of the group in power (the word “palace” is thus used here as a synecdoche and there’s not necessarily a physical palace involved).  It’s really the ultimate factional power-play and often used of the (figurative) back-stabbing which tended to be the culmination of the low skulduggery which is a feature of modern democratic politics.  The “self-coup” (also called the auto-coup) is better thought of as a power-grab and involves someone lawfully in power seizing (by non-constitutional or by some means of dubious lawfulness) power from other branches or institutions of government.  Typically, this will involve dissolving legislatures or removing judges.  There are also “failed coups” which often are notable for the bloody (sometimes literal, sometimes figurative depending on where it happens) aftermath, revenge visited upon the plotters (and sometimes their friends, family and other “usual suspects”).  Done properly, the vengeance should be short and sharp (though not necessarily with a low-body count).  In that it differs from a successful coup because in those the settling of scores and elimination of enemies (real and imagined) can drag on from weeks, or in extreme cases, such as the 1973 military coup in Chile, years.

A coup d'essai (literally “stroke of trial”) is a first attempt at something.  A coup de force (literally “stroke of force”) is a sudden violent action.  A coup de foudre (literally “stroke of lightning” is a sudden unforeseen event, the most attractive use of which is the peoetic “love at first sight”).  A coup de glotte (a glottal stop) is a term from phonetics which describes a plosive sound articulated with the glottis (the opening between the true vocal cords which is located in the larynx and affects voice modulation through expansion or contraction).  A coup de main ( literally “stroke of hand”  is a military term meaning “surprise attack” but is sometimes used in other contexts; if successfully executed, it could be said to be a coup de maître (a master stroke).  A coup de poing (literally “stroke of fist”) is persuasion by means of violence (sometimes used loosely of coercion or implied violence); in archaeology it describes a hatchet or hand-axe.  A coup de soleil is an attack of sun-stroke.  A coup de theatre is (1) a sudden or unexpected event in a play (the work either of the author, director or performer) or (2) a theatrical trick, twist or gesture staged for dramatic effect.  A Coup de vent (literally “stroke of wind”) is a whirlwind or other gust of unusual strength.  A coup d'œil (literally “stroke of eye”) is “a comprehensive glance; a general view” which in military use refers to a “rapidly sizing up of a position and estimating its strategic advantages and drawbacks”.

Eristic

Eristic (pronounced e-ris-tik)

(1) Pertaining to controversy or disputation; controversial; provoking strife, controversy or discord.

(2) A person who engages in disputation; a controversialist.

(3) The art of disputation; of, relating, or given to controversy or logical disputation for its own sake (especially if pursued speciously) or as a technical exercise (in education).

(4) In the study of the myths of Antiquity, of or relating to Ἔρις (Eris) (Discord), the goddess of strife,

1630–1640: From the Ancient Greek ἐριστικός (eristikós) (eager for strife, anxious to provoke), the construct being erist(ós) (verbid of erízein (to wrangle), derivative of éris discord) + -ikos, the English equivalent being eris + -t- + ic.  The -ic suffix was from the Middle English -ik, from the Old French -ique, from the Latin -icus, from the primitive Indo-European -kos & -ḱos, formed with the i-stem suffix -i- and the adjectival suffix -kos & -ḱos.  The form existed also in the Ancient Greek as -ικός (-ikós), in Sanskrit as -इक (-ika) and the Old Church Slavonic as -ъкъ (-ŭkŭ); A doublet of -y.  In European languages, adding -kos to noun stems carried the meaning "characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to" while on adjectival stems it acted emphatically; in English it's always been used to form adjectives from nouns with the meaning “of or pertaining to”.  A precise technical use exists in physical chemistry where it's used to denote certain chemical compounds in which a specified chemical element has a higher oxidation number than in the equivalent compound whose name ends in the suffix -ous; (eg sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄) has more oxygen atoms per molecule than sulphurous acid (H₂SO₃).  Eristic is a noun & adjective, eristical is an adjectives and eristically is an adverb; the noun plural is eristics.

