Burlesque

Burlesque (pronounced ber-lesk)

(1) An artistic composition, especially literary or dramatic, that, for the sake of laughter, vulgarizes lofty material or treats ordinary material with mock dignity.

(2) A humorous and provocative (often bawdy) stage show featuring slapstick humor, comic skits and a scantily clad female chorus; by the late nineteenth century striptease was often the main element (the usual slang was burleycue).

(3) As neo-burlesque, a late twentieth century revival (with rather more artistic gloss) of the strip-tease shows of the 1920s.

(4) An artistic work (especially literary or dramatic), satirizing a subject by caricaturing it.

(5) Between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, a play parodying some contemporary dramatic fashion or event.

(6) A production of some kind involving ludicrous or mocking treatment of a solemn subject; an absurdist imitation or caricature.

(7) Of, relating to, or characteristic of a burlesque; of, relating to, or like stage-show burlesque.

(8) To represent or imitate (a person or thing) in a ludicrous way; caricature.

(9) To make ridiculous by mocking representation.

(10) To in some way use a certain type of caricature.

1650–1660: From the French burlesque, from the Italian burlesco (ludicrous and used in the sense of “parodic”), the construct being burl(a) (joke, fun, mockery) + -esco (the adjectival suffix used in English as –esque).  The Italian burla may ultimately be from the Late Latin burra (trifle, nonsense (and literally “flock of wool”) and thus used to suggest something “fluffy” (in the sense of being “lightweight” rather than serious) which was of unknown origin.  Alternatively, some etymologists suggest burla may be from the Spanish burladero (the protective barrier behind which people in the bullring are protected from the bull).  The verb burlesque (make ridiculous by mocking representation) came directly from the noun and was in use by the 1670s.  The spelling burlesk is archaic.  While the derived form unburlesqued means simply “not burlesqued”, preburlesque is a historian's term meaning “prior to the introduction of burlesque performances”.  Burlesque, burlesquer & burlesqueness are nouns, burlesqued & burlesquing are verbs and burlesquely is an adverb; the noun plural is burlesques.

The original mid-sixteenth century meaning was related to stage performances and meant “a piece composed in the burlesque style, a derisive imitation or grotesque parody, a specific development from the slightly earlier adjectival sense of “odd or grotesque”, taken directly from the French burlesque.  The more familiar adjectival meaning (tending to excite laughter by ludicrous contrast between the subject and the manner of treating it) was in use by at least the late 1690s.  As a definition that’s fine but in the hands of playwrights, satirists and such there was obviously much scope, prompting one journalist (a breed which seems first to have been described thus in the 1680s) in 1711 to clarify things in a London periodical:

“The two great branches of ridicule in writing are comedy and burlesque. The first ridicules persons by drawing them in their proper characters; the other, by drawing them quite unlike themselves. Burlesque is therefore of two kinds; the first represents mean persons in accoutrements of heroes, the other describes great persons acting and speaking like the basest among the people.”

The meaning shifted as what appeared on stage evolved and by the 1880s the typical understanding was something like (1) “travesties on the classics and satires on accepted ideas” and (2) comic opera which tended towards vulgarity.  From this came the still prevalent modern sense of “variety show featuring music, dancing and striptease” although some historians of the industry link this use directly from the mid-nineteenth century tradition of “scantily-clad performers who staged the sketches concluding minstrel shows”.  The implications of that evolution didn’t impress all and by the early twentieth century, in the US, the word “burlesque” had become verbal shorthand for “entertainment designed to titillate, verging on the obscene while avoiding prosecution”.  The term “neo-burlesque” (a revived form of traditional American burlesque performance, involving dance, striptease, dramatic performance etc) emerged in the 1990s, describing the stage shows which sought to re-capture the once respectable spirit of burlesque as it was performed in US clubs before “changing attitudes” saw the performances outlawed or marginalized.  Whether attitudes really much changed among the general population has been debated by historians but the US political system then (as now) operated in a way in which well-funded groups could exert a disproportionate influence on public policy and while this often was used by sectional interests to gain financial advantage, some also decided to impose on others their view of morality; it was in the era of the crackdown on burlesque shows the Motion Picture Production Code (the so-called “Hays Code” which, remarkably, endured, at least on paper, until 1968!) was created as a set of “moral guidelines” with which the Hollywood studios had to conform.  So the “culture wars” are nothing new and in the US, there has always been a tension between puritan religiosity and political freedom, the two forces reflecting the concerns and obsessions of those from the “Old World” of Europe who in the early seventeenth century founded the settlement which ultimate became what came to be known as “America”.

Although often hardly “respectable” theatre, burlesque has a long tradition in performance and almost its techniques will long pre-date recorded history.  The essence of the form was based on an exaggerated “sending up” or a derisive imitation of a literary or musical work and can be anything from a friendly joke to vicious ridicule.  Historically most associated with some form of stage entertainment, burlesque was distinguished from parody in being usually stronger (though not always broader) in tone and style and often lacked the edgy subtlety of satire.   It was the Athenian playwright of Ancient Greece, Aristophanes (circa 446–386 BC), who the late Medieval scribes declared “the father of comedy” and while that was a little misleading, he would occasionally use the device of burlesque in his plays though the satyr plays probably were the first institutionalized form of burlesque.

Empire Burlesque (1985) by Bob Dylan (b 1941).

Early in his long career, Bob Dylan must have noticed the press seemed to be more interested in discussing the stuff about which he didn’t comment that that which he’d taken the time to explain.  Whether or not that’s a factor, Dylan appears never to have explained the meaning behind the title of his 1985 album, Empire Burlesque.  Although some speculated it may have been a metaphor for the nature of “the American Empire” (however defined), there’s nothing substantive to support the speculation and a more grounded theory came from the Beat poet Allen Ginsberg (1926–1997) who recounted how Dylan had once told him: “That was the name of a burlesque club I used to go to when I first came to New York, down on Delancey Street.”  Ginsberg thought it “a good title” for an album.

