Grand

Grand (pronounced grand)

(1) Impressive in size, appearance, or general effect.

(2) Stately, majestic, or dignified.

(3) Highly ambitious or idealistic.

(4) Magnificent or splendid.

(5) Noble or revered.

(6) Highest, or very high, in rank or official dignity.

(7) Main or principal; chief; the most superior.

(8) Of great importance, distinction, or pretension.

(9) Complete or comprehensive (usually as the “grand total”).

(10) Pretending to grandeur, as a result of minor success, good fortune, etc; conceited & haughty (often with a modifier such as “rather grand”, awfully grand” or “insufferably grand”).

(11) First-rate; very good; splendid.

(12) In musical composition, written on a large scale or for a large ensemble (grand fugue, grand opera etc) and technically meaning originally “containing all the parts proper to a given form of composition”.

(13) In music, the slang for the concert grand piano (sometimes as “concert grand”).

(14) In informal use, an amount equal to a thousand pounds or dollars.

(15) In genealogy, a combining (prefix) form used to denote “one generation more remote” (grandfather, grand uncle etc).

1350–1400: From the Middle English graund, grond, grand, graunt & grant, from the Anglo-Norman graunt, from the Old French grant & grand (large, tall; grown-up; great, powerful, important; strict, severe; extensive; numerous), from the Latin grandis (big, great; full, abundant; full-grown (and figuratively “strong, powerful, weighty, severe”, of unknown origin.  Words conveying a similar sense (depending on context includes ambitious, awe-inspiring, dignified, glorious, grandiose, imposing, large, lofty, luxurious, magnificent, marvelous, monumental, noble, princely, regal, royal, exalted, palatial; brilliant, superb opulent, palatial, splendid, stately, sumptuous, main, large, big & august.  Grand is a noun & adjective, grander & grandest are adjectives, grandness is a noun and grandly is an adverb; the noun plural is grands.

In Vulgar Latin it supplanted magnus (although the phrase magnum opus (one’s great work) endured) and continued in the Romanic languages.  The connotations of "noble, sublime, lofty, dignified etc” existed in Latin and later were picked up in English where it gained also the special sense of “imposing” (which tended often to imply “big”.  The meaning “principal, chief, most important” (especially in the hierarchy of titles) dates from the 1560s while the idea of “something of very high or noble quality” is from the early eighteenth century.  As a general term of admiration (in the sense of “magnificent or splendid” it’s documented since 1816 but as a modifier to imply perhaps that but definitely size, it had been in use for centuries: The Grand Jury was an invention of the late fifteenth century, the grand tour was understood as “an expedition around the important places in continental Europe undertaken as part of the education of aristocratic young Englishmen) as early as the 1660s and the grand piano was named in 1797.  In technical use it was adapted for use in medicine as the grand mal (convulsive epilepsy with loss of consciousness), borrowed from the French grand mal (literally “great sickness”) as a point of clinical distinction from the petit mal (literally “small sickness”) (an epileptic event where consciousness was not lost).  The meaning "a thousand dollars" dates from 1915 and was originally US underworld slang, that sum then a lot of money (the cheapest Ford Model T then listed for US$350).

The “Twenty Grand”: 1933 Duesenberg SJ Arlington Torpedo Sedan by Rollston.

Celebrating "A century of Progress" and held between 27 May, 1933-31 October, 1934 in Chicago, Illinois, the Chicago World's Fair was memorable for the stunning array of art deco architecture and being the first US-staged international fair to book a profit.  Indeed, with close to 40 million paying visitors, the event had proved so popular the scheduled closing date of 12 November, 1933 was extended by almost a year.  When the fair opened its gates, the nation still was in the depths of the Great Depression and it was less than three months since Franklin Roosevelt (FDR, 1882–1945, POTUS 1933-1945) in his first Inaugural Address on 4 March 1933 had delivered the words “…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” so, in the circumstances, after three troubled years, the success was a remarkable achievement.  Still, it was far from an ideal time to display luxury goods but despite it all, four of the nation’s most exalted automobile manufacturers showed the finest they could achieve.

The “Twenty Grand”: 1933 Duesenberg SJ Arlington Torpedo Sedan by Rollston. 

Reflecting the interest in what the industry then called “streamlining”, Cadillac showcased their Aerodynamic Coupe, a fine housing for the company’s already famous 452 cubic inch (7.4 litre) V16.  Visually, Packard’s Sport Sedan didn’t have the Cadillac’s radical lines but the coachwork by Dietrich was elegant with some styling elements which others would emulate over the remainder of the decade.  Powered by Packard’s second-generation V12, the press dubbed it “The Car of the Dome” an allusion to the exposition’s Travel and Transportation Building where it sat.  Most startling among the four was Pierce-Arrow’s Silver Arrow, the look of which often is described as “avant-garde” but in many aspects it anticipated the early days of mid-century modernism and was probably an influence on the remarkable Tatras from Czechoslovakia although, with a front-mounted V12, under the striking bodywork, it was in many ways a conventional design.  By far the most familiar in appearance was the Duesenberg Arlington Torpedo Sedan with one-off coachwork by Rollston.  While it lacked the rakish appeal of some of the Duesenberg roadsters or phaetons, of its type it was a fine expression and under the long hood of course sat the supercharged 420 cubic inch (6.9 litre) straight-8; with a 32 valve, DOHC (double overhead camshafts) cylinder head, it was rated at 320 HP and was the industry’s most powerful engine.  Although not officially revealed, rumors circulated the price tag was US$20,000 (equivalent to some US$500,000 in 2026), leading the press to nickname it the “Twenty Grand.”