The eristic is a long-standing feature in democratic politics where the formal notions of “government” and “opposition” are institutionalized.  There is much in Lord Randolph Churchill’s (1849–1895) dictum that “the duty of the opposition is to oppose” and that process is the dynamic by which political debate is conducted.  That’s good if a genuine contest of ideas but there is often a sense that things are opposed for no reason other purpose than the conflict itself; it’s not the goal which matters, just the maintenance of strife.  The state of politics in the US can now be said to be eristic and that’s not something unique to the modern era, politics is a cyclical business and the forces unleashed can ultimately create conditions whereby conflict switches to conciliation and then to consensus.  Although there seems little hope of that in the immediate future, nothing lasts forever and unexpected events can be catalytic.  Eristic seems an attractive option for those writing about politics because (1) it’s undeniably applicable and (2) it adds variety to what can be often a repetitive vocabulary, the most common adjectives in such texts including belligerent, combative, contentious, controversial, disputatious, quarrelsome, scrappy & testy.  Political scientists who decide to use the adjective should note the comparative form (more eristic) and the superlative (most eristic) and, just in case there’s any doubt, Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) would likely usually attract the superlative.

One of the (many) judgments of Paris: Early in the century, the feud between Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan played out in the well-documented way such things are done on social media.  Both now mothers, détente appears to have been negotiated and a state of peaceful co-existence seems now to prevail.

In Greek mythology, Ἔρις (Eris) (strife) was the goddess or personified spirit (daimona) of strife, discord, contention and rivalry and in the bloodthirsty way artists for centuries delighted in doing, often she was depicted as the daimona of the strife of war, haunting battlefields and glorying in the carnage of the slaughter.  Something of the crooked Hillary Clinton on Antiquity, for obvious reasons Eris was closely identified with the Enyo the goddess of war and the eighth century poet of Ancient Greek Homer used the names interchangeably in his epic poems the Iliad and the Odyssey.  In Roman mythology her name was Discordia, the source obviously of the Modern English “discord”.  So disagreeable was Eris that other gods tried to avoid inviting her to their parties.  Usually this caused no more than the usual bitchiness familiar in mythology but one infamous non-invite led to the event known as the μῆλον τῆς Ἔριδος (Golden Apple of Discord), known in the story The Judgment of Paris.  Much miffed at not being invited to the wedding of Peleus & Thetis, Eris tossed the golden apple in the midst of the feast of the gods at the wedding banquet, offering it as a prize to whoever was of the greatest beauty, thus sparking a vanity-fueled dispute among Hera, Athena and Aphrodite a squabble which ultimately triggered the Trojan War.  Eris, even more angry than usual, had inscribed kallisti (To the prettiest one) on her “wedding gift” handing it to Πάρις (Paris, AKA Ἀλέξανδρος (Aléxandros) (Alexander), the son of King Priam and Queen Hecuba of Troy) who was told to choose the goddess he found most beautiful.  Judging what turned out to be one of Greek mythology's more significant beauty contests, Paris chose Aphrodite, offending Hera and Athena, the most famous consequence of their feud being the Trojan War.  Tragedy did thereafter stalk the marriage of Peleus and Thetis; of their seven sons, the only one to survive beyond infancy was Achilles.

Friedrich Nietzsche (circa 1890), etching on wove paper by an unknown artist of the European Expressionist school, Robert Gore Rifkind Center for German Expressionist Studies, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles.  Even before he went mad, Nietzsche looked sort of deranged.

Eris wasn’t an accident of supernatural genetics but was “born that way”.  In his Theogony, the Ancient Greek poet of the seventh & eighth centuries, Hesiod, recounted how she was the goddess who gave birth to work, forgetfulness, hunger, pain, battles, fights, murders, killings, quarrels, lies, disputes, lawlessness, ruin and bad language, but spread the blame a bit in his later Works and Days, saying the source of conflict on Earth was the two different strifes: Eris the daughter of Nyx and the other a spirit of emulation, placed by Zeus within the world to engender a healthy sense of competition.  That much appealed to the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) who decided “a healthy sense of competition” was the struggle for survival and supremacy between men which was the very nature of human existence and in Homer's Contest (circa 1872 and described as a preface for one of several projected or at least contemplated books) he wrote: “Without competing ambition the Hellenic State like the Hellenic man degenerates.  He becomes bad and cruel, thirsting for revenge, and godless; in short, he becomes “pre-Homeric” — and then it needs only a panic in order to bring about his fall and to crush him.”  Contemplating the Germany of the Weimar Republic (1918-1933), Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) quickly grasped Nietzsche and was soon seduced by his words.

