Heaven & Hell

Heaven (pronounced hev-uhn)

(1) In theology, the abode of God, the angels, and the spirits of the righteous after death; the place or state of existence of the blessed after the mortal life.

(2) The celestial powers; God (initial capital letter and often in the plural).

(3) A metonym for God.

(4) In architecture, as heavens (used with a singular verb), a wooden roof or canopy over the outer stage of Elizabethan theatres.

(5) In poetic and (mostly historic) scientific & legal use, often in the plural, the sky, firmament, or expanse of space surrounding the earth, including the moon, Sun, planets & stars.

(6) A place or state of supreme happiness, often expressed as “heaven on earth”.

(7) A component of expression (variously singular & plural), used in exclamatory phrases of surprise, exasperation, emphasis etc.

(8) In mythology, a place, such as Elysium or Valhalla, to which those who have died in the gods' favour are brought, there eternally to dwell in happiness.

Pre 900: From the Middle English heven, hevin, heuen & hewin (heaven, sky), from the Old English heofon (home of God (and earlier) the visible sky, firmament), probably from the Proto-Germanic hibin (heaven, sky), a dissimilation of himin and source also of the Middle Low German heven, the Old Saxon heban, the Old Swedish himin, the Low German heben, the Old Norse himinn, the Old Danish himæn, the Gothic himins, the Old Frisian himul, the Scots heaven & hewin, the Dutch hemel and the German Himmel (heaven, sky).  The mysterious Proto-Germanic hibin (which existed also as hebn) is of uncertain and disputed origin.  It was cognate with and possibly the rare Icelandic and Old Norse hifinn (heaven, sky), which may be dissimilated forms of the Germanic root was more familiar in the Old Norse himinn (heaven, sky).  Among etymologists, the most popular alternative root is the Proto-Germanic himinaz (cover, cloud cover, firmament, sky).  A now archaic alternative spelling (in both sacred and secular writing) which persisted in poetry into the twentieth century because of the rhythmic advantages was heav'n.  Heaven is a noun & verb; heavenful & heavenhood are nouns, heavenless & heavenlike are adjectives and heavenly is an adjective & adverb; the noun plural is heavens.

Stairway to Heaven, sculpture by David McCracken, Bondi, Sydney, Australia.

From the late fourteenth century, the word in English assumed the meaning "a heavenly place; a state of bliss”.  The plural use in sense of "sky" may have emerged from a simple habit of use influenced by other words although a link has been suggested with the Ptolemaic theory of space as composed of many spheres.  It had also been used in the same sense in the singular in Biblical language, as a translation of Hebrew plural shamayim.  The earliest adjectival sense “heaven-sent” is attested from the 1640s.

Hell (pronounced hel)

(1) In theology, the place or state of eternal punishment of the wicked after death; the abode of evil and condemned spirits; Gehenna or Tartarus.  The ruler of hell is said often to be Satan; the Devil.

(2) Any place or state of torment or misery; something that causes torment or misery.

(3) The powers of evil.

(4) The abode of the dead; Sheol or Hades.

(5) Extreme disorder or confusion; chaos.

(6) In informal use, something remarkable of its kind (as in “one hell of a…”).

(7) A receptacle into which a tailor throws scraps and off-cuts (a practice in many industries).  In commercial printing, as the hellbox, a box into which a printer throws discarded type.

(8) A general purpose utterance of in swearing or for emphasis, now generally regarded as not actually obscene; used as an intensifier to express surprise, anger, impatience etc; an general intensifier in many phrases.

(9) A gambling house or booth in which bets are placed (archaic).

(10) In metal-working, to add luster to, burnish silver or gold (now rare).

Pre 900: From the Middle English Hell, from the Old English hel & hell (nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions, place of torment for the wicked after death).  In the sense of “pour” it was cognate with the Old High German hella & hellia (source of the Modern German Hölle), the Icelandic hella (to pour), the Norwegian helle (to pour), the Swedish hälla (to pour), the Old Norse hel & hella and the Gothic halja.  It was related to the Old English helan (to cover, hide) and to hull.  The Old English gained hel & hell from the Proto-Germanic haljō (the underworld) & halija (one who covers up or hides something), the source also of the Old Frisian helle, the Old Saxon hellia, the Dutch hel, the Old Norse hel, the German Hölle & the Gothic halja (hell).  The meaning in the early Germanic languages was derived from the sense of a "concealed place", hence the Old Norse hellir meaning "cave or cavern", from the primitive Indo-European root kel (to cover, conceal, save).  In sacred art, Hell, whether frozen or afire, is often depicted as a cavernous place.  Hell is a noun & verb; hellman, hellcat, hellhound & hellfare are nouns and hellish, helllike, hellproof & helly are adjectives; the noun plural is hells.

