Ostrobogulous

Ostrobogulous (pronounced os-truh-bog-yuh-luhs or os-truh-bawg-yuh-luhs)

(1) Something (slightly or tending towards) the risqué or indecent.

(2) Something bizarre, interesting, or unusual.

Circa 1910s: The word was coined by the writer Victor Neuburg (1883–1940), a model of English eccentricity who was Jewish, bisexual and an occasionally intimate associate of the notorious occultist Aleister Crowley (1875–1947) with whom he shared several interests and proclivities.  Neuburg & Crowley travelled near and far to collaborate on many things but the best remembered (and still much celebrated in the cult which to this day surrounds the memory of Crowley) was the blending of occult rituals and certain sexual practices which was systematized as “Sex Magick”, a combination which has been a notable part of many sects and cults since.  Arthur Calder-Marshall (1908–1992) was an author (one with a remarkable eclectic oeuvre) acquainted with both and in one of his memoirs (Magic my Youth (1951) he recalled “Ostrobogulous was Vickybird’s (Victor Neuburg) favourite word. It stood for anything from the bawdy to the slightly off-colour. Any double entendre that might otherwise have escaped his audience was prefaced by, ‘if you will pardon the ostrobogulosity’”.  Ostrobogulous is an adjective, ostrobogulation & ostrobogulosity are nous and ostrobogulously is an adverb; the noun plural is ostrobogulations.

Neuburg claimed ostrobogulous was a most irregular formation, the construct being the Ancient Greek ostro (something rich) + the English bog (in the sense of “dirt” from the schoolboy slang sense of “the toilet”) + the Latin suffix ulus (full of), the literal translation thus “full of rich dirt”.  The Latin suffix -ulus was from the Proto-Italic -elos, from the primitive Indo-European -elós, thematized from -lós; it was cognate with the Proto-Germanic -ilaz & -ulaz and used to form (1) a diminutive of a noun, indicating small size or youth, (2) a diminutive of an adjective with diminished effect (denoting “somewhat” or “-ish”) and (3) an adjective from a verb.  The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) rejected that, claiming the first element was from the Greek adjective oestrous (oyster), from the Latin ostrea, from Ancient Greek ὄστρεον (óstreon) (all related to the Modern English oyster).  Neuburg however ignored the professional lexicographers and decided he was as qualified to determine Classical etymology as he was to coin novel Modern English forms and noted the Greek word ostreon which was a type of mollusc was harvested to obtain a rare and expensive purple dye, hence he decided that figuratively, it meant “something rich”.  In that he was on sound historic ground; what was known as Tyrian purple (also shellfish purple) was for long periods the most expensive substance in Antiquity, often (by weight) three times the value of gold, the exchange rate set by a Roman edict issued in 301 AD.

Upon release, I Know Who Killed Me (2007) received generally bad reviews (it was at one point a popular inclusion on “worst movie ever” lists) but there’s since been a reappraisal by some and the film now has a cult following and appears with some frequency in “midnight screenings”.  Those searching for an adjective to describe I Know Who Killed Me might find ostrobogulous suitable because it leave the viewer free to decide which of its two meanings they prefer.  

However tangled might be the etymology, there’s no doubt Newburg coined ostrobogulous to mean “something (slightly or tending towards) the risqué or indecent” yet by the 1960s it was recorded being used by respectable middle-class folk to mean “something weird, strange, bizarre unusual’ without any hint of indecency; the sense rather of the “harmlessly mischievous”.  Quite how that happened isn’t known but it is an example of the meaning shifts and re-purposing common in English.  Now, it’s only artificially common in that it’s one of those curiosities which are a fixture of lists of strange and obscure words, a lexicographical fetish which has flourished since the advent of the internet.

Unconscionable

Unconscionable (pronounced un-kno-shon-ible)

(1) Not guided by conscience; unscrupulous.

(2) Not in accordance with what is just or reasonable:

(3) Excessive; extortionate, imprudent or unreasonable

1560s: The construct was un- + conscionable.  The un- prefix was from the Middle English un-, from the Old English un-, from the Proto-West Germanic un-, from the Proto-Germanic un-, from the primitive Indo-European n̥-.  It was cognate with the Scots un- & on-, the North Frisian ün-, the Saterland Frisian uun-, the West Frisian ûn- &  on-, the Dutch on-, the Low German un- & on-, the German un-, the Danish u-, the Swedish o-, the Norwegian u- and the Icelandic ó-.  It was (distantly) related to the Latin in- and the Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), source of the English a-, the Modern Greek α- (a-) and the Sanskrit अ- (a-).  Conscionable was from the Middle English conscions (the third-person singular simple present indicative form of conscion), an obsolete variant of conscience, +‎ -able.  The suffix -able was from the Middle English -able, from the Old French -able, from the Latin -ābilis (capable or worthy of being acted upon), from the primitive Indo-European i-stem forms -dahli- or -dahlom (instrumental suffix); it was used to create adjectives.  Conscience was from the Middle English conscience, from the Old French conscience, from the Latin conscientia (knowledge within oneself), from consciens, present participle of conscire (to know, to be conscious (of wrong)), the construct being com- (together) + scire (to know).  The suffix -able was from the Middle English -able, from the Old French -able, from the Latin -ābilis (capable or worthy of being acted upon), from the primitive Indo-European i-stem forms -dahli- of -dahlom (instrumental suffix); it was used to create adjectives.  Unconscionable is an adjedtive, unconscionableness is a noun and unconscionably is an adverb; the noun plural is unconscionabilities.

