Chthonian

Chthonian (pronounced thoh-nee-uhn)

(1) In Classical mythology, of or relating to the deities, spirits, and other beings dwelling under the earth.

(2) Dwelling in, or under the earth

1840–1850: From the Greek chthóni(os), the construct being chthon (stem of chthṓn (earth) + -ios (the adjectival suffix, accusative masculine plural of –ius) + -an (from the Latin -ānus, which forms adjectives of belonging or origin from a noun.  It was akin to the Latin humus (earth).  The alternative spelling in Ancient Greek was khthonios (in or under the earth), from χθών (khthṓn) (earth, ground, soil).

The Furies (Erinyes)

In Greek mythology, the Furies were the three chthonic female deities of vengeance; known also as Erinyes (the avengers), their counterparts in Roman mythology, the Dirae.  The names of this grumpy triumvirate were Alecto (the angry one), Tisiphone (the avenger) and Megaera (the grudging one).  In the literature, they’re sometimes called the infernal goddesses.

In Internet mythology, three chthonic female deities of vengeance.  Opinion might be divided about the allocation of the labels Angry, Avenging & Grudging. 

There are several myths of the birth of the Furies.  The most popular is they were born simultaneously with Aphrodite but in Hesiod’s Theogony, he claimed the Furies were born out of Uranus’ blood while Aphrodite was being born from sea foam when Titan Cronus castrated his father Uranus and cast his genitals to the sea; implicit in this version is the Furies preceded the Olympian Gods.  Another myth suggests they were born of a union between air and sea while according to Roman Poets (Ovid's (Publius Ovidius Naso; 43 BC–17 AD) Metamorphoses and Virgil's (Publius Vergilius Maro (70–19 BC)) Aeneid, they were the daughters of Nyx (the Night). In some old Greek hymns and Greco-Roman poet Statius' (Publius Papinius Statius (circa 45-circa 96) Thebaid they were the daughters of Hades and Persephone, serving them in the kingdom of underworld.  Furies listened to the complaints and callings of victims in the world when these people cursed the wrongdoers.  Those who murdered their mothers or fathers were especially important for Furies because (at least according to the Ancient Greek poet Hesiod (7-8^th century BC)), they were born of a child’s wrongdoing to his father.  They punished people who committed crimes against gods, crimes of disrespect, perjury and those who broke their oaths, but they thought murder the most vile crime and one demanding the most cruel punishment.

Virgil pointing out the Erinyes (1890), engraving by Gustave Doré (1832–1883).

The Furies served Hades and Persephone in the underworld.  When souls of the dead came to the kingdom of Hades, firstly they were judged by three judges; that done, the Furies purified souls the judges deemed good and permitted their passage. Souls deemed wicked were condemned to the Dungeons of the Damned in Tartarus to be subjected to the most awful torture, overseen by Furies.  Descriptions of the Furies (almost always by male writers or artists) varied in detail but mostly they were depicted as ugly with serpents about their hair and arms, wearing black robes with whips in their hands.  Some claimed they also had wings of a bat or bird with burning breath and poisonous blood dripping from their eyes.

Heaven & Hell

Heaven (pronounced hev-uhn)

(1) In theology, the abode of God, the angels, and the spirits of the righteous after death; the place or state of existence of the blessed after the mortal life.

(2) The celestial powers; God (initial capital letter and often in the plural).

(3) A metonym for God.

(4) In architecture, as heavens (used with a singular verb), a wooden roof or canopy over the outer stage of Elizabethan theatres.

(5) In poetic and (mostly historic) scientific & legal use, often in the plural, the sky, firmament, or expanse of space surrounding the earth, including the moon, Sun, planets & stars.

(6) A place or state of supreme happiness, often expressed as “heaven on earth”.

(7) A component of expression (variously singular & plural), used in exclamatory phrases of surprise, exasperation, emphasis etc.

(8) In mythology, a place, such as Elysium or Valhalla, to which those who have died in the gods' favour are brought, there eternally to dwell in happiness.

Pre 900: From the Middle English heven, hevin, heuen & hewin (heaven, sky), from the Old English heofon (home of God (and earlier) the visible sky, firmament), probably from the Proto-Germanic hibin (heaven, sky), a dissimilation of himin and source also of the Middle Low German heven, the Old Saxon heban, the Old Swedish himin, the Low German heben, the Old Norse himinn, the Old Danish himæn, the Gothic himins, the Old Frisian himul, the Scots heaven & hewin, the Dutch hemel and the German Himmel (heaven, sky).  The mysterious Proto-Germanic hibin (which existed also as hebn) is of uncertain and disputed origin.  It was cognate with and possibly the rare Icelandic and Old Norse hifinn (heaven, sky), which may be dissimilated forms of the Germanic root was more familiar in the Old Norse himinn (heaven, sky).  Among etymologists, the most popular alternative root is the Proto-Germanic himinaz (cover, cloud cover, firmament, sky).  A now archaic alternative spelling (in both sacred and secular writing) which persisted in poetry into the twentieth century because of the rhythmic advantages was heav'n.

Stairway to Heaven, sculpture by David McCracken, Bondi, Sydney, Australia.

From the late fourteenth century, the word in English assumed the meaning "a heavenly place; a state of bliss”.  The plural use in sense of "sky" may have emerged from a simple habit of use influenced by other words although a link has been suggested with the Ptolemaic theory of space as composed of many spheres.  It had also been used in the same sense in the singular in Biblical language, as a translation of Hebrew plural shamayim.  The earliest adjectival sense “heaven-sent” is attested from the 1640s.