Hitler’s opinion of his fellow man was often not high and Nietzsche’s construct of human nature resonated.  He thought envy and jealousy the foundation of Ancient Greek society, both qualities essential for effective competition to produce the dynamic in which the strong would thrive and dominate the weak: “Eris urges even the unskilled man to work, and if one who lacks property beholds another who is rich, then he hastens to sow in similar fashion and to plant and to put his house in order; the neighbor vies with the neighbor who strives after fortune.. The potter also has a grudge against the potter, and the carpenter against the carpenter; the beggar envies the beggar, and the singer the singer. Good is this Eris to men”.  More delicate types like the English historian Arnold Toynbee (1889–1975 and born a week before Hitler) saw something very different in Hellenic civilization but for Nietzsche the lesson was conflict (competition) in all facets of life, be it athletics, art, war, rhetoric or poetry meant not only individuals reaping the material and spiritual rewards of fame & glory but the strengthening of a whole society.  Nietzsche may not have been the “Nazi” some like to suggest but his words had such appeal to them it can be hard to separate the two and the implications of his philosophy are apparent in Hitler’s domestic & foreign policy as well as the internal structures of the party, something not well understood until the post-war years.

Harbinger

Harbinger (pronounced hahr-bin-jer)

(1)  A person who goes ahead and makes known the approach of another; a herald (obsolete).

(2) An inn-keeper (obsolete)

(3) A person sent in advance of troops, a royal train, etc to provide or secure lodgings and other accommodations (obsolete).

(4) Anything that foreshadows a future event; omen; sign.

1125–1175: From the late Middle English herbenger, a nasalized variant of the Middle English herbegere, a dissimilated variant of Old French herberg(i)ere (host; lodging), the more common variant of which was herberg(ier) (to shelter).  In English, the late fifteenth century meaning and spelling was herbengar (one sent ahead to arrange lodgings (for a monarch, an army etc)), an alteration of the late twelfth century Middle English herberger (provider of shelter, innkeeper), from the Old French herbergeor (one who offers lodging, innkeeper) from herbergier (provide lodging), from herber (lodging, shelter), from the Frankish heriberga (lodging, inn (literally “army shelter”))from the Germanic compound harja-bergaz (shelter, lodgings), related was the Old Saxon and Old High German heriberga (army shelter) from heri (army) + berga (shelter) which is the root also of the modern harbor.  Origin of the Frankish heriberga was the Proto-Germanic harjaz (army) + bergô (protection).  Related were the German herberge, the Italian albergo, and the Dutch herberg.  The sense of "forerunner; that which precedes and gives notice of the coming of another" developed in the mid-sixteenth century while the intrusive (and wholly unetymological) -n- is from the fifteenth century.  Use as a verb began in the 1640s; to harbinge (to lodge) was first noted in the late fifteenth century.

Harbinger of Autumn (1922) by Paul Klee (1879-1940), watercolor and pencil on paper bordered with watercolor and pen, mounted on card, Yale University Art Gallery.

Death and Destruction

The original, late medieval, meaning of harbinger was “lodging-house keeper”, one who harbors people for the night, the word derived from harbourer or, as it was then spelled herberer or herberger.  Herberer derives from the French word for inn (auberge) and “Ye herbergers…” are referred to as the hotel managers of their day in the Old English text The Lambeth Homilies, circa 1175.  By the thirteenth century, harbinger had shifted meaning, referring now to a scout who went ahead of a military formation or royal court to book lodgings and meals for the oncoming horde.  This is the source of the modern meaning of “an advance messenger” that we understand now, Geoffrey Chaucer (circa 1344-1400) apparently the first to adopt the form in The Man of Law's Tale (circa 1386):

The fame anon thurgh toun is born

How Alla kyng shal comen on pilgrymage,

By herbergeours that wenten hym biforn

A modern translation of which is:

The news through all the town was carried,

How King Alla would come on pilgrimage,

By harbingers that went before him

In Modern English, harbinger exists only in a metaphorical sense meaning forerunner or announcer.  In the narrow technical sense, almost anything can be harbingered; a warm day in late winter can be a harbinger of spring but popular use, in this gloomy age, is now almost exclusively of harbingers of pain, suffering, doom, death and destruction.

