Congress

Congress (pronounced kong-gris, kuhn-gres, kuhng-gris or khung-gres)

(1) The national legislative body of the US, a continuous institution consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives (initial capital).

(2) This body as it exists for a period of two years during which it has the same membership (other than replacements by necessity).  By convention, Congresses sequentially are numbered.

(3) A session of this body.

(4) The national legislative body of a nation (used especially in republics and it has been used also of political parties or movements (such as the South African liberation movement the ANC (African National Congress, founded in 1912) and India’s INC (the Indian National Congress, founded in 1885 during the British Raj)).

(5) A formal meeting or assembly of representatives for the discussion, arrangement, or promotion of some matter of common interest (in this context often a synonym of academy, society, convention, council or conference).  Use of congress in this sense is not restricted to governmental or other official bodies, associations, special interest groups and sporting organizations routinely using the term.

(6) The act of coming together; an encounter; meeting.

(7) An association, especially one composed of representatives of various organizations (often used interchangeably with conference, society or association).

(8) Familiar relations; dealings or intercourse.

(9) Sexual intercourse; coitus.

(10) The collective noun for a group of baboons (something which can delight those observing the antics of those in the US Congress).

(11) To assemble together (ie to meet in a congress).

1350–1400 From the Middle English congres & congress (body of attendants, following (the meaning in the fifteenth century extending to “meeting of armed formations” while the sense of “a coming together of people, a meeting of individuals” emerged in the 1520s), from the Latin congressus (both “a friendly meeting” & “a hostile encounter”), past participle of congredi (to meet with; to fight with), an assimilated form, the construct being con- (in the sense of “with, together”), + gradi (to walk, step), from gradus (a step (from the primitive Indo-European root ghredh- (to walk, go)).  The adjective congressional (of or pertaining to a congress) was an adaptation from the Latin congressionem and the most common use now is the sense of “of or pertaining to the US Congress”, dating from 1776.  As something new, in the UK it was initially treated as “a barbarous Americanism” but as early as 1816 it was pointed out in England that the Congress (the highest legislative body in the US) had been formed in defiance of the UK and the nation’s citizens were hardly likely to wait on ascent from London before forming and using the adjectival derivative.  Congress is a noun & verb, congressional & congressive are adjectives and congressionally is an adverb; the noun plural is congresses.

The use of “congress” to describe “sexual intercourse; coitus” dates from the 1580s but, except in historic references or as a deliberate archaism, use tends now to be as a euphemism.  There was however once a handy distinction (heard from pulpits and in legal proceedings) between the naked noun and “marital congress (sexual intercourse as performed by two people enjoying benefit of marriage), the latter quite respectable (if not much discussed), the former not always, especially if adulterous.  The special adjective uncongressed was coined in the science of genetics to describe “unaligned chromosomes”, a phenomenon presumably about as bad as it sounds.  By contrast, a marriage in which “sexual intercourse; coitus” was held not to have transpired was said to be “unconsummated”, something often unfortunate for one or both parties but useful because it was grounds upon which a bishop might declare an otherwise legally marriage annulled.  That had the advantage of creating the legal fiction the ceremony had “never happened” with the couple able to return to church to marry new partners, something historically not always possible for divorcees (although for those rich enough there were sometimes “word-arounds” that could persuade an appropriately compensated bishop).  In centuries gone by, being “married before the eyes of God” was no small thing with important legal and social implications.

Making a fine legal point, one apparently open to interpretation.

Crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; FLOTUS 1993-2001 & US secretary of state 2009-2013, left) watching attentively as her husband Bill Clinton (b 1946; POTUS 1993-2001) assured the nation “I did not have sexual relations with that woman… Miss Lewinsky.” (White House intern Monica Lewinsky (b 1973)), the White House, January 1998.  A trained lawyer and former Arkansas attorney-general, Mr Clinton may have been tempted to say “I did not have congress with that woman… Miss Lewinsky.”  At least arguably that could have be held to be “truthful” because “congress” generally is understood as coitus (penetrative sexual intercourse) where as “sexual relations” casts a wider net.  Whether such sophistry would have saved him from impeachment seems unlikely and nothing was going to save him from the wrath of crooked Hillary.  Unfortunately, in subsequent legal proceedings, we never got to hear Mr Clinton's deconstruction of “congress” but we did learn what the word “is” means and that his definition of “sexual relations” extended to “giving” oral sex but excluded “receiving” oral sex.  The latter distinction surprised a few but at least now we know.

“Congress grass” is a synonym for “famine weed” (Parthenium hysterophorus), a highly invasive plant noted for its devastating impact on agriculture, food security, and native ecosystems. The undesirable plant gained the name “famine weed” from the way aggressively it would colonize farmland and pastures, replacing nutritious native flora and releasing allelopathic chemicals that severely would stunt the growth of crops and grasses, leading to sharp declines in agricultural yields, famines associated with heavily infested regions.  In India, during the 1950s, the plant came derisively to be damned with the moniker “Congress grass” after the accidental introduction of the species by seeds in contaminated US wheat, imported during a national food shortage.  The name references not the US Congress but the INC (Indian National Congress, usually clipped to “the Congress”), in control of the national government that had arranged the importation.  Native to Central America, Parthenium hysterophorus is listed as invasive also in Australia and a number of African nations.

The specific sense of congress as “a meeting of delegates, formal meeting of persons having a representational character” was in use by at least the 1670s and in 1775 became the name for the national legislative body of the American states (with an initial upper case) which became the USA, the word chosen from a number of suggestions (legislative assembly, parliament etc).  The three sittings of the “Continental Congress” (representing the 13 American colonies seeking independence from imperial rule) were convened in 1774, 1775-1776 & 1776-1781.  The Congress of the Confederation (formally the United States in Congress Assembled) was the national governing body of the US between March 1781 and March 1789; established by the Articles of Confederation, it served as a transitional government between the Second Continental Congress and the modern US Congress which first sat on 4 March, 1789.

The US Capitol Building where the Congress sits, the House of Representatives housed in the south wing, the Senate in the north.  The original building was completed in 1800 and the final engineering sign-off of the dome structure came in 1867.  The last major structural changes were undertaken in 1962.

The US Congress is the is the legislative branch of the federal government, declared constitutionally “co-equal” with the executive and legislative branches although that’s a philosophical stance rather than a functional description, the Congress uniquely able to pass federal laws (in legal theory the occasionally infamous “Executive Orders” issued by POTUSs as unilateral actions under powers granted by Article II of the Constitution or federal law(s) are valid only to the extent they are constitutional and comply with federal law).  The Congress is divided into two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives both of which are now elected by a popular vote; each state having two senators, the Senate has 100 members while in the House of Representatives there are 435, size of a state’s population determining its allocation.  Within each state, it is the legislature which has the power to determine electoral boundaries and over the years these processes have given rise to a rich vocabulary including “gerrymander”, “re-districting” & “electoral malapportionment”, the the memorable judicial maxim “legislators represent people, not trees and acres” handed down in a judgment by Chief Justice Earl Warren (1891–1974; Chief Justice of the US 1953-1969) in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)).  The way the Democrats and Republicans draw lines on maps to maximize the benefit of their respective parties and disadvantage their opponents has always been entertaining but, because the exercise ultimately is one of math, what will be interesting is (1) how the process will be perfected when optimized by the use of AI (artificial intelligence) and (2) how the courts (ultimately the USSC (US Supreme Court)) will rule on the lawfulness of increasingly exaggerated distortions.

