Tyrannicide

Tyrannicide (pronounced ti-ran-uh-sahyd or tahy- ran-uh-sahyd)

(1) The act of killing a tyrant.

(2) A person who kills a tyrant.

1640-1650: From the French tyrannicide, from the Latin tyrrannicīdium & tyrannicīda, the construct being tryant +‎ -cide.  Tryant was from the Middle English ttyraun, tiraunt, tyrant & tyrante, from the Old French tyrant, constructed with the addition of a terminal -t to tiran (from the Middle French tyran (a tryant or bully), from the Latin tyrannus (despot (source also of the Spanish tirano and the Italian tiranno)), from the Ancient Greek τύραννος (túrannos) (usurper, monarch, despot) of uncertain origin but which some have speculated may be a loan -word from a language of Asia Minor (perhaps Lydian); some etymologists compare it to the Etruscan Turan (mistress, lady (and the surname of Venus)).  The evolutionary process was via a back-formation related to the development of French present participles out of the Latin -ans form, thus the unetymological spelling with -t arose in Old French by analogy with present-participle endings in -ant.  The feminine form tyranness seems first to have been documented in 1590, perhaps derived from the Medieval Latin tyrannissa, although whether this emerged from courtiers in palaces or husbands in more humble abodes isn’t recorded.  The plural was tryants.

In Archaic Greece, tryant was a technical rather than a casually descriptive term, applied to a usurper (one who gains power and rules extra-legally, distinguished from kings elevated by election or natural succession), something discussed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) in his landmark The Social Contract (1762) in which he noted “they applied it indifferently to good and bad princes whose authority was not legitimate”.  It’s now used to describe a despot; a ruler who governs unjustly, cruelly, or harshly and, by extension, any person in a position of authority who abuses the power of their position or office to treat others unjustly, cruelly, or harshly.  In Greece, a ruler (tyrannical or otherwise) was variously the archon, basileus or aisymnetes; an unjust ruler or superior is typically now called autocrat, dictator, despot or martinet.  What Rousseau didn’t dwell on was that while in the Greek tradition, the word was not applied to old hereditary sovereignties (basileiai) and despotic kings, it was used of usurpers, even when popular, moderate, and just (the most celebrated in the surviving histories being Cypselus of Corinth in the seventh century BC) but, presumably by unfortunate association, it soon became a word of reproach in the modern sense.  A hint of this may be found in the way in Greek theatre of the fourth century BC, cherished pathos in regard to tyrannicide.  The noun plural was tyrannicides.

The suffix –cide was from the From Middle French -cide, from the Latin -cīda (cutter, killer), from -cīdium (killing), from caedō (to cut, hew, kill) and was a noun-forming suffix denoting “an act of killing or a slaughter”, “one who kills” or “one who cuts” from the appropriate nouns stems.  In English, the alternative form was –icide.

Tyrannicide is a noun.  The adjective tyrannous (of tyrannical character) was from the late fifteenth century whereas the now more common adjective tyrannical dates from the 1530s from the Classical Latin tyrannicus (arbitrary, despotic), from the Ancient Greek tyrannikos (befitting a despot) from tyrannos.  The adjectival variation tyrannic was used in this sense from the late fifteenth century and the companion adverb was tyrannically.  The adjective tyrannicidal was a creation of the mid-1800s which gained a new popularity in the next century when examples abounded.  The late fourteenth century noun tyranny (cruel or unjust use of power; the government of a tyrant) was from the thirteenth century Old French tyranie, from the Late Latin tyrannia (tyranny), from the Ancient Greek tyrannia (rule of a tyrant, absolute power) from tyrannos (master).

The tyrannosaurus (carnivorous Cretaceous bipedal dinosaur) was named in 1905 and came to public attention the following year when US paleontologist, geologist (and enthusiastic eugenicist) Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857–1935) who coined the term, published his research in the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, the construct being the Ancient Greek tyrannos + -saurus (from the Ancient Greek σαῦρος (saûros) (lizard, reptile)).  The now familiar abbreviation T-Rex appears not to have been used before 1970 when it was adopted as the name of a pop-group.  In the avian branch of zoology, tyrant birds are members of the family Tyrannidae, which often fight or drive off other birds which approach their nests which seems a bit of a slur.

In the early days of Antiquity, tyrannicide was a part of the political process and rather than being thought of as what would now be called a “criminal” act, it was just another method of transferring power.  As societies evolved and recognizable civilizations emerged from competing cultures, attitudes did change and tyrannicide began to be regarded as a form of murder which might be self-justifying depending on the context and the degree of tyranny eradicated although Aristotle did distinguish between those who committed tyrannicide for personal gain and those (rare) disinterested souls who did it for the good of the community.

However intricately philosophers and legal theorists added the layer of nuance, tyrannicide (many of which were of course also acts of regicide ("the killing of a king" (used also for assassinated queens, ruling princes etc) or "one who does the killing", from the Latin rēgis (king (genitive singular of rēx)) +‎ -cide (killer), patterned after suicide, tyrannicide etc) remained a popular and expedient way to hasten dynastic or political change.  It could be said the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) and Eighty Years' War (1568–1648) and established the principle that the religion a ruler choose to adopt for himself and his nation was a purely internal matter and not one to be changed by foreign intervention, represented the beginning of an international law which would come to outlaw the assassinations of rulers, tyrants or not.  That however is a retrospective view and not one at the time discussed.