The use of the prefix grand- in genealogical compounds is a special case.  The original meaning was “a generation older than” and the earliest known reference is from the early thirteenth century in the Anglo-French graund dame (grandmother) & (later) grandsire (grandfather), etymologists considering the latter possibly modeled on the avunculus magnus (great uncle).  The English grandmother & grandfather formally entered the language in the fifteenth century and the extension of the concept from “a generation older than” to “a generation younger than” was adopted in the Elizabethan era (1558-1603) thus grandson, granddaughter etc.  Grand as a modifier clearly had appeal because in the US, the “Big Canyon” was in 1869 re-named the Grand Canyon.  In the modern era grand has been appended whenever there’s a need economically to convey the idea of a “bigger or more significant” version of something thus such constructions as grand prix, grand slam, grand larceny, grand theft auto, grand unification theory, grand master (a favorite both of chess players and the Freemasons) etc.  While “grand” can be a “loaded word” in that it can be deployed to convey something positive or negative some related forms can be even more variable and often are prone to misuse.  These include “grandeur” ((1) the state of being grand or splendid; magnificence; (2) the state of being noble; (3) largeness; tallness; loftiness (archaic), “grandiose” ((1) Large and impressive, in size, scope or extent; (2) pompous or pretentious; (3) magnificent or spectacular and “grandiloquent” (of an individual, their writing or speech): given to using language in a showy way by using may obscure or long words.

The Grand Jury

Donald Trump in Manhattan Criminal Court, April 2022.

The Manhattan grand jury that indicted Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) on 34 felony counts of "falsification of business records in the first degree" was an example of an institution with origins in twelfth century England although it didn’t generally become known as the “grand jury” until the mid-1400s.  At least some of the charges against Mr Trump related to the accounting associated with “hush-money” payment made in some way to Stormy Daniels (b 1979; the stage name of Stephanie Gregory although Mr Trump prefers “horseface” which seems both ungracious and unfair) and reports at the time offered the prospect of more legal-political drama, the suggestion he'd likely have to face more grand juries hearing more serious matters.  All such possibilities were however put on hold when he again became POTUS. 

A grand jury is a group of citizens (usually between 16-23) who review evidence presented by a prosecutor to determine whether the case made seems sufficiently compelling to bring criminal charges.  A grand jury operates in secret and its proceedings are not open to the public, unlike a trial before a jury (a smaller assembly and classically a dozen although the numbers now vary and once it was sometimes called a petit jury (petit (small), from the Middle English petit, from the Old French petit, from the Late Latin pitittus, a diminutive of pit-).  It is this smaller jury which ultimately will pronounce whether a defendant is guilty or not; all a grand jury does is determine whether a matter proceeds to trial in which case it will issue an indictment, which at law is a formal accusation.  The origins of the grand jury in medieval England, where it was used as a means of investigating and accusing individuals of crimes was to prevent abuses of power by the king and his appointed officers of state although it was very much designed to protect the gentry and aristocracy from the king rather than any attempt to extend legal rights to most of the population.

The grand jury has been retained in the legal systems of only two countries: the US and Liberia.  Many jurisdictions now use a single judge or magistrate in a lower court to conduct a preliminary hearing but the principle is the same: what has to be decided is whether, on the basis of the evidence presented, there’s a reasonable prospect a properly instructed (petit) jury would convict.  In the US, the grand jury has survived because the institution was enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.”  In England, the grand jury was thought a vital protection against arbitrary prosecutions by the government, and it was included in the Bill of Rights (1689) to ensure individuals would not be subject to unjustified criminal charges.  There is an argument that, by virtue of England’s wondrously flexible unwritten constitution, the grand jury hasn't been abolished but they're merely no longer summoned.  It's an interesting theory but few support the notion, the Criminal Justice Act (2003) explicitly transferring the functions to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) and the model of the office of  DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) has been emulated elsewhere in the English-speaking world.  Presumably, a resuscitation would require the DPP to convene a grand jury and (if challenged on grounds of validity) the courts have to concur but as late as 1955 an English court was prepared to hold a court which had for centuries neither sat nor held a hearing remained extant so the arguments would be interesting.

The “Grand Mercedes”: The Grosser tradition

Der Grossers: 1935 Mercedes-Benz 770 K (W07) of Emperor Shōwa (Hirohita, 1901–1989, emperor of Japan 1926-1989 (left)), Duce & Führer in 1939 Mercedes-Benz 770 K (W150) leading a phalanx of Grossers, Munich, 1940 (centre) and comrade Marshal Josip Broz Tito (1892–1980) in 1966 Mercedes-Benz 600 six-door Landaulet (W100), Belgrade, 1967 (right).

Produced in three series (770 K (W07, 1930–1938 & W150, 1939-1945) & 600 (W100, 1963-1981)) the usual translation in English of “Grosser Mercedes” is “Grand Mercedes” and that is close to the German understanding which is something between “great”, “big” and “top-of-the-line”.  In German & Austrian navies (off & on) between 1901-1945, a Großadmiral (Grand Admiral) was the equivalent to the (five star) Admiral of the Fleet (UK) or Fleet Admiral (US); the rank was abolished in 1945 and has never been re-established.  When the 600 was released in 1963, it may have been the last time a single model could be described as "the best car in the world" but, driven to extinction in 1981 by an oil crisis and an array of regulations never envisaged when it was designed, it wasn’t replaced and the factory didn’t return to the idea until a prototype was displayed at the 1997 Tokyo Motor Show.  The specification and engineering was impressive but the appearance was underwhelming, a feeling reinforced when the production version (2002-2013) emerged not as an imposing Grosser Mercedes but a Maybach, a curious choice which seemed to suggest a marque which for a century had been the choice of popes, presidents & potentates was no longer good enough.  Although dynamically a fine car (at the time the best of its type), the Maybach looked something like a big Hyundai and lingered for a slow-selling decade before an unlamented death, suggesting the MBAs (Master of Business Administration) who decided on a re-branding using a name with little resonance except among except automotive & military historians should stick to creating campaigns for washing powder.

Grand, Grand Luxe & Gran

Jaguar 420G publicity material, 1966.