Hell (pronounced hel)

(1) In theology, the place or state of eternal punishment of the wicked after death; the abode of evil and condemned spirits; Gehenna or Tartarus.  The ruler of hell is said often to be Satan; the Devil.

(2) Any place or state of torment or misery; something that causes torment or misery.

(3) The powers of evil.

(4) The abode of the dead; Sheol or Hades.

(5) Extreme disorder or confusion; chaos.

(6) In informal use, something remarkable of its kind (as in “one hell of a…”).

(7) A receptacle into which a tailor throws scraps and off-cuts (a practice in many industries).  In commercial printing, as the hellbox, a box into which a printer throws discarded type.

(8) A general purpose utterance of in swearing or for emphasis, now generally regarded as not actually obscene; used as an intensifier to express surprise, anger, impatience etc; an general intensifier in many phrases.

(9) A gambling house or booth in which bets are placed (archaic).

(10) In metal-working, to add luster to, burnish silver or gold (now rare).

Pre 900: From the Middle English, from the Old English hel & hell (nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions, place of torment for the wicked after death), it was cognate with the Old High German hella & hellia (source of the Modern German Hölle), the Icelandic hella (to pour), the Norwegian helle (to pour), the Swedish hälla (to pour), the Old Norse hel & hella and the Gothic halja.  It was related to the Old English helan (to cover, hide) and to hull.  The Old English gained hel & hell from the Proto-Germanic haljō (the underworld) & halija (one who covers up or hides something), the source also of the Old Frisian helle, the Old Saxon hellia, the Dutch hel, the Old Norse hel, the German Hölle & the Gothic halja (hell).  The meaning in the early Germanic languages was derived from the sense of a "concealed place", hence the Old Norse hellir meaning "cave or cavern", from the primitive Indo-European root kel (to cover, conceal, save).  In sacred art, hell, whether frozen or afire, is almost always depicted as a cavernous place.

The English traditions of use may have been influenced by Norse mythology and the Proto-Germanic forms.  In the Norse myths, Halija (one who covers up or hides something) was the name of the daughter of Loki who rules over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (nifl "mist") and it was not uncommon for pagan concepts and traditions to be grafted onto Christian rituals and idiom.  Hell was used figuratively to describe a state of misery or bad experience (of which there must have been many in the Middle Ages) since the late fourteenth century and as an expression of disgust by the 1670s.  In eighteenth century England, there were a number of Hellfire Clubs, places where members of the elite could indulge their immoral proclivities.  They were said to attract many politicians.

Lindsay Lohan at a promotion for John John "Made in Heaven" jeans, Rua Oscar Freire, Sao Paulo, Brazil, March 2013.

It proved adaptable in the English vernacular.  To have all hell break loose is from circa 1600; to hell in a handbasket is attested by 1867 (an in a context implying earlier use) although it may simply have been derivative of to heaven in a handbasket from 1853 which was a happy phrase implying an easy passage to a nice place.  Hell or high water from 1874 seems to have been a variation of the earlier between the devil and the deep blue sea and the first recorded instance of wishing someone would go to hell seems to have been in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice although it’s hard to believe it hadn’t before then been a familiar oral form and one with which the bard may well have been acquainted.  The snowflake’s (later snowball's) chance in hell meaning "no chance" is from 1931 and till hell freezes over meaning "never" is documented from 1832.  To do something just for the hell of it is from 1921, to ride (a horse) hell for leather is from 1889 and hell on wheels was noted (in the US) first in 1843, a reference to the river steamboats which, for propulsion, used large wheels rather than propellers and gained a general popularity after 1869 after it was used in reference to the temporary vice-ridden towns established along the path of the US transcontinental railroad.  Unrelated to this was the earlier (1580s) Scottish hell-wain (a phantom wagon seen in the sky at night).

What happens to snowflakes and snowballs in hell is interesting.  In the writings drawn from the Abrahamic traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, hell is certainly a hot place, the “fire and brimstone” of the New Testament used in the US as a description of a certain type of preacher.  However, in the Divine Comedy (1320), Dante Alighieri (circa 1265–1321) located hell in Earth’s innermost core and he wrote of its characteristics in ways consistent with Aristotelian dynamics; it was mostly hot and fiery but in some places frozen and immobile:

When we were down in that ditch’s darkness, well below the giant’s feet, my gaze still drawn by the wall above us, I heard a voice say: ‘Watch where you walk. Step so as not to tread upon our heads, the heads of wretched, weary brothers.’ At that I turned to look about. Under my feet I saw a lake so frozen that it seemed more glass than water. Never in winter did the Austrian Danube nor the far-off Don, under its frigid sky, cover their currents with so thick a veil as I saw there.

This prison of ice is reserved for a variety of different species of traitors. Depending on the severity of their offense, they may only be frozen from the waist down; or, they may be completely immersed.

A vision of Hell: Pandæmonium (1841) by John Martin (1789–1854).

Dante lists the intricate layers of location for the punishment of sinners and evildoers and while some are hot, the ninth and innermost circle, reserved for the worst of the worst, is icy cold.  Dante goes further, noting that even within the ninth circle, there are gradations, the worst and coldest spot kept for Judas Iscariot.  A colder conception of hell than that familiar from scripture but the idea of a cold hell exists also in Buddhism and some Christian texts of the first millennium.  Dante’s marvelous work was however for centuries neglected and others took the chance to make sure the Biblical stories held sway, John Milton (1608-1674) in Paradise Lost (1667-1674) having the last word, convincing all that Hell was no place for snowflakes.  So today it remains.