In the sense of “the underworld”, it was cognate with the Saterland Frisian Hälle (hell), the West Frisian hel (hell), the Dutch hel (hell), the German Low German Hell (hell), the German Hölle (hell), the Norwegian helvete (hell) and the Icelandic hel (the abode of the dead, death). The English traditions of use were much influenced by Norse mythology and the Proto-Germanic forms.  In the Norse myths, Halija (one who covers up or hides something) was the name of the daughter of Loki who rules over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (from nifl (mist)) and it was not uncommon for pagan concepts and traditions to be grafted onto Christian rituals and idiom.  Hell was used figuratively to describe a state of misery or bad experience (of which there must have been many in the Middle Ages) since the late fourteenth century and as an expression of disgust by the 1670s.  In eighteenth century England, there were a number of Hellfire Clubs, places where members of the elite could indulge their “immoral proclivities”.  The clubs were said to attract many politicians.

Lindsay Lohan at a promotion for John John "Made in Heaven" jeans, Rua Oscar Freire, Sao Paulo, Brazil, March 2013.

It proved adaptable in the English vernacular.  To have all hell break loose is from circa 1600; to hell in a handbasket is attested by 1867 (an in a context implying earlier use) although it may simply have been derivative of to heaven in a handbasket from 1853 which was a happy phrase implying an easy passage to a nice place.  Hell or high water from 1874 seems to have been a variation of the earlier between the devil and the deep blue sea and the first recorded instance of wishing someone would go to hell seems to have been in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice although it’s hard to believe it hadn’t before then been a familiar oral form and one with which the bard may well have been acquainted.  The snowflake’s (later snowball's) chance in hell meaning "no chance" is from 1931 and till hell freezes over meaning "never" is documented from 1832.  To do something just for the hell of it is from 1921, to ride (a horse) hell for leather is from 1889 and hell on wheels was noted (in the US) first in 1843, a reference to the river steamboats which, for propulsion, used large wheels rather than propellers and gained a general popularity after 1869 after it was used in reference to the temporary vice-ridden towns established along the path of the US transcontinental railroad.  Unrelated to this was the earlier (1580s) Scottish hell-wain (a phantom wagon seen in the sky at night).

What happens to snowflakes and snowballs in hell is interesting.  In the writings drawn from the Abrahamic traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, hell is certainly a hot place, the “fire and brimstone” of the New Testament used in the US as a description of a certain type of preacher.  However, in the Divine Comedy (1320), Dante Alighieri (circa 1265–1321) located hell in Earth’s innermost core and he wrote of its characteristics in ways consistent with Aristotelian dynamics; it was mostly hot and fiery but in some places frozen and immobile:

When we were down in that ditch’s darkness, well below the giant’s feet, my gaze still drawn by the wall above us, I heard a voice say: ‘Watch where you walk. Step so as not to tread upon our heads, the heads of wretched, weary brothers.’ At that I turned to look about. Under my feet I saw a lake so frozen that it seemed more glass than water. Never in winter did the Austrian Danube nor the far-off Don, under its frigid sky, cover their currents with so thick a veil as I saw there.

This prison of ice is reserved for a variety of different species of traitors. Depending on the severity of their offense, they may only be frozen from the waist down; or, they may be completely immersed.

A vision of Hell: Pandæmonium (1841) by John Martin (1789–1854).

Dante lists the intricate layers of location for the punishment of sinners and evildoers and while some are hot, the ninth and innermost circle, reserved for the worst of the worst, is icy cold.  Dante goes further, noting that even within the ninth circle, there are gradations, the worst and coldest spot kept for Judas Iscariot.  A colder conception of hell than that familiar from scripture but the idea of a cold hell exists also in Buddhism and some Christian texts of the first millennium.  Dante’s marvelous work was however for centuries neglected and others took the chance to make sure the Biblical stories held sway, John Milton (1608-1674) in Paradise Lost (1667-1674) having the last word, convincing all that Hell was no place for snowflakes.  So today it remains.

“At once, as far as Angel’s ken, he views

The dismal situation waste and wild.

A dungeon horrible, on all sides round,

As one great furnace flamed; yet from those flames

No light; but rather darkness visible

Served only to discover sights of woe,

Regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace

And rest can never dwell, hope never comes

That comes to all, but torture without end

Still urges, and a fiery deluge, fed

With ever-burning sulphur unconsumed.”

For those wondering about the fate of certain friends and family members or contemplating their own eternal fate, Dante’s Lonely Planet Guide to Hell summarizes the nine circles thus:

(1) Limbo: The first circle of Hell is Limbo, where the souls of the unbaptized and virtuous pagans reside; while there are no actual punishments, those in Limbo are forever denied the joy of God's presence.  Limbo, frankly, was a bit of a fudge, concocted by medieval theologians as a work-around to avoid the worst injustices of strict Christian rules (notably the souls of the stillborn being sent to Hell on the basis of being unbaptized).  Still it was orthodox Christian thought in Dante’s time and although in subsequent centuries there was much debate, it never went away.  Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022), no stranger to dancing on the head of a pin, seemed both to clarify and cloud the waters by saying limbo was only ever “medieval conjecture” and given there is no explicit answer from Scripture, people seem still free to make of it what they will.