I grew. Foul weather, dreams, forebodings

Were bearing me - a Ganymede -

Away from earth; distress was growing

Like wings - to spread, to hold, to lead.

 

I grew. The veil of woven sunsets

At dusk would cling to me and swell.

With wine in glasses we would gather

To celebrate a sad farewell,

 

And yet the eagle's clasp already

Refreshes forearms' heated strain.

The days have gone, when, love, you floated

Above me, harbinger of pain.

 

Do we not share the sky, the flying?

Now, like a swan, his death-song done,

Rejoice! In triumph, with the eagle

Shoulder to shoulder, we are one.

I grew. Foul weather, dreams, forebodings… by Boris Pasternak (1890-1960).

The phrase “a crypto-fascist...harbinger of Doom” isn’t a quote from one of Gore Vidal’s (1925–2012) many thoughts on William F Buckley (1925–2008) but comes from a review by Rachel Handler (a senior editor at Vulture and New York) of Lindsay Lohan’s Netflix film Irish Wish (2024).  While it’s not unknown for reviewers to take movies seriously, it’s unlikely many rom-coms have ever been thought to demand deconstruction to reveal they’re part of a “…larger sociopolitical plot to maintain the status quo, quell dissent, replace much of the workforce with AI, install a permanent Christian theocratic dictator, and make Ireland look weird for some reason.”

The piece is an imposing 3½ thousand-odd words and should be read by students of language because, of its type, it’s an outstanding example but for those who consume rom-coms without a background in critical theory it may be wise first to watch the film because the review includes the plot-line.  If having watched and (sort of) enjoyed the film, one should then read the review and hopefully begin faintly to understand why one was wrong.  Ms Handler really didn’t like the thing and having already damned Ms Lohan’s first Netfix production (Falling for Christmas (2022)) as “a Dante’s Inferno-esque allegory”, she’s unlikely much to be looking forward to the promised third.  All should however hope she writes a review.

Embellish

Embellish (pronounced m-bell-lysh)

(1) To decorate, garnish, bedeck or embroider an object.

(2) To beautify by ornamentation; to adorn.

(3) To enhance a statement or narrative with fictitious additions.

1300–1350: From the Middle English embelisshen from the Anglo-French, from the Middle French embeliss- (stem of embelir), the construct being em- (The form taken by en- before the labial consonants “b” & “p”, as it assimilates place of articulation).  The en- prefix was from the Middle English en- & in-.  In the Old French it existed as en- & an-, from the Latin in- (in, into); it was also from an alteration of in-, from the Middle English in-, from the Old English in- (in, into), from the Proto-Germanic in (in).  Both the Latin and Germanic forms were from the primitive Indo-European en (in, into) and the frequency of use in the Old French is because of the confluence with the Frankish an- intensive prefix, related to the Old English on-.) + bel-, from the Latin bellus (pretty) + -ish.  The –ish suffix was from the Middle English –ish & -isch, from the Old English –isċ, from the Proto-West Germanic -isk, from the Proto-Germanic –iskaz, from the primitive Indo-European -iskos.  It was cognate with the Dutch -s; the German -isch (from which Dutch gained -isch), the Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish -isk & -sk, the Lithuanian –iškas, the Russian -ский (-skij) and the Ancient Greek diminutive suffix -ίσκος (-ískos); a doublet of -esque and -ski.  There exists a welter of synonyms and companion phrases such as decorate, grace, prettify, bedeck, dress up, exaggerate, gild, overstate, festoon, embroider, adorn, spiff up, trim, magnify, deck, color, enrich, elaborate, ornament, beautify, enhance, array & garnish.  Embellish is a verb, embellishing is a noun & verb, embellished is a verb & adjective and embellisher & embellishment are nouns; the noun plural is embellishments.