“At once, as far as Angel’s ken, he views

The dismal situation waste and wild.

A dungeon horrible, on all sides round,

As one great furnace flamed; yet from those flames

No light; but rather darkness visible

Served only to discover sights of woe,

Regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace

And rest can never dwell, hope never comes

That comes to all, but torture without end

Still urges, and a fiery deluge, fed

With ever-burning sulphur unconsumed.”

For those wondering about the fate of certain friends and family members or contemplating their own eternal fate, Dante’s Lonely Planet Guide to Hell summarizes the nine circles thus:

(1) Limbo: The first circle of Hell is Limbo, where the souls of the unbaptized and virtuous pagans reside; while there are no actual punishments, those in Limbo are forever denied the joy of God's presence.  Limbo, frankly, was a bit of a fudge, concocted by medieval theologians as a work-around to avoid the worst injustices of strict Christian rules (notably the souls of the stillborn being sent to Hell on the basis of being unbaptized).  Still it was orthodox Christian thought in Dante’s time and although in subsequent centuries there was much debate, it never went away.  Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022), no stranger to dancing on the head of a pin, seemed both to clarify and cloud the waters by saying limbo was only ever “medieval conjecture” and given there is no explicit answer from Scripture, people seem still free to make of it what they will.

(2) Lust: The second circle is for the lustful.  They are punished by being blown around in a violent storm, symbolizing their lack of self-control.  Perhaps surprisingly, given the fixation many modern denominations seem to have upon anything to do with sex, historically the Christian churches regarded lust usually as the “least to be condemned” of the seven deadly sins, the basis of that, as Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) pointed out: it was a sin “of the flesh and not the soul” and thus both understandable and forgivable as would one forgive one’s pet cat for eating the meat; it’s just what cats do.  Lust (sometimes expressed as “lechery) included not only fornication but also rape, adultery and “unnatural acts upon beasts of the field” so it was an uncharacteristically generous view from the pulpit.  Of course, given the well-documented predilection of priests, bishops and the odd pope to lustful ways, the relaxed view may have been corporate self-interest.

(3) Gluttony: The third circle is for the gluttonous. They are forced to lie in a vile slush of filth, symbolizing the garbage of their excessive consumption.  Theologians had a broader view of gluttony than is now current in that they were thinking also in terms of social justice; one person’s excessive consumption meant there were others who went hungry.  Some also explored aspects of gluttony as an example of “the idolatry of food” and thus a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.  One improbable supporter of this was Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943) who re-purposed the notion in his forlorn attempt to convince Italians it was time to re-create the Roman Empire, lambasting his countrymen for “…following the French into the decadence of elevating cooking to high art while letting the blade of the sword fall to rust.”

(4) Greed: The fourth circle is for the greedy. They are divided into two groups and forced to push heavy weights, symbolizing their excessive desire for material wealth.  Again it’s linked to worship of a “false idol”, the “worship of money” being the “root of all evil” long accepted as orthodox Christian theology (often acknowledged rather than practiced) although the distinction seems lost in many of the modern evangelical congregations (notably those which sing, clap and strum guitars) where it’s made clear McMansions, surf-skis and a big TV in as many rooms as possible is most Godly.

(5) Wrath: The fifth circle is for the wrathful. They are submerged in the river Styx and must fight each other on the surface.  Wrath does seem a curious basis on which to be condemned to Hell, if only because if too rigorously enforced there would be few not damned.  The point seemed to be that the Christian message was not that one should never feel anger (indeed the Church would clarify this by saying mere anger was “neutral”) but that one should “practice Christian charity” and never allow wrathful thoughts to lead to the harming of one’s neighbour. 

(6) Heresy: The sixth circle is for the heretics. They are trapped in flaming tombs, symbolizing their rejection of God's love.  Heresy really is about as bad as it gets because it means one has disagreed with what the priest says and that means defying the pope who, as the “Vicar of Christ on Earth” is uniquely able to express the thoughts of God.  So, what the pope says goes which is why he is “infallible” in such matters; the internal logic is perfect.  While wrathful souls may end up in the fifth circle, a wrathful God is going to punish heretics by sending them for eternity to the sixth: “Vengeance is Mine” said the Lord.

(7) Violence: The seventh circle is divided into three rings, each for a different type of violence: against others, against oneself, and against God. The punishments include being boiled in blood, being transformed into trees and bushes, and being chased and mauled by dogs with sharp teeth.  It’s been hard for critics to resist the feeling Dante enjoyed writing of the sufferings in the seventh circle more than any other, possibly because of the exalted positions many of the victims enjoyed during however many of their four score & ten they managed.  The sanction of violence against self (suicide & attempted suicide) entered the criminal law systems in many jurisdictions and it’s only in recent decades that in some places it has been reclassified from crime to health condition of some type.

(8) Fraud: The eighth circle is for the fraudulent. It is divided into ten bolgias (from the Italian bolgia used here in the sense of “ditch”), each for a different type of fraud. The punishments include being whipped by demons, being immersed in excrement, and being transformed into reptiles.  In the matter of fraud, Dante casts a wider net than the offence captures in the modern imagination where it ranges from shop-lifting to Bernie Madoff’s (1938–2021) Ponzi scheme.  Instead of involving just financial matters, Dante encompasses fraud in a kind of omnibus bill which captures sins as diverse as those who corrupt others with flattery, those who seduce the innocent with lies and deception, those who practice magic & sorcery, those who corrupt the truth by the pedalling of fake news as well as, most obviously, thieves.