Like disgruntled, unconscionable is one of those strange words in English where the derivation has flourished while the source word is effective extinct.  That said, English is defined and constructed by being used and the word conscionable (in accordance with conscience; defensible; proper) remains good English; it has merely faded from use and is described by some dictionaries as obsolete, archaic or at least, since the eighteenth century, a fossilized form of its surviving negative: unconscionable. Conscionable in the 1540s meant "having a conscience", the meaning expanding by the 1580s to refer to actions "consonant with right or duty" and by the 1640s to persons, "governed by conscience".  The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) notes both conscious & conscioned were probably popular formations from conscion, taken as a singular of conscien-ce by a misapprehension of the "s" sound as a plural inflection. The related form was (and is) conscionably.

Unconscionability in the law

Unconscionability is a legal doctrine (most often applied in contact law) which permits courts to strike-out or write-down clauses or agreements which are unduly harsh or so grossly unfair that that it would offend legal principles for them to be enforced.  When a court uses the word "unconscionable" to describe conduct, it means the conduct does not conform to the dictates of conscience as defined in law; it makes no judgment about whether they are at variance with other ethical constructs (although there will often be overlap).  In addition, when something is judged unconscionable, a court will refuse to allow the perpetrator of the conduct to benefit.  If need be, entire contracts can be set-aside or declared void, even if they are otherwise constructed wholly in conformity with the rules of contract.  A contract therefore can be found to be "legal" yet still be voided because it's held to be unconscionable in the same way a contract (for example an agreement between two parties in which one is paid to murder a third part can be held to be a "legal contract" yet be declared  "void for illegality".

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

Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made; these circumstances may include the bargaining power, age, and mental capacity of the parties and the doctrine is applied only where it would be an affront to the integrity of the judicial system to enforce a contracts.  At law, as in moral theology, the concept of unconscionability is probably absolute; something is either unconscionable or not.  However, cases are considered on their merits and the circumstances in which the unconscionable arose might color the detail of a judge’s verdict.

Portrait of King Charles II in his Garter robes (circa 1667), oil on canvas by Sir Peter Lely (1618-80).

The Most Noble Order of the Garter, an order of chivalry and the senior order of knighthood in the UK’s honors system, was founded by Edward III (1312–1377; King of England 1327-1377).  Appointments are exclusively in the gift of the sovereign and limited to two dozen living members (apart from royal appointees).  The Garter was of great significance to Charles II (1630–1685; King of Scotland 1649-1651, King of Scotland, England and Ireland 1660-1685) as it had been his father, Charles I (1600–1649; King of England, Scotland & Ireland 1625-1649) who awarded it as something symbolic of the binding tie with his favored aristocrats.  For Charles II, as the only dignity he was able to confer upon his adherents while in exile during the interregnum (1649-1660), it was a potent symbol, proof the King still retained the mystique and the power of monarchy.  Charles II suffered a sudden apoplectic fit on the morning of 2 February 1685 and his doctors expected him to have the decency to die within the hour.  Instead he lingered another four days before expiring and just before, he apologised to those around him, his last words being: “You must pardon me, gentlemen, for being a most unconscionable time a-dying.”  In this, as in many other things, he was unlike his father Charles I, who died suddenly, executed by having his head cut off.

Macrocephalic

Macrocephalic (pronounced mak-roh-sef-a-lee)

The condition of having an abnormally large head or skull, the diagnostic criterion usually the circumference being beyond the normal range.

1851: From the Ancient Greek makrokephalos, the construct being māk ros (large, long), from the primitive Indo-European root māk- (long, thin) + the Ancient Greek κεφαλή (kephalḗ) (head).  English borrowed cephaly from the French -céphalie or the German -zephalie, from the Latin -cephalia, from the Ancient Greek kephalḗ.  The form macrocephalous (having a long head) dates from 1810.  The primitive Indo-European root māk (long, thin) forms part of emaciate, macro, macro-, macrobiotic, macron, meager & paramecium.  It’s thought to be the source of the Ancient Greek makros (long, large) & mēkos (length), the Latin macer (lean, thin), the Old Norse magr & the Old English mæger (lean, thin).  The less commonly used terms in pathology are megacephaly and megalocephaly and a related term is sub-macrocephaly.  Macrocephalic & macrocephalous are adjectives, macrocephalous and macrocephaly are nouns; the noun plural is macrocephalies

DPRK generals in their big hats, leaving the monthly hat ceremony, wearing the millinery badges they've been awarded.

There’s no evidence heads in North Korea differ, on a population basis, from the those of the rest of the human race.  Even though the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK; North Korea) has to a high degree been physically isolated from the outside population since the early 1950s, the gene pool in the population is sufficiently diverse that most in the field expect there’d be no change to aggregate outcomes in human physiology.  Indeed, those changes which have been noted (stunting etc), are thought the consequence of nutritional deficiencies rather than anything genetic.

Suleiman I (Süleyman the Magnificent, 1494-1566, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire 1520-1566) (far left), Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958) in the papal triple tiara (triple crown) at his coronation, 1939 (centre left), depiction of Süleyman the Magnificent in his retaliatory four tier helmet (centre right) and Officer of the 4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards (1826), watercolor by Richard Simkin (1850-1926) (far right).

Kim Jong-un, looking at DPRK generals in their big hats.

