Cockatrice

Cockatrice (pronounced kok-uh-tris)

(1) A mythological monster, hatched supposedly by a serpent from the egg of a rooster and thus represented usually with the head, legs, and wings of a rooster, atop the body and tail of a serpent; the alternative name was basilisk.  Depicted usually as being the size and shape of a dragon or wyvern but with some lizard-like characteristics, if so minded it could kill with just a glance and could be slain only by tricking it into seeing its own reflection.  A young cockatrice was a chickatrice.

(2) In the Bible, a venomous serpent.

(3) Figuratively, a mistress; a harlot (obsolete).

(4) Figuratively, a mistress; (obsolete).

(5) Figuratively, any venomous or deadly thing (obsolete).

(6) The cobra (the common name of a number of venomous snakes, most of which belong to the genus Naja) (contested).

1382: From the Middle English cocatrice, from the Middle French cocatris, from the Old French cocatriz, from the Medieval Latin plural form caucātrīces & the unattested Latin calcātrīx (she who treads upon something), the feminine of the unattested calcātor (tracker), the construct built from calcō (tread) or calcā(re) (to tread) (a verbal derivative of calx (heel)) + -tor (the agent suffix).  The Latin was a direct translation of the Greek word ichneúmōn or ikhneúmōn which carried the same meaning.  Cockatrice is a noun; the noun plural is cockatrices.

The origin of the cockatrice certainly in ancient and frightening & fantastic beasts are common in the fables of many cultures but the one closest in appearance is thought to be one from the legends of Ancient Egypt, the mortal enemy of the crocodile, which it tracks down and kills.  In the way stories became mangled & tangled as they travelled between languages and across borders, in the Christian West, the cockatrice became conflated with the basilisk (a fire-breathing, snake-like dragon also with a murderous glance).  In the medieval era, such morphing was not uncommon and the popular association with a cock led to the legend the creature was born of a serpent, hatched from a cock's egg although there’s little to suggest there was much of a link with crocodile.  The connection with serpents persisted and it appears several times in the King James Version (KJV, 1611)) of the Bible, used to translate a Hebrew word meaning “serpent”.  In heraldry, it was used as a rampant, a beast half cock, half serpent and in slang it was used from the late sixteenth century to mean “a woman of loose virtue; a harlot”, an indication men are never short of sources when searching for ways to disparage women.  Etymologists note frequent references to “cockatrice” being a words used to describe the cobra, presumably because of the snake’s unusual hooded head and its habit of rearing up and “staring” but there appears to be scant evidence of actual use.

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

The cockatrice appears in the Christian Bible’s Old Testament (Isaiah 11:5-11; King James Version (KJV, 1611)):

5. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.

6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

7. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

8. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

9. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

10. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

11. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

Isaiah was the first of the Latter Prophets in the Hebrew Bible and the first of the Major Prophets in the Christian Old Testament.  In Isaiah 11, the prophet is describing to his listeners the nature of the world during the rule of a mysterious future king of Israel.  This king’s rule will be global, over the earth, men & animals and all beasts, prey & predator, will lie down together and eat together, all without bloodshed or death; in peace, together shall they live.  To illustrate how different will be this paradise, Isaiah says both the baby and the young child safely ill play surrounded by deadly, venomous snakes and be safe even from a cockatrice.  Readers were free to interpret the verse literally as an imagining the very nature of animals will change under this rule or, metaphorically, that the new regime of the Messiah's kingdom will usher in what would now be called a “new world order”, one in which all nations and peoples peacefully co-exist.  Isaiah needs to be read in conjunction with the Book of Revelation which says at the very end of history, in the new heaven and new earth, there will be no more death, mourning, crying, or pain and all wickedness will be banished from the Earth.

William Shakespeare (1564–1616) lived in the England of the Elizabethan age, a time when the cockatrice was a fixture in popular culture and he used references to the mythological beast and its ability to kill with just a glance or as Shakespeare would put it, its “death-darting eye”, having the duchess in Richard III (1594) say in Act 4, Scene 1:

O ill-dispersing wind of misery!
O my accursèd womb, the bed of death!
A cockatrice hast thou hatched to the world,
Whose unavoided eye is murderous.

Crooked Hillary Clinton: How Shakespeare would have imagined “death-darting eyes”.

He returned to the allusion in Act 3, Scene 2 of Romeo and Juliet (1597) in the words of the doomed Juliet:

What devil art thou that dost torment me thus?
This torture should be roared in dismal hell.
Hath Romeo slain himself? Say thou but 'Ay,'
And that bare vowel 'I' shall poison more
Than the death-darting eye of cockatrice.
I am not I if there be such an 'I,'
Or those eyes shut that make thee answer 'Ay.'
If he be slain, say 'Ay,' or if not, 'No.'
Brief sounds determine of my weal or woe.