(2) Lust: The second circle is for the lustful.  They are punished by being blown around in a violent storm, symbolizing their lack of self-control.  Perhaps surprisingly, given the fixation many modern denominations seem to have upon anything to do with sex, historically the Christian churches regarded lust usually as the “least to be condemned” of the seven deadly sins, the basis of that, as Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) pointed out: it was a sin “of the flesh and not the soul” and thus both understandable and forgivable as would one forgive one’s pet cat for eating the meat; it’s just what cats do.  Lust (sometimes expressed as “lechery) included not only fornication but also rape, adultery and “unnatural acts upon beasts of the field” so it was an uncharacteristically generous view from the pulpit.  Of course, given the well-documented predilection of priests, bishops and the odd pope to lustful ways, the relaxed view may have been corporate self-interest.

(3) Gluttony: The third circle is for the gluttonous. They are forced to lie in a vile slush of filth, symbolizing the garbage of their excessive consumption.  Theologians had a broader view of gluttony than is now current in that they were thinking also in terms of social justice; one person’s excessive consumption meant there were others who went hungry.  Some also explored aspects of gluttony as an example of “the idolatry of food” and thus a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.  One improbable supporter of this was Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943) who re-purposed the notion in his forlorn attempt to convince Italians it was time to re-create the Roman Empire, lambasting his countrymen for “…following the French into the decadence of elevating cooking to high art while letting the blade of the sword fall to rust.”  Later, the Duce would declare France a country ruined by: “alcohol, syphilis and journalism”.  

(4) Greed: The fourth circle is for the greedy. They are divided into two groups and forced to push heavy weights, symbolizing their excessive desire for material wealth.  Again it’s linked to worship of a “false idol”, the “worship of money” being the “root of all evil” long accepted as orthodox Christian theology (often acknowledged rather than practiced) although the distinction seems lost in many of the modern evangelical congregations (notably those which sing, clap and strum guitars) where it’s made clear McMansions, surf-skis and a big TV in as many rooms as possible is most godly.

(5) Wrath: The fifth circle is for the wrathful. They are submerged in the river Styx and must fight each other on the surface.  Wrath does seem a curious basis on which to be condemned to Hell, if only because if too rigorously enforced there would be few not damned.  The point seemed to be that the Christian message was not that one should never feel anger (indeed the Church would clarify this by saying mere anger was “neutral”) but that one should “practice Christian charity” and never allow wrathful thoughts to lead to the harming of one’s neighbour. 

(6) Heresy: The sixth circle is for the heretics. They are trapped in flaming tombs, symbolizing their rejection of God's love.  Heresy really is about as bad as it gets because it means one has disagreed with what the priest says and that means defying the pope who, as the “Vicar of Christ on Earth” is uniquely able to express the thoughts of God.  So, what the pope says goes which is why he is “infallible” in such matters; the internal logic is perfect.  While wrathful souls may end up in the fifth circle, a wrathful God is going to punish heretics by sending them for eternity to the sixth: “Vengeance is Mine” said the Lord.

(7) Violence: The seventh circle is divided into three rings, each for a different type of violence: against others, against oneself, and against God. The punishments include being boiled in blood, being transformed into trees and bushes, and being chased and mauled by dogs with sharp teeth.  It’s been hard for critics to resist the feeling Dante enjoyed writing of the sufferings in the seventh circle more than any other, possibly because of the exalted positions many of the victims enjoyed during however many of their four score & ten they managed.  The sanction of violence against self (suicide & attempted suicide) entered the criminal law systems in many jurisdictions and it’s only in recent decades that in some places it has been reclassified from crime to health condition of some type.

(8) Fraud: The eighth circle is for the fraudulent. It is divided into ten bolgias (from the Italian bolgia used here in the sense of “ditch”), each for a different type of fraud. The punishments include being whipped by demons, being immersed in excrement, and being transformed into reptiles.  In the matter of fraud, Dante casts a wider net than the offence captures in the modern imagination where it ranges from shop-lifting to Bernie Madoff’s (1938–2021) Ponzi scheme.  Instead of involving just financial matters, Dante encompasses fraud in a kind of omnibus bill which captures sins as diverse as those who corrupt others with flattery, those who seduce the innocent with lies and deception, those who practice magic & sorcery, those who corrupt the truth by the pedalling of fake news as well as, most obviously, thieves.