In military uniforms, ecclesiastical dress and fashion, big hats have been a thing for thousands of years, the earliest presumably a form of biomimicry, inspired by examples like the plumage of birds or the manes of lions.  In human society, the purpose would not have been dissimilar to that of the other animals: wishing to appear (1) larger and more threatening to deter attacks, (2) of a higher status than others or (3) more attractive to attract a mate and this procreate.  Some uses would of course have been for mere function, headwear serving as protection from the elements or impacts, modern examples including the wide-brimmed hats adopted to shade one from the sun, the Mexican sombrero emblematic of this.  In the modern era (and it's a trend noted since at least late antiquity), extravagant headwear exists for no purpose other than to attract whatever is the currency of the age, photographers at the fashion shows or clicks on the internet.  On the catwalks, some creations can hardly be described as functional or conventionally attractive so clickbait is the only explanation and whether some of that worn by figures such as Lady Gaga (b 1986) was inspired by the millinery of Süleyman the Magnificent isn't known but the thematic similarities can't be denied.  Of course, over thousands of years, there's going to be some stylistic overlap; there are only so many ways to adorn a head.

Kim Jong-un at a military briefing, conducted by DPRK generals in their big hats.

The papal triple tiara is a crown which has been worn by popes of the Roman Catholic Church since the eighth century.  Traditionally it was worn for their coronation but no pontiff has been so crowned since Saint Paul VI (1897-1978; pope 1963-1978) in 1963 and he abandoned its use after the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II, 1962-1965).  The name tiara refers to the entire headgear and it has used a three-tiered form since a third crown was added during the Avignon Papacy (1309–1378).  It's also referred to as the triregnum, triregno or Triple Crown.  In a piece of one- (or perhaps four-) upmanship, Süleyman the Magnificent commissioned from Venice a four tier helmet to show, in addition to the authority claimed by popes, he could add the symbol of his imperial power, his secular sovereignty.  Often put on display as the centrepiece of Ottoman regalia to impress visitors, there's no documentary evidence the sultan ever wore the four layer tiara, crowns not part of the tradition and, fashioned from gold and gemstones, it would anyway have been extraordinarily heavy and it may be it was worn only for brief, static, set piece ceremonies because an incautious movement could have risked neck injury.

A younger, more svelte Kim Jong-un at a military field conference, noting one general not issued with big hat.

A representation of the triregnum combined with two crossed keys of Saint Peter continues to be used as a symbol of the papacy and appears on papal documents, buildings and insignia.  Remarkably, there’s no certainty about what the three crowns symbolize.  Some modern historians link it to the threefold authority of the pope, (1) universal pastor, (2) universal ecclesiastical jurisdiction and (3) temporal power.  Others, including many biblical scholars, interpret the three tiers as meaning (1) father of princes and kings, (2) ruler of the world and (3) vicar of Christ on Earth, a theory lent credence by the words once used when popes were crowned:  Accipe tiaram tribus coronis ornatam, et scias te esse patrem principum et regum, rectorem orbis in terra vicarium Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi, cui est honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum (Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art father of princes and kings, ruler of the world, vicar on earth of our Savior Jesus Christ, to whom is honor and glory for ever and ever).

Kim Jong-un out walking with DPRK generals, discussing the politics of big hair and big hats.

The preference in the DPRK armed forces for big hats is appears to be a matter of military fashion rather than physiological need and big hats are part of a military tradition which, although now restricted mostly to ceremonial use, were once functional in that they provided warmth, an impression of greater height and some degree of protection from attack.  Being made from animal fur, the hats are now controversial but, as a natural material, they have proved more durable and resistant to the weather than synthetic alternatives, factors which military authorities long cited as the reason for their retention.

Bearskin cap of the UK Foot Guards, made traditionally with the fur of Canadian bears (left) and model Lucy Clarkson (b 1982, right), fetchingly body-painted in the uniform of the Queen's Guards, in a demonstration organized by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to draw attention to the slaughter of the bears due to the use of real bearskins in the Guard's ceremonial headdress, Westminster Bridge, London 2010.  Whether the Ministry of Defence was persuaded by PETA's arguments, Ms Clarkson's charms or some analysis which revealed the exorbitant cost of purchasing and maintaining the bearskin hats isn't clear but recently it was announced the traditional ones will be "phased out" in favor of units made from “faux” bearskin.

Kim Jong-un discussing millinery ethics with DPRK generals wearing big hats.

The tall bearskin cap, usually associated with parade ground manoeuvres around Buckingham palace, was historically the headgear of the Grenadier Guards and, remarkably, it was sometime part of battlefield dress even in the twentieth century.  It remains part of the ceremonial uniforms in many armed forces and not just those once part of the British Empire.  That up to a hundred Canadian bears are each season slaughtered "just so men could wear big hats while marching around in circles" is claimed by the activists to be of "no obvious military value but merely a tourist attraction".  While there's merit in the argument there is a legitimate military purpose in the maintenance of traditions, extending that to fur hats does seem quite abstract.         

Kim Jong-un, looking at the big hat of Jang Song-thaek shortly before he signed Jang's death warrant.

Jang Song-thaek (1946-2013) was married to Kim Kyong-hui (b 1946; believed still alive), only daughter Kim Il-sung (1912-1994; Great Leader of DPRK 1949-1994) and only sister of North Korean general secretary Kim Jong-il (1941-2011; Dear Leader of DPRK; 1994-2011). He was thus the uncle (by marriage) of Kim Jong-un (B circa 1983; Supreme Leader of DPRK since 2011).  Within the party, he had a mixed career but ups and downs within the structure were not unusual and later in the reign of the Dear Leader, he emerged as a important figure in both the political and military machines.  His position appeared to be strengthened when the Supreme Leader assumed power but, in 2013 he was accused of being a counter-revolutionary and was expelled from the party, dismissed from his many posts and was un-personed by having his photograph and mention of his name digitally erased from all official recorded.  In December that year, the DPRK state media announced his execution.