(9) Treachery: The ninth circle is for the treacherous. It is divided into four rounds, each for a different type of treachery. The punishments include being frozen in ice, being gnawed on by a three-headed demon, and being devoured by Lucifer himself.  Dante makes clear the sin of treachery is the worst of all and because there’s obviously some overlap with the offences which justify being sent to the other eight, the ninth is reserved for the worst of the worst.  Interestingly, the ninth circle is the part of Hell Dante describes as an icy, frozen place, something usually ignored in pop-culture, film-makers and Satanists staging their video clips almost always preferring fire, molten lava and red-hot pokers.  It could though be worse still because in the centre of Hell sits miserably the Devil, cast there for committing the ultimate sin: his personal treachery against God which saw him forever banished from Heaven.

Benedict XVI looking for Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023).  Canto XVIII, part of the eighth circle of Hell, in Divine Comedy (circa 1494), illustrated by Sandro Botticelli (Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi; circa 1445–1510).

Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos

The legal doctrine cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to Hell) is a historic principle of property law which holds the owner of a piece of land enjoys rights not just to the defined soil but to the air above (stretching to Heavens, ie to infinity) and what lay below (as far as Hell, ie all the way down); the legal shorthand is ad coelum.  Developments in technology, such as radio waves and flight, have much modified the doctrine but it continues, with limitations, to operate.  Some of the airspace above a piece of land can be recognized as a property right and as something therefore transferable but the right does not extend far, a position modified also in international law as long ago as the 1950s to accommodate the implication of satellites and, later, space flight, realizing the implications of discussions which had been going on since the advent of flight.  The rights to ownership of what lies below the soil and even the right to deny access to others now varies between jurisdictions but has long since ceased to be absolute.

Although there are no specific references in the record, it may be the origin of the maxim lies in in Roman or Jewish law, or at least customary practice.  The earliest surviving mention in English law is recorded in Bury v Pope (1587) Cro Eliz 118, [1653] EngR 382, (1653) Cro Eliz 118, (1653) 78 ER 375 (B), the Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634), holding “the earth hath in law a great extent upwards, not only of water as hath been said, but of aire, and all other things even up to heaven, for cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum, as it is holden.”, finding for a plaintiff seeking to erect a structure which would block to his neighbor’s window the light which had fallen there for thirty years.  Even then however, limits were noted, Sir Edward saying ad coelum might be defeated if a claim for a right in conflict could be found to have existed prior to 1189, the significance of the date being the beginning of the reign of King Richard I (1157–1199; King of England 1189-1199) and, mentioned here as a legal fiction, the end point of time immemorial.

English law seems to have picked it up from the writings of thirteenth century Italian jurist Accursius (circa 1182–1263), and is said to have been used in common law during the reign of Edward I (1239–1307; King of England 1272- 1307) and the legal framework (air above and ground below) was defined by William Blackstone in his treatise Commentaries on the Laws of England (1766).

Land hath also, in its legal signification, an indefinite extent, upwards as well as downwards. Cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum, is the maxim of the law, upwards; therefore no man may erect any building, or the like, to overhang another's land: and, downwards, whatever is in a direct line between the surface of any land, and the center of the earth, belongs to the owner of the surface; as is every day's experience in the mining countries. So that the word "land" includes not only the face of the earth, but every thing under it, or over it. And therefore if a man grants all his lands, he grants thereby all his mines of metal and other fossils, his woods, his waters, and his houses, as well as his fields and meadows.

Heaven and Hell: Google and Bing

In a study hardly scientific but with a consistent methodology, a Google search for Heaven yielded 1.1 billion results and one for Hell, 784 million.  The same search using Microsoft’s Bing engine delivered 51.4 million hits for Heaven and 48.9 million for Hell.  Noting the method in the search engines' algorithm which underpins how results are delivered, this suggests 58.82% of Google’s users favor God and 41.18% prefer the Devil while Microsoft’s users are more evenly divided, 51.25% being godly and 48.75% Satanists.  Given the state of the world, both God and Satan might have hoped for better numbers but the results are unlikely greatly to have surprised either and it seems to confirm what Google have long said: Use Bing and burn in Hell.

Nefarious

Nefarious (pronounced ni-fair-ee-uhs)

Extremely evil, wicked or villainous; iniquitous; sinful.

1595–1605: From the Latin nefārius (wicked, vile; execrable; abominable), the construct being nefās (something contrary to divine law, an impious deed, sin, crime) + -ius or –ious (the suffix from the Old Latin -ios, from the primitive Indo-European –yós and used to form adjectives from nouns.  The Middle English suffix –ous was borrowed from the Old French -ous & -eux, from the Latin -ōsus (full, full of); a doublet of -ose in the unstressed position).  The construct of nefās was ne- (the negative prefix) + fās (law, right).  Nefarious is an adjective, nefariously is an adverb and nefariousness is a noun.

Crooked Hillary Clinton & Harvey Weinstein, Lincoln Centre, New York, April 2012.

Heel & Heal

Heal (pronounced heel)

(1) To make healthy, whole, or sound; restore to health; free from ailment.

(2) To bring to an end or conclusion, as conflicts between people or groups, usually with the strong implication of restoring former amity; settle; reconcile.

(3) To free from evil; cleanse; purify:

Pre 900: From the Middle English helen, from the Old English hǣlan (cure; save; make whole, sound and well), from the Proto-Germanic hailijaną (to heal, make whole, save) from which Old Saxon picked up helian and Gothic gained ga-hailjan (to heal, cure), the literal translation of which was "to make whole", all of these from the primitive Indo-European koyl (safe; unharmed).  It was cognate with the Dutch helen, the Saterland Frisian heila, heilen & hela, the Danish hele, the Swedish hela, the Old High German heilen, the Old Norse heila, the Scots hale & hail and the Gothic hailjan, all derivative of hāl & hale (whole).  The Modern English health, healthy, healthily etc were later derivations.  Heal is a noun & verb, healing is a noun & verb and healed is a verb; the noun plural is heals.