Car manufacturers were attracted to the word because of the connotations (bigger, better, more expensive etc).  When in 1966 Jaguar updated the slow-selling Mark X (1961-1966), it was integrated into what proved a short-lived naming convention, based on the engine displacement.  Under the system, with a capacity of 4.2 litres (258 cubic inch) the thing had to be called 420 but there was a smaller saloon in the range so-named so the bigger Mark X was renamed 420G.  Interestingly, when the 420G was released, any journalist who asked was told “G” stood for “Grand” which is why that appeared in the early reports although the factory seems never officially to have used the word, the text in the brochures reading variously: 420G, 420 G or 420 “G”.  The re-naming did little to encourage sales although the 420G remained in production until 1970 by which time production had dwindled to a trickle, the car rendered instantly a relic when the epoch-making XJ6 (in three generations, 1968-1992) made its debut in 1968.  The use of a "G" is unusual in product names although it has appeared as a part of alphabetical sequences (bras and certain Chryslers for example) but when in 1989 the now defunct software manufacturer Lotus released a version of their 1-2-3 spreadsheet for IBM's new OS/2 operating system, it was called 1-2-3/G, the "G" a nod to the product using OS/2's Presentation Manager (a GUI (Graphical User Interface)).  Lotus 1-2-3 was one of the PC (personal computer) industry's original "killer apps" and along with WordPerfect & dBASE III was the backbone of corporate software in the 1980s but the universe shifted and all are now historic footnotes.  As IBM had for OS/2, Lotus had grand plans for 1-2-3/G but both fell victim to Microsoft's better implemented strategy for global domination.   

The tale of the Mark X & 420G is emblematic of the missed opportunities and mismanagement which would afflict the British industry during the 1970s & 1980s.  In 1961, the advanced specification of the Mark X (unitary construction, independent rear suspension, four-wheel disc brakes) made it an outstanding platform and had Jaguar fitted an enlarged version of the larger of the two superb V8s they had gained with their purchase in 1960 of Daimler, it would have been an ideal niche competitor in mid-upper reaches of the lucrative US market.  Except for the engine, it needed little change except better ventilation and the installation of a good air-conditioning system, then already perfected by Detroit.  Although the Daimler V8 and Borg-Warner gearbox couldn't have matched the ultimate refinement of what Detroit was building (by then the finest engine-transmission combinations in the world), the English pair certainly had their charms and would have seduced many.

1969 Pontiac Grand Prix SJ 428.  The use of "SJ" was a borrowing from the celebrated Duesenberg SJs (1932-1937) a breed that exerted an influence well beyond the three dozen built.

Pontiac’s memorable 1969 Grand Prix also might have gained some allure from the word.  The term “Grand Prix” still is most associated with top-level motorsport (although it originally was borrowed from Grand Prix de Paris (Big Prize of Paris), a race for thoroughbred horses staged at the Longchamps track) so although Pontiac’s rather large 1962 Grand Prix was far removed from a racing car, it was marketed on the basis of “high performance” so the tag would have made sense given the way labels were applied in the era.  However, big as it was, it got bigger and the second generation (1965-1968) morphed into something truly grand in size if not dynamic qualities.  Style returned when the third generation (1969-1972) was released, the look dominated by the elongated nose that truly was a triumph of fashion over function; although fitted with V8 engines with displacements as large as 455 cubic inches (7.5 litre), the power-plants, while relatively wide, were quite short and under that long hood (bonnet) was a compartment that easily could have housed a V16.  As a piece of packaging efficiency it was an absurdity but undeniably it was a dramatic look and sales spiked.  The 1969-1970 cars remain the most highly regarded of the third generation, the few hundred with the 428 cubic inch (7.0 litre) HO (High Output) V8 coupled with a four-speed manual transmission the most collectable.  From there, although over a further five generations the Grand Prix remained successful enough to remain in the catalogue until 2008, the best years were over and at some point in the 1970s or 1980s (opinions differ), there was little about the by then dreary Grand Prix which seemed at all grand.

Although a bit deluxe, not especially grand: 1980 TF (Mark V) Ford Cortina GL.

During the interwar years (1919-1939) “deluxe” (borrowed from the world of fashion) found to be a good label to apply to a car with bling added and sold for a premium well beyond what the adornments cost; the concept proved so profitable it remains practiced to this day.  Deluxe (sometimes as De luxe) was a commercial adaptation of the French de luxe (of luxury), from the Latin luxus (excess), from the primitive Indo-European lewg- (bend, twist).  The “deluxe” label worked so well it begat “Super Deluxe” & “Grand Luxe” both genuinely coinings of the industry.  Deluxe and Grand Luxe eventually fell from favour as model names for blinged-up creations became more inventive but the initializations L, DL & GL were adopted by some, the latter surviving longest by which time it was understood to signify just something better equipped and thus more expensive; it’s doubtful many made a literal connection to “Grand Luxe”.

1970 Plymouth Barracuda Gran Coupe Convertible in Plum Crazy (FC7).

A linguistic curiosity of the US motor industry in the 1970s was “Gran”, technically a truncation of “grand” but with no connection with “gran” as an affectionate diminutive of “grandmother” or the many uses (as Gran) as a proper noun (surnames, locality names etc).  It was Chrysler’s Plymouth Division that for years championed “Gran” (though Buick used it too) and while the Gran Fury (1980-1989) was the longest serving, more linguistically interesting were the “Gran Coupe” (1970-1971) versions of the third generation (1970-1974) Barracuda and the 1971 Fury III Gran Coupe.  The Barracuda Gran Coupe was a bit of mission creep for the word “coupe” because the model was available as both a two-door hardtop and a convertible (in 1970 only).  That was at the time unusual but not wholly without (a partial) precedent because for generations English manufacturers had referred to their larger convertibles as DHCs (drophead coupé).

1971 Plymouth Fury III Gran Coupe (which was a four-door hardtop).

However, the 1971 Fury III Gran Coupe was in the US a genuine first because it had four doors.  The notion of a “four-door coupé” was not new because in the UK, Rover (a company with a history of adventurism in engineering which belied its staid image) in 1962 released a pillared version of the 3 Litre (P5, 1958-1967) four-door saloon with a lowered roof-line and some different interior fittings; this they named “3 Litre Coupé” which puzzled those who had become used to the designation being applied to two-door machines but etymologically, Rover was correct.  Coupé was from the French coupé, an elliptical form of carosse coupé (cut carriage), past participle of couper (to cut)).  Rover did cut-down the roof of the P5 so that was consistent with the etymology but shamelessly, Plymouth, which in 1970 had offered (an uncut) two door Fury II Gran Coupe, for 1971 introduced (the uncut) Fury III Gran Coupe with four door hardtop bodywork.  So, there are (uncut) four door coupes because Plymouth said so.  The mysterious “Gran” seems to have been used for no reason other than sounding vaguely “European” and therefore imparting a more “upmarket” image than the by then common “Grand”.  It was at the time a trend which saw the adoption of “Brougham”, “Monaco”, “Cordoba”, “Monte Carlo”, “rich Corinthian leather” and such although the brutish “Grand” would make a comeback when Plymouth turned to making people movers (vans with more seats).