(9) Treachery: The ninth circle is for the treacherous. It is divided into four rounds, each for a different type of treachery. The punishments include being frozen in ice, being gnawed on by a three-headed demon, and being devoured by Lucifer himself.  Dante makes clear the sin of treachery is the worst of all and because there’s obviously some overlap with the offences which justify being sent to the other eight, the ninth is reserved for the worst of the worst.  Interestingly, the ninth circle is the part of Hell Dante describes as an icy, frozen place, something usually ignored in pop-culture, film-makers and Satanists staging their video clips almost always preferring fire, molten lava and red-hot pokers.  It could though be worse still because in the centre of Hell sits miserably the Devil, cast there for committing the ultimate sin: his personal treachery against God which saw him forever banished from Heaven.

Benedict XVI looking for Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023).  Canto XVIII, part of the eighth circle of Hell, in Divine Comedy (circa 1494), illustrated by Sandro Botticelli (Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi; circa 1445–1510).

Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos

The legal doctrine cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to Hell) is a historic principle of property law which holds the owner of a piece of land enjoys rights not just to the defined soil but to the air above (stretching to Heavens, ie to infinity) and what lay below (as far as Hell, ie all the way down); the legal shorthand is ad coelum.  Developments in technology, such as radio waves and flight, have much modified the doctrine but it continues, with limitations, to operate.  Some of the airspace above a piece of land can be recognized as a property right and as something therefore transferable but the right does not extend far, a position modified also in international law as long ago as the 1950s to accommodate the implication of satellites and, later, space flight, realizing the implications of discussions which had been going on since the advent of flight.  The rights to ownership of what lies below the soil and even the right to deny access to others now varies between jurisdictions but has long since ceased to be absolute.

Although there are no specific references in the record, it may be the origin of the maxim lies in in Roman or Jewish law, or at least customary practice.  The earliest surviving mention in English law is recorded in Bury v Pope (1587) Cro Eliz 118, [1653] EngR 382, (1653) Cro Eliz 118, (1653) 78 ER 375 (B), the Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634), holding “the earth hath in law a great extent upwards, not only of water as hath been said, but of aire, and all other things even up to heaven, for cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum, as it is holden.”, finding for a plaintiff seeking to erect a structure which would block to his neighbor’s window the light which had fallen there for thirty years.  Even then however, limits were noted, Sir Edward saying ad coelum might be defeated if a claim for a right in conflict could be found to have existed prior to 1189, the significance of the date being the beginning of the reign of King Richard I (1157–1199; King of England 1189-1199) and, mentioned here as a legal fiction, the end point of time immemorial.

English law seems to have picked it up from the writings of thirteenth century Italian jurist Accursius (circa 1182–1263), and is said to have been used in common law during the reign of Edward I (1239–1307; King of England 1272- 1307) and the legal framework (air above and ground below) was defined by Sir William Blackstone (1723–1780) in his treatise Commentaries on the Laws of England (1766).

Land hath also, in its legal signification, an indefinite extent, upwards as well as downwards. Cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum, is the maxim of the law, upwards; therefore no man may erect any building, or the like, to overhang another's land: and, downwards, whatever is in a direct line between the surface of any land, and the center of the earth, belongs to the owner of the surface; as is every day's experience in the mining countries. So that the word "land" includes not only the face of the earth, but every thing under it, or over it. And therefore if a man grants all his lands, he grants thereby all his mines of metal and other fossils, his woods, his waters, and his houses, as well as his fields and meadows.

Heaven and Hell: Google and Bing

In a study not scientific but at least consistent, a Google search for "Heaven" yielded 1.1 billion results and one for "Hell", 784 million.  The same search using Microsoft’s Bing engine delivered 51.4 million hits for Heaven and 48.9 million for Hell.  Because it's search engines' algorithm which underpins how results are delivered, this suggests 58.82% of Google’s users favor God and 41.18% prefer the Devil while Microsoft’s users are more evenly divided, 51.25% being godly and 48.75% Satanists.  Given the state of the world, both God and Satan might have hoped for better numbers but the results are unlikely greatly to have surprised either and it seems to confirm what Google have long said: Use Bing and burn in Hell.

Enormous & Enormity

Enormous (pronounced ih-nawr-muhs)

(1) Greatly exceeding the common size, extent; huge; immense.

(2) Outrageous or atrocious; extremely wicked; heinous (archaic).