From before Antiquity to the horror films of the twenty-first century, fantastical beasts have often appeared and while most have been created to frighten, some have been more whimsical, such as the Jabberwock which first appeared in the nonsense poem Jabberwocky, written by Lewis Carroll (1832–1898) and included in Through the Looking-Glass (1871), the sequel to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865).  The poem was about the killing of the fearsome Jabberwock and is part of what makes the two books among the most enjoyable in English literature but in literary theory “jabberwocky” has also been co-opted to mean “a form of nonsense; unintelligible speech or writing”, the connection illustrated by one fragment from the poem:

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

The author helpfully had Humpty Dumpty say that brillig means “four o'clock in the afternoon - the time when you start broiling things for dinner” but generally allowed his readers to make of the words what they will which probably was the best approach.  Alice in Wonderland was fun but those who followed would make linguistic gymnastics something else and James Joyce’s (1882–1941) Finnegans Wake (1939) was no fun for most although Anthony Burgess (1917-1993) claimed to find “a laugh on just about every page” and for A Clockwork Orange (1962) created his own slang argot, derived from a number of linguistic traditions.  As far as is known, Joyce never discussed jabberwocky but Burgess acknowledged the debt.  Other famous beasts include the leviathan & behemoth.  The leviathan was a truly massive sea creature rooted in ancient Middle Eastern and biblical texts, portrayed typically as a monstrous sea serpent or dragon, representing the primal forces of chaos and the ocean.  The behemoth was also of biblical origin and described generally as a massive, earth-bound beast, often symbolizing power and strength, thus the frequent use of the ox as an image, the creature dominating the land as the leviathan does the oceans.

Behemoth: 2020 Freightliner M2-106 in silver over black leather upholstery with alligator-hide inserts and timber trim, modified by Western Hauler, Fort Worth, Texas.

The big (and in recent decades they have got very big) US pick-up trucks appals some sensitive souls who sometimes damn the things as “behemoths” but for those for whom even they weren’t big enough, there were companies which would add enough bling to the first generation (2003-2023) of the Freightliner M2 medium-duty truck to some actually bought the things for private use.

The very clever and deliciously wicked English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) used leviathan and behemoth as metaphors to explore concepts of social and political power in his works, especially in his famous book Leviathan (1651) and the lesser-known Behemoth (published posthumously in 1682), each creature deployed as a literary device to symbolize different forms of political structures and conflicts.  In Leviathan, the sea creature represented strong, centralized government or sovereign power, the state which Hobbes regarded as not merely desirable but essential.  He envisioned society as a “body politic” in which all individuals come together under a single, absolute authority to escape the chaos of the natural state, which Hobbes described in his most memorable phrase: “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  The Leviathan represented the overarching power of the sovereign, something necessary to maintain order and peace, a vision of a government which could (and should) act decisively to suppress internal conflicts and keep external threats at bay, making it at once a protector and potentially an oppressor; little wonder then Leviathan has been found on the bookshelf of more than one overthrown tyrant.  In Behemoth, Hobbes used the monster of the land when describing the chaotic and destructive nature of civil war, focusing specifically focusing the English Civil Wars of the seventeenth century and the theme of the book was the way parties and political factions and ideologies can tear a society apart.  Unlike the stabilizing leviathan, behemoth represents the forces of disorder and division that arise when people reject central authority and plunge into conflict.  It’s a cautionary tale, a warning that when men live in a society lacking a unifying authority, things will devolve into factionalism, chaos and political instability, the final result something like the “state of nature” in which life descended to something “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”.

Lunch

Lunch (pronounced luhnch)

(1) A light midday meal between breakfast and dinner; luncheon.

(2) Any light meal or snack.

(3) To eat lunch.

(4) In slang, as “out to lunch”, dim, vague, uselessly ineffectual.

(5) In slang as “lunchy”, old-fashioned; passé; out of style (obsolete).

(6) In slang as “eating their lunch”, outwitting an opponent.

(7) In Caribbean slang (among older folk), mid afternoon tea.

(8) In first-class cricket, the break in play between the first and second sessions (confusingly for those new to cricket, although the first session is often called the "pre-lunch session", the second is known as the "lunch session" and not the "post lunch session").

(9) In Minnesota, USA, any small meal, especially one eaten at a social gathering.