Kim Jong-un, looking through binoculars across the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) at the small hats worn by Republic of Korea (RoK; South Korea) generals.

On the basis of the official statement issued by DPRK State Media, he must have been guilty, highlights of the press release including confirmation he was “an anti-party, counter-revolutionary factional element and despicable political careerist and trickster…, a traitor to the nation for all ages who perpetrated anti-party, counter-revolutionary factional acts in a bid to overthrow the leadership of our party and state and the socialist system”.  It noted that despite receiving much trust and benevolence by the “peerlessly great men … The Great Leader, The Dear Leader and The Supreme Leader”, he behaved “worse than a dog, perpetrated thrice-cursed acts of treachery in betrayal of such profound trust and warmest paternal love”.  Of note was his subversion of interior decorating, preventing “the Taedonggang Tile Factory from erecting a mosaic…” while erecting a monument to the Great Leader, not in its deserved place in the sun but “…in a shaded corner”.  Perhaps worse of all, he “let the decadent capitalist lifestyle find its way to our society by distributing all sorts of pornographic pictures among his confidants since 2009. He led a dissolute, depraved life, squandering money wherever he went.”  In summary, the release added Jang was a “thrice-cursed traitor without an equal in the world” and that “history will eternally record and never forget the shuddering crimes committed by Jang Song Thaek, the enemy of the party, revolution and people and heinous traitor to the nation”.

DPRKesque fashion: Lindsay Lohan wearing some big hats.

Details of such matters are hard to confirm so it’s not known if the rumors of him being executed by anti-aircraft gun fire or a flame-thrower are true.  Nor is it known if whatever remained of the corpse was thrown to a pack of wild dogs but the state media release did add “…the revolutionary army will never pardon all those who disobey the order of the Supreme Commander and there will be no place for them to be buried even after their death” so the dog-food theory is at least plausible.

Salad

Salad (pronounced sal-uhd)

(1) A usually cold (a few are “warm”) dish consisting of vegetables, as lettuce, tomatoes, and cucumbers, covered with a dressing and sometimes containing fruit, seafood, meat eggs or other additions; any of various dishes consisting of foods, as meat, seafood, eggs, pasta, or fruit, prepared singly or combined, usually cut up, mixed with a dressing, and served cold (often with a modifier: Caesar salad, Niçoise salad, pasta salad, Greek salad, Thai salad, tossed salad, chicken salad, potato salad, fruit salad etc).

(2) Any herb or green vegetable, as lettuce, used for salads or eaten raw.

(3) Figuratively, a mixture or assortment of people or things, similar or disparate.

1350–1400: From the Middle English salade & salad (raw herbs cut up and variously dressed), from the Old & Middle French salade, from the Old Provençal salada, from salar (to season with salt), from the Northern Italian salada & salata, from the Vulgar Latin salāta (literally "salted" and short for herba salata), from salāre, the feminine past participle of salāre (to salt (in Antiquity, the Romans seasoned vegetables with brine or salty oil-and-vinegar dressings)), the construct being sal- (genitive salis; stem of sāl (salt)) + -āta- (added to nouns to form adjectives and akin to –ate).  The suffix -ate was a word-forming element used in forming nouns from Latin words ending in -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as estate, primate & senate).  Those that came to English via French often began with -at, but an -e was added in the fifteenth century or later to indicate the long vowel.  It can also mark adjectives formed from Latin perfect passive participle suffixes of first conjugation verbs -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as desolate, moderate & separate).  Again, often they were adopted in Middle English with an –at suffix, the -e appended after circa 1400; a doublet of –ee.  Salad’s alternative spelling between the sixteenth & nineteenth centuries was sallet.  Salad is a noun: the noun plural is salads.

In Europe, the Dutch salade, the German Salat, the Swedish salat and the Russian salat are from Romanic languages.  The early use was exclusively of herbs and vegetables but came later to be extended to dishes including meat chopped and mixed with uncooked herbs and variously seasoned, the point being that the meat was an addition to a concoction predominately of vegetables.  As a reference to the raw herbs and vegetables themselves, in the US by the early nineteenth century most had limited the application of “salad” to lettuce while all else were “greens” although, except in the South, “salad” has in recent years crept back.  Salad oil "olive oil used for dressing salads" was known by the 1550s and the salad fork was listed for sale as early as 1808.  The salad bar was an invention of US English, attested by 1940.

The idiomatic salad days is a rarely used phrase that survives because William Shakespeare (1654-1616) used it once in all that he wrote and it’s used exclusively in the plural; nobody has ever had a “salad day”.  It’s presumed usually to convey a sense of youthful innocence enthusiasm and idealism associated with inexperience and is sometimes confused with “halcyon days” which actually summons the idea of a time of calm, a nostalgic idealizing of a past.  Not all however thought something worth repeating just because it came from the bard's quill.  The unforgiving Henry Fowler (1858-1933) thought salad days just a cliché and even doubted the accepted meaning.  In Modern English Usage (1926) he though youth, like salad might variously be thought (1) green & raw, (2) prone to a preference for highly flavored tastes or (3) innocent as a herb unlike corrupted meat.  Even for the old curmudgeon that seems a stretch but his point was that few who used the phase properly understood its meaning and it was thus “fitter for parrots than for human speech”.