The meaning "dress up (a narration) with fictitious matter" was first noted in the mid-fifteenth century and was an acknowledgement of a long (if sometimes hardly noble) literary tradition.  It was exemplified by the publication in 1785 by German author Rudolf Erich Raspe (1736-1794) of Baron Munchausen's Narrative of his Marvellous Travels and Campaigns in Russia, a collection of extraordinary stories, based (loosely) on the tales told by the real-life Baron Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen (1720-1797).  The real baron was prone to quite some exaggeration in the tales of his travels but never went as far as Herr Raspe had his fictional baron flying to the moon.  The technique of enhancing a statement or narrative with fictitious additions (ie lies) was later perfected by the author and one-time Tory politician Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare (b 1940) and crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947).

Lindsay Lohan in bikini embellished with faux (synthetic) fur, photo-shoot for the fifth anniversary of ODDA magazine, April 2017.

In the matter of Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump

Various matters relating to a payment allegedly made by (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) to adult film star (and director in the same genre) Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Gregory Clifford; b 1979) are currently before a New York criminal court.  When a member of Mr Trump’s legal team suggested she may have a  “propensity to embellish” when giving evidence, counsel was using the word “embellish” in the crooked Hillary sense of “lie”.  Lawyers have many ways to suggest those being cross-examined are lying and embellish is one of the more euphemistic though not as inventive as “economical with the truth”.  That one will forever be associated with former UK cabinet secretary Sir Robert Armstrong (1927-2020; later Baron Armstrong of Ilminster) who, under cross-examination in the “Spycatcher” trial (1986), when referring to a letter, answered: “It contains a misleading impression, not a lie. It was being economical with the truth.”  Whether the old Etonian was aware much post-Classical writing isn’t known (at Christ Church, Oxford he read the “Greats” (the history and philosophy of Ancient Greece & Rome)) but he may have been acquainted with Mark Twain’s (1835-1910) Following the Equator (1897) in which appeared: “Truth is the most valuable thing we have.  Let us economize it.” or the earlier thoughts of the Anglo-Irish Whig politician Edmund Burke (1729-1797) who in his Two Letters on the Proposals for Peace with the Regicide Directory (1796) noted: “Falsehood and delusion are allowed in no case whatsoever: But, as in the exercise of all the virtues, there is an economy of truth.”  Just as likely however is that Sir Robert had been corrupted by his long service in government and was thinking of: “The truth is so precious, it deserves an escort of lies.”, a phrase often attributed (as are many) to Sir Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955), but there’s some evidence to suggest he may have picked it up from comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) and even if it wasn’t something the old seminarian coined, it was the mantra by which he lived so he deserves some credit.

Courtroom sketch of defendant, judge, prosecutor & witness by Jane Rosenberg (b 1949), Manhattan Criminal Court, New York, 7 May 2024.

The work of courtroom sketch artists became a feature of the trial process in many Western courts during the years when photography was banned and Ms Rosenberg has since 1980 become of of the most highly regarded practitioners.  Of her art, she was quoted, in a statement she stressed was non-political and not a comment on the legal merit of his case, that Mr Trump was “fun to draw”.  Something of the character of law will be lost if the courtroom sketch artist is replaced by an artificial intelligence (AI) bot.

The exchange on 7 May wasn’t the first time “propensity” and “embellish” had been entered into the trial transcript.   On 23 April, the court heard about former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker’s (b 1951) “secret arrangement” negotiated in 2015 with Mr Trump and his then attorney (and “fixer”) Michael Cohen (b 1966), the terms of which included the publication (1) promoting Mr Trump’s presidential ambition and (2) publicizing Mr Cohen’s “research” relating to Mr Trump’s opponents: “He would send me information [about the others seeking the Republican nomination for the 2016 presidential election] and that was the basis for our story, and we would embellish (in the National Enquirer tradition "embellish" is a spectrum word ranging in meaning from "exaggerate" to "untrue").” Mr Pecker testified, adding the arrangement was kept secret from all but a handful of his senior executives: “I told them [the National Enquirer’s East and West Coast bureau chiefs] we were going to try and help the campaign, and to do that we would keep it as quiet as possible.”  National Enquirer has bureaux; who knew?

Stormy Daniels.