Nor would legal niceties have been likely much to influence those who would wish to kill a tryant, some of whom have even claimed some justification under natural law.  Whether Brutus (85-42 BC) ever uttered the phrase Sic semper tyrannis (thus always to tyrants) after stabbing Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) or not (as the historian Plutarch (46-circa 122) maintained), it resonated through history, John Wilkes Booth, noting in his diary that he shouted "Sic semper tyrannis" after killing Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865; US president 1861-1865) in 1865.  History doesn’t record if the words were on the lips of those who either attempted or succeeded in dispatching Adolf Hitler (1944), Benito Mussolini (1945), Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza García (1956), the Dominican Republic’s dictator Rafael Trujillo (1961), South Korean dictator Park Chung-hee (1979), President Anwar Sadat of Egypt (1981), Afghan President Mohammad Najibullah (1996) & Colonel Muammar Gaddafi (2011), but it can be imagined they weren’t far from the assassins’ thoughts.

International law did however evolve to the point where the UN’s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons was presented in 1973, coming into force in 1977 and eventually ratified by 180 countries.  Although the convention was inspired by a spike in the assassination of diplomats in the early 1970s, the protection was extended to tyrants, the wording of the relevant clause being in Article 1a which declared that the ranks of “internationally protected persons” included:

A Head of State, including any member of a collegial body performing the functions of a Head of State under the constitution of the State concerned, a Head of Government or a Minister for Foreign Affairs, whenever any such person is in a foreign State, as well as members of his family who accompany him.

While it’s true Libya’s ratification of the convention didn’t save Colonel Gaddafi from becoming a victim of tyrannicide, he would at least have died knowing he was being assassinated in contravention of a UN convention.  Whether Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) was either explicitly calling for or hinting that an act of tyrannicide should be visited upon Vladimir Putin excited much interest recently when the US president labeled his Russian counterpart as a “butcher” who “cannot remain in power”.  It certainly could be construed as a call for Mr Putin’s “removal”, despite the White House in recent weeks having repeatedly emphasized that regime change in Russia is not US policy.  “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power” Mr Biden said at the end of his speech in front of the Royal Castle in Warsaw, an unscripted sentiment he apparently added in the heat of the moment.

Methods of tyrannicide vary: this is the kiss of death.

It took only minutes for the White House damage-control team to scramble, playing down the remarks with a Kafkaesque assertion that the president “was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change” but was instead making the point that Putin “…cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region.”  Within the Washington DC’s Capital Beltway the internal logic of the distinction makes complete sense, the White House insisting, a la the Barry Goldwater (1909–1998; Republican presidential candidate 1964) school of clarity of expression that what matters is not what Mr Biden says but what he means and they’re here to explain that.  Perhaps the staff should give Mr Biden a list of helpful ways of advocating tyrannicide.  Arthur Calwell (1896–1973; Leader of the Australian Labor Party 1960-1967) didn’t escape controversy when he called for “the visitation of the angel of death” upon the tyrannical Archbishop Daniel Mannix (1864–1963; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne 1917-1963) but it was more poetic than Mr Biden’s efforts and Calwell, if accused of advocating tyrannicide, could point out he was calling merely for episcopicide (the killing of a bishop, the construct being the Latin episcopus (bishop in a Christian church who governs a diocese), from the Ancient Greek ἐπίσκοπος (epískopos) (overseer), the construct being ἐπί (epí) (over) + σκοπός (skopós) (watcher, lookout, guardian) +‎ -cide), something with a long if not always noble tradition.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken (b 1962; US secretary of state since 2021), noted for his precision of oral expression, followed up by saying it wasn’t the intention of Mr Biden to topple Mr Putin.  “The president made the point last night that, quite simply, President Putin cannot be empowered to wage war or engage in aggression against Ukraine or anyone else” Mr Blinken said while speaking in Jerusalem on Sunday, adding that “the US did not have a strategy of regime change in Russia or anywhere else”.  It’s “… up to the people of the country in question… the Russian people”.

Given the context of Mr Biden’s speech, it wasn’t difficult to understand why it aroused such interest.  Earlier, he’d called the invasion of Ukraine an act of aggression “… nothing less than a direct challenge to the rule-based international order established since the end of World War II” and that the valiant resistance of the Ukrainian people was a “battle for freedom” and the world must prepare for a “long fight ahead”.  “We stand with you,” he told Ukrainians in the speech which had begun with the famous words of the Polish Pope Saint John Paul II (1920–2005; pope 1978-2005): “Be not afraid”, a phrase associated with a earlier call for regime change within the countries of what was then the Warsaw Pact.  In remarks addressed directly to citizens of Russia, he added: This war is not worthy of you, the Russian people”.

The Kremlin’s displeasure at the remarks was soon expressed, prompting the White House cleaners to explain that what Mr Biden said was not what he meant and by Sunday the president appeared to be back on-message.  When asked by a reporter if he was calling for regime change in the Kremlin, he answered: “No”.

Forms in English constructed with the suffix –cide.

Sociolect

Sociolect (pronounced soh-see-uh-lekt (U) or soh-shee-uh-lect (non-U))

In the jargon of sociolinguistics, a variant of a language used by a particular social group (socioeconomic class, an ethnic group, an age group etc); a social dialect.

1970–1975: The construct was socio- + (dia)lect (ie by analogy with dialect, idiolect, etc).  The prefix socio- was from the Latin socius (associated, allied; partner, companion, ally), from the primitive Indo-European sokyo- (companion), from sek- (to follow).  The suffix –lect was adopted from the terminal element of dialect, thus representing the Ancient Greek element -λεκτος (-lektos), ultimately from λέγω (légō) (I say or speak).  The plural was sociolects.