Intriguingly, the satyr play was a kind of coda.  In Greek theatre, the convention was to present four plays in succession: three tragedies (though not necessarily a trilogy) with a satyr play appended as the final piece.  Typically, in a satyr play, a mythical hero (who may have appeared in one or all of the foregoing tragedies) was presented as a ridiculous personage with a chorus of satyrs (creatures half man and half goat (or half horse) with prominent, erect phalluses (it was satyr imagery which in Europe made the goat a symbol of lust and, two millennia on, cynical Berliners would refer to the notoriously philandering Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) as “the he-goat of Berlin”)).  As far as is known, the satyr plays almost always were ribald in speech and action as well as in costume and their purpose has been debated by historians.  While classical Greek tragedy is almost wholly devoid of comedy (in the sense of set-pieces although there’s the occasional sardonic quip or grim observation that would have enticed a laconic guffaw) the satyr play concluding the tetralogy would have worked as a sort of palliative burlesque after the catharsis of three acts of fear, loathing and, not infrequently, death,  Their dramatic function clearly was a form of comic relief but coming immediately after three works of earnest high-seriousness, they must have has the effect of “calming the senses” of the audience after the intense, exalting spiritual experience of the tragedies.  That’s interesting in that it implies it was thought desirable to return the audience to “earthly life” and remind them what they had just experienced was not “reality” and their emotions had just been manipulated by a technique.  It all sounds rather post-modern and in a similar literary vein, the “clowning interludes” in Elizabethan plays can also be seen as a type of burlesque; in William Shakespeare’s (1564–1616) A Midsummer Night's Dream (1590) the interpolation of the play of Pyramus and Thisbe performed by Bottom and his companions was the bard making fun of the “Interludes” of earlier types.

An expanded vista derailing the Pronomos Vase (red-figure pottery Ancient Greece, circa 400 BC) believed to depict the whole cast and chorus of a satyr play, along with the playwright, the musician Pronomos, and the gods Dionysos and Ariadne.  The scene is thought to capture the figures after a performance which, in modern use, would be thought a “behind the scenes” grab.   The vase was discovered in 1835 in a tomb in Ruvo di Puglia, Italy; it’s now on permanent display in the Museo Nazionale in Naples.

To make things difficult for students, there are linguistic traps in the terminology and despite the similarity in the spelling, there was no connection whatever between satyric drama and satire and some seem convinced there may have been none between it and Greek comedy.  For structuralists, it can be a difficult field to study because over the centuries so many contradictory texts and commentaries emerged and that’s at least partly attributable to the influence of Aristotle (384-322 BC) who looms over the understanding of Greek theatre because his writings came to be so revered by the scholars of the late Medieval period and especially the Renaissance.  As far as in known, the Greeks were the first of the tragedians and it’s through the surviving texts of Aristotle that later understandings were filtered but all of his conclusions were based only on the tragedies and such was his historic and intellectual authority that for centuries his theories came to be misapplied and misused, either by mapping them on to all forms of tragedy or using them as exclusionary, dismissing from the canon those works which couldn’t be made to fit his descriptions.

The Pronomos Vase as displayed in Naples.

Nor was burlesque confined to drama; it was the most common structure used in the mock-heroic poem to ridicule the often overblown works of romance, chivalry and Puritanism.  Dripping often with irony and a confected grave decorum, the classic example is English poet & satirist Alexander Pope’s (1688-1744) The Rape of the Lock (1712), cited by some (however unconvincingly) as the spiritual origin of “high camp”.  Also, because the gothic novel often was written in such self-conscious “high style”, the form lent itself naturally to burlesque re-tellings, something exploited to this day in Hollywood which has often made sequels to horror films in comedic from.  The burlesque (in the sense it was a descendent of the Greek satyr play) could also be positioned as something transgressive although it must be wondered if this sometimes was a product more of the commentator’s view than the positionality intended by the author.  This aspect of burlesque is explored in the genre of literary carnival when a technique is borrowed from the Socratic dialogues (in which what appears to be logic is deconstructed and proved to be illogical).  Carnivalesque elements are inherent in burlesque (and can exist in satire, farce, parody and such) and a theory of Russian philosopher & literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin (1895–1975) was that in its disruption of authority and implication of possible alternatives, carnival in literature was subversive and the use of burlesque in the form was a concealment (in the sense of avoiding the censor’s pen) of what could be a liberating influence; Bakhtin’s particular target was the “suffocatingly sacred word” in Renaissance culture but his theory has more generally been applied.

The noun amphigory (burlesque nonsense writing or verse) dates from 1809 and was from the eighteenth century French amphigouri of unknown origin but presumed by most etymologists to have been a jocular coining although there may have been some influence from the New Latin amphi-, from the Ancient Greek ἀμφί (amphí) (on both sides) and the Greek γύρος (gýros), derived from the “turning of the meat on a spit” (as a calque of Turkish döner into Greek).  The notion was of “making the whole” (ie “circle on both sides”) but a link with the Greek -agoria (speech) (as in allegory, category) has been suggested as a simpler explanation.  The word “amphigory” found a niche in literary criticism and academic use (recommended for students wishing to impress the professor) to describe a particular flavour of burlesque or parody, especially a verse or other text in which the impression is for a while sustained of something which will make sense but ultimately fails, an oft-cited example being Nephelidia (literally “cloudlets”) by the English poet Algernon Charles Swinburne (1837–1909) in which the writer parodies his own distinctive style.

In A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), Henry Fowler (1858–1933) noted the wide application of the words often listed as synonymous with burlesque (caricature, parody, travesty etc), citing the not uncommon use of burlesque to describe a “badly conducted trial” or “a perverted institution”, adding the two critical distinctions were (1) burlesque, caricature & parody have, besides their wider uses, each a special province; action or acting is burlesqued, form and features are caricatured and verbal expression is parodied and (2) travesty differs from the others both in having no special providence and, in being more used than they (though all four may be used either way) when the imitation is intended to be or pass for an exact one but fails.  Were Henry Fowler alive to see TikTok and such, he’d realize not many are reading his book.

Pink Purple HD Lip Paint (Burlesque) by MBACosmetics.  Burlesque's ingredients includes: Castor Oil, Jojoba Oil, Beeswax, Carnauba Wax, Fractionated Coconut Oil, Shea Butter, Vitamin E, Mica, Titanium Dioxide, Oxides, May contain Yellow #5 Lake, Yellow #6 Lake, Red #7 Lake, Red #40, Red #33, Red #27, Red #30, Orange #5, Hydrogenated Polisobutene and Palmitic Acid.

The difficulty in assigning synonyms to “burlesque” is that things are not only nuanced but historically variable; what would in one time and place have been thought satirical might in other circumstances be called a parody.  The earliest known use in English of the noun parody was by the playwright Benjamin Jonson (circa 1572-circa 1637) who would have understood it as something close to the modern definition: “a literary work in which the form and expression of dignified writing are closely imitated but are made ridiculous by the ludicrously inappropriate subject or methods; a travesty that follows closely the form and expression of the original”.  Parody was from the Latin parodia (parody), from the Ancient Greek parōidia (burlesque song or poem), the construct being para- (beside, parallel to (used in this context in the sense “to mock; mockingly to present”)) + ōidē (song, ode) and from the technical use in theatre came the general meaning “a poor or feeble imitation”, in use by at least the late 1820s.  So, depending on the details, a parody could be a type of burlesque but might also be described as a satire, ridicule, lampoon or farce.  It was Benjamin Jonson who in 1609 debuted his “anti-masque” an innovation which took the form of either (1) a buffoonish and grotesque episode before the main masque or (2) a similarly farcical interlude interpolated during the performance (if performed beforehand, it was dubbed an “ante-masque”. One variant of the anti-masque was a burlesque of the masque itself and in that sense there was a distinct affinity with the Greek satyr play.