Constitutionally, the formal title for someone holding a seat in the House of Representatives is “Representative” which makes sense but “Congressman”, although originally a term of derision, became common.  “Representative” remains the preferred term in formal writing (certainly official government documents) and when addressing a member, the convention being “Representative Name” although “The Honorable Name” is in certain contexts used.  “Congressman” & “Congresswoman” are however deeply entrenched in US English and seem to be the most popular forms used by the public and much of the media.  The first congresswoman was Jeannette Rankin (1880–1973), a women's rights advocate, in 1916 elected as a Republican in Montana for a single term (she served a second in 1941-1943); she remains the only woman ever elected to Congress from Montana.  The gender-neutral “Congressperson” belongs to the “modern” class of words (which predate the mainstreaming of wokism) including “chairperson”, “salesperson” etc.  It has been accepted by dictionaries and style guides with some media organizations recommending use although it’s said rarely to be heard in oral use.  Representatives are elected for two-year terms and senators for six so in the congressional elections conducted every two years; all 435 seats in the House are contested along with about a third of the Senate.

One who would have been grateful “congressperson” wasn’t in general use in the early 1960s would have been the singer-songwriter Bob Dylan (b 1941) who released The Times They Are a-Changin' as the title-track of his 1964 album, “Come senators, congressmen” appearing as the first line of the third verse and suiting the rhythm of the work in a way “Come senators, congresspersons” wouldn’t have worked.

Come senators, congressmen

Please heed the call

Don't stand in the doorway

Don't block up the hall

For he that gets hurt

Will be he who has stalled

The battle outside ragin'

Will soon shake your windows

And rattle your walls

For the times they are a-changin'

Although The Times They Are a-Changin' now is regarded as a classic Dylan song and one of his standards, while internationally it enjoyed some success as a single, it was never released in that form in the US, included only on the original eponymous album and subsequent compilations.  Like much of Dylan’s work, there were several influences including biblical echos from Mark and Ecclesiastes.

Official portrait of George Santos while he was entitled to be styled “Representative the honorable George Santos”.

The first (openly) LGBTQQIAAOP Republican elected to Congress as a freshman (one's first elected presence there, a use borrowed from universities where it describes first-year students), George Anthony Devolder Santos (b 1988) entered Congress in the 2022 mid-term elections, taking the seat of New York's 3^rd congressional district.  Although he seems to have passed untroubled through the Republican Party’s candidate vetting process, after his election a number of media outlets investigated and found his public persona was almost wholly untrue and contained many dubious or blatantly false claims about, inter alia, his mother, personal biography, education, criminal record, work history, financial status, ancestry, ethnicity, sexual orientation & religion.  When confronted, Mr Santos did admit to lying about certain matters, was vague about some and ducked and weaved to avoid discussing others, especially the fraud charges in Brazil he evaded by fleeing the country.  Although a life-long Roman Catholic, Mr Santos on a number of occasions claimed to be Jewish, even fabricating stories about his family suffering losses during the Holocaust.  Later, after the lies were exposed, he told a newspaper “I never claimed to be Jewish.  I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background I said I was ‘Jew-ish.”  In the right circumstances, delivered on-stage by a Jewish comedian, it might have been a good punch-line.

George Santos: The Congress's loss was OnlyFans' gain but unfortunately the new career didn't last because of an excessive number of “fan solicitations”.

Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee and a federal indictment, the House of Representatives in 2023 voted 311–114 to expel Mr Santos, meaning he gained the dubious distinction of being the first member of Congress to have been expelled without having previously been convicted of a crime or having supported the Confederacy (the pro-slavery southern states opposed to the Union forces in the US Civil War (1861-1865)).  In other historic footnotes, he became the sixth member of the House to be expelled and the first Republican.  Subsequently, Mr Santos pled guilty to identity theft & wire fraud and in April 2025 was sentenced to a prison term of 87 months.  However, in October that year, after spending only some three months behind bars, Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) commuted his sentence, cancelling all unpaid fines and restitution, one of the reasons cited being Mr Santos's solid voting record in Congress (100% Republican).  There was a time when such a pardon would have attracted much comment but such has been Mr Trump’s use of his power to issue pardons, few now seem exceptional or even noteworthy.  The power to pardon (inherited from Kings of England who no longer discharge it as a personal right) is unusual in being the only power in the US Constitution not subject to “checks & balances”; it is a personal presidential prerogative.  Noting that, political scientists and legal scholars are looking forward to the pardons announced on the last day of Mr Trump’s term on the basis: “We ain’t seen nothing yet”.  Members of the House of Representatives typically are addressed as "the honorable" in formal use but this is a courtesy title and not a requirement.  It's a matter left to individual members and as far as is known, Mr Santos has not yet indicated whether he wishes people to continue to address him as “the honorable George Santos” but clearly he has a fan base.  In 2024, Mr Santos opened an OnlyFans page (US29.99 per month) but after only a few weeks he was forced to “abandon the platform due to the high volume of fan solicitations”.

Congressman Randy Fine (b 1974; Representative for Florida's 6^th congressional district since April 2025) in red MAGA (Make America Great Again) hat (left) and a rooster with a large red coxcomb (the fleshy red pate of a rooster, left).

The long familiar “congressman” actually started as a term of derision before entering mainstream use as a neutral descriptor, a milder form being the later plural noun “congressfolk”.  Because voters (and others) so often find cause to be critical of those in Congress, a rich vocabulary of variants has over the years appeared, “congressfolk” yielding “congressdope” while independently coined terms included “congresscritter” and congressjerk while the offensive, ethnic slur “congresscoon” was a label applied to the first black congressmen (the presence of whom in the Congress many whites found appalling and not just those south of the Mason-Dixon Line).  To this day, phrases such as “those fuckwits in Congress” or “the stupid Congress” are part of US vernacular English although literary standards have declined since 1780 when one wrote: “Ye coxcomb Congressmen, declaimers keen, Brisk puppets of the Philadelphia scene.”  

Even within the political class the word can be weaponized.  Although in passing over 900 bills the 80^th Congress (1947-1949) was hardly inert, it didn’t do everything the administration wanted so, on the campaign trail in 1948, the ever-combative Harry S. Truman (1884–1972; POTUS 1945-1953) dubbed it the “Do Nothing Congress” although the nickname was something of a “tar by association” tactic against his Republican opponent (Thomas E. Dewey (1902-1971) in the presidential election as much as it was against the legislators.  Most of the world fixates on presidential politics because of the drama and the cults of personality but domestically, it’s in the legislatures that lobbyists do their work and that’s where they make “campaign contributions” in exchange for getting the legislation which most benefits the corporations employing them.  “The business of America is business” was how former president Calvin Coolidge (1872–1933; POTUS 1923-1929) summed it up.  It’s not wholly dissimilar to the development of the English constitution; it took centuries to evolve but essentially, in exchange for getting the money he needed to fight his wars, the king approved the laws the politicians wished to pass.  In the US, the dynamic relationship is between politicians & corporations, mediated by the lobbyists and between the two sides, there's much interchanging of personnel which is why the system is sometimes described by political scientists as “incestuous”.  The dynamic of the system does of course shift; sometimes those in Congress have dominated the president and sometimes he has dominated them so in that sense Trump 2.0 (Mr Trump's second administration) is just a phase the system is going through.