Heel (pronounced heel)

(1) The back part of the human foot, below and behind the ankle.

(2) An analogous part in other vertebrates.

(3) In zoology, either hind foot or hoof of some animals, as the horse.

(4) The part of a stocking, shoe, or the like covering the back part of the wearer's foot.

(5) A solid, raised base or support of leather, wood, rubber, etc, attached to the sole of a shoe or boot under the back part of the foot.

(6) By analogy, things resembling the back part of the human foot in position, shape etc, such as the heel of a loaf of bread.

(7) The rear of the palm of the hand, adjacent to the wrist.

(8) The latter or concluding part of anything (now rare).

(9) In architecture, the lower end of any of various more or less vertical objects, as rafters, spars, sternposts of vessels or the exterior angle of an angle iron.

(10) In naval architecture, the after end of a keel or the inner end of a bowsprit or jib boom.

(11) The crook in the head of a golf club.

(12) In railroad construction, the end of a frog farthest from a switch.

(13) In horticulture, the base of any part, as of a cutting or tuber, that is removed from a plant for use in the propagation of that plant.

(14) A vile, contemptibly dishonorable or irresponsible person, one thought untrustworthy, unscrupulous, or generally despicable.

(15) In cock-fighting, to arm (a gamecock) with spurs.

(16) In admiralty jargon, the inclined position from the vertical when a vessel is at ten (or more) degrees of list.

Pre 850: From the Middle English helden, a variant of the earlier heeld and derived from the Old English hēla, heald & hieldan (to lean or slope).  It was cognate with the Dutch hiel, the Old Frisian hêl, the Old Norse hallr and the Old High German helden (to bow).  In the sense of “back of the foot”, root is the Old English hela, from the Proto-Germanic hanhilon which was cognate with the Old Norse hæll, the Old Frisian hel and the Dutch hiel), all derived from the primitive Indo-European kenk (heel, bend of the knee).  The meaning "back of a shoe or boot" is circa 1400 and features in a number or English phrases: Down at heel (1732) refers to heels of boots or shoes worn down when the owner was too poor to have them repaired; the Achilles' heel refers to only vulnerable spot in the figure from Greek mythology; in Middle English, fighten with heles (to fight with (one's) heels) meant "to run away."  The idiomatic phrase "he's a heel" began in professional wrestling, where it was used to describe a villainous character who breaks the rules, cheats, and generally behaves in an unethical manner to gain an advantage (sometimes as part of the script).  In modern use, "he's a heel" has be repurposed to disparage unsatisfactory dates, boyfriends & husbands.  The nautical, Admiralty and architectural forms are all derived (however remotely) from the earlier meanings related to slopes and angles.  Heeled & heeling are nouns & verbs, heelful is a noun and heeling is a verb & adjective; the noun plural is heels.

Heels in the military

United States Army Class A (Dress A) Uniform guide (women).

Heels in the shoes of women’s military uniforms are not unusual and the US Army guide is typical, specifying between ½ - 3 inch height on a closed-toe pump, essentially anything between a flat and a kitten heel.  With the formal dress uniforms worn for dinners and such, higher heels have long been worn.  In Western militaries, heels have never been worn with combat uniforms or when drill-marching although they’re not an unusual sight on parade grounds, worn with dress uniforms.  They have however in recent years been seen on female soldiers in both the DPRK (North Korean) and Russian armies although there seems to be no evidence of the practice during the Warsaw Pact era.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK; North Korea): female soldiers.

Like his father (Kim Jong-il (1941–2011; The DPRK's Dear Leader, 1994-2011) and grandfather, (Kim Il-sung (1912-1994; The DPRK's Great Leader, 1948-1994), Kim Jong-un (b 1983; The DPRK's Supreme Leader (originally The Great Successor) since 2011) likes women in heels (note the big hats, a long tradition in the DPRK armed forces although the structural similarity to the Jewish Shtreimel is mere coincidence).  Because the whole DPRK military seems to be run by someone in the vein of General Scheisskopf (in German, literally "shit-head", the character in Joseph Heller's (1923-1999) Catch-22 (1961) who was obsessed with marching), the heels really are functional and better than combat boots.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK; North Korea): female soldiers marching.

The use of any sort of heel (or conventional shoe) may seem a strange choice for military use but there's never been much to suggest it's footwear designed for the battlefield.  Actually, there are a number of analysts who maintain the whole DPRK military is not intended for actual deployment under battlefield conditions, especially in any conflict likely to extend beyond the few weeks their logistical support is thought capable of remaining effective.  However, as a well-drilled mass-formation able to march in public ceremonies, the DPRK's soldiers excel and the state's choreographed events have no match in the world, something emphasised by the cinematography, packaged quickly into slick productions for distribution to international news services.  For these purposes, women in heels works well because boots are heavy and some of the steps (including a few with some "wardrobe malfunction" potential) the women are required to perform for long duration marches would be impossible for some if they had to wear combat boots.

Russian female soldiers.

Women in the Russian military appear to use a variety of heel heights with dress uniforms including even stilettos which is interesting.  Presumably  the stilettos are used only when marching on smooth, regular surfaces; it would be very difficult to march on the cobble stones in Moscow's Red Square while in stilettos and traction & stability fragile at the margins.  That's of great significance when marching in formation because it works on the basis of "as strong as the weakest link in the chain" in that if one soldier in the line stumbles, it can trigger a chain reaction, disrupting the entire show.   