1525-1535: From the Latin ēnormis (irregular, unusual, enormous, immense out of rule, shapeless, extraordinary, very large), an assimilated form of ex- (out of, away) + norma (rule, norm, pattern) + the English –ous substituted for the Latin -is.  The modern meaning (extraordinary in size; very big) is attested from 1540s, the original sense was "outrageous" and more obviously preserved in enormity.  The earlier spelling from the mid-fifteenth century was enormyous (exceedingly great, monstrous).  The –ous suffix is from the Middle English -ous, from the Old French –ous & -eux, from the Latin -ōsus (full, full of); A doublet of -ose in an unstressed position.  It was used to form adjectives from nouns, to denote possession or presence of a quality in any degree, commonly in abundance.  In chemistry, it has a specific technical application, used in the nomenclature to name chemical compounds in which a specified chemical element has a lower oxidation number than in the equivalent compound whose name ends in the suffix -ic.  For example sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄) has more oxygen atoms per molecule than sulphurous acid (H₂SO₃).  Synonyms include colossal, excessive, gargantuan, gigantic, huge, humongous, immense, mammoth, massive, monstrous, prodigious, vast, astronomic, gross & jumbo.  Enormous is an adjective, enormously is the adverb and enormousness the noun.

Enormity (pronounced ih-nawr-mi-tee)

(1) Outrageous or heinous character; atrociousness; as an offense; extreme wickedness.

(2) Greatness of size, scope, extent, or influence; immensity (archaic).

1425–1475: From the Late Middle English enormite & ēnorme (monstrous or unnatural act; enormity), from the Old French énormité (extravagance, atrocity, heinous sin), from the Latin enormitatem, nominative ēnormitās (irregularity, enormity, hughness), the construct being ēnōrmis (irregular, unusual, enormous, immense out of rule, shapeless, extraordinary, very large) + -itās (the suffix forming nouns indicating states of being).  The –ity suffix was from the French -ité, from the Middle French -ité, from the Old French –ete & -eteit (-ity), from the Latin -itātem, from -itās, from the primitive Indo-European suffix –it.  It was cognate with the Gothic –iþa (-th), the Old High German -ida (-th) and the Old English -þo, -þu & -þ (-th).  It was used to form nouns from adjectives (especially abstract nouns), thus most often associated with nouns referring to the state, property, or quality of conforming to the adjective's description.  Synonyms include depravity, horror, magnitude, abomination, atrociousness, atrocity, crime, disgrace, evil, evilness, grossness, heinousness, monstrosity, nefariousness, outrage, outrageousness & rankness.  The noun plural is enormities.

Lindsay Lohan with enormous inflatable toy zebra, V Magazine's Black and White Ball, Standard Hotel, New York, September 2011.

Enormity is a classic case study in (1) meaning adoption in English and (2) why such changes should be accepted where, whatever the etymological tradition, the new meaning makes more sense than the old and good replacement words exist to service the previous meaning.  The modern convention is that enormous means “extreme” in the sense of a pure, neutral measure of dimension and enormity means “extremely heinous or wicked; most awful”.  Enormity being often used as a synonym for "enormousness," rather than "great wickedness" means the potential exists to confuse readers where the intended meaning may not be otherwise derived from context.  There are pedants on both sides (1) those who point to the different roots in French, and radically different accepted meanings and (2) those who note the same source in Latin and the long pattern of use in English.  While it’s true enormity has continuously and frequently been used in the sense of “physical or dimensional immensity” since the eighteenth century, it’s really not helpful given that “enormous” exists and meaning will always be clear.  It’s true that examples do exist where enormity can, without apparently being misleading, serve to describe both the scale and atrociousness of the holocaust or the gulag but it’s true also that there are examples where it might provoke misunderstanding: given the troubled history, one should not speak of the enormity of the Congo were one intending to allude to it being a vast land mass.

Thematic consistancy: Lindsay Lohan at home, Venice Beach, California, June, 2011.  On the wall is one of two enormous images of Lindsay Lohan which decorate the triplex.  

Aphorism

Aphorism (pronounced af-uh-riz-uhm)

An original, laconic phrase conveying some principle or concept of thought.

1520s: From the late Middle English aphorism (concise statement of a principle (especially in reference to the Aphorisms of Hippocrates)), from the Middle French aphorisme, from the (mistaken) fourteenth century Old French aufforisme, from the Late Latin aphorismus (definition), from the Ancient Greek ἀφορισμός (aphorismós) (definition; short, pithy sentence containing a general truth), from aphorizein (to mark off, divide), from from ἀφορίζω (aphorízō) (I define, mark off or determine), the construct being ἀπό (apó) (off) + ὁρίζω (horízō) (I divide, bound), from ὅρος (hóros) (boundary) (from which English gained horizon). Aphorism is a noun & verb, aphorist is a noun, aphorismic & aphorismatic are adjectives and aphoristically is an adverb; the noun plural is aphorisms.

The idea of the aphorism as a “short, pithy statement containing a truth of general application” gained currency in English from the 1580s.  Despite the long history, some confusion seems always to accompany aphorisms, axioms, theories, epigrams and maxims.  An aphorism is a short, pithy statement containing a truth of general import; an axiom is a statement of self-evident truth; a theorem is a demonstrable proposition in science or mathematics; an epigram is like an aphorism, but lacking a generalized application.  Maxim can be often used as a synonym for aphorism while saying applies to just about any generally used piece of text.