1580:  It’s never been clear which came first: lunch or luncheon.  Origin of both is thought to lie in a dissimilated variant of nuncheon, the Middle English nonechenche (noon ling meal and drink), equivalent to none (noon) + schench (from the Old English scenc or scencan (to pour out, give drink)), cognate with the Dutch and German schenken.  Apparent unrelated, Old English had nonmete (afternoon meal, literally "noon-meat").  Nonechenche was possibly altered by the northern English dialect lunch (hunk of bread or cheese) from 1590 which may be from lump or the Spanish lonja (slice, literally “loin”).  Because dinner in the sense of the biggest or main meal of the day) could be eaten either at around noon, in the evening or at night, there was a need for a meal to fill the gap between breakfast and dinner.  Lunch is a noun & verb, luncher is a noun, lunching is a noun & verb and lunched is a verb; the noun plural is lunches.

A montage of a languid Lindsay Lohan lingering over lunch.

The idea of lunch as it’s now understood took a long time to evolve, to “take a lunch” in 1786 is recorded as eating a chunk of something (perhaps evolved from lump), carved sufficiently large to constitute a filling meal and as late as 1817, the US Webster’s Dictionary offered as the only definition of lunch "a large piece of food", a meaning long obsolete and in the 1820s, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) thought it either “a vulgarism or a fashionable affectation".   Nevertheless, lunch’s intrusion into the language in the nineteenth century does suggest some sort of social change was afoot, either in the type, style or timing of meals or at least the words used to describe them.  Lunch-money was attested from 1868; lunch-time from 1821; lunch hour from 1840 and the lunch-break from 1960.  The slang phrase out to lunch in the sense of “a bit vague, dim, clueless (but some way short of actually insane) was first recorded in recorded 1955, the notion of being "not there" and instead at lunch.  The luncheon voucher was a public health measure, introduced in 1946 by the UK’s post-war Labour government (1945-1951).  It was literally a paper voucher which represented the mechanism by which the government would subsidize midday meals taken in private restaurants by employees in workplaces where there was no staff canteen.  Luncheon vouchers were an attempt to improve the national diet by encouraging the consumption of healthy, nutritious food at a time when so many basic items were still subject to the rationing imposed during wartime (indeed, some foodstuffs were subject to rationing only after the conflict ceased).  In an example of bureaucratic inertia, the scheme existed to an extent until 2013 by which time the effects of inflation had made the by then trivial subsidy inconsequential.

Receptacles in which to store one’s lunch for transport have a history.  The lunch-box is documented from 1864, the lunch-pail from 1891.  Those were descriptive nouns whereas lunch-bucket emerged in the 1990s as an adjective indicating working-class men or values, bucket presumably the best word because it was universally understood in the English-speaking world to an extent pail was not.  Lunch-bag seems never to have become a common form despite being widely used but in the 1970s, the verb brown-bag (and the related brown-bagging) referring to bringing lunch or liquor in a brown paper bag.  A long-time staple of a lunch-pail’s contents, lunch-meat (a processed form of meat-based protein produced in a size which, when sliced, was aligned with the slices of standard loaves of bread and thus convenient for making sandwiches) was first documented in 1931.  The lunch-counter (a long, elevated table or bench where customers eat standing or sitting on high stools) is an 1854 invention of US English.

The possible future of lunch: Grilled jellyfish.  Although many fish species are in decline, jellyfish numbers are growing.  The part eaten for lunch is called the umbrella. 

The portmanteau word brunch dates from circa 1890, a British student slang merging of breakfast and lunch, according to the magazine Punch (1 August 1896).  It appeared in 1895 in the defunct Hunter's Weekly, but two years earlier, at the University of Oxford, the students had drawn what must at the time have seemed an important distinction: The combination-meal, when nearer the usual breakfast hour, is "brunch" and, when nearer luncheon, is "blunch".  That’s a linguistic curiosity in that the brunch survived while blunch did not yet the modern understanding of a brunch appears to be something taken closer to the time of lunch than breakfast.  It may be that brunch was just the more pleasingly attractive word, blunch not so well rolling off the tongue.  Several spellings of luncheon were noted in the decades after the 1640s, the now standardised form not widespread until 1706.  Of uncertain origin, in the 1580s was used to describe something like the northern English dialectal lunch (hunk of bread or cheese), though influenced by the Spanish lonja (a slice, literally "loin"), blended with or influenced by nuncheon, from the mid-fourteenth century Middle English nonechenche, (light mid-day meal), from none (noon) + schench (drink), from the Old English scenc, from scencan (pour out).

The possible future of lunch: Fishcakes.  Fishcakes are a way by-products of the industrial processing of seafood can be sold as a protein source (ie make use of what would be otherwise used for agricultural feed, the pet-food business or end up a waste product.