In the matter of Grand Theft Auto (GTA5): Lindsay Lohan v Take-Two Interactive Software Inc et al, New York Court of Appeals (No 24, pp1-11, 29 March 2018)

In a case which took an unremarkable four years from filing to reach New York’s highest appellate court, Lindsay Lohan’s suit against the makers (Take-Two, aka Rockstar) of the video game Grand Theft Auto V was dismissed.  In a unanimous ruling in March 2018, six judges of the New York Court of Appeals rejected her invasion of privacy claim which alleged one of the game’s characters was based on her.  The judges found the "actress/singer" in the game merely resembled a “generic young woman” rather than anyone specific.  Unfortunately the judges seemed unacquainted with the concept of the “basic white girl” which might have made the judgment more of a fun read.

Beware of imitations: The real Lindsay Lohan and the GTA 5 ersatz, a mere "generic young woman".

Concurring with the 2016 ruling of the New York County Supreme Court which, on appeal, also found for the game’s makers, the judges, as a point of law, accepted the claim a computer game’s character "could be construed a portrait", which "could constitute an invasion of an individual’s privacy" but, on the facts of the case, the likeness was "not sufficiently strong".  The “…artistic renderings are an indistinct, satirical representation of the style, look and persona of a modern, beach-going young woman... that is not recognizable as the plaintiff" Judge Eugene Fahey (b 1951) wrote in his ruling.  Judge Fahey's words recalled those of Potter Stewart (1915–1985; associate justice of the US Supreme Court 1958-1981) when in Jacobellis v Ohio (378 U.S. 184 (1964) writing of the concept of "obscenity" he wrote: “I shall not today attempt further to define… and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.  But I know it when I see it…”  Judge Fahey knew a basic white girl when he saw one; he just couldn't name her.  Lindsay Lohan's lawyers did not seek leave to appeal.

The game’s developers may have taken the risk of incurring Lindsay Lohan’s wrath and indignation because they’d been lured into a false sense of security by crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) not filing a writ after a likeness of her appeared on GTA 4’s (2008) Statue Of Happiness which stands on Happiness Island, just off the coast of Liberty City.  The Statue of Happiness was a blatant knock-off of New York’s Statue of Liberty and crooked Hillary became a determined and acerbic critic of Rockstar and the GTA franchise when details of the “Hot Coffee affair” were revealed.  That controversy arose after modders promulgated a code which in GTA: San Andreas’ release (2004) unlocked a hidden “mini-game” which allowed players to control explicit on-screen sex acts.  Men having sex (however defined) with women with whom they don’t enjoy benefit of marriage was a bit of a sore point with crooked Hillary, then a US senator (Democrat-New York), who embarked on a campaign for new regulations be imposed on the industry and the most immediate consequence was the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) launching an investigation, subsequently raising GTA: San Andreas’s rating from “M” (Mature) to “AO” (Adults Only, 18+) until the objectionable content was removed.  For those who wondered if the frankly frightening visage on the GTA 4 statute really was what some suspected, the object’s file name was “stat_hilberty01.wdr”.

Rockstar's Statue Of Happiness in GTA 4 (2008, left) and an official photograph of crooked Hillary Clinton (right). 

Rockstar seeking vengeance was understandable because crooked Hillary’s moral crusade proved tiresome for the company.  Once the ESRB had been nudged into action, crooked Hillary petitioned the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to (1) find the source of the game's “graphic pornographic and violent content”, (2) determine if it should be slapped with an AO rating and (3) “examine the adequacy of the retailers' rating enforcement policies.”  Not content, she then announced she’d be sponsoring in the Senate a bill for an act to make it a federal crime (with a mandatory US$5,000 fine) to sell to anyone under 18, violent or sexually explicit video games; the FEPA (Family Entertainment Protection Act) was filed on 17 December, 2005 and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, where quietly it was allowed to expire, the fate of many a bill over the years.

While the bill was undergoing a slow strangulation in committee hearings (killing bills one of the great arts in the US political system), the FTC and Rockstar reached a settlement, the commission ruling the company had violated the FTCA (Federal Trade Commission Act (1914)) by failing to disclose the inclusion of “unused, but potentially viewable” explicit content” (that it was enabled by a third party was held to be “not relevant”).  The settlement required Rockstar “clearly and prominently disclose on product packaging and in any promotion or advertisement for electronic games, content relevant to the rating, unless that content had been disclosed sufficiently in prior submissions to the rating authority” with violations punishable by a fine of up to US$11,000.  In the spirit of the now again fashionable Calvin "silent Cal" Coolidge (1872-1933; POTUS 1923-1929) era capitalism, no fine was imposed for the “hot coffee incident”, honor presumably satisfied by the company already having booked a US$24.5 million loss from the product recall earlier mandated.

Photoflash

Photoflash (pronounced foh-tuh-flash)

(1) An alternative name for a flashbulb (mostly archaic), a lamp that emits a brief flash of bright light, used to take photographs in a dark environment.

(2) Of or relating to flash photography (industry use only).

(3) The precise point at which a flashbulb illuminates.

1925–1930: The construct was photo- + flash.  Photo (phot- the prevocalic) was a clipping of photograph and photo was from the combining form φωτω- (phōtō-) of Ancient Greek φῶς (phôs) (light).  The –graph suffix was from the Ancient Greek suffix -γραφω (-graphō), from γράφω (gráphō) (to scratch, to scrape, to graze), probably best known in the derived from -graphy.  Flash was from the Middle English flasshen, a variant of flasken or flaskien (to sprinkle, splash), likely of imitative origin.  In the sense used in photography, it was probably of North Germanic origin and akin to the Swedish dialectal flasa (to burn brightly, blaze) and related to flare.  The Icelandic variation from the Germanic was flasa (to rush, hastily to go).  The word photoflash has a long history as a technical term in photography and the manufacture of photographic equipment but three syllables was just too much for general use and the public used “flash” for just about all purposes, the odd necessity like “flashbulb” embraced to avoid confusion.  Photoflash is a noun; the noun plural is photoflashes.