So in literary use, synonyms for burlesque must be applied on a case-by-case basis, caricature, parody and travesty all used variously to refer to the written or preformed forms imitating serious works or subjects, the purpose being to achieve a humorous or satiric purpose.  In this context, burlesque achieves its effects through a mockery of both high and low through association with their opposites: burlesques of high and low life can thus be though a kind of specific application of irony.  Caricature, usually associated with visual arts or with visual effects in literary works, implies exaggeration of characteristic details, analogous with the technique of the political cartoonist.  Parody achieves humor through application of the manner or technique (typically well-known poets, authors, artists and such), often to an unaccustomed (and, ideally, wholly incongruous) subject while a travesty can be a grotesque form of burlesque, the latter also nuanced because travesties can be intentional or just bad products.  All of these forms can be the work of absurdists, that genre ranging from the subtle to the blatant and they may also be spoofs.  Spoof was a neologism coined in 1884 by the English comedian Arthur Roberts (1852–1933) as the name of a card game which involved deception, trickery and nonsense.  From this the word came to be used of any sort of hoaxing game but it became most popular when used of literary works and staged performances which is some way parodied someone or something but the point about the use of “spoof” is should describe a “gentle” rather than a “biting” satire, elements of the burlesque thus often present in spoofs.

South Park's take on Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025).  Somewhere in probably every South Park episode, there are switches between parody, satire, ridicule, lampoon and farce with elements of the burlesque often in each.

A distinction certainly is drawn between political burlesque and political satire.  Political burlesque is a particular application of the satirical which relies on parody and exaggeration (often absurdist) to mock political figures, events, concepts or institutions and the purpose can range from the merely comic to the subversive, the two poles not being mutually exclusive.  In the burlesque, a politician’s traits, patterns of speech or behaviour (scandals are best) are explored and sometimes exaggerated to the point they become obviously ridiculous or absurd, the best practitioners of the art using the amplification to take things to a logical (if improbable) conclusion and while it can be done almost affectionately, the usual purpose is to draw attention to flaws such as incompetence, corruption, indifference to others, hypocrisy or ideological fanaticism.  Essentially a political cartoon writ large, it’s a popular device because in masking the message in humor, there’s usually some protection from a defamation writ, witness the relationship between the animation South Park and Donald Trump.  The tradition is old and evidence is at least hinted in graffiti unearthed in Ancient Rome but material from in recent centuries is extant and techniques of the English artists William Hogarth (1697–1764) and James Gillray (1756-1815) remain in use to this day, illustrating the way political burlesque is best understood as a sub-set of political satire, separate but (often) equal as it were, the differences in tone, method, and degree of exaggeration a matter of tactics rather than strategy.

As an umbrella term, “political satire” has a wide vista in that it can be subtle, dry, ironic & biting, deployed with wit & understatement but it can also switch to (some would say “descend to”) the burlesque in becoming loud, exaggerated and even grotesque in fusing elements of slapstick and farce.  While burlesque amplifies absurdity, venality or whatever is being critiqued, satire need only “point it out” and some very effective satires have done nothing more than quote politicians verbatim, their words “hoisting them with their own petard” if the mixed metaphor will be forgiven.  So, all political burlesque is political satire, but not all political satire is burlesque.  The companion term in politics is vaudevillian and that describes a politician for whom “all the world’s a stage” and politics thus a form of theatre.  Their performances can (sometimes unintentionally) sometimes seem to at least verge on the burlesque but usually it’s about attracting attention and a classic exponent was Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) who was said to have been influenced by Ronald Reagan (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989).  During the 1980 presidential campaign, a reporter asked Mr Reagan: “How can an actor run for President?”, receiving the prompt reply: “How can a president not be an actor?”  Some have of course been more adapt than others at “flicking the switch to vaudeville” and Paul Keating (b 1944; Prime Minister of Australia 1991-1996) whose vocabulary was rich (if not always refined) used to use what he called his “dead cat strategy” which referred to introducing a shocking or controversial issue to divert unwanted attention from other, more embarrassing or damaging news.  It was most graphically expressed as “tossing a dead cat on the table”.

Lindsay Lohan in burlesque mode in I Know Who Killed Me (2007).  Neglected upon its release, IKWKM has since been re-evaluated as a modern giallo and has acquired a cult following, sometimes see on the playbill of late-night screenings.

As popular entertainment, burlesque performance enjoyed a revival which began in the 1990s and in the twenty-first century it’s now an entrenched niche as well a minor industry in publishing.  By the 1960s, what was called burlesque had become rather tatty and the common understanding of the term was something not greatly different from a strip club with a slightly better class of drunk in the audience, the women there to disrobe in the hope of encouraging the sale of expensive alcoholic.  What in the 1990s was dubbed the “neo-burlesque” was not a reprise of how things used to be done but a construct which might be thought a more “women-centric” interpretation of the discipline and while there will be factions of feminism which won’t take that notion too seriously and dismiss as “false consciousness” the idea of women publicly taking off their clothes as a form of “empowerment”, the latter day performers seem to treat it as exactly that.  Despite the criticism of some, burlesque seem now to verge on the respectable and, internationally, there are various burlesque festivals and a Burlesque Hall of Fame (the grand opening, perhaps predictably, in Las Vegas).

Burlesque and the Art of the Teese /Fetish and the Art of the Teese (2006) by Dita Von Teese (stage name of Heather Renée Sweet, b 1972).  Perhaps surprisingly, despite the phrase “the art of the teese” being at least potentially a piece of “ambush marketing” piggy-backing on the success of the acclaimed (48 weeks on The New York Times Best Seller list) book The Art of the Deal by Donald Trump and Tony Schwartz (b 1952), Mr Trump didn’t sue Ms von Teese.  Maybe he’s a burlesque fan-boy.

In the modern era, no figure is more associated with the neo-burlesque than Dita von Teese and her janus-configured book Burlesque and the Art of the Teese / Fetish and the Art of the Teese is similar to Mr Trump’s magnum opus in being a hybrid: part memoir, part instruction manual.  This significance of publishing the burlesque and fetish components as separate sections was presumably to make the point that while there’s obvious cross-fertilization between the two disciplines and for some the former may be a stepping stone to the latter, there is a clear distinction, one a piece of performance art, the other a deliberate statement of deviance; decisively one must step from one into the separate world of the other.  Ms von Teese’s book documents the “dos & don’ts” of each “calling” and. as she explains, the point about the neo-burlesque was it was less a revival than a re-defining, the thematic emphasis on style and glamour rather than sleaze, more aligned with the image (if not exactly the reality) of the Berlin cabarets of the 1920 than the seedy Soho strip joints which once so tarnished the brand.