The day before, Mr Trump’s team pursued a line of questioning designed to cast doubt on Mr Cohen’s credibility, suggesting that for him Mr Trump has become “an obsession” and that he wishes to see him incarcerated and has “a propensity to lie.”  “He has a goal, an obsession, with getting Trump.  I submit to you he cannot be trusted.  His entire financial livelihood depends on President Trump’s destruction… You cannot make a serious decision about President Trump by relying on the words of Michael Cohen.” Counsel argued.  Mr Cohen had certainly left no doubt the case was on his mind, the previous night posting on-line that he’d experienced some “…mental excitement about this trial...” and the testimony he would deliver.

The highlight thus far however came when the state called to the stand Ms Daniels where in greater detail than expected she described the encounter with Mr Trump which led to the hush-money scheme.  The word the press seemed to settle on for their reports was “salacious” but the two things which most struck legal analysts was (1) the unusually wide interpretative latitude the judge appeared to allow himself when deciding the nature of the many details Ms Daniels should be allowed to introduce and (2) the curious reticence of defence counsel in objecting to the course things were taking.  Both of these aspects may be considered if the case goes on appeal when often a ruling is made on what evidence is relevant and what is so prejudicial that under the evidentiary rule it shouldn’t have been admitted and heard by the jury.

Stormy expression: Donald Trump at the defense table, Manhattan Criminal Court, New York, 7 May 2024.

Over lunch, Mr Trump’s team must have discussed these matters because they moved a motion requesting the judge declare a mistrial on the grounds Ms Daniels’ testimony contained prejudicial and irrelevant comments which: “…aside from pure embarrassment…,” these details did nothing but “…inflame the jury.”  The judge did acknowledge Ms Daniels was a difficult witness to control and agreed: “...it would have been better if some of these things had been left unsaid.” but denied the motion, saying defense counsel should have raised more objections during the testimony and that cross-examination would permit them to redress things, adding that at one point he had intervened to limit her statements simply because the defence had not.  The defense did actually raise a number of objections, a slew of which the judge upheld, after which he cautioned the witness: “Just listen to the question, and answer the question.”  Some may have recalled the infamous cross-examination of Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) by Justice Robert Jackson (1892–1954; US Supreme Court Justice 1941-1954; Chief US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg (IMT) trials of Nazi war criminals 1945-1946) at the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) when the judges of the IMT (International Military Tribunal) declined to “control the witness”, leaving Justice Jackson increasingly exasperated by Göring’s long answers which the prosecutor though mostly irrelevant but which were of great interest to at least some of the judges and permitted under the terms of the court’s charter.  Of course, the IMT wasn’t limited by New York’s rules on admissibility of evidence.

Stormy Daniels (2019) by Robert Crumb.  Robert Crumb (b 1943) is an US cartoonist, associated since the 1960s with the counter-culture and some strains of libertarianism; he was one of the most identifiable figures of the quasi-underground (in the Western rather than the Warsaw Pact sense) comix movement.

However, in one exchange during defense cross examination, there was no question of any propensity to embellish, counsel asking: “Am I correct in that you hate President Trump?” to which Ms Daniels replied: “Yes.”  No ambiguity there and although not discussed in court, her attitude may not wholly be unrelated to Mr Trump’s rather ungracious description of her as “horse face”.  Really, President Trump should be more respectful towards a three-time winner of F.A.M.E.'s (Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment) much coveted annual "Favorite Breasts" award.

Donald Trump leaving Manhattan Criminal Court, New York, 7 May 2024.

Speaking briefly to reporters after leaving the court, Mr Trump said: “This was a very big day, a very revealing day, as you see, their case is totally falling apart, they have nothing on the books and records and even something that should bear very little relationship to the case, it's just a disaster for the DA.”

Palliate

Palliate (pronounced pal-ee-yet)

(1) To relieve or lessen (pain, disease etc) without curing or removing; to mitigate; to alleviate.

(2) To attempt to mitigate or conceal the gravity of (conduct (especially as of offenses)) by excuses, reasons, apologies etc; to extenuate.

(3) To cause an offence to seem less serious; some act of concealment.