The industry however needed to be precise so "photoflash" became a frequent modifier, required because of the modular nature of the flash equipment (originally not part of the camera apparatus proper) and even at the tail-end of mass-market analogue photography, not all cameras featured built-in flash-lamps.  A "photoflash" unit was the whole, packaged flash assembly that included the flash-lamp and its housing, the mounting bracket directly attached the unit to the camera's body.  Originally the units were designed to accommodate replacement lamps but in 1960s, single-use units were developed, styled usually as rotating cubes, thus permitting four shots; for industry and consumers it was a cheaper solution and convenient but was an example of the way in the post-war years convenience led to more plastic waste and pollution, the little cubes soon littering the environment rather like the "ring-pulls" that enabled cans of drink to be opened without the need for a tool (the so-called "church key").  Invented in 1959 by US engineer Ermal “Ernie” Fraze (1913-1989), the design was thought a helpful innovation but because they detached completely from the can, millions of the things were soon an environmental blight and, with sharp edges, a safety hazard too.  Under pressure, in the mid 1970s, the industry phased them out, replacing them with the still familiar non-detachable “stay-on tabs”.  The photoflash capacitor is used not only in cameras.  It is an electrolytic capacitor designed specifically to provide a pulse of high-voltage energy for a very short duration and as well as the use in conventional photography, they’re installed also in devices using solid-state laser power supplies including optical readers and some printers but, whatever the hardware to which they’re attached, the purpose is always a brief illumination.  Because of the requirements for feeding a very high current for a precise length of time, the greatest challenge during the development process was to ensure a reliable high discharge pulse without excessive heat generation and thus the physical expansion of components.

Three-frame spread of Lindsay Lohan being photographed at the point of photoflash.

Photoflash composition has two meanings: (1) The pyrotechnic material which, when loaded in a suitable casing and ignited, produces a flash of sufficient intensity and duration for photographic purposes and (2) the collections of techniques used by professional photographers when shooting in light conditions where the use of a photoflash is required.  This involves considering things like the available ambient light, distance, angles of surrounding surfaces & their reflective properties and the need for any filtering.  For professionals, photoflash devices (known variously as flashes, speed-lights, studio strobes and a number of other terms) are adjustable to an extent those used on consumer lever cameras typically are not, the relevant metric a product of the relationship between the distance between the subject & light source and what is called the focal length (dictated essentially by lens aperture).

RAF (Royal Air Force) 4½ inch (114 mm) Photoflash Bomb.

An example of a basic design that was "right" from day one, the RAF's photoflash was manufactured throughout World War II (1939-1945) with the only fundamental change the use of narrower fins on the Mk II version, the larger units found to be prone to inducing "lateral drift" in high winds.  The cardboard tubular body was closed at the tail by a dome while the nose was sealed by a diaphragm with a bush, into which was inserted the fuse.  A defined measure of flash composition was loaded between the front and the rear diaphragm with a central tube extending between each, filled with gunpowder.  As soon as a fused flashbomb was released from an aircraft, the fuse was operative, triggering the gunpowder at the desired height which burst the body of the photographic flash, simultaneously igniting the flash composition.

Photoflash composition was of critical importance in the photoflash cartridges used in photoflash bombs which were specialized forms of ordnance perfected during the early years of World War II.  Dropped from aircraft passing over enemy territory, they were fitted with a photoflash cartridge timed to detonate at a height chosen to optimize the spread of light over the area of interest.  The development of the devices had been encouraged by research confirmed only a small fraction of the bombs dropped by the RAF were coming within miles of hitting the target zone, despite the claims of aircrew.  For many reasons, the inaccuracy was understandable given that night bombing over distance was a new aspect of war, carried out by inexperienced aircrew in the cold and dark of night, while under fire from night-fighters and ground-based guns, all while trying to locate blacked-out targets.  In the early days, navigators could rely on little more than maps, charts, mathematics and the visual recognition of physical ground-features, the latter obviously marginal at night when cities were under restrictions making visible artifical light a rare sight.

RAF photograph taken from Vickers Wellington bomber over Berlin, 1941.  The ground is illumined by the flash while the unusual light patterns are from ground-based searchlights, the shapes a product of the camera's exposure length.

There would later be electronic innovations such as devices designed to let bombardiers “see through” cloud but the photoflash bomb (always in the RAF clipped to “flashbomb”) was a relatively simple approach that  scaled-up existing technology, the things essentially big versions of the flashbulbs used on cameras.  Given their size, they were capable for short periods of producing intense light of sufficient dispersal and luminosity to permit either a pilot accurately to position his craft for a bombing run or for surveillance aircraft to take aerial reconnaissance photos at a safe height.  Of great utility at the time, flashbombs are no longer part of the military inventory because of improvements in night-vision optics, radar and satellite imagery.  Without them, the RAF's bombing campaign would have been much less effective although, as it was, not until late 1943 was the Anglo-American effort operating at the scale required for the offensive to be strategically significant and until the last weeks of the conflict, the losses suffered by both the RAF and USAAF (US Army Air Force) were shockingly high.

RAF photograph taken from De Havilland Mosquito (pathfinder), Hamburg, 1943.  The shape at the bottom-left is the flashbomb exploding.

The pathfinder concept was a lead aircraft that would identify a target and then drop flares indicating a target-path & target-force for the main force.  Fast, robust and built quickly and economically by virtue of the plywood frame, the twin-engined Mosquito was ideal for the role.  One of the most versatile airframes of the war, it took the Germans some time to develop a fighter than could match its pace and De Havilland responded to that threat with even faster versions.  Remarkably, the Mosquito (which first flew in 1940) remained in production until 1950, radar-equipped versions serving with the RAF until 1952, the durable platform at the time the UK's only all-weather nightfighter until versions of the De Havilland Vampire (1943-1961) and Gloster Meteor (1643-1955) became available.  Few probably think of the Mosquito as as Cold War aircraft but such was the UK's technology deficit at the time there was no alternative.  As well as the use in the pathfinder role, PR (photo-reconnaissance) versions of the Mosquito flew night-time missions over Europe, Burma and the South Pacific, all using the flashbombs with a the same basic but effective engineering and method of construction that would for centuries have been familiar to fireworks makers: A cardboard tube, capped on both ends with metal stoppers and filled a flash powder charge, the fuse set to trigger after a certain time (length of the fuse determining detonation height).  Being a camera’s flashbulb writ large, the flash lasted only around 200 milliseconds but this was ideal for aerial photography and could be enough for a pilot’s visual orientation although flashbombs often were dropped in staggered clusters, providing an extended duration of enhanced visibility.