In sociolinguistics, a sociolect is a variation of an established language, distinguished by a non-standard dialect or a re-allocation of meaning to elements of an existing dialect and a restricted or extended register).  Most sociolinguists restrict the definition to language used by a socioeconomic class, ethnic group, age group etc but some (somewhat controversially) include the language sub-sets used almost exclusively by trades or professions; few sociolinguists agree with the latter approach and maintain this language of essentially technical terms should be listed just as jargon.  The other significant difference from most other dialects is that it tends to be social class rather than geographical origin which substantiates the (unique or shared (lexical overlap being a noted feature in this field)) linguistic elements.

Sociolects (the companion term ethnolect is sometimes applied to ethnic-based dialects) as a distinct phenomenon are a recent addition to the field of structural linguistics.  There had long been an interest in dialectial variations which usually emerged organically in specific geographical spaces and tended to evolve and become entrenched in when the mobility of people was limited (although recent research does suggest this effect was over-stated) but what began in the late 1960s was the distinct branch of dialectology, the study of different dialects in relation to social society.  Unlike the dialects which began and became associated with a particular geographical space, the idea of the sociolect was of a speech which conforms to a social group identity, based usually on age or ethnicity and greatly influenced by socio-economic status.  That sounded environmentally deterministic and at the time that was probably true but what later emerged, especially as new technologies permitted an essentially instantaneous dissemination of popular culture to an increasing number of the global population, the earlier sociolinguistic view that patterns of speech are learned from the surrounding community was modified: people could now mix & match, picking community with which they wished to be associated and adopting their linguistic traits.

One of the best known of the genre is Ebonics (the construct a portmanteau of ebony + phonics), a word re-purposed in the early 1970s by a group of African-American academics, headed by a psychologist, Professor Robert Lee Williams II (1930–2020).  Originally, linguistic anthropologists used Ebonics to refer to the forms of English-based languages used by all those descended from black African slaves, particularly those brought from West Africa to the Caribbean and North America.  For generations, scholars had regarded these variations from Standard English as inferior and essentially a form for the “uneducated” and the assertion of a redefined Ebonics was a reaction to the negative connotations which had long pervaded academia.  It proved of some interest to those working in structural linguistics but within the community of black academics (who turned out to be as diverse and disparate in their opinions as academics of any race), it was a controversial topic because of the view that whatever the merits in recognizing that all dialectical forms (and structurally, in a sense, Standard English was just one of many) deserved to be recognized as equally valid forks, there was the recognition that the use and mastery of the standard forms was a fundamental necessity for social advancement and economic empowerment.

A Clockwork Orange (1962) by Anthony Burgess, first edition, signed by the author, AU$18,975.08 on eBay.

Neither widely embraced by the linguistic community nor recognized by most lexicographers (although dictionaries in the era were still substantially in print and acceptance did take longer, mistakes in static documents impossible to correct), Ebonics for years remained little-known outside universities although some police departments did use the word, providing printed guides of phrases used (uniquely it was said) by African-Americans to communicate among themselves while concealing the meaning from outsiders who might be listening.  These phrases used words from the vocabulary of Standard English but with a different grammar and sometimes a re-allocation of meaning.  In this it differed from Nadsat, the argot or fictional register invented by Anthony Burgess (1917-1993) for the droogs in A Clockwork Orange (1962), where the words, although often derived from English, were barely if at all unrecognizable.

It was in 1996 Ebonics became widely known in the US.  The Oakland School Board, apparently in an attempt to gain additional funding for the teaching of English to those for whom it was not a first language, listed Ebonics as the primary language of the substantial number of their African-American pupils.  The use of the term seems to have been an attempt to add some academic gloss or gain political favor because the alternative term “African American English”, had been in use for some years and technically, meant the same thing although there may have been the feeling Ebonics carried a favorable political loading.  The board’s view was interpreted as a recognition there was in some senses a separate community of African Americans and to enable them to operate in both cultures it was desirable for them to learn Standard (American) English so they might use both depending on the circumstances, a process called "code switching".

A roaming pack of valley girls.

Valleyspeak (sometimes shortened to Valspeak) was another interesting form.  It was a socially-specific dialect associated with the stereotypical white, materialistic, upper middle-class, teen-aged girl (hence “valley-girl” being the archetype) in southern California circa 1980-1987, characterised by the adoption (and sometimes re-purposing) of existing words and phrases, delivered with an exaggerated inflection.  Elements of Valleyspeak spread to other demographics and for a certain period in the 1980s and 1990s, it was something of a fad with a peak period from around 1981 to 1985 although some of it has endured in words and phrases now part of much mainstream speech.  The use of “like” as a discourse marker and “whatever”, deployed to covey general dismissiveness have become endemic and “uptalk” or “upspeak” (technically the “high rising terminal” (HRT) or “high rising intonation” (HRI), where declarative sentences can end with a rising pitch similar to that once associated only with yes/no questions) seems to have been infectious in younger, less educated demographics.  The source of the term Valleyspeak is said to have been Frank Zappa’s (1940-1993) parody music single Valley Girl (1982) in which, behind the music, his teenage daughter Moon Unit Zappa (1967), delivered a monologue in what would come to be known as Valleyspeak.  The form was subsequently spread and popularized by US pop-culture, especially film and television.  Valleyspeak includes:

Like = um.
Whatever = dismissively, whatever you say.
Totally = I agree.
As if = unlikely, impossible.
Oh my God = amazing, shocked.
So = very.
Fer shur (for sure) = certainly.
Bitchin’ = excellent.
Filth = excellent.
Gag Me = ick.
Gag me with a spoon = super ick.
Awesome = awesome.
I know, right? = agree.
Grody = somewhat gross.
Gross = disgusting.
Bogus = untrustworthy, sketchy.
Barf out! = An exclamation of encountering something grody.
For sure = absolutely.
Dork = someone uncool & clueless.
Hunk = attractive male.
Spaz = someone clumsy.
To the max = extreme adjective.
Excellent! = excellent.
No way = I don’t believe it, dude.
Yes way = believe it, dude (in response to ‘no way’).
Humongous = very large, bigger than huge.
Humongoid = humongous.
Heinous = ugly.
Nice = an ironic judgement.

Moon Unit Zappa, Valley Girl (1982)

Orphan

Orphan (pronounced awr-fuhn)

(1) A person who has lost one or both parents through death (now usually used only if both parents have died); term is used only with children or older minors and in informal use is sometimes extended to an abandoned child.

(2) A young animal left motherless by death or desertion.

(3) Figuratively, a person or thing without protective affiliation, sponsorship, etc.

(4) In typography (applied especially in word processing) the first line of a paragraph when it appears alone at the bottom of a page.

(5) Figuratively, something not (or no longer) authorized, supported, or funded; not part of a system; isolated; abandoned.

(6) In computing, any unreferenced object or a process, the parent of which has terminated.

(7) In medicine, as orphan disease (a rare disease) or orphan drug (something developed under the US Orphan Drug Act (1983) for orphan diseases.

(8) In biochemistry, as orphan receptor, apparent receptor that has a similar structure to other identified receptors but whose endogenous ligand has not yet been identified.

(9) In nuclear physics, as orphan source, a self-contained radioactive source that is no longer under proper regulatory control.

(10) In the automotive industry, cars still in use built by a manufacturer which has entirely ceased operations (applied informally also to vehicles produced to defunct divisions of parent corporations (eg Imperial, Pontiac).

(11) In the matter of technology, literature and other copyrighted material, something abandoned by its owner or where the copyright holder is untraceable; in reference to software the slang term is “abandonware”.

1425–1475: The noun was from the late Middle English, from the Late Latin orphanus (destitute, without parents), from orbus (bereaved), from the Ancient Greek ὀρφανός (orphanós) (without parents, fatherless; bereaved (literally “deprived”)), from orphos (bereft), from the primitive Indo-European orbho (bereft of father (also "deprived of free status”), from the root orbh- (to change allegiance, to pass from one status to another), source also of the Hittite harb- (change allegiance), the Sanskrit arbhah (weak, child), the Armenian orb (orphan), the Old Irish orbe (heir), the Old Church Slavonic rabu (slave), the rabota (servitude ( and related to the modern robot), the Gothic arbja, the German erbe, the Old English ierfa (heir), the Old High German arabeit, the German Arbeit (work), the Old Frisian arbed and the Old English earfoð (hardship, suffering, trouble")..  It was cognate with the Sanskrit अर्भ (árbha), the Latin orbus, (bereaved), the Old High German erbi, & arbi (hence the German Erbe (heir)) and the Old English ierfa (heir).  The Late Latin orphanós was the source also of the Old French orfeno & orphenin and the Italian orfano.  The extinct alternative spelling was orphane and the plural is orphans.

The verb use (to reduce to the state of being an orphan) dates from circa 1814.  It was used as an adjective from the late fifteenth century, the figurative use emerging at the same time.  The syndicated newspaper cartoon strip Little Orphan Annie (1924-2010) created by Harold Gray (1894-1968) was originally titled Little Orphant Annie after the title of James Whitcomb Riley's (1849-1916) 1885 poem Little Orphant Allie (though it was originally titled The Elf Child, the name was changed by Riley for the third printing; it was a typesetting error which substituted “orphan” for “orphant”. Orphant was an old, corrupt form of orphan, attested from the seventeenth century.

The noun orphanage dates from the 1570s and originally meant “the condition of being an orphan", the more familiar modern meaning "a home for orphans" not used until 1850.  Other words for "the condition of being an orphan" have included orphanhood (1670s), orphancy (1580s), orphanism (1590s) & orphanship (1670s) and in Middle English there was the mid-fifteenth century orphanite (desolation, wretchedness).  The early forms to describe the building in which orphans were housed were orphan house (1711), orphan-asylum (1796) & orphanry (1872).  Orphanage prevailed over the others for no good etymological reason (some critics noting homes for girls weren’t called “girlages”) but despite there being a risk of confusion with the sixteenth century sense of “the condition of being an orphan", it was preferred and orphanhood came to be the standard form of description for the state despite the objection of pedants who insisted the English “-hood” should never be affixed to a Greek or Roman root; a long-lost battle even then.  The purists had more success in fighting off "Orphanotrophy" although the less objectionable "Orphanry" (as in “aviary”), although achieving the tick of approval from the lexicographers, seems never to have caught on, people presumably not attracted by the alignment of places for children being linguistically aligned with zoos.