The reformed Lindsay Lohan.  Congress hasn't much mended its ways.

Others have found inventive ways to color their critique of the Congress.  In March 2011, delivering an address to the annual Washington Conference of the Institute of International Bankers, Richard W. Fisher (b 1949; president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank (the “Dallas Fed”) 2005-2015), spent some time discussing the fiscal policy (ie the dynamics of government spending vs revenue (taxation and such)) of the US Congress, his concern that for long-term investment to be secured, investors must have “…confidence in the long-term prospects of where they invest.  In my judgment, it will be hard to secure that needed comfort until Congress makes clear it will refrain from the errant fiscal ways of the past, changes the way it taxes and spends and regulates, and places the nation demonstrably, and unalterably, on a path of fiscal rectitude.”  To illustrate his point in an immediately accessible way, Mr Fisher added that the country had “…suffered for too long from ‘Lindsay Lohan’ Congresses.  Like Ms. Lohan, the American Congress is a beautiful creation, blessed with enormous talent. But it has been waylaid by addiction—in the case of the Congress to spending and debt—and by a proclivity for shoplifting—in the case of the Congress to pocketing for their immediate gratification the economic future of our children and grandchildren and our grandchildren’s children.”  It may have been a bit of a “mean boy” way of putting it but doubtlessly his point was well understood by his audience, Ms Lohan then in her “troubled starlet” phase.  However, while Ms Lohan became an admirably reformed creature, the US Congress (which alone has the authority to authorize every dollar raised, borrowed and spent by the federal government) remains something of a fabulous beast, the national debt now some US$38 trillion and growing.

Senator Rebecca Ann Felton (1835–1930, left) and Senator Mitch McConnell (b 1942; US senator (Republican-Kentucky) since 1985; leader of the Senate Republican Conference 2007-2025, right).  The spooky resemblance between Senator Fulton (who in 1922 served for one day as a senator (Democratic-Georgia), appointed as a political manoeuvre) and Senator McConnell has led some to suggest he might be her reincarnated.  Some not so acquainted with history assumed the photograph of Senator Felton was Mitch McConnell in drag.

Members of the Senate, regardless of gender, are styled as “Senator” even though the Senate is a part of the Congress.  Although it has become common to describe the Senate and House respectively as “upper house” and “lower house” (reflecting the UK practice of so-describing the House of Lords and House of Commons), many political scientists claim that’s misleading and the two houses should be regarded as co-equal wings of the congress, each fulfilling a distinct function but not in a hierarchical structure.  They’re correct in asserting the use sits awkwardly with later constitutional development but the terminology is, in the US context, ancient, dating from at least the first federal Congress in 1789 when the Senate routinely was described as the “upper” chamber and the House the “lower”, simply reflecting the British parliamentary vocabulary with with those involved were familiar.

Federal Hall, New York City, circa 1950.

The framers of the US constitution did not use the terms “upper” and “lower”, something in keeping with spirit of an age that was the not exactly egalitarian but it certainly reflected their deliberately (if imperfectly) democratic, anti-aristocratic intentions.  The conceptual analogy can however be pursued, the Senate being smaller, the members granted longer terms with election originally being indirect by state legislatures while the house was directly elected (although the franchise was far from one of universal suffrage).  However, whatever the constitutional niceties, that arrangement did neatly map onto the bicameral model familiar in the UK and Europe where upper and lower chambers often were seen although surveys of early American political writing seems to hint there might have been some reluctance to use the traditional “upper” & “lower”, the Senate instead referred to as a “more select” or “more elevated” body; while many in the US political class were elitist, there was a reluctance to make that explicit.  That in 1789 members of the two houses first sat with senators assembling in a room on the first floor while representatives convened downstairs is a charming anecdote but is regarded by historians as a piece of architectural determinism, the downstairs room in New York’s Federal Hall being large enough for all the representatives, the less multitudinous senators able to fit upstairs.  Still, although the use “upper” & “lower” was already deeply embedded in the Anglo-American constitutional lexicon before Congress first met in the upstairs-downstairs arrangement, some did note the coincidence and it’s not impossible use of the terminology at least briefly was reinforced.  The room-allocation certainly didn’t create the use.

However, by the early nineteenth century, “upper house” and “lower house” routinely appeared as neutral descriptive terms in newspapers, parliamentary manuals, and political commentary, used of the Congress as well as state legislatures.  Modern political scientists have analysed the texts and concluded the use was merely of convenience as verbal shorthand because the terms were so well understood; it was in no way an attempt to “put meaning into the words of the constitution”.  Although there were obvious structural similarities with the UK parliament, the social and political history was different but while the powers of the House of Lords greatly were curtailed by the Parliament Acts (1911 & 1949), the US Senate became one of democracy’s more powerful “second chambers” in that it has a power of veto over executive appointments (judges, ambassadors, members of the cabinet etc) and no POTUS may have a treaty with a foreign entity ratified without the concurrence of the Senate.  Along with the Australian Senate (routinely and uncontroversially styled as an “upper house”) which has the power to force governments from office, the US Senate is one of the democratic world’s more powerful, the term in the jargon of political science being “strong bicameralism.”

Kim Jong-Un (Kim III, b 1982; Supreme Leader of DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)) since 2011) leads the bowing ceremony before the portraits of Kim Il-Sung (Kim I, 1912–1994; Great Leader of DPRK, 1948-1994, left) and Kim Jong-Il (Kim II, 1941-2011; Dear Leader of DPRK, 1994-2011, right), 9^th Congress of the WPK (Workers' Party of Korea), April 25 House of Culture, Pyongyang, 19-25 February 2026.  Unanimously, delegates paid tribute to the Supreme Leader and declared it the “best congress ever”.

In political use, although a “party congress” and “party caucus” both involve the party’s members meeting together, they are almost always different institutions.  By convention, a party congress is a large formal gathering of the membership or selected delegates.  These tend in scope to be national or regional and concerned with matters such as policy platforms, leadership and the endorsement of candidates although in recent decades they have become carefully managed (and scripted), set-piece events designed to demonstrate (or, for public purposes, to emulate) unity.  Held periodically and being now highly structured, they fulfil a ceremonial as well as practical purpose although functionally, most are now wholly unnecessary; dating from a time before modern communications when the only way for things to be “thrashed out” was for members to assemble to debate and vote, most “decisions” announced at party congresses have been worked out well in advance with the debates and announcements just “window-dressing” and a type of “brand identity”.  Most are now far removed from the origin in European, socialist or communist traditions but in authoritarian systems like those in the PRC (People’s Republic of China) or DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)), the visual choreography is tighter even than that imposed by political machines in the West.