The much re-printed photograph of Sofia Loren (b 1934, left) and Jayne Mansfield (1933-1967, right),  Romanoff's restaurant, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, April, 1957 (left) and, three months later, her eye similarly drawn, Shirley Perdew (1939-2020), seemingly unable to avert her gaze, looking at Jayne Mansfield (centre & right).  Ms Perdew had just been crowned “Miss Hollywood 1957” and, as a former “Miss Photoflash”, Ms Mansfield had been invited to afforce the voting panel.  The event had been held at Garden of Allah Hotel, built in 1913 as a private residence before in 1926 being converted into a residential hotel; it was demolished in 1959.

Ms Loren's sideways glance, one of the most famous in Hollywood's long history of such looks, variously has been interpreted as “sceptical”, “disapproving” and “envious”, the latter view perhaps most held by men.  Ms Loren herself explained things as "genuine concern" the pink satin gown might not prove equal to the occasion; on the night, there were several photographers covering the event and images shot from other angles illustrate why that concern was reasonable.  There has never been any doubt Ms Mansfield's "wardrobe malfunction" was "engineered and rehearsed", a trick suitably qualified women perfected in the age of the paparazzi.  In her pomp a significant figure in popular culture and a celebrity at a time they were less numerous and not as transitory, Ms Mansfield was a model & actress and what would later come to be known as a “multi-media personality”.  When young, she won a number of sponsored beauty contests including being crowned “Miss Magnesium Lamp”, “Miss Fire Prevention Week” and “Miss Photoflash” but it’s reported she drew the line at becoming “Miss Roquefort Cheese” on the grounds it “just didn’t sound right”, something on which she seems not to have expanded.  Reputedly, the chance to be “Miss Prime Rib” also was declined and while that sounds a missed opportunity, she was sentimental about animals.

Calumny

Calumny (pronounced kal-uhm-nee)

(1) A false statement, maliciously made, designed to injure the reputation of someone or something; a malicious utterance of false charges or misrepresentation; slander; defamation.

(2) The act of uttering calumnies; defamatory words.

(3) Such a false charge or misrepresentation.

(4) As “oath of calumny”, in historic Scots law, a method for the prevention of calumnious and unnecessary suits, by which both parties at the beginning of a cause swear, either personally or through counsel, that the facts set forth by them are true.

1400–1450: From the late Middle English calumnīe (false accusation, slander; objection raised in bad faith), from the fifteenth century Old French calomnie (slander (that in modern French endures as calomnie), from the Latin calumnia (trickery, subterfuge, misrepresentation, malicious charge), the construct being calumn- (thought originally a participle of calvī (to deceive; to trick) + -ia +-y).  The source of the Latin is murky but there are etymologists who maintain the primitive Indo-European cognates include the Ancient Greek kēlein (to bewitch, cast a spell) the Gothic holon (to slander), the Old Norse hol (praise, flattery), the Old English hol (slander) & holian (to betray) and the Old High German huolen (to deceive).  It’s suspected the whole group is from the same root as call.  The English word is a doublet of challenge.  Calumny is a noun & verb, calumniousness, calumniator & calumniation are nouns, calumniate, calumniated & calumniating are verbs, calumniatory & calumnious are adjectives and calumniously is an adverb; the noun plural is calumnies.

The Latin -ia and the Ancient Greek -ία (-ía) & -εια (-eia) were used to form abstract nouns of feminine gender (countries, diseases, species etc and, occasionally, collections of stuff).  The –y suffix was from the Middle English –y & -i, from the Old English -iġ (-y, -ic), from the Proto-Germanic -īgaz (-y, -ic), from the primitive Indo-European -kos, -ikos, & -iḱos (-y, -ic).  It was cognate with the Scots -ie (-y), the West Frisian -ich (-y), the Dutch -ig (-y), the Low German -ig (-y), the German -ig (-y), the Swedish -ig (-y), the Latin -icus (-y, -ic), the Sanskrit -इक (-ika) and the Ancient Greek -ικός (-ikós); a doublet of -ic.  The –y suffix was added to (1) nouns and adjectives to form adjectives meaning “having the quality of” and (2) verbs to form adjectives meaning "inclined to".  Words such as derogation, vilification, disapprobation obloquy, traducement etc can in meaning tend towards calumny don’t of necessity carry the “legal baggage” associated with fraudulent misrepresentation, defamation and such.  The modern slang “diss” (from Jamaican English or AAVE (African American Vernacular English and probably a short form of “disrespect” rather than “disparage”) can describe statements sounding calumnious typically they’re a traducement rather than something defamatory.  The adjective calumnious (slanderous, using calumny) emerged in the late fifteenth century and was the equivalent of the Latin calumniosus.  The verb calumniate (knowingly utter false charges) was from Latin calumniatus, past participle of calumniari (falsely to accuse) in use since the 1550s.  The noun calumniation (act of calumniating) was first documented in the 1540s and was the noun of action from calumniate.  The rarely-used noun calumniator (one who falsely and knowingly accuses another of anything disgraceful or maliciously propagates false reports) was in use by the 1560s, from Latin calumniator, an agent noun from calumniari.

Calumny is of course a feature of political exchanges but lest anyone suspects the twenty-first century represents a low point in public politeness, press reports of eighteenth & nineteenth century election campaigns are available and after reviewing these, readers can decide on which side of the Atlantic discourse was most calumnious.  The word calumny is now not commonly applied to political insults (thought often well-deserved) but is a part of the legal jargon in jurisdictions in the common law tradition.  In law, the use of “calumny” rests on the notions of “false, fraudulent & malicious” and is heard most often in matters of probate (the process of verifying the legality of a will).  In the administration of probate “fraudulent calumny” describes the act of a beneficiary making false representations to the person making their will (the testator or testatrix) about another person, the outcome of which is: (1) the beneficiary making the false representations inherits to a greater extent or (2) the person the subject of those representations inherits less.  While these outcomes may be similar to instances in which “undue influence” has been exercised upon a testator or testatrix, what makes fraudulent calumny different is that some sort of falsehood must be involved.  In matters of undue influence, the motives of the influencer may not be pure or honorable but the method of persuasion is more subtle and need not involve untruths, something that makes proving undue influence notoriously challenging because the testator or testatrix has made and executed the will of their own volition.  The text-books sometimes use the legal slang of the “drip, drip, drip of a slow poison” to distinguish undue influence from the sudden, lethal dose of fraudulent calumny.