Salad days was spoken by Cleopatra in Act 1, Scene 5 of Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra (circa 1607).

CHARMIAN The valiant Caesar!

CLEOPATRA By Isis, I will give thee bloody teeth

If thou with Caesar paragon again

My man of men.

CHARMIAN By your most gracious pardon,

I sing but after you.

CLEOPATRA My salad days,

When I was green in judgment, cold in blood,

To say as I said then. But come, away,

Get me ink and paper.

He shall have every day a several greeting,

Or I’ll unpeople Egypt.

Having spoken longingly of Antony. Cleopatra doesn’t like it mentioned that once she spoke of her lover Caesar with the same ecstasy and when reminded they were her own words, Cleopatra concedes the point but puts it down to the rash impetuosity of youth, salad days when she was “green in judgment, cold in blood”.  The convention explanation of salad days as Shakespeare’s device is that the Cleopatra used the image of the salad (green and cold) as something served before the richer, more substantial, hot main course, making the point it was youthful inexperience which made her idealize her affair with Caesar.  It was the passionate Antony who made her blood boil.  Shakespeare never returned to the phrase but had earlier used “green” in the same sense.  In Hamlet (circa 1601), when Ophelia is speaking to her father Polonius, about her troubled relationship with Hamlet, he says “You speak like a green girl; Unsifted in such perilous circumstances.”

Others liked it though.  Although Bonjour Tristesse (Hello Sadness (1954)) tended to overshadow the later work of French novelist Francoise Sagan (1935-2004), her Salad Days (1980) is especially admired in English translation and one of the century’s better evocations of the well-worn tale of star-cross’d lovers.  Quite how many cook books, entertaining guides and such have been titled “Salad Days” (there have also been not a few “Salad Daze”) is not known but it’s many.  When Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of England and other places variously 1952-2022) delivered a Silver Jubilee Royal Address (1977), she reiterated the vow to God and her people she gave in her twenty-first birthday broadcast (1947), adding: “Although that vow was made in my salad days, when I was green in judgment”, it still held.  Her conclusion was different from Shakespeare’s Cleopatra whose feelings had changed since those salad days.  Elizabeth II never wavered.

In the aftermath of her death, the words she spoke in those salad days were widely and admiringly quoted: 

"I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong."

There were however historians who, in their capacity as public psychologists, noted that few thought to trouble the people of 2022 with her concluding remarks:

"But I shall not have strength to carry out this resolution alone unless you join in it with me, as I now invite you to do: I know that your support will be unfailingly given. God help me to make good my vow, and God bless all of you who are willing to share in it."

Egg & Potato Salad

Ingredients

6 large Dutch cream(or Desiree) potatoes, cut into 50 mm (2 inch) cubes

6 eggs, at room temperature

250 grams crème fraîche

200 grams mayonnaise

1 teaspoon Dijon mustard

1 tablespoon white wine vinegar

70 grams salted baby capers, rinsed and drained

100 grams cornichons, thinly sliced

2 golden shallots, thinly sliced

To garnish: some flat-leaf parsley, torn

Instructions

(1) Cook potatoes in boiling salted water until tender (10-15 minutes), then drain and set aside to steam dry.

(2) While the potatoes are cooking, place eggs in a saucepan of salted boiling water and cook for 8 minutes (for medium-cooked yolks), then drain and transfer to iced water to stop cooking. Peel, quarter and set aside.

(3) Combine remaining ingredients in a bowl and season to taste. Add potato and gently mix to coat well, then transfer to a platter, top with eggs, scatter with parsley, season with black pepper and serve.

Flummery & Pabulum

Flummery (pronounced fluhm-uh-ree)

(1) Oatmeal or flour boiled with water until thick (historically, a slightly tart, jelly-like food of Welsh origin, made from extensively boiling oats, then boiling down the liquid extracted from it).

(2) A fruit custard or blancmange,  any of several bland, gelatinous foodstuffs, made usually from stewed fruit and thickened with oatmeal, cornstarch or flour.

(3) In speech or writing, complete nonsense; foolish humbug; words devoid of meaning (applied especially of flattery); deceptive or blustering speech (applied especially in politics and, as an interjection, an expression of contemptuous disbelief).

(4) Pretentious trappings, useless embellishments or ornaments intended to impress (applied to architecture, interior decorating, fashion etc).

1623: From the Welsh llymru (which was assimilated into English with an –ery ending) of uncertain origin but there may be some link with llymrig (slippery).  The figurative use to describe flattery or empty, meaningless talk, is from the 1740s.  Flummery is a noun; the noun plural is flummeries.

The Welsh llymru was “a jelly derived from oatmeal”, the name first noted in English poet Gervase Markham's (circa 1568–1637) Countrey Contentments (1623) and was known also as wash-brew although in Lancashire and Cheshire, it was called flamerie or flumerie.  The modern spelling was one of the variant forms which in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries also included thlummery and flamery.  By the nineteenth century, flummery had become the standard form, both to describe bland, unsatisfying food and unsubstantial talk or writing, and nonsense.  The US food with similar meanings is Mead Johnson's pablum, a soft, bland cereal, intended for infants, invalids and the weak.  In post-war Australia, a flummery was the name given to a mousse dessert made with beaten evaporated milk, sugar, and gelatine.  Also made using jelly crystals, mousse flummery became popular as an inexpensive alternative to traditional cream-based mousse.  In the US, it was named blancmange.