The etymology of all these words is tangled and there are reasons to suspect the similar forms arose independently in different place rather than as forks of anything vaguely lineal, the OED discounting the notion of lunching, which dates from the 1650s, being derived from the verb lunch because that wasn’t to be attested for another century, the OED suggesting there may be some connection (by analogy) with words like truncheon etc to simulate a French origin which is speculative but such things are not unknown in ever class-conscious England.  Whatever the origin, it does seem to have been used to describe an early afternoon meal eaten by those who take dinner at noon.

Impeach

Impeach (pronounced im-peech)

(1) To accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.

(2) In law, as “to impeach a witness”; to demonstrate in court that a testimony under oath contradicts another testimony from the same person, usually one taken during deposition.

(3) To bring an accusation against; to call in question; cast an imputation upon:

(4) In British criminal law, to accuse of a crime, especially of treason or some other offence against the state

(5) In the US and some other jurisdictions, to charge (a public official) with an offence committed in office.

(6) To hinder, impede, or prevent (archaic).

(7) To call to account (now rare).

1350–1400: From the Middle English empechen & enpeshen, from the Anglo-French empecher (to hinder) from the Old French empeechier from the Late Latin impedicāre (to fetter, trap, entangle or catch), the construct being im- + pedic(a) (a fetter (derivative of pēs (foot))) + -ā- (a thematic vowel) + -re (the Latin infinitive suffix) and cognate with French empêcher (to prevent); The most usual Latin forms were impedicō & impedicāre.  Impeach is a verb, impeachment & impeachability &  are nouns, impeaching & impeached are verbs and impeachable & impeachmentworthy are adjectives (although not all authorities acknowledge the latter as a standard form); the noun plural is impeachments.

An English import the Americans made their own 

Although most associated with the US where the constitution permits the House of Representatives to impeach government officials (most notably the president) and send them for trial in the Senate, the concept of impeachment is a borrowing from the procedures of the UK Parliament.  Always a rare mechanism, impeachment was first used in England in 1376 with the last UK case in 1806 and while technically extant, is probably obsolete although it’s not unknown for relics of the UK’s long legal past occasionally to be resuscitated.  What is more likely is that matters once dealt with by impeachment would now be brought before a court although most historians and constitutional lawyers seem to believe it remains part of UK constitutional law and abolition would demand legislation.  That was exactly what select committees recommended in 1967 and again ten years later but nothing was done and despite the New Labour government (1997-2010) imposing some quite radical structural changes on the legal system, the mechanism of impeachment remained untouched.  In September 2019, it was reported that opposition politicians in the House of Commons were considering impeachment proceedings against Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) "on charges of gross misconduct in relation to the unlawful prorogation of parliament", as well as his threat to break the law by failing to comply with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (which required the prime-minister in certain circumstances to seek an extension to the Brexit withdrawal date of 31 October 2019).  Mr Johnson survived that one though it proved a temporary reprieve for his premiership.

Although the Sturm und Drang of Donald Trump’s (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) unprecedented two impeachments was entertaining for political junkies, as a spectacle the two trials were muted affairs because the verdicts were both predictable.  Under the US Constitution, the House of Representatives has the “sole Power of Impeachment” (essentially a form of indictment in other proceedings) while the Senate is vested with “the sole Power to try all Impeachments”.  An act of impeachment requires only a majority vote on the floor of a House but conviction in the Senate demand “the concurrence of two thirds of the members present”.  Given the numbers and the state of partisan which these days characterizes the two-party system, nobody in Washington DC believed there was even a vague prospect of Mr Trump being convicted.  Still, the dreary, confected, set-piece speeches on both sides were like slabs of raw meat thrown to the attack dogs watching Fox News and NBC so in that sense it was a kind of substitute for what the Founding Fathers might have hoped would have been the standard of debate in the Congress, 250-odd years on.  In an ominous sign, the Republicans have since made attempts to stage a retaliatory impeachment trial of Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) despite knowing there is no prospect of a conviction.  Political scientists have expressed concern this may be a harbinger of something like the situation is some countries (such as Pakistan & Bangladesh (the old West & East Pakistan)) where it is almost a form of ritualized revenge to pursue one's predecessor through the courts, jailing them if possible.  The hope is that such a culture might be peculiar to the Trump era and something less confrontation might emerge when he leaves the stage although, what he has threatened in a second term does sound like he has vengeance on his mind.