The Ukrainian minister for defense trying not to notice some stilettos.

The decision of the Ukraine's Ministry of Defense to train female soldiers to march in high heels attracted interest, much of it from Ukrainian politicians, little of it supportive, except for that expressed by female legislators.  Despite that, when in late June 2021 photographs emerged of women soldiers training in heels for a march scheduled for 24 August to mark the thirtieth anniversary of independence from the Soviet Union, an army spokesman reported the drilling to master the steps was "progressing well" although one soldier in an interview confirmed it was "...a little harder than in boots".  Social media soon went into action, one on-line petition demanding Ukraine's (male) defense minister don the not infrequently uncomfortable shoes to try marching in them and most critics (most volubly the female parliamentarians), accused the military of sexism and having a “medieval” mind-set.  The virtual protest was the next day brought into parliament when some of  his female colleagues arranged a line of high-heeled shoes before the defense minister and suggested he wear them to the anniversary parade, a joint statement from three cabinet ministers adding that the "...purpose of any military parade is to demonstrate the military ability of the army. There should be no room for stereotypes and sexism”.

Ukrianian female cadets practicing in heeled pumps.

The Defense Ministry initially declined to comment but did later issue as statement pointing out heels had been part of dress uniform regulations since 2017 and included pictures of female soldiers in the US military wearing heels during formal events and although they didn't mention it, Ukrainian soldiers regardless of gender all wear boots when deployed for combat or active training.  The great heel furor however didn't subside and the defense minister, after consultation with female military cadets, issued a joint statement with the military high command acknowledging the heels were inconvenient.  Later addressing a gathering of cadets, the minister pledged to look into the matter of “improved, ergonomic” footwear “in the shortest possible time”, although it wasn't made clear if the new shoes would be available for the August parade.  In another supportive gesture he also confirmed senior defense officials "would look into" improving the quality of women's underwear, this presumably in response to concerns raised by the cadets although the minister didn't go into detail of this, saying only that if the trial of the cadet's “experimental” footwear went well, they could be issued to all female members in the military.

Harder than it looks.

In recent years, women have played increasingly prominent roles in the Ukrainian military, especially in the ongoing conflict with pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, Kyiv allowing women to serve in combat units after Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula in 2014.  Women now make up more than 15 percent of the country’s armed forces, a rate which has more than doubled since the conflict erupted and more than 13,000 women have been granted combatant status.  Some 57,000 women serve in the Ukrainian military and NATO standards are in the process of being introduced, membership of the alliance being described still as a "long term" goal.  Given Ukraine's long and often not untroubled relationship with both Russia and the Soviet Union, the lure of NATO is understandable but the Kremlin is opposed and there's now little enthusiasm in Western capitals.  The view from NATO HQ has for some time been that the relationship with Moscow will be easier to manage if a border which the Kremlin regards as hostile is not extended.

Pre-dating even the apparently abortive sartorial innovations of the Ukrainian Army, military camouflage has long attracted designers who like the juxtaposition of fashion and function (the fetching stiletto (bottom right) with the rakishly slanted heel is a Prada Camo Green Pump).  Although the purpose may not be overt, physics make the stiletto heel something of a weapon, even a 45 kg (100 lb) woman, at the point of the heel's impact, exerting a pressure 20 times that of the foot of a 2½ tonne (6000 lb) elephant.  Over the years, dance floors, the timber decks of cruise ships and many other surfaces have suffered damage.

Lindsay Lohan in Christian Louboutin Madame Butterfly black bow platform bootie with six-inch (150 mm) stiletto heel.

Vice Versa's convertible heel to flat.

Undeniably stiletto heels are attractive and, if worn by a skilled user, can lend a woman her most alluring posture but they can be uncomfortable, especially of worn for an extended duration, over long distances or on hard surfaces.  One solution (although it seems to unlikely to be adaptable to the most elevated of the breed) is a shoe with a "clamshell" design, a half-sole hinged from the instep, allowing the heel to use a folding mechanism so it can be transformed into a something like a ballet flat (ballet pump in some markets).  Greatly they will be valued by those who, after a long evening, have to walk a few blocks to find a taxi.

Evil

Evil (pronounced ee-vuhl)

(1) Morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked; morally corrupt.

(2) Harmful; injurious (now rare).

(3) Marked or accompanied by misfortune (now rare; mostly historic).

(4) Having harmful qualities; not good; worthless or deleterious (obsolete).

Pre 900: From the Middle English evel, ivel & uvel (evil) from the Old English yfel, (bad, vicious, ill, wicked) from the Proto-Germanic ubilaz.  Related were the Saterland Frisian eeuwel, the Dutch euvel, the Low German övel & the German übel; it was cognate with the Gothic ubils, the Old High German ubil, the German übel and the Middle Dutch evel and the Irish variation abdal (excessive).  Root has long been thought the primitive Indo-European hupélos (diminutive of hwep) (treat badly) which produced also the Hittite huwappi (to mistreat, harass) and huwappa (evil, badness) but an alternative view is a descent from upélos (evil; (literally "going over or beyond (acceptable limits)")) from the primitive Indo-European upo, up & eup (down, up, over).  Evil is a noun & adjective (some do treat it as a verb), evilness is a noun and evilly an adverb; the noun plural is evils.