Hippocrate refusant les présents d'Artaxerxès (1792), oil on canvas by Anne-Louis Girodet-Trioson (1767–1824), Museum of the History of Medicine, Paris.

The word became widely known in the sixteenth century when a translation was published of the Hippocratic Corpus (the Hippocratic Collection), a compilation of some dozens of medical texts with some association with the physician Hippocrates (circa 460–370 BC), the sayings remembered as the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, a series of propositions about medicine.  His opening aphorism (which flavors the whole) was:  Life is short, art long, opportunity fleeting, experience deceptive, judgment difficult.

Handy Aphorisms

The second half of a man’s life is made up of nothing, but the habits he has accumulated during the first half.  Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821–1881)

Man must be disciplined, for he is by nature raw and wild.  Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)

The more I know the nature of men, the more I seek the company of dogs.  Frederick the Great (1712–1786)

In the natural state of nature, the life of man will be nasty, solitary, brutish and short.  Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679)

For everything you do, there’s a price to be paid.  Epictetus (circa 50–135 AD)

The nice thing about being a celebrity is that when you bore people, they think it's their fault.  Henry Kissinger (b 1923)

The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.  Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527)

The more I see the face of the German cavalry officer, the more I admire his horse.  Ferdinand Foch (1851–1929)

We mustn't count our chickens before they're hatched.  Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)

There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths.  Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)

I'm my own worst enemy and I know that.  I live without regrets. When someone tells me not to do something, I'll do it more.  There are certain things I have done, mistakes that I made, that I would change, but I don't regret them at all, because I've learnt from them.  Lindsay Lohan (b 1986)

When you say that you agree with a thing in principle you mean that you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice.  Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898)

To know the character of a man of forty, look at the world he knew when he was twenty.  Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

Don’t worry about avoiding temptation... as you grow older, it will avoid you.  Winston Churchill (1875-1965)

Toothache

Toothache (pronounced tooth-eyk)

(1) In dentistry, a pain in or about a tooth.  Technical names are dentalgia or odontalgia.

(2) In informal diplomatic code, a term whereby a diplomatic snub may be conveyed as an expression of temporary displeasure and (usually) without serious consequence.

1400s: From the pre 1050 Middle English tothache, from the Old English tōthæce, tōthece, toðece & tōþeċe, the construct being toð or tōþ (tooth) +‎ eċe (ache).  Tooth was from the Old English toð or tōþ (plural teð), from the Proto-Germanic tanthu- (the source also of the Old Saxon, Danish, Swedish and Dutch tand, the Old Norse tönn, the Old Frisian toth, the Old High German zand, the German Zahn and the Gothic tunþus) from the primitive Indo-European root hdónts & dent- (tooth).  The plural form (teeth) is an example of i-mutation.  Ache was from the Middle English aken (verb), and ache (noun), from Old English acan (verb) (from Proto-Germanic akaną (to be bad, be evil)) and æċe (noun) (from the Proto-Germanic akiz), both from the Proto-Indo-European heg- (sin, crime) and represented also in Sanskrit and Greek and probably onomatopoeic: imitative of groaning.  It was cognate with the Low German aken, achen & äken (to hurt, to ache), the North Frisian akelig & æklig (terrible, miserable, sharp, intense), the West Frisian aaklik (nasty, horrible, dismal, dreary) and the Dutch akelig (nasty, horrible).  Historically the verb was spelled ake, and the noun ache and the pronunciation likewise varied until the turn of the eighteenth century under the influence of lexicographer Samuel Johnson who mistakenly assumed it derived from the Ancient Greek ἄχος (ákhos) (pain) due to the similarity in form and meaning of the two words.  The Greek was actually a distant relation of awe and ake was a rare alternative spelling which lasted until the 1800s.

Although it seems strange, the documentary evidence suggests it wasn’t until the 1520s tooth came to be applied to the tooth-like parts of devices like saws, the phrase “tooth and nail” appearing in the next decade.  Curiously contested is the origin of the mythical tooth fairy, some sources claiming it was unknown before 1964 or even 1977 but it's mentioned in a US newspaper in 1908 and in a way that suggests it was then no novelty.  Going back more than a thousand years, to Medieval Europe, the tradition of giving something of value to children in exchange for baby teeth (particularly the first which attracted a tand-fé (tooth-fee) and sometimes the sixth) is documented in Viking tradition.  Baby teeth seem to have been a concern in many cultures, some wanting them buried out of fear a witch would find them and gain power over the child, others insisting they should be burned otherwise, after death, children would spend eternity searching for them.  It's thus a long tradition but the linkage with a fairy does seem more recent, the most popular antecedent being a mouse who visited children in their sleep, replacing the baby tooth with a coin under their pillow.  In Spain and Latin America, adopted by Colgate for advertising, the rodent is called El Ratoncito Pérez or Ratón Pérez (Perez the Mouse) and the French equivalent was La Petite Souris (the little mouse).