Spade & Splayd

Spade (pronounced speyd)

(1) A garden or farming tool for digging, having an iron blade adapted for pressing into the ground with the foot and a long handle commonly with a grip or crosspiece at the top, and with the blade usually narrower and flatter than that of a shovel.

(2) Some implement, piece, or part resembling this.

(3) A heavy metallic projection on the bottom of a gun trail, designed to dig into the earth to restrict backward movement of the carriage during recoil.

(4) To dig, cut, or remove with a spade.

(5) In four-suit card-games, a black figure shaped like an inverted heart and with a short stem at the cusp opposite the point; a card of the suit bearing such figures.

(6) In slang, a disparaging and offensive term for a person with black skin (based on the spade in packs of cards) (obsolete).

(7) In nautical use, a type of oar blade that is comparatively broad and short (as opposed to a spoon).

(8) A cutting tool for stripping the blubber from a whale or skin from a carcass.

(9) As “in spades”, a term synonymous with the idiomatic “laying it on with a trowel” to indicate something done to excess or in an emphatic way.

(10) As “to call a spade a spade”, to be candid; to speak plainly without resort to euphemisms.

(11) As “to do the spadework” to be thorough in preparation.

(12) A hart or stag three years old (rare).

(13) A castrated man or animal (archaic).

Pre-900: From the Middle English noun spade, from the Old English spada, spade & spadu.  It was cognate with the the Proto-Germanic spadǭ, spadô & spadō, the Dutch spade, the Old Frisian spada, the Old Saxon spado, the Old High German spato, the German Spaten, the Old Norse spathi (spade), the Hunsrik Spaad and the Ancient Greek spáthē (blade; broad, flat piece of wood).  The ultimate source was the primitive Indo-European spe-dh-, from which the Ancient Greek gained σπάθη (spáthē) (blade), Hittite išpatar (spear), Persian سپار‎ (sopār) (plow), Northern Luri ئەسپار‎ (aspār) (diging) and Central Kurdish ئەسپەر‎ (esper) & ئەسپەرە‎ (espere) (cross-piece on shaft of spade to take pressure of foot).  More recent descendants include the Scottish Gaelic spaid and the Fiji Hindi sipi.  Spade & spading are nouns & verbs, spader & spadeful are nouns, spaded is a verb and spadable & spadelike are adjectives; the noun plural is spades.

Pentagon-authorized playing cards, 2003.

The use on playing cards dates from 1590–1600, from the Italian, plural of spada the meaning of which was originally “sword”, from the Latin spatha, from the Greek spáthē.  Historically, the ace of spades was the highest card in the deck and, dating from the reign of James I (James Stuart, 1566–1625; James VI of Scotland 1567-1925 &  James I of England and Ireland 1603-1625), the law required the ace of spades to bear the insignia of the printing house.  This was to ensure the stamp duty was paid and the method to certify its payment on playing cards was a physical stamp on the highest card of the deck.  Beginning in the seventeenth century, card manufacturers started putting their identification marks on the ace of spades and it was soon an industry tradition, maintained even when the tax was no longer payable, the intricate designs now serving to protect them from illegal copying.  The ace of spades has a (somewhat dubiously gained) reputation as the death card but its become part of the folk lore attached to various organized crime operations and has been used by some militaries in psychological warfare, the US army ordering bulk supplies of ace of spades cards to scatter around although the belief the Viet Cong soldiers feared the card appears to have been untrue.

Lindsay Lohan's Royal Routine in spades in The Parent Trap (1998).

The Pentagon however still liked the imagery.  In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, thousands of packs of cards were issued, all decorated with pictures of the Iraqi regime's most wanted figures.  The dubious honor of being the ace of spades was of course granted to President Saddam Hussein (1937–2006; president of Iraq 1979-2003) but, unfortunately, the regime's final official spokesman, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf (b 1940), despite his memorable war-time press conferences (as a result of which he was dubbed "Comical Ali" (a dark allusion to Ali Hassan al-Majid al-Tikriti (1941-2010, an Iraqi military officer who became notorious for his use of chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians) or "Baghdad Bob" by the press corps) which made him the country's second best known figure, didn't rate a card.  The Pentagon deemed him not worth even a two of clubs, an act of some ingratitude in the circumstances.

Dating from the 1520s, the spatula, now familiar as a kitchen tool used to scrape the contents of bowls, was derived from the early fifteenth century medical instrument, from the Latin spatula (broad piece), diminutive of spatha (broad, flat tool or weapon) from the Ancient Greek spathe (broad flat blade (used by weavers); the erroneous form spattular appeared circa 1600.

Mid-twentieth century silver-plated cake server by Viners of Sheffield (left) & early twentieth century Danish silver-plated cake spades (right).

The cake spade was a curious alternative to the cake (or pie) server, the latter a utensil styled to conform to the size and shape of the typical domestic slice of cake or pie.  Where the cake spade differed was in the use of a regular or irregular trapezoid shape which, although it would make it difficult to maneuver something cut in the traditional, elongated triangle used with circular cakes or pies, offered advantages in stability for anything served is a squarer form including desirable stuff like lasagna: horses for courses.

Drain spade with comfort step and D-grip with fibreglass handle; available at Walmart.

Although a proliferation of modern hybrid designs for home gardeners has a little blurred the distinction, traditionally, a spade differs from a two-handed shovel mostly in the form and thickness of the blade.  The phase “to call a spade a spade" (using blunt language, call things by right names and avoid euphemisms) dates from the 1540s and was a translation of a Greek proverb (which was known to the Greek satirist and rhetorician Lucian of Samosata (Λουκιανός ό Σαμοσατεύς; circa 125-Circa 185) ten skaphen skaphen legein (to call a bowl a bowl) but Dutch Catholic theologian Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (Erasmus of Rotterdam; 1466–1536) mis-translated, confusing the Greek skaphe (trough, bowl) for a derivative of the stem of skaptein (to dig) and the mistake has forever stuck, possibly because, at least in English, it better conveys the meaning.

Laying it on with a trowel

The trowel used by Queen Victoria when laying the foundation stone of the new buildings at the Victoria and Albert Museum, 17 May 1899, an act she managed to perform without leaving the comfort of her carriage.  A trowel is a kind of small hand-held spade, used in gardening and to apply the mortar in brick-laying.  The ornamental trowel was rendered in silver and enamel by the silversmith Nelson Dawson (1859-1941) and his wife Edith (1862-1928).