In antiquity, an orphan was one who had lost both parents but in English use, by the seventeenth century, the status of orphanhood was afforded to a child who had lost either.  That lead to constructions which defined the differential state (half-orphan, double orphan, maternal orphan & paternal orphan and all the classifications were applied in a variety of ways, on both sides of the Atlantic, matters applying to children administered usually by local authorities so regional differences were common, some insisting the status of an orphan was created only upon the death of one or both parents while in other places desertion was sometimes sufficient.  The age at which one could, whatever the nature of the loss, cease to be regarded as an orphan was also inconsistent until the modern state evolved but the idea always was it ceased with adulthood but this tended sometimes to be a functional judgment based on prevailing social and economic conditions; it could be as young as fourteen at a time when workforce participation (male and female) was common.

The modern practice has long been an orphan is a minor who has lost both parents but UNICEF (the United Nations Children's Fund (originally the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund but the name was changed in 1953, UNICEF retained as the name though no longer technically an acronym), UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS) and some NGOs (non-governmental organizations) label as an orphan any child who has lost one parent.  This is a practical approach which acknowledges the often severe consequences which follow from the loss of one parent.

The verse in the New Testament which imposes on all a duty to care for orphans is often quoted:

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress…" (James 1:27 (KJV 1611)).

Less often cited are the passages from the Old Testament in which it’s threatened the wrath of God will make orphans of the children of he who mistreats an orphan:

22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.

23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;

24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. (Exodus 22:22-24 (KJV 1611)).

The holy Qu'ran has a number of passages which make clear the duty of all to care for orphans and not take from them:

Give orphans their property, and do not substitute bad things for good. Do not assimilate their property into your own. Doing that is a serious crime.  (The Women: 2).

Keep a close check on orphans until they reach a marriageable age, then if you perceive that they have sound judgement hand over their property to them... (The Women: 6).

1932 Studebaker Dictator.  Studebaker used Dictator as a model name between 1927-1937 and there was not political connotation, the word in 1927 not having the associations it would later gain.  By 1937 things had changed and the name was dropped.

Studebaker had a long and storied history, its origin in a German blacksmithing business (1736-1750), the family moving to the US and beginning the production of carriages and carts in 1852, its first automobiles actually electric cars offered in 1902 before the sale of petrol-powered models in 1904.  The powered-range grew quickly and by 1919, Studebaker ceased production of horse-drawn carriages, a decision vindicated by its success in the 1920s.  Like many other concerns however, the Great Depression of the early 1930s mauled its business and Studebaker was forced to enter bankruptcy although a reorganization and a financial re-structuring arranged by the venerable Lehman Brothers permitted it soon to resume operating, the improving economic conditions of the mid-1930s ensuring ongoing profitability.

Studebaker US6 truck in Red Army use, configured as mobile Katyusha rocket launcher, circa 1943.

Like many US corporations, some of its golden years came during World War II when industrial capacity was given over to government contracts fulfilling military production.  A variety of materiel was produced but Studebaker’s most notable contribution to the war effort was the versatile US6 (G630 in the government purchasing system) 2½ (short) ton 6x6 trucks, over a hundred and fifty thousand of which were supplied to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease programme.  Built in many configurations, the most memorable adaptation by the Red Army was as a mobile platform for the BM-31-12 (nickname: Andryusha) Katyusha rocket launcher, known to the enemy as “Stalin’s organs” because of the the distinctive sound of the rockets; the Russian army is still using the concept in their invasion of Ukraine.  The US6 proved popular with the army which found it much superior to the locally-made ZIS-5 & GAZ-AA and better even than the captured German trucks with Maybach engines which (belying the German reputation for “good beer, good engines, good sausages"), were prone to overheating under extreme loads, unlike the Studebakers which never boiled.  The tale may be apocryphal but it’s claimed Comrade Stalin (1878–1953; leader of the USSR, 1922-1953) even wrote a letter of appreciation to Studebaker, mentioning how important the US6 had been to the Red Army.

1964 Studebaker Avanti R2.

Studebaker had ups and downs after the war but the long-term trend was down.  By the early 1960s the writing was on the wall but there was one last roll of the dice, a gamble that would be either the savior of the corporation or the final nail in the coffin.  Released in 1962, the Avanti straddled a spectrum of the market, seen mostly as what would come to be called a personal coupe, it was also the company’s halo car and, most unexpectedly, something of a pony car and muscle car before either segment really existed.  Offered in three versions: (1) the R1 with a 289 cubic inch (4.7 litre) V8 rated at 240 horsepower, (2) the with R2 with a Paxton supercharger with gained 50 horsepower and, (3) the exotic 304 cubic inch (5.0 litre) R3 with 335 horsepower (only nine of which were built).  Performance was good, the Avanti at least competitive with the competition and to prove the slipperiness of the fibreglass body, styled by French-born, US-based designer Raymond Loewy (1893-1986), the company took an R3 to to the Bonneville Salt Flats, where it set 29 production car records, posting a top speed of almost 170 mph (273 km/h).

The Avanti’s appearance at the time was quite startling and the reception it received after being shown in New York in 1962 was generally positive but almost immediately the project encountered problems.  Because the car was expected to sell in relatively low volumes of around twenty-thousand a year and the body was rendered with complex curves, production in steel or aluminum was never considered, the panels instead molded in fibreglass, then still a more respectable material than it would later become.  Each Avanti however needed over one-hundred fiberglass components and the contractor experienced some difficulty in mass-producing them with the necessary tolerances, the ensuing delay meaning that in its first full year on sale, barely 1,200 reached customers, a disappointing debut for a car expected to rescue the corporation from impending bankruptcy.  Studebaker’s parlous finances were by now public knowledge and although things improved in 1963, buyers were scarce and fewer than 4,000 Avantis were sold, well below the volume at which it was economically viable.  The next year, the factory booked orders for fewer than a 1000 and, bowing to the inevitable, Studebaker announced the end of the Avanti and it turned out to be a harbinger, all their production ceasing in 1966, the corporation dissolved shortly afterwards.