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

The best impeachment in the US was the one which never was, the one Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) avoided by resigning the presidency on 9 August 1974.  That an impeachment became inevitable was Nixon’s own fault.  The evidence of those acts of Nixon which met the standard of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” existed only on the tapes which came to the knowledge of those investigating the White House’s involvement in the Watergate affair only through a chance remark by an aide; prior to that the existence of the president’s recording mechanism had been restricted to a small circle around Nixon.  There was a wealth of other material which hinted or suggested there may have been unlawful acts by Nixon but what was lacking was what came to be called the “smoking gun”, the undeniable proof.  That proof was on the tapes and as soon as knowledge of them became public, Nixon should have destroyed them and the ways and means existed close to home.  Even in oppressively hot Washington summers, Nixon would have the air-conditioning turned high to provide a wintery ambiance and have a log fire burning in the fireplace, close to which he would sit while writing his noted on yellow legal pads; it was a lifelong habit.

Washington Post 7 August 1974.

The tapes should have been tossed into that fire and that would have solved the problem, a smoking tape no smoking gun.  It would of course have created other problems but they were political and could be handled in a way legal difficulties could not.  However, as soon as the tapes were subpoenaed they became evidence and their destruction would have been an obstruction of justice or worse.  Nixon had a narrow window of opportunity and didn’t take it, apparently convinced the doctrine of executive privilege would operate to ensure he wasn’t required to surrender the tapes to the investigators although in some of his subsequent writings he also maintained he genuinely believed they contained nothing which could cause him problems.  Given he genuinely would have had no knowledge of what exactly was on the tapes, that is at least plausible but all the material since published suggests his opinion of the protection executive privilege affords a president was the critical factor.  As it was the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) limited the application of the doctrine and compelled Nixon to hand over the tapes.

New York Times, 9 August 1974.

With the release of the “smoking gun tape” which contained recordings proving Nixon was implicated in the cover-up of the involvement in the Watergate break-in by staff connected to the White House, his support in the Congress collapsed and those Republican representatives who previously had refused to vote for impeachment switched sides and the same day, after sounding out the numbers in the Senate, a delegation of senior Republican senators told the president he would be convicted and by a decisive margin.  What was revealed on the tapes was enough to seal his fate but the verdict of history might have been worse still because To this day, mystery surrounds one tape in particular, a recording of a discussion between Nixon and HR Haldeman (1926–1993; White House chief of staff 1969-1973) on 20 June 1972, three days after the Watergate break-in.  Of obviously great interest, when reviewed, there was found to be a gap of 18½ minutes, the explanations offered of how, why or by whom the erasure was effected ranging from the humorously accidental to the darkly conspiratorial but half a century on, it remains a mystery.  Taking advantage of new data-recovery technology, the US government did in subsequent decades make several attempts to “un-delete” the gap but without success and it may be, given the nature of magnetic tape, that there is literally nothing left to find.  However, the tape is stored in a secure, climate-controlled facility in case technical means emerge and while it’s unlikely the contents would reveal anything not already known or assumed, it would be of great interest to historians.  What would be even more interesting is the identity of who it was that erased the famous 18½ minutes but that will likely never be known; after fifty years, it’s thought that were there to be any death-bed confessions, they should by now have been heard.  Some have their lists of names of those who might have "pressed the erase button" and while mostly sub-sets of Watergate's "usual suspects", one who tends not to appear is Nixon himself, the usual consensus being he was technically too inept to operate a tape machine though it's not impossible he ordered someone to do the deed.  However it happened, the suspects most often mentioned as having had their "finger on the button" (which may have been a foot-pedal) are Nixon's secretary and his chief of staff. 

On 8 August 1974, Nixon resigned his office, effective the next day, saying in conclusion during his nationally televised speech:

To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as President, I must put the interest of America first. America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad. To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home. Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office.

Herblock's (Herbert Block; 1909–2001) Watergate affair-era take on Richard Nixon's then novel position on the presidency and the US Constitution, Washington Post, 13 March 1974.  The cartoon has been noted by some in the light of Donald Trump's comments about the extent of presidential immunity.

Garland

Garland (pronounced gahr-luhnd)

(1) A wreath or festoon of flowers, leaves, or other material, worn for ornament or as an honor or hung on something as a decoration; an accolade or mark of honor.

(2) To crown, adorn or deck with such an object.

(3) A representation of such a wreath or festoon.

(4) In publishing, a collection of short literary pieces, as poems and ballads; a literary miscellany.

(5) In nautical use, a band, collar, or grommet or ring of rope lashed to a spar for convenience in handling.

(6) In admiralty jargon, a netted bag used by sailors to store provisions.

(7) In mining, a metal gutter installed around the inside of a mineshaft, to catch water running down inside the shaft and funnel it into a drainpipe.