The phrase “in spades” (a suggestion of abundance) appeared first as recently as 1929 in a short story by US journalist and author Damon Runyon (1880-1946), a reference to the desirably of having many of the suit in bridge, spades the highest-ranking suit.  A similar phrase is that reported by the poet Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) and attributed to Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881; UK prime- minister 1868 & 1874-1880) who, when discussing the techniques he adopted during his audiences with Queen Victoria (1819–1901; Queen of the UK 1837-1901), advised “everyone likes flattery and when you come to royalty, you should lay it on with a trowel”.

Although Disraeli joined the Church of England at the age of twelve, he was born Jewish and one who clearly understood the value of laying flattery on “with a trowel” was Benjamin Netanyahu (b 1949; Israeli prime minister 1996-1999, 2009-2021 and since 2022) who, while doubtless noting the “No Kings” protest movement in the US, decided that for these purposes Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) should be treated like royalty.  Shortly after it was in June 2025 announced the US military had (with the now famous “bunker-buster” bombs) attacked Iranian nuclear processing facilities which the ayatollahs had concealed deep inside a convenient mountain, Mr Netanyahu appeared at the lectern, metaphorical trowel in hand:

Benjamin Netanyahu (left) & Donald Trump (right).

“Congratulations President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history.  Israel has done truly amazing things. But in tonight's action against Iran's nuclear facilities, America has been truly unsurpassed.  It has done what no other country on earth could do. History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime, the world's most dangerous weapons.  His leadership today has created a pivot of history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace.  President Trump and I often say 'peace through strength'.  First comes strength, then comes peace.  And tonight President Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength.  President Trump, I thank you.  The people of Israel thank you.  The forces of civilization thank you.  God bless America.  God bless Israel and may God bless our unshakeable alliance, our unbreakable faith.”

Disraeli himself can scarcely ever have been as effusive in his praise of his Queen (although on occasion he was known to go on bended knee to kiss the hand) and were Mr Netanyahu able to grant Mr Trump an imperial title (as Disraeli in 1876 conferred on Victoria by making her “Empress of India”), surely he would.  In paying due tribute, the Israeli prime minister set the mark but in a post-operation press briefing conducted with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (US Air Force (USAF) General Dan Caine (b 1968)) Pete Hegseth (b 1980; US secretary of defense since 2025) rose to the occasion:

Donald Trump (left) & Pete Hegseth (right).

“For the entirety of his time in office, President Trump has consistently stated, for over 10 years, that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon, full stop.  Thanks to President Trump's bold and visionary leadership and his commitment to peace through strength, Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.  Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran's nuclear program, and none could, until President Trump.  The operation President Trump planned was bold and it was brilliant, showing the world that American deterrence is back.  When this President speaks, the world should listen and the U.S. Military, we can back it up.  The most powerful military the world has ever known.  No other country on planet Earth could have conducted the operation that the chairman is going to outline this morning.  Not even close.  Just like Soleimani found out in the first term Iran found out when POTUS says 60 days that he seeks peace and negotiation, he means 60 days of peace and negotiation otherwise that nuclear program, that nuclear capability, will not exist.  He meant it.  This is not the previous administration.  President Trump said, no nukes. He seeks peace, and Iran should take that path.  He sent out a Truth last night, saying this: any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight, signed the President of the United States, Donald J Trump.  Iran would be smart to heed those words. He said it before, and he means it.  I want to give congratulations to our commander in chief. It was an honor to watch him lead last night and throughout and to our great American warriors on this successful operation. God bless our troops. God bless America, and we give glory to God for his providence and continue to ask for his protection.”

Donald Trump (left) and Mark Rutte.

Not wanting the White House to think NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) couldn’t handle a trowel as well as Tel Aviv and the Pentagon, Mark Rutte (b 1967; prime minister of the Netherlands 2010-2024, secretary general of NATO since 2024) took the opportunity presented by Mr Trump’s impending arrival at the 2025 NATO Summit Defence Industry Forum to send the president a message congratulating him on the apparent success of the USAF’s strikes on Iran:

“Mr President, dear Donald, congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do. It makes us all safer.  You are flying into another big success in The Hague this evening.  It was not easy but we’ve got them all signed onto 5 percent!  Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world.  You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.  Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.  Safe travels and see you at His Majesty’s dinner!”

Mike Huckabee (left) and Donald Trump (right).

One who had his own way of sending the message was Mike Huckabee (b 1955; Baptist preacher, Republican governor of Arkansas 1996-2007, US ambassador to Israel since 2025) who earlier had told Mr Trump that while doubtlessly he was hearing advice from many sources telling him what to do about Iran: “There is only one voice that matters, HIS voice.  I believe you will hear from heaven and that voice is far more important than mine or ANYONE else’s.”  The president clearly liked the thought of God as his advisor and re-posted the message on his Truth Social platform.  Despite his critics alleging he thinks himself above God, it’s probably more accurate to suggest Mr Trump regards Him as an equal.

Mr Netanyahu (left) & Mr Trump (right), the Knesset, Jerusalem, 13 October, 2025.

In his speech on 13 October 2525 welcoming Mr Trump, visiting to make a speech to the Knesset (parliament of Israel), Mr Netanyahu stopped short of acknowledging his guest as a living god but that may only be because his cabinet is packed with amateur scholars of the Torah and he may have anticipated theological objections although, beyond Judaism, there are precedents, the Emperors of Japan before the unpleasantness of 1945 being venerated as 現人神 (arahitogami; manifest kami; incarnation of a deity) and because of the wording the Imperial Palace’s courtiers concocted in the statement purporting to proclaim him as mere “human flesh & blood”, there are still factions which claim divinity was never renounced although there’s little to suggest modern Japanese citizens much dwell on this.  There was also Haile Selassie I (1892-1975; Emperor of Ethiopia 1930-1974), regarded by the Rastafari as their (and possibly everyone’s, opinions differ) Messiah.  Rastafari is an Abrahamic religion which in the 1930s emerged in Jamaica but it’s misleading to speak of it as simply a faith because it’s more a social movement and world view; in that sense it’s more like Islam though without the codified rules and an even looser structure of authority.  The matter came to international attention when in April 1966 the emperor visited Jamaica, a event celebrated as the most important Rastafari’s most holy day and called “Grounation Day” because, when walking between his aircraft and Vanden Plas Princess limousine, he declined to walk upon the red carpet laid according to diplomatic protocol because he wished his feet to “touch the ground”.  Intriguingly, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (with roots from the early days of Christianity) has never suggested the Rastafari renounce their belief in Haile Selassie's divine status.

Mr & Mrs Netanyahu.