Evil (the word) arrived early in English and endured.  In Old English and all the early Teutonic languages except the Scandinavian, it quickly became the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement.  Evil was the word Anglo-Saxons used to convey some sense of the bad, cruel, unskillful, defective, harm, crime, misfortune or disease.  The meaning with which we’re most familiar, "extreme moral wickedness" existed since Old English but did not assume predominance until the eighteenth century.  The Latin phrase oculus malus was known in Old English as eage yfel and survives in Modern English as “evil eye”.  Evilchild is attested as an English surname from the thirteenth century and Australian-born Air Chief Marshall Sir Douglas Evill (1892-1971) was head of the Royal Air Force (RAF) delegation to Washington during World War II (1939-1945).  Despite its utility, there’s probably no word in English with as many words of in the same vein without any being actually synonymous.  Consider: destructive, hateful, vile, malicious, vicious, heinous, ugly, bad, nefarious, villainous, corrupt, malefic, malevolent, hideous, wicked, harm, pain, catastrophe, calamity, ill, sinful, iniquitous, depraved, vicious, corrupt, base, iniquity & unrighteousness; all tend in the direction yet none quite matches the darkness of evil although malefic probably come close.  

Hannah Arendt and the banality of evil

The word evil served English unambiguously and well for centuries and most, secular and spiritual, knew that some people are just evil.  It was in the later twentieth century, with the sudden proliferation of psychologists, interior decorators, sociologists, criminologists, social workers and basket weavers that an industry developed exploring alternative explanations and causations for what had long been encapsulated in the word evil.  The output was uneven but among the best remembered, certainly for its most evocative phrase, was in the work of German-American philosopher and political theorist Hannah Arendt (1906–1975).  Arendt’s concern, given the scale of the holocaust was: "Can one do evil without being evil?"

Whether the leading Nazis were unusually (or even uniquely) evil or merely individuals who, through a combination of circumstances, came to do awful things has been a question which has for decades interested psychiatrists, political scientists and historians.  Arendt attended the 1961 trial of Adolph Eichmann (1906-1962), the bureaucrat responsible for transportation of millions of Jews and others to the death camps built to allow the Nazis to commit the industrial-scale mass-murder of the final solution.  Arendt thought Eichmann ordinary and bland, “neither perverted nor sadistic” but instead “terrifyingly normal”, acting only as a diligent civil servant interested in career advancement, his evil deeds done apparently without ever an evil thought in his mind.  Her work was published as Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963).  The work attracted controversy and perhaps that memorable phrase didn’t help.  It captured the popular imagination and even academic critics seemed seduced.  Arendt’s point, inter alia, was that nothing in Eichmann’s life or character suggested that had it not been for the Nazis and the notion of normality they constructed, he’d never have murdered even one person.  The view has its flaws in that there’s much documentation from the era to prove many Nazis, including Eichmann, knew what they were doing was a monstrous crime so a discussion of whether Eichmann was immoral or amoral and whether one implies evil while the other does not does, after Auschwitz, seems a sterile argument.

Evil is where it’s found.

Hannah Arendt's relationship with Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) began when she was a nineteen year old student of philosophy and he her professor, married and aged thirty-six.  Influential still in his contributions to phenomenology and existentialism, he will forever be controversial because of his brief flirtation with the Nazis, joining the party and taking an academic appointment under Nazi favor.  He resigned from the post within a year and distanced himself from the party but, despite expressing regrets in private, never publicly repented.  His affair with the Jewish Arendt is perhaps unremarkable because it pre-dated the Third Reich but what has always attracted interest is that their friendship lasted the rest of their lives, documented in their own words in a collection of their correspondence (Letters: 1925-1975, Hannah Arendt & Martin Heidegger (2003), Ursula Ludz (Editor), Andrew Shields (Translator)).  Cited sometimes as proof that feelings can transcend politics (as if ever there was doubt), the half-century of letters which track the course of a relationship which began as one of lovers and evolved first into friendship and then intellectual congress.  For those who wish to explore contradiction and complexity in human affairs, it's a scintillating read.  Arendt died in 1975, Heidegger surviving her by some six months.

New York Post, November 1999.

In 1999, Rupert Murdoch’s (b 1931) tabloid the New York Post ran one of their on-line polls, providing a list of the usual suspects, asking readers to rate the evil to most evil, so to determine “The 25 most evil people of the last millennium”.  The poll received 19184 responses which revealed some “recency bias” (a cognitive bias that favors recent events over historic ones) in that some US mass-murderers were rated worse than some with more blood on their hands but most commented on was the stellar performance of the two “write-ins”: Bill Clinton (b 1946; US president 1993-2001) & crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013), the POTUS coming second and the FLOTUS an impressive sixth, Mr Murdoch’s loyal readers rating both more evil than Saddam Hussein (1937–2006; president of Iraq 1979-2003), Vlad the Impaler (Vlad Dracula or Prince Vlad III of Wallachia (circa 1430-circa 1477); thrice Voivode of Wallachia 1448-circa 1477 or Ivan the Terrible (Ivan IV Vasilyevich (1530–1584; Grand Prince of Moscow and all Russia 1533-1584 & Tsar of all Russia 1547-1584).

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

While fun and presumably an indication of something, on-line polls should not be compared with the opinion polls run by reputable universities or polling organizations, their attraction for editors looking for click-bait being they’re essentially free and provide a result, sometimes within a day, unlike conventional polls which can cost thousands or even millions depending on the sample size and duration of research.  The central problem with on-line polls is that responders are self-selected rather than coming from a cohort determined by a statistical method developed in the wake of the disastrously inaccurate results of a poll “predicting” national voting intentions in the 1936 presidential election.  The 1936 catchment had been skewered towards the upper-income quartile by being restricted to those who answered domestic telephone connections, the devices then rarely installed in lower-income households.  A similar phenomenon of bias is evident in the difference on-line responses to the familiar question: “Who won the presidential debate?”, the divergent results revealing more about the demographic profiles of the audiences of CBS, MSNBC, CNN, ABC & FoxNews than on-stage dynamics on-stage.