A party caucus inherently is a smaller gathering because almost always it’s restricted to elected or appointed members within a legislature or other (sometimes nominally) deliberative body.  The exact practice differs between (and sometimes even within) countries but, as a general principle, in parliamentary systems a caucus describes all elected legislators from one party meeting privately to discuss matters such as strategy, leadership coordination, or internal discipline.  The terms “party congress” and “party room” are thus usually interchangeable although there are instances where “caucus” has for historic reasons become so associated with one party that others avoid the label.  An obvious example is the ALP (Australian Labor Party (or as some prefer, Agitprop, Lies & Propaganda)) where use of “caucus” is entrenched so other parties tend to use “party meeting”, “party room” etc.  Similarly, in the US, while the congressional Democrats collectively are a “caucus” (sharing the noun with baboons which seems a nice touch), the Republicans are a “conference”.  Membership can be “loose”, the self-described “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders (b 1941; senior US senator (Independent, Vermont) since 2007) having long “caucused with the Democrats”.  In the US, “caucus” was adopted for certain versions of “primary contests” in which candidates are selected (in other places the process might be called “pre-selection”).

Joe Biden (b 1942; VPOTUS 2009-2017 & POTUS 2021-2025) and his wife, Dr Jill Biden (b 1951) at a campaign stop during the Iowa Caucuses, Council Bluffs, Iowa, 30 November, 2019.

In the US, caucuses are now less common and the party machines would be delighted were they wholly to go extinct because, unlike primaries which are conducted at locations which are easily managed, caucuses are from the “horse & buggy” era and are geographically spread, often taking places in people’s houses.  For candidates, it can be a logistical nightmare but so culturally entrenched are the famous “Iowa Caucuses” which “kick off” the four-yearly cycle of presidential elections that whatever happens elsewhere, Iowa won’t be for turning.  In the US, there are also “sub-set caucuses” such as the “Congressional Black Caucus” and, upon formation in 1971, it was envisaged as a “non-party” gathering at which Democrats, Republicans and others could assemble to discuss matters of especial interest to the African-American community.  Remarkably, from time to time, Republicans have attended meetings.  The proliferation of caucuses within the Democratic Party has increased and there are caucuses labelled as “Jewish”, “Progressive”, “Muslim”, “women’s”, “African American”, “Education”, “Hispanic”, “Veterans”, “LGBTQ+”, “Pride”, “Stonewall”, Asian American & Pacific Islander”, “Native” and “Senior”; there may be more because the modern Democratic Party is a fissiparous beast.  

Watercolor of a Viennese ball.  So frequent were the balls at the Congress of Vienna, the Prince de Ligne famously observed “Le Congrès dance beaucoup, mais il ne marche pas” (Congress dances much, but it doesn't walk).

There are many aspects to the relationship between the US and PRC and following the May 2026 meeting in Beijing between Xi Jinping (b 1953; General Secretary of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and paramount leader of the PRC since 2012) and Donald Trump, analysts covered most of them.  There was much on trade, tariffs, military actions (calling events such as invasions “wars” has become unfashionable) in the Middle East or Ukraine, AI (artificial intelligence), oil, the renegade province of Taiwan and more.  What was however most striking about President Xi’s narrative was his observation the PRC and US had much more to gain from “cooperation” than “conflict”.  What Mr Xi seemed to be suggesting was different from earlier concepts which had at times characterized the relationship between the US and the Soviet Union; he wasn’t advocating a revival of “peaceful co-existence” or “détente” but something like a genuine, if unofficial, partnership based on mutual interest.  Although it’s speculative, it seems likely President Xi admires the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) when the ruling elites met over some nine months to construct a post-Napoleonic Europe divided between the great powers, a structure in which (1) the ruling class would be spared another unpleasantness like the French Revolution (1789) and (2) a perpetual balance of power would be maintained, ensuring peace.  That in the two centuries since, the Congress has attached much criticism, largely for imposing a stultifying air of reaction on the continent, does not render the structure irrational nor detract from the rationale and some historians have come to regard the congress more fondly; while it’s not true the consequence was a exactly century of peace in Europe, it created a framework which meant a goodly number of decades notably less blood-soaked than what came before and certainly what followed after 1914.

In geopolitics, for authoritarian leaders to suggest “cooperation” with those more liberal is not new.  Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) in 1940, not best pleased at being at war with the British (the nation he regarded still as Germany’s natural ally), offered London what to many in the British establishment seemed a tempting deal, given the army had just been forced into an hasty and ignominious retreat from the beaches of Dunkirk.  As Hitler imagined the globe under his new order in which the German Empire would extend from the English Channel to the Urals, one feature which fitted in nicely was the British Empire and in return for offering his obviously potent military to assist in its defence, all he wanted from the British was an end to hostilities and “non-interference” in a Europe now under German occupation or hegemony.  The British had their own reasons for rejecting that kind offer but, after the tide of the war had turned, they heard something similar (and possibly about as sincere) from comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953).  At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, the British and Americans first heard comrade Stalin’s idea that the ideal arrangement for the upcoming post-war world was that the Soviets wouldn’t interfere in the way the countries in the Western sphere of influence were handled and in return he expected no interference in the Soviet sphere (basically those nations unfortunate enough to end up behind what came to be called the Iron Curtain).

Deals being done: The Congress of Vienna (1819), engraving by Jean-Baptiste Isabey (1767–1855).

However, the circumstances of 2026 differ greatly from the world of 1815 and what could be achieved at the Congress of Vienna by Lord Castlereagh (1769–1822; UK foreign secretary 1812-1822) and Prince Klemens von Metternich (1773-1859; Foreign Minister of the Austrian Empire 1809-1848 & Chancellor 1821-1848) was a function of what was unique about that time and place.  The so-called Concert System (known also as the Vienna System in a nod to the epoch-making congress) in which the spheres of influence of Europe’s five great powers (Austria, France, Prussia, Russia and the UK) were effectively formalized with mechanisms created to resolve disputes by means other than armed conflict, while a model which could be mapped onto the geopolitical map of 2026 is of course an implausible resurrection because things are different.  Still, Mr Xi is a diligent student of history and is aware how much more productive can be great-power cooperation than conflict, outcome of the latter sometimes as bad for the “winners” as the “losers”.  What he’ll have noticed is Donald Trump genuinely is unique among post-war presidents in that he avowedly has no interest in “spreading democracy” around the globe, content if other countries, whatever their political arrangements buy US goods and services; he cares not at all whether or not they buy the US Constitution.

As Mr Xi could have told him, that’s a sensible position to take because a system which suits one national culture may wholly be incompatible with others and what’s remarkable is not that the US, debatably for the first time since the 1920s, now has a “pragmatic president” but that it took so long for them to get one.  What most distinguished US foreign policy since 1945 was the way it was affected by the much-discussed national characteristic of “exceptionalism”, a collective confidence that proved an asset in a venture like sending men to walk on the moon but in foreign policy has on occasions led the Americans astray.  Essentially, the problem is the idealistic American belief that every problem can be overcome (exemplified by the Pentagon’s standard doctrine of “overwhelming force”) whereas less ambitious realists understand some problems are insoluble and need just endlessly to be “managed”, witness the way the British for so long ran the Raj with a relative handful of troops and administrators.