So, although Mr Netanyahu stopped short of putting Mr Trump at least on the right-hand of God, he didn’t stop that far short and set a new mark in what is now something of an international diplomatic competition to see who can most flatter the POTUS.  Whether anyone will dare to try to top what was said in the Knesset remains to be seen but so adeptly did Mr Netanyahu wield the Disraelian trowel that it’ll demand quite a performance.  The event in Jerusalem was to mark return of the remaining hostages seized by the Hamas during the terrorist attack of 7 October 2023 so the occasion was understandably emotional and the prime-minister, as well as reiterating his country’s nomination of Mr Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize (which, in fairness, he deserves more than Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) who in 2009 received his for “not being George W Bush” (George XLIII, b 1946; US president 2001-2009), indicated the president had been nominated to become the first non-Israeli recipient of the Israel Prize (Israel's highest award).  The malicious suggestion on Twitter that one of Mr Trump’s aides asked if was possible for him “to take the prize in cash instead” was wholly fake news but in the spirit of the moment, Mr Trump did later suggest Isaac Herzog (b 1960; president of Israel since 2021) should issue a pardon to Mr Netanyahu (and presumably his (third) wife Sara (b 1958)) to resolve the tiresome corruption charges both face.  Footage of the remarkable speech is available on-line as is a transcript but some fragments capture the moment:

“My friends, this is only a partial list.  But it's enough to affirm what I've said time and again, Donald Trump is the greatest friend that the state of Israel has ever had in the White House.  No American president has ever done more for Israel.  And as I said in Washington, none are even close.  It's really not a match. 

Israel, a man named Donald J. Trump was elected president of the United States. And, ladies and gentlemen, overnight, overnight everything changed. Everything.  And I want to thank our negotiating team. I believe that the close cooperation between the two of us, between our two nations, combining Israel's military pressure and President Trump's unmatched global leadership.  I have to tell you, I've seen a lot of American presidents. I've seen them all in the time that I've been here.  And I've been here quite a lot of time.  I've never seen anyone move the world so quickly, so decisively, so resolutely as our friend, President Donald J Trump.

Mr. President, thank you for all you have done for us.  I have submitted your nomination to be the first non-Israeli recipient of the Israel Prize, Israel's highest award.  As to that other prize, just a question of time.  You'll get it.  But I want you to get the Israel Prize, our highest award, to our greatest friend.  When others were weak, you were strong. When others were fearful, you were bold. When others abandoned us, you stood by our side.  On behalf of the government and people of Israel, I thank you for your extraordinary friendship.  Thank you for helping bring our hostages home.  Thank you for supporting Israel's march to victory.  Thank you for paving a path to peace.

Mr. President, my friend Donald, welcome to Israel.  Welcome to Jerusalem. Welcome on this very special day.  Allowed us to live and brought us to this day.  May God bless you and your family, Mr. President.  May God bless America.  May God bless Israel.  And may God bless the covenant between our two promised lands.”

Splayd (pronounced splade)

An eating utensil combining the functions of spoon, knife and fork.

1943: A constructed brand name which was not a conventionally blended word but one with a pronunciation intended to remind the speaker of the devices functional elements (spoon & blade) with the hint of "splay" (to slant, slope or spread outwards) to allude to the shape of the tines.  While the shape of the splayd was at the time unusual, the idea of utensils which combined the knife, fork & spoon had been around for generations and during World War II (1939-1945), allied soldiers enviously would admire the "light-weight and brilliantly simple" one issued to the German army.  Splayd is a noun; the noun plural is splayds.

The splayd was created by William McArthur of Sydney, Australia, with production licensed to several manufacturers, the best known of which was Viners of Sheffield.  Although several variations of the spork (a utensil combining the functionality of spoon and fork) already existed, the splayd’s innovation was the refinement of two outer fork tines, each having a hard, flat edge, suitable for cutting through soft food and they tended to have a geometric rather than a rounded bowl (usually with two longitudinal folds in the metal).  Mrs McArthur used and sold splayds in her Martha Washington Café in Sydney's Martin Place between 1943-1967 and in 1960 sold the manufacturing rights to the Stokes company which instituted some minor changes to the design, making them more easily mass-produced.

Set of six splayds plated in 24 carat gold; most splayds were rendered in 18-8 stainless steel although, especially in England, silver plate items appeared in smaller volumes.

Among some of the middle class seeking to add a layer of something to their dinner parties, splades were often seen and during their heyday in the 1950s & 1960s.  They were also a popular wedding gift and one unintended benefit was their usefulness in aged care and medical rehabilitation facilities, their use recommended for those with feeding difficulties following or during treatment of the arm.  A range was manufactured with the Selectagrip system which featured customizable handles to assist people who had difficulties gripping or manipulating standard utensils.

Mnemonic

Mnemonic (pronounced ni-mon-ik)

(1) Something assisting or intended to assist the memory.

(2) Pertaining to mnemonics or to memory.

(3) In computing, truncated code thought easy to remember (eg STO for store).

1660–1670: From the New Latin mnemonicus from the Ancient Greek μνημονικός (mnēmonikós) (of memory) derived from μνήμων (mnḗmōn) (remembering, mindful) & μνᾶσθαι (mnâsthai) (to remember); the ultimate root was the primitive Indo-European men (to think).  The meaning "aiding the memory", a back-formation from mnemonics dates from 1753, the noun meaning "mnemonic device" is from 1858.  The use in computer programming emerged in the early days of code and was a space-saving (eg del rather than delete) tool as well.  Mnemonical was the original form from the 1660s.  One of the charming ironies of mnemonic is it is one of those words so many can't quite remember how to spell.  It's thus in a sense "antimnemonic" and a contronym (also as auto-antonym, antagonym, or enantiodrome) which describes a word with two opposite or contradictory meanings, depending on context.  Mnemonic is a noun & adjective, mnemonician, mnemonicalist, mnemotechnist & mnemonicon are nouns, mnemonize & mnemonized are verbs, mnemonical & mnemotechnic are adjectives and mnemonically & mnemotechnically are adverbs; the noun plural is mnemonics.

Sans Forgetica

Sans Forgetica sample text.

Recently released, Sans Forgetica (which translates as "without forgetting") is a sans-serif font developed by RMIT University in Melbourne.  Back-slanted and with gaps in the character constructions, it’s designed explicitly to assist readers better to understand and retain in their memory what they’ve read.  Perhaps counter-intuitively for those outside the field, the shape is intended to reduce legibility, thereby (1) lengthening the tame taken to read the text and (2) adding complexity to learning and absorbing what’s been read.  Together, they create what in cognitive psychology and neuroscience is called "desirable difficulty", in this case forcing (RMIT might prefer "nudging") people to concentrate.

The first three paragraphs of Lindsay Lohan's Wikipedia page, rendered in Sans Forgetica.  Sans was from the Middle English saunz & sans, from the Old French sans, senz & sens, from the Latin sine (without) conflated with absēns (absent, remote).   Forgetica was an opportunistic coining, the construct being forget + -ica.  Forget was from the Middle English forgeten, forgiten, foryeten & forȝiten, from the Old English forġietan (to forget) (which was influenced by the Old Norse geta (to get; to guess), from the Proto-West Germanic fragetan (to give up, forget).  The -ica suffix was from the Latin -ica, the neuter plural of -icus (belonging to derived from; of or pertaining to; connected with).