1275–1325: From the Middle English gerlande, gerelande, garlande & garland (used to mean both "wreath of flowers" & "crown of gold or silver), from the Old French garlande, garlaunde, gerlande & guerlande (from which Modern French gained guirlande) from the Frankish wierlōn & wieralōn, a frequentative form of the Frankish wierōn (to adorn, bedeck), from wiera (a gold thread), akin to the Old High German wieren (to adorn) & wiara (gold thread).  The Frankish forms alluded to the notion of "an ornament of refined gold" (most likely "of twisted gold wire"), from the Proto-Germanic wira- & wera-, a suffixed form of the primitive Indo-European root wei- (to turn, twist).  Variations of garland exist in many Romanic languages including the Old Spanish guarlanda, the French guirlande, the Italian ghirlanda and the Portuguese grinalda.  The verb in the sense of "to make a garland" or "to crown with a garland" emerged in the late sixteenth century.  Garland & garlanding are nouns & verbs, garlanded is a verb & adjective, garlander is a noun and garlandless is an adjective; the noun plural is garlands.

Commitment issues: Hamlet and Ophelia by Agnes Pringle (1853-1934)

Flowers appealed to William Shakespeare (1564–1616) as a literary device because their myriad of attributes, color, shape, fragrance, thorns, fragility et al, offered so many metaphors for the human condition.  In the plays, over two-hundred species of plants are mentioned and thirty-odd scenes are set in gardens or orchids.  In Hamlet (Act IV, scene 5), there’s a harvest in Ophelia’s garland speech to her brother Laertes:

There's rosemary, that's for remembrance. Pray you, love, remember.  And there is pansies, that's for thoughts.  There's fennel for you, and columbines. There's rue for you, and here's some for me; we may call it herb of grace o' Sundays.  O, you must wear your rue with a difference.  There's a daisy.  I would give you some violets, but they withered all when my father died. (Act IV, scene 5)

There were fantastic garlands did she come. Of crow-flowers, nettles, daisies and long purples, that liberal shepherds give a grosser name, but our cold maids do dead men’s fingers call them. (Act IV, Scene 7)

There were fantastic garlands did she come, Of crow-flowers, nettles, daisies and long purples. (Act IV, Scene 7)

Rosemary (Salvia rosmarinus or Rosmarinus officinalis (pre 2017)

Since Antiquity, rosemary has been associated with remembrance, Athenian students at study wore garlands of rosemary as a memory improvement tool.  The name is derived from the Latin rosmarinus (dew of the sea), a reference to its blue petals and habitat atop Mediterranean cliffs.  In Shakespeare's day, rosemary was in both the wedding bouquets carried by bridesmaids and the wreaths laid at funeral wreaths.  A contemporary poet, Robert Herrick (1591-1674) , wrote in a verse “Grow it for two ends, it matters not at all, Be it for my bridall or buriall."  In English folklore, a man who couldn't smell the fragrant shrub was thought incapable of loving a woman though in the same tradition, if rosemary was planted in front of a cottage, it was held to mean the woman was the head of the household.  That was one folk belief said to have caused the up-rooting of not a few plants.  Helpfully, it was said also to repel plague and witches while sleeping with a sprig beneath the pillow prevented nightmares.  But for Ophelia, distraught at her father's death and Hamlet's odd behavior, the mention of rosemary indicates to her brother and the Elizabethan audience her brittle feelings and lack of confidence: "Pray you, love, remember."

Daisy (Bellis perennis, bruisewort or woundwort)

The Daisy’s botanical name is friom the Latin bellis (pretty), the English from the Anglo Saxon daeges eage (day’s eye); poetically, that was because the petals open during the day and close at night.  Long associated with childhood and innocence, in Scotland and the north of England it’s known also as Bairnwort (bairn a dialectical word for child).  In Roman mythology, the daisy was the virginal nymph Belides who transformed herself into the flower to escape the sexual advances of the orchard god Vertumnus.  The flower was symbolic of the Greco-Roman goddesses Aphrodite and Venus as well as Freya, the Norse goddess of beauty and love for whom Friday is named. The legend is that daisies picked between noon and one can be dried and carried as a good luck charm and in English fields, to this day some children still make daisy chains although those who do grow up to become emos.  Unlike the other plants in Ophelia's garland, the daisy seems to possess only good connotations but Shakespeare has Ophelia announce the daisy but not hand it out, the implication being there’s no innocence or purity at court.

Pansy (Viola × wittrockiana)

The word pansy is from the French pensée (for thoughts), the botanical name tricolor a referece to the three main shades, white, purple and yellow, the heart shaped petals thought to help heal a broken heart, so it was known also as heartease.  Pansies, as Ophelia notes, are for thoughts and it was also used medicinally, a curative for cramps, hysteria and diarrhea in children.  In A Midsummer Night's Dream, the fairy King Oberon mixes a potion with the flower's juice: if dropped on the eyelids of a sleeper, it was said they would awake to fall in love with whatever they first see, hence the unfortunate Titania, Oberon's wife, falling in love with a donkey.

Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare)

Apparently, fennel is among the vegetables children most dislike.  Pre-dating Shakespeare, Fennel was long regarded as an emblem of false flattery, noted famously in Robert Greene’s (1558-1592) Quip for an Upstart Courtier (1592), the link apparently being the seeds popularity as an appetite suppressant to aid fasting pilgrims, thus becoming symbolic of things that appear to give sustenance but have none.  Empty flattery to hunger.  Shakespeare used fennel often, Falstaff mentioning it in Henry IV, Part 2 and for Ophelia, it’s an allusion to her sterile love affair with Hamlet.

Columbine (Aquilegia or granny's bonnet)

The Columbine, known also as granny’s bonnet, was a wild flower but its beauty made it a popular Elizabethan garden flower, the botanical name from the Latin aquila (eagle) because the petals were thought to resemble an eagle’s talons.  In a more gentle avian vein, the English is derived from the Latin columba (dove), a reference to its nectaries being vaguely reminiscent of the heads of doves.  To Shakespeare, the columbine had a number of symbolic associations.  The poet George Chapman (1559-1634) suggested it was emblematic of ingratitude and William Browne (1590–1645) declared it stood only for forsaken and neglected love for in England it also symbolized cuckoldom as the nectaries did look like horns.  More helpfully, as the "thankless flower", the seeds, if taken with wine, were said to induce labor.

Rue (Ruta graveolens or herb-of-grace)

By Shakespeare’s time, rue had been for centuries a symbol of sorrow and repentance and it’s a long, fabled history. Rue was the plant that King Mithridates VI of Pontus (135-16 BC) imbibed to protect himself against poisoning and the Greek physician Hippocrates (circa 460-circa 370 BC) recommended it to relieve rheumatic pains, heart palpitations and menopausal symptoms.  The herb's name is derived from the Greek ruta (repentance) and the Athenians used it while dining with foreigners to ward off evil demons, spells and spirits whereas in Ancient Rome it was said to improve eyesight.  Its other names, Herb o' Grace or Herb o' Sundays, refers to the sorrow and resulting grace one feels after true repentance and the suit of clubs in a deck of cards was modeled after rue's fleshy, oblong leaves.  It remains a call to regret and repent past evil deeds; due to its strong aromatic smell and bitter taste, the plant has long been symbolic of sorrow, regret and repentance, hence the expression “you’ll rue the day”.  In Elizabethan England (1558-1603), it was carried around as protection against plague and witchcraft and even as an insect repellent. When Ophelia hands it to Queen Gertrude in Hamlet, it is a subtle rebuke of her faithlessness.  In moderation, rue was used to hasten labor but in larger doses, was known to be an abortifacient, hence the speculation that when Ophelia utters the lines "there's rue for you, and here's some for me", it’s a confession of unwanted pregnancy and another reason for ending her life.

Violet (Viola)

Francis Bacon (1561-1626) in his essay Of Gardens (1625) wrote the violet was “that which above all others yields the sweetest smell” and they’ve always been prized too for their beauty.  Despite this, there’s the association with melancholy and early death, expressed in Hamlet when Ophelia laments she has no Violets to give to the court because “they withered when my father died” and it’s Laertes’ wish that violets “may spring” from Ophelia’s grave.  There’s a duality of meaning in Ophelia’s statement; she’s lamenting not only the death of her father the lack of faithfulness and fidelity in the court.

Lindsay Lohan in sheer black gown with embroidered garlands, Francesco Scognamiglio's (b 1975) spring 2015 collection, Naples, June 2015.

Amethyst

Amethyst (pronounced am-uh-thist)

(1) A purple or violet transparent variety of quartz used as a gemstone.  The color is caused by the presence of iron compounds in the crystal structure.

(2) As the oriental amethyst, a purple variety of sapphire.

(3) A variety of shades of purple; darker hues of fuchsia.

(4) A thing containing or set with an amethyst or amethysts.

(5) A nymph from Greek mythology.