Horse trading at the Yalta Conference, February 1945, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR, 1882–1945, POTUS 1933-1945, left), comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953, centre) and Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955, right).

The cartoon was by Ernest Howard "E.H." Shepard (1879–1976) and appeared in Punch some days after the conference communiqués were published.  In the UK it was titled The Pellmell of the European Puzzle but, in many other markets, that was changed to The European Hotch-Potch because “pell-mell” was thought obscure.  Pellmell (also as pell-mell) traditionally was used in the sense of “hasty and uncontrolled” so really wasn't appropriate for what was done at Yalta.  Pellmell was from the French pêle-mêle, from the Old French pesle-mesle, reputedly a rhyme based on the stem of mesler (to mix, meddle).  Unlike the Congress of Vienna which absorbed some nine leisurely months between September 1814-June 1815, the Yalta Conference was done in little more than a week but although there were many dinners, there were no balls and no dancing.  So intractable was the position of comrade Stalin on matters of consequence to him, had it lasted nine months it's doubtful the outcomes would greatly have differed.   

President Xi (left) and President Trump (right).  While structuralists might disagree, behaviorists would likely find more similarities than differences.     

While something like a “Congress of Singapore” with global or even extensive regional ambitions would be overreach, it’s not difficult to imagine Mr Xi and Mr Trump at a table demonstrating the “art of the deal(s)”, each sacrificing the odd pawn to secure an uncontested rook or knight (or even a bishop).  The pawns of course might object to being “shuffled around” but as Mr Xi would explain to them: “twas ever thus” and their people will much prefer the fruits of an increasing co-prosperity to abstractions like democracy and the chimera of free speech.  Mr Trump’s background was in the world of corporations and deals rather than politics (as he one admitted, he “bought” politicians as required and was impressed by how cheap they were) so he can relate to someone like Mr Xi who functions as the CEO of a corporate state, more than he can presidents or prime ministers juggling the competing interests upon which they depend.  Like Mr Trump who wants as little as possible to do with the internal affairs of America’s customers (ie other countries), Mr Xi has no wish to waste effort or resources in the pointless business of attempting to impose Beijing’s way of running the PRC on others; good relations and mutually beneficial trade ties are much more sensible goals.  In Mr Xi and Mr Trump, not since a couple of horse-traders like comrade Stalin and Winston Churchill were running their countries have two great powers been headed by a pair more suited to “doing deals”.  While problems like Kashmir and Palestine will need “endless management”, in other places, there is scope for a couple of realists to “cooperate” and because Mr Trump (mostly) has purged the US system of tiresome idealists, for the first time in living memory, at least slight progress may be possible.  As at Yalta, there might be victims but where deals are there to be done, someone always has to pay the price.

Porch

Porch (pronounced pawrch or pohrch)

(1) In architecture, an exterior appendage to a building, forming an approach to a doorway, now usually with a roof which may be separate or an extension of that of the main structure; if walls are included, a porch is said to be “vestibule-like”.

(2) An exterior roofed gallery, often partly enclosed; a veranda.

(3) As “the Porch”, the portico or stoa in the agora of ancient Athens, where the Stoic philosopher Zeno of Citium and his followers met.

(4) Applied loosely (often in commerce, especially the real estate business), similar structures such as porticos, balconies, decks, verandas and such.

(5) In aerospace engineering, the platform outside the external hatch of a spacecraft.

1250–1300: From the Middle English porche (covered entrance; roofed structure, usually open on the front and sides, before an entrance to a building), from the Old French porche (porch, vestibule), from the Latin porticus (covered gallery, covered walk between columns, arcade, portico, porch), from porta (city gate, gate; door, entrance), from the primitive Indo European root per- (to lead, pass over).  In the Old English the Latin form was borrowed as portic.  By the late fourteenth century, a porche was understood as a “covered walk or colonnade on the front or side of a building”; by the early 1830s it was used in the US for the structures described in the UK as verandas.  Porch and porchful are nouns, porchless, porchlike & porched are adjectives; the noun plural is porches.

Porch swingers.

Vice-Admiral William Raborn (1905-1990; Director of Central Intelligence, 1965-1966, left) and Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; POTUS 1963-1969, right), sitting on porch swing on the porch of LBJ's boyhood home near Stonewall, Texas, 1965.  Admiral Raborn was a gallant sailor with a fine record but wholly was unsuited handling the politics demanded in the role of heading the CIA and served as the nation's chief spy for little more than a year.  If LBJ appears happy, it's likely because recently he'd been elected POTUS in one of the largest landslides recorded and the troubles caused by the war in Vietnam have yet to consume his presidency.

Some variants of porch are obvious: A “back porch” is a porch at the back of a structure (typically a house) while a “front porch” is at the front; any building with a porch may be described as “porched” (used usually as a modifier).  In architecture there are also what might be called “side porches” but the term is not in general use.  A structure is “porchless” if designed or built without a porch while an “outporch” is a now archaic term meaning “an exterior porch”; it’s of minor interest to historians of architecture because it suggests there was a time free-standing structures also were thought of as porches.  A “porchful” is “the quantity of stuff said to “fill a porch”, those items typically being “porch chairs” or “porch swing” (a seat with armrests and a back, built usually for two, and suspended from the ceiling with hooked chains (or cables) enabling it to rock back & forth.  Collectively such items could be styled “porch furniture” although “patio furniture”, “deck furniture” & “outdoor furniture are now in more common use.  All these pieces might be illuminated by a “porch light” (also as “porch-light” & “porch lamp”, a wall or ceiling-mounted light, often fitted with a protective grill).  Once such accessories have been placed, that constitutes one’s “porchscape” and although tables are not uncommon on larger porches, the term “porch table” seems not to be a thing.

A house with “wrap-around porch”, part of which (left) has been converted to a “sunporch” by the addition of glass panes.

The term “porchway” did not (as the name might suggest) describe an “extended or elongated porch” but was simply a synonym of porch; use is now thought archaic.  A “snow porch” was an enclosed but un-heated structure which was a feature in arctic areas or other places with very cold climates.  Snow porches were accessible from within a dwelling and typically used as storage for firewood and such, the advantage compared with an outside shed being those within didn’t have to walk outside in the cold to fetch a load.  Unlike a “sunroom” (a windowed room optimized for receiving natural light), a “sunporch” was a conventional porch to which windows (sometimes able to be opened) had been added.  In nautical use, a “wetporch” (also called a “moon pool”) was a feature in the hull of a vessel used for lowering equipment into the sea below.  Although used in a number of sub-surface environments and underwater habitats, the structures are most associated with off-shore mining and oil extraction, frequently seen on marine drilling platforms.

117 South Hervey Street, Hope, Hempstead County, Arkansas.

This is the house in which Bill Clinton (b 1946; POTUS 1993-2001) spent the first four years of his life.  In June 1997, it was opened to the public as President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home National Historic Site which was a little opportunistic, his actual birth happening at Hope's now-demolished Julia Chester Hospital, the site now occupied by a funeral home.  The house's porch would be called a “front porch” and although when young Mr Clinton doubtless spent much time “on the porch”, later in life he didn't always “stay on the porch”.