1490s: From the Late Latin palliāre (to cover up), from palliātus (cloaked, covered), (in Late Latin the past participle of palliare (to cover with a cloak)), from palliāre (to cover up) or pallium (cloak).  Palliate is a verb & adjective, palliation, palliator & pallium are nouns, palliative is a noun & adjective, unpalliated is an adjective, palliated & palliating are verbs and palliatively is an adverb; the common noun plural is palliatives.

Palliate is one of those words in English which has become mostly overwhelmed by the associative meaning of a derived form. Palliative medicine (or palliative care) is a branch of medicine which focuses on those terminally ill (usually with months, at the most, to live) by providing pain relief and attempting to allowing the dying to enjoy the best possible quality of life.  The alternative industry is that of voluntary euthanasia (the so-called right-to-die movement) which is now permitted and regulated by legislation in many jurisdictions.  Palliative medicine gained the name from the idea of the use of “palliatives”, drugs which provide pain relief for those for whom there is no possibility of a cure.  In that sense, the treatment regime “cloaks rather than cures” and expectations are limited to concealment of the consequences of the condition.  Although such practices (along with euthanasia, voluntary and not) had been part of medical practice for centuries, it was in the 1960s it came to be recognized as a discipline and a structural part of (or adjunct to depending on the jurisdiction) the hospital industry, and there are both academic courses in the subject and peer-reviewed journals such as the European Association for Palliative Care’s (EAPC) Palliative Medicine, published since 1987.  Although On Death and Dying (1969) by Swiss-American psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross (1926–2004) is sometimes cited as the intellectual impetus for emergence, it happened really because of the mid-century advances in hygiene, nutrition, pharmaceuticals & surgical techniques and the extension of medical services in the welfare states which extended life-spans but not necessarily wellness, thus the increasing population of those terminally ill and in need of care.  The ability to prolong life (sometimes for decades) of someone in a debilitated condition, combined with the social changes which had seen the decline in numbers of extended family living arrangements, meant a substantially public-funded industry needed to evolve.

Cloaked for the occasion: Lindsay Lohan in appropriate Grim Reaper mode, fulfilling a court-mandated community service order at LA County Morgue, October 2011.

That has meant the word has faded from some of its historic uses.  In law, it used to be part of the language of courtrooms, defense counsel attempting to palliate the conduct of their client in the hop the just or jury would view the alleged act less harshly and deliver a verdict less severe.  That sense came into use in seventeenth century England and in courtrooms it described attempts to cover or disguise the seriousness of an offence by reasons (fanciful & not), excuses (plausible & not) or apologies (sincere & not).  In legal use, palliate has been replace by mitigation (a plea assembling reasons why conduct should be regarded more favourably than it may appear and be thus awarded with a lesser sentence), from the Middle French mitigation, from the Latin mitigation from mītigātus (softened, pacified).  The companion term is exculpation which etymologically and legally is unrelated both to palliate & mitigate.  Exculpate was from the Medieval Latin exculpātus, the perfect passive participle of exculpō, from the Latin ex culpa, the construct being ex- (out, from) + culpa (fault; blame (and familiar in Modern English as “culpability”)).  Whereas a plea of palliation or in mitigation was entered in the context of asking certain matters be considered so a guilty party may receive a lesser punishment, an successful exculpation exonerates the accused.  The lawyers in the 1630s picked-up and adapted palliate’s earlier meaning.  In the fifteenth century, true to the Latin origin derived from “a cloak”, it was used to mean “to relieve the symptoms of; to ameliorate” the sense (concealing the symptoms) to which palliative medicine would in the 1960s return.  This use was extended by the mid-1500s to become a general way to “conceal, hide or disguise” and was used widely in fields such as tailoring, architecture, landscaping, interior decorating and anywhere else where techniques of illusion were valued.

Many of the artistic depictions of scenes from Antiquity are probably at least misleading (no epoch has ever been so idealized) but one aspect of the fashions seems usually faithfully to have reflected what really was: the garb of the physicians, philosophers and teachers which was a woollen cloak, draped over the left shoulder and wrapped around the body; the Romans called it a pallium and it was the stage garment also of the hetaerae (plural of hetaera (in Ancient Greece, a high-price escort of some beauty & culture who entertained upper-class men with company, conversation and other services; they're sometimes referred to as courtesans but this can be misleading and a more accurate modern comparison is probably with the business model of the “sugar-babe”)).