Pabulum (pronounced pab-yuh-luhm)

(1) Something that nourishes an animal or vegetable organism; food; nutriments.

(2) Figuratively, food for thought (can be neutral or positive but is more commonly used of material thought bland, dull or intellectually undemanding). 

(3) Material that fuels a fire (now rare except in technical documents).

1670-1680: From the Classical Latin pābulum (food, nourishment; fodder or pasture for animals; nourishment for the mind, food for thought), the construct being pā(scō) (to nourish) +‎ bulum (the suffix denoting an instrument).  Root was the primitive Indo-European peh-dlom, the construct being pe- (to feed) or peh- (to protect; to shepherd) + -dlom (a variant of -trom (the suffix denoting a tool or instrument)).  In the early eighteenth century the adjective pabulary (of or pertaining to pabulum (in the sense of food) and from the Latin pabulosus (abounding in fodder)) enjoyed a brief vogue as a noun (an eating place or a counter in an inn from which meals were served).  Pablum is a noun, pabular is a verb, pabulous, pabular & pabulary are adjectives; the noun plural is pabulums.

Crooked Spiro & Tricky Dick: Spiro Agnew and Richard Nixon.

The word in the late seventeenth century was used of food in the widest sense (ie that which feeds or nourishes) and that applied to that taken by people, animals, agricultural crops (in the sense of fertilizer) and even the material used to fuel a fire.  A trademark of manufacturers Mead Johnson, Pablum is a soft, bland cereal, intended for infants, invalids and the weak which was released in 1932 and it was this association which was picked up in the figurative use made of pabulum (to describe vapid or mushy political prose) in a speech made on 11 September 1970 by Spiro Agnew (1918–1996; US vice president 1969-1973).  The tone of the speech (though perhaps not the labored syntax which would be rejected as TLDR (too long, didn’t read) in the social media age) would be familiar to modern audiences used to political figures attacking the news media and was a critique of what later Republicans would label “fake news”.

“In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism.  They have formed their own 4-H Club - the “hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history”  “…As long as they have their own association, crooks will flourish.  As long as they have their own television networks, paid for by their own advertisers, they will continue to have their own commentators.  It is time for America to quit catering to the pabulum peddlers and the permissive.  It is time to speak up forcefully for the conservative cause."

It wasn’t a new complaint for the aggressively alliterative Agnew and certainly represented well the opinions of Richard Nixon (1913–1994; US president 1969-1974) whose long list (and it was literally a list) of enemies included many journalists, editors and media proprietors.  In November 1969, Agnew had appeared at the Midwestern Regional Republican Conference in Des Moines, Iowa where he attacked “…this little group of men” who he accused of wielding “a free hand in selecting, presenting and interpreting” the news.  Intellectuals, he labeled “…an effete corps of impudent snobs”, a sentiment Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) would later recycle, the phraseology simplified so his “deplorables” would comprehend.  Agnew’s speeches are not classics in the art of rhetoric but remain landmarks in the culture wars which began in the early 1960s and which are being fought still.

Concurrent with though not related to the Watergate affair, in early 1973, Agnew was under investigation on suspicion of conspiracy, bribery, extortion and tax fraud.  While for months denying everything (always good legal advice which succeeds more often than it should), Agnew eventually was forced to negotiate a plea-bargain whereby he would resign from office but avoid jail.  On 10 October 1973, Agnew pleaded no contest to a single felony charge of tax evasion and resigned, not a few of those he’d earlier derided as “crooks” not reluctant to ensure the juxtaposition was well publicized.  Facing impeachment for his role in the Watergate affair cover-up, President Nixon (who earlier had made his soon infamous “I am not a crook” speech, followed within a year, saved from prosecution by a presidential pardon, granted by Gerald Ford (1913–2006; US president 1974-1977) who had been Nixon’s choice to replace Agnew as vice-president.

Lemon, Orange & Passionfruit Flummery

Ingredients

115g (½ cup) caster sugar

2 tablespoons plain flour

1 tablespoon powdered gelatine

250ml (1 cup) water

2 oranges, juiced & strained

1 lemon, juiced & strained

125ml (½ cup) fresh passionfruit pulp

Whipped cream, to serve

2 tablespoons passionfruit pulp, (extra, to spread on top)

Method

(1) Place the sugar, flour, gelatine, water, orange juice and lemon juice in a medium saucepan. Use a balloon whisk to whisk until well combined. Bring to the boil over medium heat, stirring constantly. Simmer for 2 minutes.

(2) Pour the mixture into a heatproof bowl and place in the fridge for 1 hour or until the mixture begins to set around the edges. Stir in the passionfruit and transfer to a large bowl. Use an electric beater to beat for 15 minutes or until the mixture is thick and pale.

(3) Pour the mixture evenly into four 310ml (1¼ cups) serving glasses. Cover the glass tightly with plastic wrap and place in the fridge for 1-2 hours or until the mixture is set.

(4) Serve topped with whipped cream and with extra passionfruit pulp.

Pardon

Pardon (pronounced pahr-dn)

(1) A kind indulgence, as in forgiveness of an offense or discourtesy or in tolerance of a distraction or inconvenience.

(2) In law, release from the penalty of an offense; a remission of penalty, as by a governor, monarch or viceroy.

(3) Forgiveness of a serious offense or offender.

(4) In Roman Catholic canon law, a technical term for a papal indulgence (obsolete).

(5) To make a courteous allowance for or to excuse.