At that point the Avanti should, like literally thousands of others, simply have died but unusually, it become an orphan, a model cast adrift by the death of the parent corporation.  The Avanti, which should have been Studebaker’s swansong, turned out to be a phoenix, the model attracting no fewer than five subsequent owners who, between 1965 and 2006, produced 3840 Avantis using a variety of drive-train combinations from the Detroit parts bin, some with convertible coachwork and even a handful of four-door sedans.  Even more a niche model than it had been under Studebaker’s parentage, in its best year as an orphan a mere 289 left the factory but for four decades (profitably and sometimes not) it was sustained by a small but devoted clientele and even today the survivors have an enthusiastic following, the most desirable of the early cars typically attracting over US$40,000 at auction.

The orphan Avanti production numbers, 1966-2006.

Pantechnicon

Pantechnicon (pronounced pan-tek-ni-kon or pan-tek-ni-kuhn)

(1) A building or place housing shops or stalls where all sorts of (especially exotic) manufactured articles are collected for sale; most associated with the Pantechnicon, a large warehouse where goods (delivered by Pantechnicon's vans) were stored.

(2) A large van, especially one designed for moving or furniture and other household goods; originally "pantechnicon van".

1820-1830: A creation of modern English using the Ancient Greek, the construct being pan-, from the Ancient Greek πᾰν- (pan-), a neuter form of πᾶς (pâs) (all, every) + τεχνικόν (tekhnikón) (artistic, skillful), neuter singular of τεχνικός (tekhnikós, “technical”), from tekhnē (art), from the primitive Indo-European tetḱ- (to create, produce).  The clippings pantech (UK) & pantech van (Australia) are now less common.  Pantechnicon is a noun; the noun plural is pantechnicons.

The Pantechnicon building, Motcomb Street, Belgrave Square, London.  It was built in what was then called the “Greek Revival” style, featuring a neo-classical facade using Doric columns.  It’s described now as a “contemporary fashion emporium” and includes the inevitable café, restaurant & bar.

A Pantechnicon van (almost always called a pantechnicon and, in certain places. “pantech” endures) was originally horse-drawn and used to transport furniture to and from The Pantechnicon, a bazaar in central London where objects were stored as well as sold.  The Pantechnicon building was built in the early 1830s, the name coined from the Ancient Greek to convey the idea of an institution which traded in all aspects of the arts.  That commercial use continued but the building and the eponymous vans became famous in the twentieth century after the premises were converted into furniture storage warehouse. The warehouse was burnt out in 1876 and suffered another severe blaze in 1939, the latter unfortunate timing as many people had stored there the household effects of grand London houses which were being shuttered for the duration of the war.

Although originally used exclusively to service clients of The Pantechnicon, the design of the vans, being functionally deterministic, was optimized for the task and soon adopted by all removalists, the name to describe the vans quickly becoming generic.  The design persisted when the vans were motorized; now built on truck chassis, they were now even more obviously slab-sided cuboids and the new technology permitted them to become very large.  In a city like London with some narrow lanes and tight corners, some of which dated from the Roman occupation, that presented problems of its own and some small, horse-drawn pantechnicons continued to ply their trade even after the Second World War.

1947 Rolls-Royce Silver Wraith "Pantechnicon" by Hooper.

Being functional work-horses designed for the maximization of internal space and the ease of loading, few commented on the aesthetics but when the same style was adopted in 1947 for a Rolls-Royce Silver Wraith commissioned by an exceedingly rich oil trader called Nubar Gulbenkian (1896-1972), many were aghast and the thing was soon nick-named the Pantechnicon.  Built by the coachbuilder Hooper, it didn’t start a trend for the design although, over the next decade, some details would appear in the cars of many manufacturers because of the contribution to aerodynamic efficiency.  Time has perhaps been kinder to Mr Gulbenkian’s pantechnicon than critics at the time, compared with some of what would be produced in the years that followed, Hooper’s lines had coherence and even a simplicity which, until their bankruptcy, would elude some coachbuilders and certainly, there are more hints of the future in the pantechnicon than most of the Silver Wraiths (1946-1958) which were usually pastiches of pre-war mofifs.

1956 Rolls-Royce Silver Wraith by Hooper.

Unmoved by the staid critics, Mr Gulbenkian continued to favor both the Wraith and Hooper though not their standard range.  While he didn’t again request anything pantechnicon-like, his tastes nevertheless remained eccentric, purchases including a four-door cabriolet (a rarity even then) and a sedanca de ville (a body style thought almost extinct), the latter fully-trimmed in sage-green lizard-skin.  Probably the most dramatic of Gulbenkian’s Hooper-bodied Rolls-Royces was a left-hand drive example built for use on the Côte d’Azur where he kept a house (and reputedly several mistresses); it had conventional four-door saloon coachwork but its novelty lay in its transparent Perspex roof, complete with an electrically-operated fabric inner blind to keep the occupants cool despite the Mediterranean sun.  Eschewing the usual acres of burl walnut which had been a Rolls-Royce signature since the earliest days, the interior was trimmed entirely in leather, a hallmark of all the Gulbenkian cars as was the speedometer fitted in the rear passenger compartment.  So distinctive was the appearance that after it was sold, it was used in the 1964 film Les Félins (released in English-language markets as The Love Cage) which starred Alain Delon (b 1935) and a young Jane Fonda (b 1937).