A variant style was the stoop (raised open platform before the entrance of a house, approached by steps and thus neither a veranda nor a porch) and elements of the concept can be seen even in the dwellings uncovered in archaeological digs of prehistoric settlements but stoops seem first to have been so named in the mid eighteenth century to describe the feature in wooden houses in North America (including Canada which shared many of the building styles of the north-eastern US).  Stoop was from the Dutch stoep (flight of steps, doorstep, threshold), from the Middle Dutch, from Proto-Germanic stap- (step).  The Dutch form evolved in South African English as stoep, first recorded in 1797 although oral use may pre-date this.  Stoep was an element of the slur “stoep-sitter” which described a “habitually idle person who spends all day lounging on his stoep”.  Despite being a South African coining, it seems not to have been directly exclusively towards the non-white population, unlike the equivalent form from the US: “porch monkey” (a lazy black person characterized as idling away the hours sitting on a porch).  A modern coining was “porch pirate” (a criminal who practices “porch piracy”, stealing from porches packages delivered by a courier).  Although not a new class of crime, instances have soared with the increasing popularity of on-line shopping and the pattern seems mostly to be opportunistic; porch pirates driving around high-income neighborhoods and stealing whatever cartons are observed, a risky approach in the age of ubiquitous domestic CCTV systems.  However, law enforcement agencies have revealed their analysis indicates some porch piracy may be facilitated by “inside information” with porch pirates “tipped off” (by those somewhere in the supply chain) about desirable or high-value deliveries.

What used to be Standard Christian church architecture.  A narthex is a particular type of porch, many churches having a narthex and one or more porches. 

In church architecture, although Christian churches often had one or more porches, a special case was the narthex, an enclosed passage at the west end of a basilica or church, usually at right angles to the nave and located between the main entrance and the nave.  Theologically (and historically, thus socially), the significance of the narthex in many early Christian and Byzantine basilicas & churches was as well as being a conventional “lobby area”, it was place penitents were required to remain.  Although the archaeological record suggests there may have been some early churches with annexes or even small separate structures located nearby which fulfilled the latter function, narthexes seem quickly to have been integrated.  That means that structurally and architecturally, a narthex was part of the building but theologically was not, its purpose being to permit those not entitled to admission as part of the congregation (mostly catechumens and penitents) nevertheless to hear the service and (hopefully) be encouraged to reform their ways and pursue communion.  For ceremonies other than services, the narthex was otherwise a functional space, the church’s baptismal font often mounted there and in some traditions (both Eastern & Western) worshipers would sometimes anoint themselves and their children with a daub of holy water before stepping foot in the nave; some branches of the Orthodox Church use the narthex for funeral ceremonies.  There were also architectural variations in the early churches which persisted in larger building and cathedrals, the narthex divided in two, (1) an esonarthex (inner narthex) between the west wall and the body of the church proper, separated from the nave and aisles by a wall, trellis or some other means and (2) an external closed space, the exonarthex (outer narthex), a court in front of the church façade with a perimeter defined by on all sides by colonnades.

In the Western Church, reforms removed the requirement to exclude from services those who were not full members of the congregation which of course meant the narthex technically was rendered redundant.  However, the shape churches had assumed with a narthex included had become part of Church tradition so architects continued to include the space, both as part of the nave structure and something semi-separated.  They attracted a number of names, borrowed mostly from secular buildings including vestibule, porch, foyer, hallway, antechamber, anteroom, entrance, entry, entryway, gateway, hall, lobby, portal & portico, the choice dictated sometimes by local tradition, sometimes by the nature of construction and sometimes the choice seems to have been arbitrary.  In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the esonarthex and exonarthex retained distinct liturgical functions, some rituals terminating in the exonarthex while services still exclusively penitential services are usually chanted in the esonarthex.  In dialectal northern English, the casual term for the penitents forced to remain in the narthex was “the narts”.

A example of a portico: 1500 San Ysidro Drive, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles.  Lindsay Lohan livered here for a while during “troubled starlet” phase.

Because there are so many ways porchlike structures can be described, word nerds with a fondness for architecture do like to correct the linguistically sloppy.  In a diary note of 28 June, 1954, documenting an evening in the British Embassy in Washington DC, Winston Churchill’s (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) doctor (Lord Moran (Charles Wilson, 1882-1977; president of the Royal College of Physicians 1941-1949, personal physician to Winston Churchill 1940-1965) recorded telling his patient: “I hope you did not get cold sitting on the balcony in the chill night air.”  “Portico, not balcony, Charles.” he was corrected with a “mischievous smile”.

Porte-cochère of the Jing An Shangri-La Hotel, Shanghai, PRC.  This porte-cochère features what may be the ultimate porch light.  Such lighting structures have been made possible by LED (light emitting diode) technology; before LED's such a thing would have been too maintenance-intensive because of the limited life of bulbs or tubes. 

If a portico sits above a space where vehicles draw up for passengers to alight it becomes a porte-cochère, something now most associated with hotels or the forecourts of commercial buildings.  If a walkway is of any length with a roof supported by rows of pillars, that is a colonnade.  The car is a Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W221, 2005-2013, specifically, a “facelift” version (2009-2013)).  A special version of the W221 (S 300 L) was produced for markets in the Far East which combined the LWB (long wheelbase) platform with the 3.0 litre (183 cubic inch) V6; it was essentially a LWB version of the S 280 (which also, despite the name used the 3.0 V6) sold in many other markets.  The S300 L was produced for the hotel trade and other operators of limousines who didn't want either thirsty V8s or V12s or the less refined diesels.

Lindsay Lohan on a balcony.  Although in general use the terms for such structures are applied loosely, in architecture, a balcony is accessible structure extending from a building and without roof.  Even if a balcony party is covered by a small eave, it is still not a porch.

A portico is best described as an “architectural porch leading to the entrance of a building” so not exactly a “big porch” although most tend to be large scale.  A noted feature of the buildings of Antiquity, a portico is defined by having a roof structure atop a walkway and although many architecture guides insist this must be supported by supported or enclosed within walls, a roof protruding from a building with no such ground-based anchorage (a favourite trick of architects in the mid-twentieth century) can be thought a portico if there’s some sort of walkway beneath.  The essential feature is the provision of shelter from the elements.  Those seeking a bit of visual grandeur (not only the McMansion crew) sometimes will add a pediment (a triangular upper part) atop but architects caution this can look absurd or pretentious on smaller structures because the sense of proportion works best at scale.

The colloquial phrase “hard dog to keep on the porch” is a lament used (perhaps often resignedly) by women of their husband’s or boyfriend’s chronic infidelity, describing men who are unfaithful and generally “difficult to keep an eye on.”  Although long in idiomatic use in the Southern US, in 1999 it came to wider attention when used by crooked Hillary Clinton of her husband, serial philander Bill Clinton.  Crooked Hillary must have picked up the expression while living in Arkansas; she began her ascent of the political and financial ladder by marrying Bill Clinton and with every election of him there as attorney-general (1977-1979) or governor (1979-1981 & 1983-1992), voters received a free copy of crooked Hillary.  When he became POTUS, she remained part of the package as FLOTUS 1993-2001, the consensus among political scientists that “he’d never have made it without her and vice-versa”.  Wives often of course do sometimes leave husbands who refuse to “stay on the porch” but crooked Hillary stayed and that was a defensible decision because, like many transactional relationships, the choice of “stay or go” is a thing of cost-benefit analysis; in a marriage, like most of life, for everything you do there’s a price to be paid.  