Diplomatic toothache

The concept of the diplomatic snub pre-dates formal diplomacy, known probably in the earliest human interactions, but as diplomatic toothache, it entered the vocabulary of international relations during a 1959 official visit to Moscow by UK Prime Minister Harold Macmillan (1894–1986; UK prime-minister 1957-1963 (later the first Earl of Stockton, one of the few hereditary peerages created in the last few decades)).

Two actors who enjoyed the big stage: Harold Macmillan and comrade Nikita Khrushchev (1894–1971; Soviet leader 1953-1964), on the tarmac, Moscow airport, February 1959.

Macmillan’s visit, the first mission to Moscow by a British prime minister since Winston Churchill's (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) wartime trips to parley with comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953), started with him making what he hoped would be a friendly gesture, wearing a white papakha (a fur hat made from white Astrakan or sheepskin) this was soon swapped for a black one because a Foreign Office (FO) advisor suggested the white, dating from his last visit to Russia during the Russo-Finnish War (the so-called "Winter War", 1939-1940) might cause offence, some aspects of the conflict not a happy memory in the Kremlin.  The FO was correct but (and this does happen with the FO) for the wrong reason, the white fur purely a fashion faux pas.  When Macmillan's predecessor (Anthony Eden, 1897–1977; UK prime-minister 1955-1957) in 1941 visited Moscow while foreign secretary, comrade Vyacheslav Molotov (1890–1986; USSR foreign minister 1939-1949 & 1953-1956), showing an untypical concern for the details of protocol, told Eden "Á Moscou, Excellence, on ne porte pas la casquette de fourrure blanche" (In Moscow, Your Excellency, you don't wear a white fur hat).  Comrade Khrushchev's black fur hat was a moskvichka (in the West often referred to as the "ambassador" or "diplomat's hat").  Typically made from premium black curly karakul (Persian lamb) fur, the style was a favorite of high-ranking Soviet officials.

Twenty-odd years on however, the Soviets seemed either not to notice or were unconcerned, the white fur attracting no comment on arrival and the prime minister’s sartorial flourishes continued, choosing practical plus fours for his tour of collective farm, and, in a nice touch, his Guards Regiment tie when visiting a nuclear facility.  Lavish banquets followed around tables laden with "champagne" (a very sweet sparking wine from comrade Stalin's home of Georgia), vodka, caviar, salmon and Cuban cigars and all went well although, regarding the vodka, perhaps a little too well, as Macmillan would later note.

The appeal of the ushanka endures: Lindsay Lohan in Netflix's Falling for Christmas (2022).  One can imagine how comrade Molotov would have reacted to a pink ushanka.

While the prime minister was touring a Moscow research institute, comrade Khrushchev was in Berlin where he delivered a truculent speech intending use Macmillan’s visit to destabilize NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization).  The next day’s Anglo-Soviet discussions were “angry and fraught”, an atmosphere not helped by both delegations being “rather drunk”.  To express his displeasure with a snub, Khrushchev the next day issued a statement saying he was taking no part in that day’s activities because he had “toothache” and the Western press promptly, and gleefully, coined the phrase “diplomatic toothache”.  Just to add emphasis, despite being indisposed by his “toothache”, the Kremlin made it known comrade Khrushchev had spent the day in meetings with a visiting delegation from Iraq.  Macmillan rescued the situation with some typically cynical British diplomacy and quickly (and perhaps gratefully) comrade Khrushchev resumed his role of genial host, telling everyone his toothache had been cured “…by a British drill”.  Although achievements had been modest, both sides considered the visit a success, something in this field measured less by anything attained than unpleasantness avoided.

A fur hat never goes out of style: Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) admiring the headgear (a Pelzmütze, the German version of the English busby) of Crown Prince Wilhelm (1882-1951), Tag von Potsdam (Potsdam Day), 21 March 1933.  Potsdam day was a ceremony conducted on March 21, 1933 in Potsdam to mark the re-convening of the Reichstag, the fire which gutted the building on 27 February 1933 never fully explained although conspiracy theories suggesting the act of arson was a Nazi plot have little support among mainstream historians, the consensus being the regime simply took advantage of the unexpected event to conduct the first of many purges of their opponents. 