Especially among academics in the social sciences, there are many who object to the frequent, almost casual, use of “evil”, applied to figures as diverse as serial killers and those who use the “wrong” pronoun.  Rightly on not, academics can find “complexity” in what appears simple to most and don’t like “evil” because of the simple moral absolutism it implies, the suggestion certain actions or individuals are inherently or objectively wrong.  Academics call this “an over-simplification of complex ethical situations” and they prefer the nuances of moral relativism, which holds that moral judgments can depend on cultural, situational, or personal contexts.  The structuralist-behaviorists (a field still more inhabited than a first glance may suggest) avoid the word because it so lends itself to being a “label” and the argument is that labeling individuals as “evil” can be both an act of dehumanizing and something which reinforces a behavioral predilection, thereby justifying punitive punishment rather than attempting rehabilitation.  Politically, it’s argued, the “evil” label permits authorities to ignore or even deny allegedly causative factors of behavior such as poverty, mental illness, discrimination or prior trauma.

There are also the associative traditions of the word, the linkages to religion and the supernatural an important part of the West’s cultural and literary inheritance but not one universally treated as “intellectually respectable”.  Nihilists of course usually ignore the notion of evil and to the post-modernists it was just another of those “lazy” words which ascribed values of right & wrong which they knew were something wholly subjective, evil as context-dependent as anything else.  Interestingly, in the language of the polarized world of US politics, while the notional “right” (conservatives, MAGA, some of what’s left of the Republican Party) tends to label the notional “left” (liberals, progressives, the radical factions of the Democratic Party) as evil, the left seems to depict their enemies (they’re no longer “opponents”) less as “evil” and more as “stupid”.

The POTUS & the Pope: Francis & Donald Trump (aka the lesser of two evils), the Vatican, May 2017.

Between the pontificates of Pius XI (1857–1939; pope 1922-1939) and  Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013), all that seems to have changed in the Holy See’s world view is that civilization has moved from being threatened by communism, homosexuality and Freemasony to being menaced by Islam, homosexuality and Freemasony.  It therefore piqued the interest of journalists accompanying the pope on his recent 12-day journey across Southeast Asia when they were told by a Vatican press secretary his Holiness would, during the scheduled press conference, discuss the upcoming US presidential election: duly, the scribes assembled in their places on the papal plane. The pope didn’t explicitly tell people for whom they should vote nor even make his preference obvious as Taylor Swift (b 1989) would in her endorsement mobilizing the childless cat lady vote but he did speak in an oracular way, critiquing both Kamala Harris (b 1964; US vice president since 2021) and Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) as “against life”, urging Catholic voters to choose the “lesser of two evils.”  That would have been a good prelude had he gone further but there he stopped: “One must choose the lesser of two evils. Who is the lesser of two evils?  That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know.”

Socks (1989-2009; FCOTUS (First Cat of the United States 1993-2001) was Chelsea Clinton's (b 1980) cat.  Cartoon by Pat Oliphant, 1996.

The lesser of two evils: Australian-born US political cartoonist Pat Oliphant’s (b 1935) take on the campaign tactics of Bill Clinton (b 1946; US president 1993-2001) who was the Democratic Party nominee in the 1996 US presidential election against Republican Bob Dole (1923–2021).  President Clinton won by a wide margin which would have been more handsome still, had there not been a third-party candidate.  Oliphant’s cartoons are now held in the collection of the National Library of Congress.  It’s not unusual for the task presented to voters in US presidential elections to be reduced to finding “the lesser of two evils”.  In 1964 when the Democrats nominated Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969) to run against the Republican's Barry Goldwater (1909–1998), the conclusion of many was it was either “a crook or a kook”.  On the day, the lesser of the two evils proved to be crooked old Lyndon who won in a landslide over crazy old Barry.

Francis has some history in criticizing Mr Trump’s handling of immigration but the tone of his language has tended to suggest he’s more disturbed by politicians who support the provision of abortion services although he did make clear he sees both issues in stark moral terms: “To send migrants away, to leave them wherever you want, to leave them… it’s something terrible, there is evil there. To send away a child from the womb of the mother is an assassination, because there is life. We must speak about these things clearly.”  Francis has in the past labelled abortion a “plague” and a “crime” akin to “mafia” behavior, although he did resist suggestions the US bishops should deny Holy Communion to “pro-choice” politicians (which would have included Joe Biden (b 1942; US president 2021-2025), conscious no doubt that accusations of being an “agent of foreign interference” in the US electoral process would be of no benefit.  Despite that, he didn’t seek to prevent the bishops calling abortion is “our preeminent priority” in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the 2024 edition of their quadrennial document on voting.  Some 20% of the US electorate describe themselves as Catholics, their vote in 2020 splitting 52/47% Biden/Trump but that was during the Roe v Wade (1973) era and abortion wasn’t quite the issue it's since become and a majority of the faith in the believe it should be available with only around 10% absolutist right-to-lifers.  Analysts concluded Francis regards Mr Trump as less evil than Ms Harris and will be pleased if his flock votes accordingly; while he refrained from being explicit, he did conclude: “Not voting is ugly.  It is not good.  You must vote.”