1966 Mercedes-Benz 600 SWB by Chapron.

Mr Gulbenkian must have been quite taken with the Perspex roof because in 1965, impressed by Mercedes-Benz’s extraordinary new 600 (W100; 1963-1981), he approached them and requested they build him one with such a roof.  Stuttgart declined.  Undeterred, in 1966 Mr Gulbenkian purchased one from the French distributer and had it delivered directly to Henri Chapron’s (1886-1978) coachbuilding studio in Paris to which he provided a specification sheet and what is said to have been a quite professional-looking sketch.  The build took almost a year because, better to enjoy the view through the transparent roof, Mr Gulbenkian fancied the idea of gazing at the stars at night so the rear seats were configured to recline into a bed.  The door panels were equipped with handheld mirrors and glass deflectors designed to minimalize the air turbulence in the cabin. Special tobacco pipe holders were fitted, as well as a minibar.  One piece of German engineering Chapron didn’t try to emulate was to extend the hydraulic control system to operate the roof blinds.  The 600 was unique in that it didn’t use electric motors for things like the windows, these along with the doors, seats, sunroof and trunk (boot) lid instead silently run by a hydraulic system, which ran at an extraordinary 2176 psi (150 bar), something which absorbed about a sixth of the power generated by the 386 cubic inch (6.3 litre) V8 although what remained was sufficient still to propel what was a big, heavy and not obviously aerodynamic car to almost 130 mph (210 km/h).  The 600 was anyway expensive but Chapron's work more than doubled the price.  Mr Gulbenkian who then owned some 5% of BP, didn't quibble.

419 Venice Way, Venice Beach, Los Angeles, 31 January 2012.

This is the pantechnicon Lindsay Lohan hired when moving from where she lived during 2011-2012 in a semi-mirrored construction (a style of architecture sometimes called “pigeon pair”) next door to former special friend Samantha Ronson who inhabited Number 417.  She moved out after being disturbed by "a Freemason stalker".  In North America, this pantechnicon would usually be called a "semi", a clipping of "semi-articulated trailer" and even in the UK the term "pantechnicon" is now less common, as is the Australian clipping "pantech van". 

Teflon

Teflon (pronounced tef-lon)

(1) The trademark for a fluorocarbon polymer with slippery, non-sticking properties; the (chemically correct) synonym is polytetrafluoroethylene.

(2) In casual use, facetiously to denote an ability to evade blame, applied usually to certain politicians, those characterized by imperviousness to criticism, often as “teflon president etc”.

1945: The proprietary name registered in the US by the du Pont corporation, from the chemical name (poly)te(tra)fl(uoroethylene) + the –on.  The use of the -on suffix in science is often described by etymologists as “arbitrary” and in the narrow technical sense the point is well made but there is history.  In physics it was applied on the model of the “on” element in electron, something lent linguistic respectability by the Ancient Greek -ον (-on), used to end neuter nouns and adjectives.  In chemistry, it followed the “on” in carbon, applied to form names of noble gases and certain non-metal elements (creating first boron and then silicon).  In physics, mathematics and biology, it was appended to form nouns denoting subatomic particles (proton), quanta (photon), molecular units (codon), or substances (interferon).  In biology and genetics, it was used to form names of things considered as basic or fundamental units (such as codon or recon).  The derived forms teflonish, tefleony etc are late twentieth century creations from critical political discourse.

Teflon was a serendipitous discovery which was delivered by research on refrigeration gases being undertaken by the Du Pont Company in 1938.  Some of the experiments being performed involved an analysis of the behavior of various compounds of Freon in cylinders and, observations indicated that while the gas appeared to disappear from the cylinders, weight measurements suggested it remained present and, upon inspection, what was found in the cylinders was a white, waxy substance of no use in the process of refrigeration.  The substance did however have remarkable properties, being friction-free (described as being like rubbing wet ice against wet ice) and impervious both almost all solvents and temperature variations between -273–250^o c (-169–121^o f).  Chemically the substance was a form of polytetrafluoroethylene, thankfully shortened to "Teflon" ((poly)te(tra)fl(uoroethylene)).  The significance of Teflon wasn’t initially understood and Du Pont’s major product release that year was anyway nylon, finally available as a commercial substance after thirteen years of development.

Teflon did however soon have an impact in one of the century’s most significant scientific and engineering projects, those attached to the Manhattan Project developing the atom bomb finding it the only coating which worked as seals for the canisters housing the most volatile elements.  However, because of the secrecy which enveloped the Manhattan Project, some aspects of which would not for many decades be declassified, Teflon didn’t enter the public consciousness until the late 1950s, the timing ensuring it came to be associated with the nascent space programme rather than the A-bomb, a perception the military-industrial complex did little to discourage.  Because of the state of the analytical tools then available, it had taken a long time fully to understand the stuff and it transpired the slipperiness came from a unique molecular structure, the core of carbon atoms being surrounded by fluorine atoms, creating a bond so strong that any other interaction was repelled, the chemical mix also accounting for the high degree of invulnerability to solvents and extremes in temperature.