(6) When used with rising inflection, as an elliptical form, as when asking a speaker to repeat something not clearly heard or understood (non-U).

1250-1300: From the Middle English pardonen or pardoun (papal indulgence, forgiveness of sins or wrongdoing), from Old French pardon from pardoner (to grant; to forgive; remission, indulgence (which entered Modern French in the eleventh century as pardonner), from the Medieval Latin perdonum, from the Vulgar Latin perdōnāre (to remit, overlook (literally “to forgive”)), the construct being per- (for; through, thoroughly) + dōnāre (to give, donate) which emerged in Medieval Latin, though a translation from a Germanic source possibly a calque (if not vice-versa) of a Germanic word represented by the Frankish firgeban (to forgive, give up completely) which was akin to the Old High German fargeban & firgeban (to forgive) and the Old English forġiefan (to forgive).  The Latin per was from the primitive Indo-European root per- (forward (hence “through”)) and donare was from donum (gift), from the primitive Indo-European root donum (gift), from the root do- (to give).  The verb pardon was from pardounen, (to forgive for offense or sin).  The noun pardoner (a man licensed to sell papal pardons or indulgences) was a late fourteenth century form (it was noted earlier in the 1300s as a surname), the agent noun from the verb.  The adjective pardonable (forgivable, capable of being pardoned) was a mid-fifteenth century form from the twelfth century Old French pardonable, from pardoner.  Some sources insist pardonable was a back-formation from pardonable which is interesting.  The meaning “a passing over of an offense without punishment” was first noted around the turn of the fourteenth century (also in the strictly ecclesiastical sense) while as a “pardon for a civil or criminal offense; release from penalty or obligation”, use emerged in the late 1300s (mirroring the earlier Anglo-French).  The use in polite society to “request one be excused for some minor fault” was in use by at least the 1540s.

Pardon is one of those “cross-over words”, migrating from the technical use (an act by an official or a superior, remitting all or the remainder of the punishment that belongs to an offense (eg a sovereign or governor pardoning a convict before expiration of the sentence)) to become a synonym for “forgive” in the sense of feelings or social mores.  By convention, asking for another’s pardon re-establishes amicable relations between transgressor and the offended.  In idiomatic use, dating from the mid seventeenth century, the phrase “I beg your pardon” (the variations including “beg pardon”, “begging your pardon”, “pardon me” etc) is used (1) to apologise for something (typically a social faux pas), (2) to request clarification of something said if it is unexpected, odd or seen as rude without context and (3) to request something be repeated.  In the last case, Nancy Mitford (1904–1973) in Noblesse Oblige: An Enquiry Into the Identifiable Characteristics of the English Aristocracy (1956) insisted “pardon” was a non-U (lower & middle class) word and the “U” (upper class) form was “what?”.  The phrase “pardon my French” was an exclamation of apology for obscene language, noted since the late nineteenth century.  Pardon is a noun, verb & interjection, pardoning is a verb & noun, pardoned is a verb & adjective, pardonableness & pardoner are nouns, pardonable & pardonless are adjectives and pardonably is an adverb; the noun plural is pardons.

Pardons from the president: Without check or balance

Article Two of the United States Constitution describes the office of the President.  One of the powers granted is that he or she may grant reprieves and pardons except regarding congressional impeachment of himself or other federal officers.  A president cannot issue a pardon for future actions; he can't pardon someone in advance for something someone does next week.  The pardon power is reserved for past actions and the president can pardon an individual even if he or she has not yet been convicted or even charged.

An executive pardon can be invoked to help victims of injustice.

It's an interesting power and the only one in the US constitution not subject to "checks and balances", an inheritance of one of the entitlements enjoyed by absolute and later monarchs.  The power, in the form exercised by a US president, doesn't exist in the UK or elsewhere in the Commonwealth where, when a pardon is granted, it’s a decision of the executive (the prime-minister (or premier) & cabinet) which is done in the name of the sovereign or their representative; in other words, by the state.  It’s different from vesting the power as a personal prerogative of an individual; US presidents have granted pardons which would have no chance of success were they subject to confirmation by the Senate.

The most interesting recent speculation about the presidential pardon is whether as president can pardon themselves.  This was something Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) probably pondered with especial interest during the diggings of special counsel Robert Mueller's (b 1944; Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2001-2013) into certain matters relating to the 2016 presidential election.  Mr Trump did tweet suggesting he could pardon himself even though there's no precedent, no president has ever done so (though at least one was surely tempted) and all that is certain is that the chief magistrate has the power to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."  That means he couldn't have pardoned himself from impeachment, nor anyone facing charges under state laws, and when asked, most constitutional law experts suggested he couldn't have pardoned himself for anything else either.  However, even if a presidential self-pardon were to be held to be constitutional, politically, it would be a challenge to manage so an extra-constitutional check on the power is political; the court of public opinion as it were.

When there was mush speculation about a possible prosecution of Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) for matters associated with the Watergate scandal, the Justice Department did issue an opinion saying a president could not pardon himself because, under long-established legal principle, no person can be the judge in their own case.  So, the legal status of a self-pardon has never been tested because, at the federal level, it’s never been done and nothing is definitive until ruled upon by the US Supreme Court.  There are records of state governors self-pardoning but one instance appears to have been technical, one a clerical error and one so murky it not clear what happened.  The state of US politics is now both so poisonous and so fluid that a second term for Mr Trump is no longer unthinkable if the Democrat Party insists on nominating Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) it become more likely still.  Mr Biden may or may not be senile but he certainly seems senile.  In his first term, Mr Trump proved remarkably uninterested in pursuing any of the vendettas he'd mentioned during the 2016 campaign; when asked if he would be pursuing the threatened legal action against the Clintons, he brushed off the question with a quick "...they're good people" and moved on.  In a second term, given the events of the last few years, he may not be so indulgent towards those who have slighted or pursued him so there's the intriguing prospect of an elected president attempting to pardon himself so he can move into the Oval Office and begin his revenge.  Interestingly, constitutional experts have all said that even if a self-pardon is declared unconstitutional, there is nothing to prevent a convicted felon being elected president from his jail cell, a place which would certainly focus one's mind on revenge.           