Problem-solver crooked Hillary finds a solution.

Crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; FLOTUS 1993-2001, far left), Chelsea Clinton (b 1980; FDOTUS 1993-2001, centre left), Bill Clinton, centre right) and Buddy (1997-2002; FD²OTUS 1997-2001, far right), strolling over the White House lawn, prior to a two-week vacation at Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, 18 August 1998.  Unfortunately, crooked Hillary's expectation she'd found a companion loyal enough to “stay on the porch” wasn't realized, Buddy killed in a road accident outside the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York after running off to chase a car (though the vehicle wasn't one of the rare Monica 560s).  Whether to this day crooked Hillary blames her husband for “giving Buddy ideas” isn't known but certainly, he set the dog a bad example. 

What Can I Say (1983), original vinyl pressing by Gail Davies.  Record store staff weren’t always fastidious when applying the adhesive promotional stickers.

South of the Mason-Dixon Line, the expression must also have had some currency in the form “hard dog to keep under the porch” which indicates, at least in some cases or places, the particular significance of the architectural space was the roof rather than the floor.  The C&W (Country & Western) song You're a Hard Dog (To Keep Under the Porch) was co-written by Susanna Clark (1939–2012) and the extraordinarily prolific (credited with over 4000 C&W songs) Harlan Howard (1927-2002); it was first recorded by Gail Davies (b 1948) and released on What Can I Say (1983), her fifth studio album (a question mark not used in the album’s title).

Porch joke

An unemployed man went door-to-door, seeking jobs.  Impressed by the work-ethic, after agreeing an hourly rate, one resident handed him a brush and two large cans of green paint, telling him: “You can go and paint the porch out back.”  Three hours later the man returned and said: “I done finished the painting mister and I done a good job but I swear to you sir, that ain’t no Porsh, it be a Ferrari.”  In the original German, Porsche is pronounced with two syllables (Paw-shuh), not the sometimes heard single syllable Porsh.  In German, the final “e” is pronounced as a short uh.

Some paint required: 1954 Ferrari 500 Mondial, as sold (top left) and on-track in period (top right) and 1972 Dino 246 GT, fire damaged (bottom left) and a 1972 246 GT in Medium Green Metallizzato over Nero leather (bottom right).  It's believed the factory finished only 21 of the 2,295 246 GTs coupés or 1,274 246 GTS spyders (targas) in Medium Green Metallizzato but another shade of green, Verde Medio Nijinsky, was rarer still, only three of those leaving the line.  The Dino was advertised for sale at US$129,500 and was sold although the price paid was not disclosed.  The wrecked 500 Mondial (the second one built and one of 13 examples with Pininfarina spider coachwork) at auction in August 2023 realized US$1.875 million.  It has yet to resurface, restored or otherwise.

A classic Queenslander with the porches the locals tend to call verandas.  Many Queenslanders were built on stilts: (1) to encourage natural cooling, (2) as a form of flood mitigation, (3) to facilitate easier pest and termite control and (4) to make hilly sites adaptable to house construction.

The term “vernacular architecture” entered the jargon of the profession in 1964 after being coined by Austrian-born US architect Bernard Rudofsky (1905–1988).  It describes indigenous designs or methods of construction that evolved organically to suit local climates, available construction materials, social traditions and specific human needs.  In Queensland, Australia, the signature “vernacular architecture” was and remains the “Queenslander” although they’re less common than in their heyday.  In its classic form, a Queenslander can be imagined as a “house with a wrap-around porch” although the local term has long been “veranda”.  At scale, the style seems to have emerged in the 1840s as the optimal way, for a given footprint, to maximize air-flow and reduce internal temperatures, things of consequence in the sub-tropics and, in the age before electricity (let alone air-conditioning) much appreciated by British & European migrants from more temperate, less humid regions.  Much of Queensland also was subject to hard rain and the verandas provided expansive living, eating and even sleeping spaces which could be used rain, hail or shine.  Snow and ice rarely was an issue.

The Erechtheion and the Caryatid Porch

The Erechtheion on the Acropolis, Athens, Greece.

One of the world’s most famous porches is the most striking feature of the Erechtheion (from the Ancient Greek Ἐρέχθειον (Erékhtheion)), an Ancient Greek Ionic temple-telesterion on the north side of the Acropolis, dedicated to the goddess Athena.  Built late in the fifth century BC, the Erechtheion was one of the first major projects following the devastation of the Greco-Persian Wars, the re-building of the Acropolis thus vested with all the symbolic ambition of a “civilization reborn”.  Given that, while the mathematically precise lines of the Parthenon impart a projection of order, rationality, and imperial confidence, the Erechtheion seems architecturally anarchic but it too was a piece of messaging, preserving ancient, sacred traditions within the new Classical architectural.  Unlike so many of the neat, consistent, often symmetrical structures which have survived from Antiquity, the Erechtheion is an architectural outlier because the design needed simultaneously to solve several political, religious and topographical problems.  Even today, it would be a challenge on the site to fulfil the demands while achieving the symmetrical perfection normally associated with Classical Greek temples.  For those reasons, anyone undertaking a tour of Roman and Greek ruins would, on first sight, find the Erechtheion startling, the look fragmented and seemingly so improvised many might assume additions have over the years been “tacked-on”.  The irregularity was deliberate, the location not being dedicated to a single deity; as well as honoring King Erechtheus, the architects were compelled to incorporate several ancient cult sites and sacred objects associated with Athena, Poseidon, and a grab-bag of local heroes and ancestral cults.

From the right angle, on the right day the Erechtheion can make a memorable photograph.

Mostly though, despite the name, the myth most celebrated was the legend of the site being the place where Athena and Poseidon competed for patronage of Athens, dedicated cultists holding the soil contained physical remnants of the epic contest including a sacred salt-water spring, Poseidon’s trident mark etched in the rock and Athena’s olive tree.  Because these relics of the past were in architecturally inconvenient places, the structure of the Erechtheion had to be “built around them”, thus precluding the simple rectangular floor plan and associated motifs which are such a marker of the temples from Antiquity.  The topography was also significant, the Acropolis rock beneath sloping sharply, meaning the surface was uneven.  As a piece of civil engineering this could of course have been levelled (if one had enough time and slaves, mountains could be moved) but that would have disturbed the relics so the work proceeded on what was a most irregular surface.  That made construction more of a challenge but did result in one of Antiquity’s most striking temples, the east and west sides at different heights, the interior chambers located on floors and varied levels and porches are placed asymmetrically, one consequence being it emerging as a complex of interconnected sanctuaries rather than the more familiar, single unified hall.