From usually a young age, readers become skilled at scanning text, a process helped by most publishers seeking to render their works as legible as possible.  The theory of desirable difficulty is that omitting parts of the font requires the reader to pause and process information more slowly, thus provoking an additional cognitive processing which may enhance both understanding and retention.  While the application of the science to a font is novel, there’s nothing original about Sans Forgetica as a piece of typography, it being described as a hybrid of several existing schools and within the theory, on the basis of a small-group sample of students, it’s claimed to be a balance between legibility and difficulty.  According to the documents supplied by the developer, it’s not been tested as a device for advertisers to draw people to their text, the theory of that being people scan and dismiss (without retention) the great bulk of the large, static signage which is a feature of just about every urban environment.  With Sans Forgetica, because it can’t as quickly be scanned, people will tend longer to linger and so more carefully read the whole; a memorable event itself.

The most recent revision (DSM-5-TR (2022)) to the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) followed DSM-5 (2013) in refining the somewhat vague section on amnesia in both the DSM-IV (1994) & DSM-IV-TR (2000) where appeared the terms “Psychogenic amnesia” & “dissociative amnesia”, the core element of which was: “one or more episodes of inability to recall important personal information, usually of a traumatic or stressful nature, that is too extensive to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness.”  That really reflected the popular understanding and there was no clear definition of sub-types in the diagnostic criteria although in the text (not always in criteria) there was mention of localized, selective or generalized forms.  In the fifth edition, the disorder was called Dissociative Amnesia (psychogenic amnesia seems to have been replaced) and it was listed in the dissociative disorders section.  The definition still includes an “inability to recall important autobiographical information, usually of a traumatic or stressful nature, that is inconsistent with ordinary forgetting” so the popular understanding remains acknowledged but sub-types are now listed: localized (for specific event(s)), selective (some parts of the event), or generalized (identity and life history) amnesia.  Consistent with the structural revisions elsewhere in the fifth edition, the exclusion criteria was made more explicit (ie the memory loss should not be due to substances, medication, a neurological condition or better accounted for by another mental disorder) although clinician remain aware of overlap.  Significantly the DSM-5 did clarify that amnesia is retrograde (loss of pre-existing memories), especially of autobiographical kind and emphasised the memory loss is “beyond what is expected from normal forgetting.”  Because in such matters, there will be so much variation between patients, it remains one of those conditions with fuzzy boundaries and the symptoms presented must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Amnesia (memory loss) is much studied and although associated with the aging process, traumatic events (brain injury or psychological impacts) and certain neurological conditions, there have been some celebrated cases of recovery without medical intervention.  One celebrated case was that of Rudolf Hess (1894–1987; Nazi Deputy Führer 1933-1941) who in 1941 (on the eve of Germany invading the USSR) flew himself to Scotland in a bizarre and unauthorized attempt to negotiate a peace deal with those in the UK he though would be "reasonable men".    His "offer" was rejected and he was locked up (including two weeks in the Tower of London), later to be sent as a defendant before the IMT (International Military Tribunal) in the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946).  There, so convincing were his symptoms of amnesia and other mental states the judges requested submissions from defence and prosecution counsel on the matter of his fitness to stand trial.  The prosecutors assured the bench Hess would be able to both understand and cope with the proceedings and that an imperfect memory was merely a hindrance to his defence rather than an insuperable obstacle.  This was of course a predictable argument and the judges acceded to the defence’s request for a thorough medical investigation although they declined the suggestion Swiss doctors be consulted, assembling instead a team from medical staff on hand (three Soviet, three American, three British and one French), all from the nations running the trial.  The physicians presented four national papers which broadly were in agreement: Hess was sane (as legally defined) but was suffering from hysterical amnesia, induced by his need to escape from uncomfortable realities, something they found was often typical of “those with Hess’s unstable personality”.  All concluded the amnesia was temporary and would vary in intensity, the US doctors suggesting it may even disappear were any threat of punishment removed.

Caricature of Rudolf Hess at the first Nuremberg Trial by New Zealand-born UK cartoonist David Low (1891-1963).

The author Rebecca West (1892–1983) covered the trial as a journalist and wrote some vivid thumbnail sketches, noting of Hess: “Hess was noticeable because he was so plainly mad: so plainly mad that it seemed shameful that he should be tried.  His skin was ashen and he had that odd faculty, peculiar to lunatics, of falling into strained positions which no normal person could maintain for more than a few minutes, and staying fixed in contortion for hours. He had the classless air characteristic of asylum inmates; evidently his distracted personality had torn up all clues to his past.  He looked as if his mind had no surface, as if every part of it had been blasted away except the depth where the nightmares live.”  Whether or not Hess was "mad" (as such folk were described in 1946) can be debated but to many at the time, he certainly looked a madman.

Predictably unconvinced, Hess’s counsel at a hearing on 30 November 1945 told the bench a defendant could hardly stage an adequate defence if unable to remember names or incidents vital to his case, adding that on the basis of discussions with his client, even if he understood the words, Hess was incapable of grasping the significance of the charges against him.  Nor would a trial in absentia be fair because it would constituent a “grave injustice” were a defendant not present to give evidence or challenge the testimony of witnesses.  He concluded by requesting proceedings against him should be suspended and resumed only if his condition significantly improved.  To that, the British countered with a lengthy lecture on the distinctions in English law between amnesia & insanity and seconded the Soviet view that participation in the trial (and thus the need to make a defence) might well cure his condition.  Essentially, the British argued if he could follow the proceedings, he was fit to stand trial.  The US team noted Hess had at times claimed to be suffering amnesia while in captivity in England between 1941-1945 and on other occasions admitted the condition was simulated.  In the slang of the English criminal bar: “He had a bit of previous”.  The Americans also expressed annoyance at him having repeatedly refused any of the treatment prescribed by the Allied doctors, concluding: “He is in the volunteer class with his amnesia”.  The lawyers having finished, the IMT asked Hess if he wished to speak on the matter.  Without delay, he rose in the dock and walked to the microphone where he addressed the court in a clear and calm voice, his statement coherent, unambiguous and, most historians have concluded, clearly premeditated: “Henceforth my memory will again respond to the outside world.  The reasons for simulating loss of memory were of a tactical nature.  Only my ability to concentrate is, in fact, somewhat reduced.  But my capacity to follow the trial, to defend myself, to put questions to witnesses, or to answer questions myself is not affected thereby.  I also simulated loss of memory in consultations with my officially appointed defence counsel. He has therefore represented in good faith.”