The first extensive use was in electronics industry, first as insulation and corrosion protection for the copper wires and cables which carried the data for telephony and later computer networks but, as an example of the novel products it enabled, shatter-proof, Teflon-coated light bulbs went on sale but most far-reaching, revolutionary actually, was that it was Teflon which was used to hold the new and tiny semiconductor chips.  All those uses played a part in transforming the world but it was the simultaneous (and well-publicized) use in the Apollo Moon programme and the commercial release of the Teflon fry-pans which so cemented the association in public consciousness.  For some years, mystery shrouded how Du Pont managed to get the Teflon to stick to the aluminum or stainless steel with which fry-pans are made but, after the patents expired, it was revealed the classic trick was to sandblast the metal surfaces which left tiny indentations with irregular edges which worked like the clasps jewelers use to secure stones.  Once these tiny impressions were filled with Teflon, the final layer had something to which to adhere; Teflon attracting itself and repelling all else.  That was an wholly mechanical process but chemical processes were also developed to induce attachment to metal.

While some half a billion Teflon fry-pans were being sold, the slippery substance went on extensively to be used in architecture where its qualities of flame resistance and translucence were much appreciated and it proved uniquely suited to solving a problem which had for decades plagued engineers, the need for an insulator to prevent the corrosion endemic between the steel framework and copper skin of the Statue of Liberty.  Living structures also benefited, Teflon of great utility in the medical device industry because of its compatibility with living tissue, proving an ideal substance with which to construct artificial veins and arteries, heart patches and replacement ligaments although most inventive was probably the Teflon powder injections used to restore the function of vocal-cords.  Early in the twenty-first century, concerns were raised after the chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), used in the production of Teflon, was found to be potentially carcinogenic.  The research didn’t produce direct evidence that it's harmful to humans but it was anyway replaced with a substitute, the wonderfully named GenX but this too has attracted concerns.

Teflon resistant: Although described by Representative Pam Schroeder (Democrat, Colorado) as “Teflonish”, one object did stick to Bill Clinton no matter what (and there was much "what").

The word Teflon is used also to refer to that small class of politicians to whom no blame, however well-deserved, seems to attach; whatever mud is slung, none of it ever sticks.  It seems first to have been used by Pat Schroeder (b 1940; Democrat Representative for Colorado in the House 1973-1997) who in a speech on the floor of the House in 1983 denouncing President Ronald Reagan (1911–2004; US president 1981-1989) said “He has been perfecting the Teflon-coated presidency: He sees to it that nothing sticks to him.”  Schroeder later said that the expression came to her while frying eggs in a Teflon fry-pan.  In a display of feminist bi-partisanship, she would in a later interview with CNN note that President Bill Clinton (b 1946; US president 1993-2001) was very “Teflonish” and the phrase has come to be used to describe the political phenomenon of the willingness in voters to excuse in some the shortcomings they wouldn’t accept in most.  The linguistic adaptation didn’t please Du Pont which greatly valued their trademark, issuing a press release insisting that when used in print, the media should always put the trademark symbol next to the word and that ”It is not, alas, a verb or an adjective, not even when applied to the President of the United States!”  Their demands were ignored and English proceeds along its inventive ways.  There is nothing to suggest Teflon sales ever suffered by association.

Lindsay Lohan in a yacht's galley, cooking with non-stick frypan, Cannes, May 2017.

Teflon is produced from a mix of certain chemicals which are part of a large family of substances called perfluoroalkyl & polyfluoroakyl (PFAS) and research has linked human exposure to a number of conditions including some cancers, reproductive issues, and elevated cholesterol levels.  Given that, on the basis of the experience of litigation and legislative response to other once common materials found to be at least potentially dangerous, it might be expected an intensive research effort has at least quantified the extent of the problem.  However, it transpired it’s effectively impossible to measure the risks of the use of PFAS in non-stick, simply because for decades the chemicals have been so ubiquitous in domestic environments because of their role providing water & stain-resistance in everything from raincoats, carpets and car upholstery.  That means PFAS chemicals have long since become part of the environment, detected everywhere from the seabed to mountain tops.  For the human and animal population, the presence in the water supply is of significance and in the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2020 published guidelines for the acceptable level of certain PFAS in drinking water, a document which attracted great interest because it appears about the same time as a study which indicated a correlation between exposure and a disturbing “millions of deaths”.  Among the general population, it’s the cookware which came quickly to attract the most concern, not because there’s any evidence to suggest the stuff is a more productive vector of transfer than carpet, curtains or any other source but because of the intimacy of contact; it’s from those non-stick frypans we eat.  It’s also in dental floss but the psychological threshold of swallowing is real.

Lindsay Lohan using non-stick frypan.  Note the metal fork; Ms Lohan is a risk-taker.

Not all PFAS are identical in the critical areas assessed although they all share the characteristic of being stable, something which has seen then dubbed the “forever chemicals”, something potentially useful for science although it’s the implication that once released, the stuff will persist in the environment for millions of years which disturbs.  Some have been identified as especially dangerous and two (PFOS & PFOA) have already been phased out of industrial use, notably because of a risk posed to the human immune system and encouragingly, testing revealed that after FOS use ceased in 2000, levels in human blood declined significantly.  Those who ensure they use only soft kitchen utensils when using the non-stick products shouldn’t be too assured because injecting a big chunk of the stuff historically hasn’t been the issue; it’s the micro-sized bits entering the body and while manufacturers claim any coating swallowed is inert, the concerns remain.  In the absence of relevant data, there are nuanced positions on non-stick pans. The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) continues to permit the use in cookware while the EPA maintains exposure can lead to “adverse health effects” and in 2022 proposed a labeling protocol which would require certain PFAS to be listed as “hazardous substances”.  Another branch of the administration, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) maintains the health effects of low exposure remain “uncertain.”