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

Borrowing from criminal law, the familiar maxim mens rea (from the Latin mēns + reus (literally “guilty mind” and the basis of the precept in English common law: Actus non facit reum nisi mens rea sit (the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty), what a liability for fraudulent calumny hinges on is not that a representation was false but that it was by the calumniator known to be false or they were so reckless as to not to verity the authenticity of what they said.  Probate can however be a tangled web and in the case law there have been instances where conduct clearly was calumnious yet fraudulent calumny was not found because it was proved the disinheritance of the subject of the untrue representations (for wholly unrelated reasons) anyway have happened in accordance with the wishes of the testator or testatrix.  So there can be “other contextual reasons” leading to a will being changed and courts can find their existence wholly excludes the possibility of fraudulent calumny or reduce the strength of the “fraudulent calumny argument”, the latter vaguely along the lines of the “contributory negligence” concept in tort law.  As a category of claim to challenge the validity of a will, fraudulent calumny is in most jurisdictions rare for the practical reason it is so seldom successful; that’s not to say the act is necessarily uncommon, just that it’s hard to prove.  In some cases this can be because there’s a complete lack of evidence.  A malicious falsehood might well be told to someone making out their will that has the direct and immediate effect of them disinheriting the slandered party and making the person telling the untruth the sole beneficiary but, if only two people were ever part of a conversation behind closed doors and one is dead, there likely will be no evidence the untruth was ever uttered and while there may be other grounds upon which the will might be challenged, it usually would not be possible to find fraudulent calumny.

Nor is mere “untruth” or “recklessness” enough to sustain a finding of fraudulent calumny.  Were someone to have made any number of false representations to a testator or testatrix, even if it was found their will was in some way disadvantageous to the slandered party, if there’s compelling evidence the representations had no effect of the decisions of the testator or testatrix, there can be no finding of fraudulent calumny because there exists no casual connection between one act and another.  So it’s limited and intent alone does not create grounds.  Even if it can be proven the falsehoods were intended to cause a will to be changed that “guilty mind” become irrelevant if those statements can be shown to have had no effect.  In that it differs from the application of criminal law where, if one attempts to murder someone but is so inept the target (1) suffers no harm, (2) was unaware an attempt on their life had been made, (3) and in some way benefited from the attempt and (4) the perpetrator suffered some injury in making the attempt, the offence of attempted murder has still been committed and the incompetent assassin may be subject to prosecution.  So, on the path to the fraudulent calumny finishing line there are many hurdles and what a claimant must demonstrate is:

(1) One or more false representations were made.

(2) The representation(s) were made to the testator or testatrix.

(3) The representation(s) went to character or conduct of an existing or potential beneficiary of the will.

(4) The representation(s) were made for the purpose of inducing the testator or testatrix to alter their testamentary dispositions either (4.1) to leave more to the person making the false representation(s) or (4.2) exclude or leave less to the subject of the false representation(s).

(5) The false representation(s) must have been made in the knowledge they were untrue or with recklessness as to their truth

(6) On the balance of probabilities (ie, the common law test in civil matters), it was the false representation(s) that induced the induced the testator or testatrix to change their will.

That means it hangs on intent, event, cause and effect, thus the frequency with which lawyers use the phrase “notoriously difficult to prove” when the possibility of fraudulent calumny comes up in conversation; one can prove intent and event and even that the desired effect happened but if the cause was found to be unrelated, there can, as a matter of law, be no fraudulent calumny.  Despite the obstacles, the concept is simple: “The alleged “poisoner” is receiving a greater share of the estate than the claimant believes is (1) fair and (2) in accordance with the deceased’s true wishes and his has been achieved by the poisoner “poisoning” the mind of the testator or testatrix with untruths.”  Although “challenging”, on the basis of the evidence presented, courts can find fraudulent calumny established (although in some cases the judgment has made it difficult to work out “undue influence ended” and “fraudulent calumny began”.  Typically, except for theorists,  that matters little because the outcome is the critical point.  In Edwards v Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch), a woman of 86 died some three months after cutting from her will one son & grandson, leaving the remaining son the estate’s sole beneficiary.  The evidence suggested the testatrix had at the time she executed her final will enjoyed full “testamentary capacity” (ie the “being of sound mind” thing) and both understood and approved the document’s contents; the burden to produce “compelling evidence” of undue influence or of fraudulent calumny thus fell upon the claimant seeking to have the new will set-aside in favour of the original executed a decade earlier.

Damn! A Book of Calumny (1918) by Henry Louis “H.L.” Mencken (1880–1956).  Although it was not his fault, Mencken lived too long and even by the 1930s was thought (though not by other curmudgeons) “dated”.  The Mencken of 1918 was however the author at his best, Damn! A Book of Calumny a collection of short, cynical, punchy pieces representative of a certain strain of US thought in the era.

After reviewing the evidence, the judge found the new will had been induced by undue influence and set it aside, restoring the original.  In the summary, the judge listed the principles: (1) There is no presumption of undue influence for testamentary dispositions; the burden lies on the challenger; (2) the facts must be inconsistent with any hypothesis other than undue influence; (3) undue influence may arise through coercion (pressure overbearing the testator’s volition without convincing judgment) or fraud.  He added that “fraudulent calumny” exists where a person “poisons the testator’s mind” against a “natural beneficiary” by dishonest aspersions known to be false or made recklessly as to their truth.  In other words, “fraudulent calumny” may be thought a type of (or element in”) undue influence meaning the latter can be found to exist in the absence of the former but the former is a “flavour of the latter”.  In Edwards v Edwards, the just found both were operative.  Because fraudulent calumny cases are rare, the modern reiteration of principles was helpful.  The judge emphasized that while the relevant standard of proof is the civil balance of probabilities, the evidence must be compelling and the facts inconsistent with any innocent hypothesis.  Although understood as an old legal orthodoxy, the judgment in Edwards v Edwards confirmed fraudulent calumny is a “stand-alone” basis on which a will may be set aside, quite distinct from coercion.