1250-1300: From the Middle English amatist, from the twelfth century Old French ametiste (the Modern French being améthyste) and directly from the Medieval Latin amatistus, from the Classical Latin amethystus, from the Ancient Greek αμέθυστος (améthystos) (amethyst) a noun use of the adjective which translated literally as "not intoxicating; not drunken", the construct being a- (not) + methyskein (make drunk) from methys (wine (and a variant stem of methýein (to intoxicate), the source of methylene)) + -tos (the Latin verbal adjective suffix); the source was the primitive Indo-European root medhu- (honey; mead), famous as the nectar the Valkyries would serve to fallen warriors in the halls of Valhalla.  The meaning in Ancient Greek was literal, the belief being that the stone prevented drunkenness, the link to reality being the color which resembled red wine diluted with water which was of course less intoxicating; chemistry then rather than magic but those who took their wine pure were still inclined to wear rings with an amethyst stone in the hope of avoiding a hangover.

One (dodgy) legend of Amethyst

Lindsay Lohan in amethyst-colored tank-top.

In antiquity, the Greeks believed amethyst could prevent intoxication and the practice was to wear the gem in a ring if the drinking session was to be epic although some maintain there were those who kept a stone in their mouth which seems not a good idea when taking strong drink.  As was often the case, later writers also created their own Greek "myths" and one was the story of the how the beautiful nymph Amethyst, while walking to worship at the Temple of Diana, had the misfortune of crossing paths with Bacchus, the god of wine.  Angry (as often he was), he had vowed vengeance on the next person he met so unleashed his two guardian tigers upon the poor waif.  As the great beasts bounded towards her, the goddess Diana intervened and to spare her from her terrible fate, transformed her into a pure, clear stone.  Remorse immediately seized Bacchus and in an attempt to atone, poured his wine over the stone, staining the crystal a deep, violet hue and that's how Amethyst lent her name to the crystal.  Although presented in Classical guise, this "myth" dates only from the Renaissance, the French poet Remy Belleau (1528-1577) creating the tale in 1576.

1994 Porsche 911 Turbo 3.6  (964) in Amethyst Metallic over Classic Gray.

The presence of manganese in clear Quartz produces Amethyst, while additional amounts of iron vary the purple coloration. It ranges in hue from pale red-violet to deep violet and may be transparent or opaque. In addition, it is sometimes layered with white Quartz (as Chevron Amethyst), found in combination with Cacoxenite, mixed with Citrine as Ametrine, or in rare cases, “rutilated” with Goethite.  In the modern system of, it's a semi-precious stone but to the ancients it was a “gem of Fire" and at some points in history has been as highly valued as diamonds.  Anglican bishops wear an episcopal ring often set with an amethyst, an allusion to Acts 2:15 in which the Apostles are noted to be sober at nine in the morning, the piece of scripture from which is derived that measure of English respectability: never taking a G&T before noon.  Medieval European soldiers wore amethyst amulets into battle in the belief the stone had healing properties and in several cultures, they were a popular burial stone, found most often in Anglo-Saxon graves in England.  Faith in the healing power of the stone is maintained by the new-age movement, something probably no more nutty than their other beliefs.

An amethyst crystal cluster.

In the weird word of the new age, crystals are of great significance and each is said to be imbued with its own unique properties, the amethyst known often as the “stone of the dreamers”, apparently because it can inspire positive thoughts and inspire one to go forth and turn one’s dreams into reality.  Long associated with February, the month the Romans dedicated to the water god Neptune, it’s the stone of Saint Valentine and faithful love, signifying ecclesiastical dignity as the Bishop’s Stone.  To new agers, it carries the energy of fire and passion, creativity and spirituality; yet bears the logic of temperance and sobriety and crystal specialists among the practitioners extol its properties:

"In the modern world, Amethyst’s healing properties and meanings are similar to their historic roots and it remains a remarkable stone of spirituality and contentment; known for its metaphysical abilities to still the mind and inspire an enhanced meditative state.  Its inherent high frequency purifies the aura of any negative energy or attachments, creating a protective shield of light around the body, allowing one to remain clear and centred while being open to spiritual direction.  Amethyst stimulates the Third Eye, Crown, and Etheric Chakras enhancing cognitive perception as well as accelerating the development of intuitive and psychic ability. It initiates wisdom and greater understanding and is a stone of comfort for those grieving the loss of a loved one.  Amethyst’s ability to expand the higher mind also enhances one’s creativity and passion, strengthening the imagination and intuition while refining the thinking processes. It helps in the assimilation of new ideas, putting thought into action, and brings projects to fruition; amethyst is also well-known as a talisman of focus and success.  Amethyst is an exceptional crystal for wearing on the body, for use in healing rituals, and for enhancing one’s environment.  It has however been known to fade if left in direct sunlight so care should be taken and it’s wise from time to time to clear its energies by holding the stone under running water for short periods.  Remarkably, an unpolished amethyst also has special properties which can recharge other crystals so keep one in a dark space and leave some crystals with it to re-energize."