He then sat down in what was described as a “stunned courtroom”.  It was at that point the trial’s most sensational moment and after taking a few seconds to digest things, the assembled press pack in their dozens rushed outside to file the story (the US military newspaper Stars and Stripes ran the punchy headline “Hess Nuts. Fake Story Fake”).  Immediately, the president of the IMT adjourned the session and the judges went into private session to decide whether Hess should be tried.  From their subsequent interviews and writings it appears they were not much influenced by Hess’s unexpected statement but were impressed by the similarity of the conclusions offered by the doctors, the chief US prosecutor saying such “unanimity of medical opinion” was, in his experience: “historically unique”.  All eight judges agreed Hess was fit to stand trial and, after being convicted on two counts ((1) conspiracy to wage aggressive war and (2) waging aggressive war), he was handed a life sentence and would remain incarcerated until in 1987 he committed suicide after some 46 years behind bars, the last two decades of which were served as the sole inmate (guarded by dozens of soldiers on rotation from France, the UK, US and USSR) of Berlin’s sprawling Spandau Prison, a huge facility designed to incarcerate hundreds.

Low’s take on the official German line explaining Hess deserting the German government as “madness”.  This cartoon does represent what was then the prevailing public perception of the typical appearance expected of those in “lunatic asylums”.  Depicted (left to right) are:

Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945): Committed suicide by by crushing between his teeth an ampule of a potassium cyanide (KCN), smuggled into his cell in circumstances never confirmed, shortly before he was to be hanged after being convicted on all four counts ((1) Conspiracy to wage aggressive war; (2) Waging aggressive war; (3) War crimes and (4) Crimes against humanity.

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945): With his wife Eva (née Braun; 1912–1945) of a few hours, committed suicide (he by gunshot and KCN, she by KCN alone) with the tanks of the Red Army only a couple of blocks from the Berlin Führerbunker.

Dr Robert Ley (1890–1945; head of the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (German Labour Front) 1933-1945): Before the trial began, he committed suicide by hanging (by means of suffocation) himself from the toilet-pipe in his cell in Nuremberg, after having for some years made a reasonable attempt to drink himself to death.  He died with his underpants stuffed in his mouth, decades before the phrase "Eat my shorts!" began to circulate in popular culture.

Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Nazi foreign minister 1938-1945): Hanged at Nuremberg after being convicted on all four counts.

Dr Joseph Goebbels: With his wife (Magda Goebbels (née Ritschel; 1901-1945), committed suicide (by gunshot) in the courtyard above the Führerbunker, shortly after they’d murdered their six young children.

Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945; Reichsführer SS 1929-1945): Captured by the British while attempting to escape disguised as a soldier, he committed suicide using an ampule of KCN concealed in his mouth.

Whether Hess was at any point insane (in the legal or medical sense) remains debated although, as is often the case, more interesting still is the speculation about just when the instability began.  Whether any credence can be attached to the official statement on the matter from the Nazi Party is doubtful but in the view of Reich Chancellery, his madness predated his flight to Scotland in 1941 (one of the strangest incidents of World War II (1939-1945)).  What the German press was told to publish was that Hess had become "deluded and deranged", his mental health affected by injuries sustained during World War I (1914-1918) and that he'd fallen under the influence of astrologers.  Just to make that sound convincing, the police conducted a crackdown (a well oiled technique in the Nazi state) on soothsayers and fortune-tellers.  Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) wasn't consulted before the "madness" explanation was announced and he seems to have been the only senior figure in the regime to grasp the potential implications of revealing to the public that for some time the country's deputy leader had been mad.  Others though did make the connection.  When Hermann Göring tried to shift the blame to aircraft designer and manufacturer Willy Messerschmitt (1898–1978) because he'd provided Hess a twin-engined Bf 110 Zerstörer (destroyer (heavy fighter)) for his flight, the engineer responded by saying Göring was more culpable because he should have done something about having someone unstable serving as Deputy Führer.  Göring could only laugh and told Messerschmitt to go back to building warplanes and, as it turned out, the strange affair was but a "nine day wonder" for not only did the British make no attempt to use Hess's arrival on their soil for propaganda purposes (which astonished Goebbels) but other events would soon dominate the headlines.  The only place where the strange flight left a great impression was in the Kremlin where comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) for years mulled over who within the British establishment might have conspired with Hess to allow the UK to withdraw from the conflict, leaving Germany able to invade Russia without having to fight on two fronts.  Historians have concluded the reluctance by the British to use for propaganda the arrival of Hess was their concern comrade Stalin might suspect collusion. 

Arthur Sinodinos, b 1957; Liberal Party functionary and minister variously 2007-2019; Australian ambassador to the US 2019-2023, right ) presenting to Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025, left) his credentials as Australia's ambassador to the US, the White House, Washington DC, February 2020.

Less dramatic but perhaps medically even more remarkable than the Hess affair was the recovery from amnesia by Arthur Sinodinos, a case which deserves to enter the annals of academic psychiatry & neurology (and debatably, those of the thespians).  In Australia, royal commissions are public investigations, established by but independent of government.  Not a court, royal commissions are created to enquire into matters of public importance and, within their terms of reference, have broad powers to conduct public & in camera hearings; they can call witnesses, compelling them (under oath) to provide testimony and they deliver recommendations to government about what should be done, consequent upon their findings.  These can include recommendations for legislative or administrative changes and the prosecution of institutions or individuals and they’re of great interest because they appear to be the only institution (at least theoretically) able to compel a politician to tell the truth.  Even that power is limited though because when appearing before royal commissions, politicians seem especially prone to suffering amnesia, an obviously distressing condition which compels them frequently to utter phrases like “I can’t remember”, “I don’t recall”, “not in my recollection” etc.  In the lore of the New South Wales (NSW) bar, Mr Sinodinous, while in 2014 being questioned by an enquiry, is believed to have set a record for the frequency with which the condition manifested.  Fortunately, the enquiry handed down no adverse findings against him and almost immediately, his memory appeared miraculously to recover, enabling the Australian Liberal Party government to appoint him ambassador to the US in 2019 so there's that.  The following transcript is wholly fake news:

Donald Trump: "What did you and Joe Biden talk about?"

Arthur Sinodinous: "I can't remember."

Donald Trump: "Not to worry, he won't remember either."

In the rich slang of the NSW bar, the condition once known as RCM (Royal Commission Memory) is now also referred to as “Sinodinos Syndrome”, on the model of “Marcinkus Syndrome” which describes the medical status of Roman Catholic priests who, being investigated for this, that or the other, although seemingly fit and healthy, are never able to be certified quite well enough to be interviewed by police or other authorities.  The condition is named after Archbishop Paul Marcinkus (1922–2006; President of the Institute for the Works of Religion (the “Vatican Bank’) 1971-1989).