Pardons from God (via the pope)

In late medieval Christianity, the noun pardonmonger was a derogatory term directed at those who sold papal indulgences; the noun plural pardonmongers should also be noted because there were a lot of them about.  The indulgences had become big business in the medieval church and their abuse was one of the emblematic issues which triggered the Protestant Reformation.  The system worked by permitting a (sinful) individual to purchase from the church an indulgence which would reduce the length and severity of punishment that heaven would require as payment for their transgressions.  Indulgences were in a sense transferable because one could buy one for another and according to legend, those on their death bed would implore relations to buy them one so they would avoid an eternal damnation in Hell.

Historically, the indulgence system was able to evolve because the doctrine of the medieval western Christian church (the Eastern Orthodox would follow a different path) was: (1) Folk knew that after they died they were going to be punished for the sins they accumulated in life, something ameliorated only partially by good works (pilgrimage, prayers, charitable work etc) and earthly absolution; the more sin, the greater the punishment and (2) There was the concept of purgatory, a product of the theological imagination which meant that rather than being damned to hell, the sinful soul would be sent to purgatory where they would endure whatever punishment deemed appropriate, the suffering continuing until the stain was washed from them and they could be set free.  This was obviously not an attractive prospect and seeing a way to cement in society the world-view that church, God & sin were central, popes granted bishops the authority to reduce punishments while they were still alive.  It proved a highly useful tool in making unshakable the worldview in which the church, God and sin were central.

Quite when papal indulgences were first introduced isn’t known but the system was formalized by Pope Urban II (circa 1035–1099; pope 1088-1099) during the Council of Clermont in 1095.  The protocols reflected the diligent order which characterized church bureaucracy: Were one to perform sufficient good deeds to earn a full (Plenary) indulgence from the pope or a bishop, all sins would be expunged (and thus no punishment).  Partial indulgences would erase fewer evil deeds and an intricate system of layers came to be used; essentially an algorithm with which a cleric could calculate (to the day!) how much sin a person had wiped from their record.  Indulgences rapidly developed into a significant structural aspect of church administration and during the Crusades (Urban II’s other great contribution to history), many participated on the basis that in exchange for fighting to regain the Holy Land, they would be granted an indulgence, cancelling all sin.

This system of reducing sin and punishment worked well and having people perform good deeds (whatever the motivation) presumably made for a more harmonious society.  However, in something with a modern echo, rich people began to wonder why, instead of the time consuming, boring or sometimes distasteful business of actually doing good deeds, might it not be easier just to purchase an indulgence, the church thereby able to use the funds for good deeds.  The early example of outsourcing began in the thirteenth century and proved so popular (and profitable) for both governments and the church that it became an important revenue source, the catchment soon extended to allow the rich to buy indulgences for their ancestors, relatives, and friends already dead. 

The nature of this business soon became scandalous, notably during the reign of the Medici Pope Leo X (1475–1521; pope 1513-1521) and indulgences were among the issues the monk Martin Luther (1483–1546) listed in his 95 Theses (1517), a j’accuse directed at what he believed to be an institutionalized corruption and in saying that, Luther had a point, the pope having commissioned a Dominican friar to sell indulgences for the sole purpose of the construction of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.  Luther’s attack led to fragmentation within the church, many new sects abandoning the idea of indulgences and while the papacy banned the sale of indulgences in 1567, they didn’t entirely vanish and this wasn’t enough to prevent the subsequent schism within Western Christianity.  So, in the modern Roman Catholic Church, indulgences still exist but they no longer work in the medieval way when they could be something like a presidential pardon.  According to the Vatican: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints”.  The salient points of the system are:

(1) A person cannot buy their way out of hell with indulgences.  Because indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell, no amount of indulgences will ever change that and the only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive; after death, one’s eternal fate is set.

(2) One cannot buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.  Historically, the church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed although it’s clear some were sold on that basis prior to the Protestant Reformation.  The position now is that: “An indulgence is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power.”  Theologically that may sound dubious because presumably God could grant exactly that but, as any pope will tell you, God never would.

(3) An indulgence does not “buy forgiveness” because, by definition, the issue of an indulgence presupposes forgiveness has already taken place: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven.”  Indulgences therefore do not forgive sins and deal only with the punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

(4) It is not true an indulgence will shorten one’s time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.  While it’s true that prior to the Reformation such calculations did appear in documents, the church maintains these were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth and the Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less any specific.

(5) Indulgences may not be purchased.  The Council of Trent (1545-1563) instituted many reforms in the practice of granting indulgences and, because of prior abuses, “...in 1567 Pope Pius V (1504–1572; pope 1566-1572) cancelled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.”  To this day the Roman Catholic Church maintains indulgences were “never sold”, an interpretation of history still used by politicians and political parties when explain why donations (sometimes in the millions) are really “not buying anything”.