Even in Kremlin the word proved useful.  On 5 March, 1940, comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) had signed an “open-ended death warrant” authorizing Lavrentiy Beria (1899–1953; head of the Soviet secret police 1938-1946) to “apply the supreme penalty, shooting” to Polish POWs (prisoners of war) who refused to accept Soviet authority; consequently almost 22,000 were executed with their the bodies buried in a mass grave in the forest of Katyn.  The corpses were unearthed by the German army in 1943 and Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945; Nazi Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda 1933-1945), instantly alive to the possibility of driving a wedge between the Soviets and its western Allies, arranged a forensic examination through the office of the neutral Swiss Red Cross, their unambiguous findings quickly published by the Germans.  In London, the Polish government-in-exile had long suspected the Soviets were responsible for the missing troops but found their repeated attempts to pursue the matter stonewalled and their protests suppressed.

As a cynical opportunist, comrade Stalin had few peers and not only did he deny his government’s involvement in the mass murder, he accused the “London Poles” (an annoyance to him because he was backing an alternative, “puppet communist government” under his control) of siding with the Nazis, the headline “HITLER’S POLISH COLLABORATORS!” appearing in Pravda on 19 April, 1943; within a week, Moscow had broken off diplomatic relations with the London Poles for failing “to offer a rebuff to the vile Fascist calumny.”  The British and Americans were well-aware of the truth but relations with the Kremlin were in 1943 “tense” because the so-called “second front” (the invasion of Europe from the west) had again been postponed so, not wishing further to antagonize comrade Stalin, on both sides of the Atlantic, blind eye were turned to the telescopes and diplomats inclined to “make a fuss” side-lined or posted somewhere remote.  Not until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 did the new government of Russia admit the truth about the Katyn massacre.

The Calumny of Apelles

Apelles of Kos was one of the most renowned painters in Ancient Greece during the fourth century BC.  The work (remembered as the Calumny of Apelles) that was reputedly his greatest masterpiece was lost but a vivid description by the Syrian-born Greek writer Lucian of Samosata (circa 125–circa 187) survived and a number of artists subsequently have interpreted the text and rendered versions in their own style.  Quite how reliable was Lucian’s ekphrasis (from the Ancient Greek ἔκφρασις (ékphrasis) (literally “I describe” and in modern use understood to mean “a detailed description”) can’t be known but that he was what would now be called a “social commentator” noted for his satires rather than an art critic has made some scholars of Antiquity caution the “description” might contain the odd embellishment or “slant”.  Despite that, it’s the only extant critique of the painting so that’s what artists have had to work with.  Appelles painted his Calumny as a “revenge work” after a rival wrongfully accused him of committing an act of treason against the Egyptian king.

La Calumnia de Apeles, (Calumny of Apelles, circa 1503), engraving in black on ivory laid paper by Girolamo Mocetto (circa 1470-circa 1534) after Andrea Mantegna (1431-1506).

Mocetto based his engraving of a drawing by Mantegna and versions by other artists also exist.  The theme of calumny (false accusation) obviously is a thread running through many societies (certainly in Italy during the dying days of the late Middle Ages) so the attraction to artists is not surprising.  Ever since one stone-age man (or woman) copied another’s cave-painting and claimed the work as original, artists have been accusing each-other of this and that, some claims calumniatory, some more measured.  For historians of art, the print is interesting because it’s a “work in progress”, the shading not yet added to the basilica’s dome.  Mocetto remained true to Lucian’s words but relocated the allegory’s scene to Venice’s Campo Santi Giovanni e Paolo, Andrea del Verrocchio’s (circa 1435–1488) equestrian monument to Bartolomeo Colleoni (1400–1475) standing in the background.  Attended by Ignorance and Suspicion, Midas with his donkey’s ears extends his hand to Calumny while she stands at some distance.  Calumny is the most beautiful woman of her age but is riddled with malignant passions, her fury and wrath symbolized by the blazing torch she holds in one hand, the other dragging by the hair the blameless young man she has slandered; he reaches his hand to the heavens, calling on the gods to bear witness to his innocence.  Calumny is attended to by Envy, pale and wasted away by lingering illness, while following her are Fraud & Conspiracy.  Dressed in tattered black is the mournful Repentance, tears in her eyes as in shame she glances at Truth slowly approaching.

La Calumnia de Apeles (Calumny of Apelles, circa 1497), tempera on panel by Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi (Sandro Botticelli) (circa 1445-1510).

Botticelli’s Calumny is the most famous of the genre and also was true to the spirit of Lucian’s ekphrasis, the figures personifications of vice & virtue, or the powerful & powerless (the king and victim).  From left to right, they represent (1) Truth, nude and pointing upwards to Heaven, (2) Repentance, in black (3) Perfidy (Conspiracy), in red and yellow, over the innocent half-naked (4) victim on the floor being pulled forward by the hair by (5) Calumny (Slander), in white and blue and holding a flaming torch, (6) Fraud (behind), tending to Calumny's hair, (7) Rancour (Envy), a bearded and hooded man in black, holding his hand towards (8) the king's eyes to obscure his view.  On the throne, the king has the donkey's ears of King Midas, while (9) Ignorance on his right and (10) Suspicion to his left grasp the ears as they whisper into them.  The king extends his hand towards Calumny, but his gaze is averted.  Historians say it’s at least possible Botticelli had in mind some unfortunate slandered chap (perhaps himself) but some years after he finished the work, the Florentine authorities received an anonymous letter, accusing the artist of “keeping a boy” and practicing homosexuality.  There’s no record of any prosecution being initiated and the consensus is the accusation was likely motivated by envy, vengeance or other of the vices Apelles of Kos depicted, all those years ago.  So it was a calumnious letter but not necessarily an untruth, Botticelli’s proclivities a matter of historic record.  The pattern remains current; when politicians sometimes complain a prosecution of them is “politically motivated”, that may well be true but doesn’t mean they’re not as guilty as sin of that with which they’ve been charged.