Within are several shrines, the eastern section dedicated to Athena Polias (Athena of the City), while the western portions were associated with Poseidon-Erechtheus and hero cults (best thought of as “best supporting actors” in Academy Award (Oscar) terms) meaning the entrances and their associated porches and portici served different ritual functions.  Although the layout and form were dictated by circumstances, in many ways, what was done proved a harbinger for much of public architecture in the centuries to come as the shape of “multi-function” buildings began increasingly to include physical segregation between spaces in both the horizontal and vertical with separate provisions for ingress and egress.  So while not “geometrically pure” in the Greek way, there’s an organic charm to the Erechtheion although Athenian citizens upon a first sight must have thought it peculiar or even weird architecture; the “shock of the new” is not unique to modernity.

The Caryatid Porch, the Porch of the Maidens.

The structure’s most famous and oft-photographed feature is the south porch, supported by a half dozen sculpted female figures: the Caryatids.  Caryatids was from the Middle French cariatide, from the Latin caryatides, from the Ancient Greek Καρυάτιδες (Karuátides), the noun plural of Καρυᾶτις (Karuâtis) (a priestess of Artemis, female figures used as bearing-shafts), from καρυατίζω (karuatízō) (dance the Karyatid festival dance) from Καρύαι (Karúai) (a town in Laconia with a temple of Artemis and the site of festivals in her honor).  The orthodox etymology is disputed by some scholars but the literal translation of karyatides is “maidens of Karyai” (an ancient Peloponnese settlement) and the young ladies from there were legendarily beautiful & healthy (and thus ideal “breeding stock”, good genes then as sought in mothers as they were in livestock).  In the language of architecture, caryatids were sculpted female figures used as supports in the manner of a column or pillar.  By necessity of physics, most caryatids supported the entablature (all of that part of a classical temple above the capitals of the columns; includes the architrave, frieze, and cornice but not the roof) on the head rather than the raised arms often seen in free-standing statutes, this done for reasons of structural integrity rather than aesthetics although it was a nod also to the notion of the girls of Karyai often being depicted as a canephora (basket-bearer), carrying to feasts of the goddesses Athena and Artemis fruits, nuts or sacred objects in woven cane baskets they placed on their heads.

The Parthenon on the Acropolis, Athens, Greece.

The Parthenon is the classic example of the Greek temple and more representative of the type than the Erechtheion.  It was proto-second wave feminist comrade Chairman Mao (Mao Zedong 1893–1976; chairman of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) 1949-1976) who reminded Chinese men “Women hold up half the sky” although he made the famous remark in 1968 at the height of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) which makes for an amusing historical juxtaposition.  Still, it does suggest that even if contemporary Athenians might have thought the Erechtheion a bit weird, the sight of a half-dozen young ladies holding up a roof built by a culture which was patriarchal (as was then the way) would have pleased the comrade Chairman who’d have felt assured the architects were good Maoists, the PRC’s (People’s Republic of China) first constitution (1954) implying gender equality in Article 85 (Citizens of the People's Republic of China are equal before the law) and made explicit in Article 86 (Citizens of the People's Republic of China are equal before the law) & Article 96 (Women in the People's Republic of China enjoy equal rights with men in all spheres of political, economic, cultural, social and domestic life).  Reading the PRC’s 1954 constitution, it clear the place was as much as a paradise for citizens as the Soviet Union must have been based on comrade Stalin’s (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) 1936 constitution although in Article 86 of the PRC’s document it was mentioned rights could be denied to those the state declared “insane”, a clause which proved handy over the years, as did a similar provision in the USSR.

The Parthenon, Centennial Park, Nashville, Tennessee.

Designed by architect William Crawford Smith (1837–1899), the Parthenon which stands in Centennial Park, Nashville, Tennessee, was built in 1897 as part of the Tennessee Centennial Exposition.  A full-scale reproduction of the original, it's now an art museum and in the Treasury Room are displayed plaster replicas of the Parthenon Marbles, cast from the original sculptures.  In the nineteenth century, Nashville was one of a number of cities around the world often styled "the Athens of the South" and this doubtless had some influence on the choice of the building as the exposition's centrepiece but while some of the other structures erected for the event were in the style of buildings from antiquity, the Parthenon was the only one to use exact dimensions.  The 1897 structure was intended to last only for the duration of the exposition and was thus built with plaster, wood & brick but such was the local support for its retention it was left standing, soon beginning to deteriorate.  By 1920 however it was a noted tourist attraction and had become accepted as a feature of the city so, on the same foundations, it was rebuilt in concrete, the project completed in 1931.  Concrete however doesn't possess the same qualities of durability as granite and marble so for the replica to maintain its appearance and structural integrity, progressive replacements of components will be required, engineers noting the essentially modular nature of the construction means it may never need wholly to be re-built.  If it endures long enough, it may end up as something of a Ship of Theseus.

The new headquarters of the state media’s China Daily during construction.  When finished if looked less confronting but one can see why the President Xi knew there had to be a good, hard crackdown on “weird architecture” being erected.

Much in the PRC has of course changed since comrade Chairman Mao’s time although gender equality remains constitutionally entrenched and that no women ever have made it to the Politburo’s ruling Central Committee may simply reflect them not trying hard enough, after all, during all those decades the One-Child Policy (1980-2016) was in effect, it’s not as if they could complain about the demands on their time made by raising a large family.  Still, the spirit of “Women hold up half the sky” must remain current thought in Beijing but whether President Xi Jinping (b 1953; General Secretary of the CCP & paramount leader of the PRC since 2012) would have approved of either the maidens of the Caryatid Porch "holding up all the roof" or the Erechtheion’s many other architectural idiosyncrasies may be doubtful.  As early as 2014, not best pleased by the stylistic exuberance seen in China's recent skyscrapers, Mr Xi called for an end to what he called “weird architecture”, telling planners buildings should be “suitable, economic, green and pleasing to the eye” rather than “oversized, xenocentric & weird”.  It might be concluded that while he’d have admired the elegant simplicity of the lines of the Parthenon, Mr Xi would have used of the Erechtheion the same critique he may (in words echoing an earlier critic of aesthetics) have levelled at what he was seeing on the Beijing skyline: “muddle, chaotic, dissonant, confused and intentionally ugly”.  China’s architects he may have accused of building stuff that was “weird” but, well-skilled at reading between the CCP's lines, they’d have understood they’d just been labeled “formalists”.  Carefully, they took note.

Now replicas but, thousands of years on, still doing the job.

Although at the time the caryatids were a highly unconventional addition to a major temple, as an architectural motif, they were not unique as replacements for columns or pillars, the later male versions being the telamon or atlas; unlike the caryatids, the male analogues sometimes were carved on a vast scale.  Nor was the structural technique only anthropomorphic, roofs sometimes supported by renderings in the shape of swords, serpents, fish or other wildlife although what some Instagrammers may not realize is the figures today dutifully holding up the roof of the Erechtheion’s Caryatid Porch are immaculately rendered reproductions, the originals safely preserved as displays in the Acropolis Museum except for one which sits in the British Museum.  That one was “obtained” by Lord Elgin (1766–1841) during his expeditions to Greece between 1800-1803 when he “purchased” (disputed by the government of Greece which suggests something like “plundered”) what came to be known as the “Elgin Marbles”.