Appreciative audience: Phryne revealed before the Areopagus (1861), oil on canvas by Jean-Léon Gérôme (1824-1904), Hamburger Kunsthalle, Hamburg.

The painting depicts Phryne (circa 371-320 BC), a legendarily beautiful hetaera of Ancient Greece, on trial before the Areopagus (from the Ancient Greek Ἄρειος Πάγος (Áreios Págos (literally “Rock of Ares”)) which during some periods in classical times functioned as the final appellate court (both civil & criminal matters) in Athens.  As a deliberative body, the Areopagus (it picked up the name from the location where the sittings were conducted) may also at times have been a legislative (or at least an advisory) assembly something like a senate.  The comparison with the UK's House of Lords in its historic role as both the (upper) house of review is sometimes made because of the dual function as both a legislative body and a final court of appeal but the history of the role of the Aeropagus in law-making is sketchy and as a judicial organ it seems also to have sat as a whole, never restricting (as the Lords eventually did) the judicial hearings to committees of those with appropriate legal experience.

Defended (and by dubious legend not very well) by the speech-writer Hypereides (circa 390–322 BC), she was arraigned before the Areopagus on a charge of Asebeia (a criminal indictment alleging impiety, something like blasphemy towards the divine objects and perhaps an occupation risk in her profession and the charge appears to have been brought by a jilted and vengeful ex) and the most told tale of the trial is that acquittal was secured when she bared her breasts to those assembled to judge.  Depending on which imaginative medieval scribe was writing, either her counsel pulled the pallium from her body or she disrobed herself although all agree the unusual legal tactic was resorted to because the defence was going not well.  The famous legal critique of the Roman writer Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (circa 35-circa 100), the verdict was secured “non Hyperidis actione... sed conspectus corporis” (not by Hypereides' pleading, but by the sight of her body") and as a gesture it wasn’t unknown in Athenian culture.  Although the trial and acquittal (by a majority vote) are uncontested history, whether the “boobs offered in mitigation” ever happened is at least suspect but if true, it’s not surprising the venerable gentlemen judging her were impressed because she also modelled her nude form for the sculptor Praxiteles who based his Aphrodite of Knidos on those sessions.  In the late eighteen century, something of a Phryne cult formed among European artists although what is history and what myth in the stories of her illustrious career is mostly uncertain although there’s no doubt she’d often have worn a pallium.

Life Roots Palliate Cream 30ml Twin Pack.

Containing bilberry, witch hazel, mangosteen, sage, rosemary, calendula, rose flower, sea buckthorn, lemon grass, grapefruit, nettle & Iceland moss, Life Roots' Palliate Cream is advertized as an agent to (1) moisturize, (2) reduce inflammation & (3) protect against dryness.  This would suggest the product is thought something which genuinely improves the state of the skin, rather than just “papering over the cracks” (as some skin-care products unashamedly are).  The phrase “to paper over the cracks” is a particular sense of palliation meaning “to use a temporary expedient; to create the semblance of order or agreement; temporarily to conceal problems”.  The phrase (in English translation) is attributed to the Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck (1815-1989; Chancellor of the German Empire 1871-1890) who used the equivalent German expression in a letter dated 14 August 1865 during the negotiations of the Convention of Gastein (1865), a treaty between Austria and Prussia which temporarily would postpone the onset of the Austro-Prussian War (1866) and can thus be thought a prelude to the wars and the subsequent system of intricately interlocked treaties which would be the framework of the Bismarckian form of Reichism: “We are working eagerly to preserve the peace and to cover the cracks in the building.”  Under Bismarck, the stresses inherent in the structure were contained but in the hands of hiss less able successors, the forces became unleashed and consumed the continent ending the rule of four dynastic empires.  Still, “papering over the cracks” remains often the way politics is done, usually the way coalitions are formed and of late, a new flavor of the technique has emerged: Benjamin Netanyahu (b 1949; Israeli prime minister 1996-1999, 2009-2021 and since 2022) doesn’t care if people see the cracks through the paper.