Convicted of arson, the Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe (1909–1934) was the following year executed by guillotine but the conspiracy theories began before even the flames were extinguished and to this day there’s uncertainty about the details.  The van der Lubbe was known to be both mentally unstable and a political radical and the view long has been he was at least the principle arsonist, even if others were involved (as some of the forensic evidence can be interpreted as suggesting).  Certainly, although few believe the fire was the result of a plot by the Nazi command, there is a solid literature of the way lower-level functionaries would “work towards the Führer” by undertaking initiatives they thought in accord with his wishes but torching the parliament building, mere weeks after Hitler being appointed chancellor would have been ambitious, even for the notoriously opportunistic types in the SS (ᛋᛋ in Armanen runes; Schutzstaffel (literally “protection squadron” but translated variously as “protection squad”, “security section" etc), formed (under different names) in 1923 as a Nazi party squad to provide security at public meetings (then often rowdy and violet affairs) and later re-purposed as a personal bodyguard for Hitler.  As the Third Reich evolved, it would morph into a kind of “state within a state and encompass military formations (Waffen-SS (armed SS (ie equipped with military-grade weapons) almost a million-strong).  If ever there was a field in which the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” can be applied, it’s the various theories offered to explain the Reichstag fire.

Illusion

Illusion (pronounced ih-loo-zhuhn)

(1) Something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.

(2) The state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension.

(3) An instance of being deceived.

(4) In clinical psychology, a perception, as of visual stimuli (optical illusion), that represents what is perceived in a way different from reality.

(5) A very thin, delicate tulle of silk or nylon having a cobwebbed appearance, for trimmings, veils and similar designs.

(6) The act of deceiving; deception; delusion (mostly obsolete).

1340–1350: From the Middle English, from the Latin illūsiōn(em), stem of illūsiō, (irony, mocking), the construct being illūs(us), past participle of illūdere (to mock, ridicule) + lūd (play) + tus (past participle suffix) + iōn.  The suffic -ion was From the Middle English -ioun, from the Old French -ion, from the Latin -iō (genitive -iōnis).  It was appended to a perfect passive participle to form a noun of action or process, or the result of an action or process.  It was from the Latin lūd that English ultimately gained ludicrous, illudere meaning "to mock at" (literally "to play with").  The borrowing from Latin displaced the Old English dwimmer, from the Old English ġedwimor or dwimor (illusion, delusion, sleight, magic) and, as absorbed by both Medieval English & French, meaning tended towards “act of deception” rather than “mocking or irony” which was the Classical Latin form.  The English sense is reflected in the word’s use in Church Latin which is thought the source of the meaning-shift.  In modern English use, particularly since the rise of mass-market visual entertainment, to some extent the preponderant meaning has shifted back.  Illusion & illusionist are noun, illusionary, illusional and illusioned are adjectives; the noun plural is illusions.

English offers many variations on the theme; words like fantasy, hallucination and delusion all refer to false perceptions or ideas.  An illusion is either (1) a false mental image produced by misinterpretation of stuff that actually exists or (2) a deliberate creation in some form to create an impression of stuff in a way not real.  A mirage is a distortion of reality produced by reflection of light against the sky but in general use is widely deployed as a synonym for anything illusory. A hallucination is a perception of a thing or quality that is either wholly or partially unreal.  A delusion is a persistent false belief that need not have any basis.  A chimera is something which, while unreal, has many elements of the real and thus seems more plausible.  A fantasy is either (1) a fictional creation where one is aware of its untruth or (2) a fictional creation one believes.

The Illusion Panel

Used by fashion designers, the illusion panel is a visual trick which to some extent mimics the appearance of bare skin.  It’s done with flesh-colored fabric, cut to conform to the shape of wearer and the best known products are called illusion dresses although the concept can appear on other styles of garment.  Done well, the trick works, sometimes even close-up but it’s ideal for photo opportunities.  Lindsay Lohan illustrates the idea in three outfits:

Left: A gown from the Fendi Spring/Summer 2016 collection, worn at the Asian Awards, London, April 2016.  This may have been something of an "in joke" because although it looked like an illusion dress, the "cut-outs" literally were "cut out" and the skin was all Ms Lohan's own; fashion faking itself.  Reactions may have been something like on journalist’s comment to the Irish-born UK politician Brendan Bracken (1901–1958): “Everything about you is phoney. even your hair, which looks like a wig, isn’t.”  The playfulness continued above because above the modest cut at the midriff were translucent panels which created a nice effect, especially when in motion although opinion was divided on whether the geometric pattern was too busy for the concept, some suggesting a solid color or even some bold stripes might have lent better emphasis.

Centre: The Julien Macdonald (b 1971) green and blue sequin embellished mini dress with an open neckline was accented with a black hemline and came from the house's Fall 2013 collection.  Ms Lohan wore the piece at Gabrielle's Gala, Old Billingsgate Market, London, May 2014, provoking some comment about the choice not to retain the black belt with which it was paired on its catwalk debut and it's true that did work well with the hemline trim, width and shade of both matching.  However, what dominated the look was the illusion which was more a "wrap-around" than a panel and with things being that illusory, accessories really weren't demanded and probably it was more effective with neither belt nor necklace to distract.

Right: Dating from January 2013, the black Dion Lee (b 1985) cocktail dress used the technique featuring both the wearer's real skin (witness the off-the-shoulder silhouette) with illusion panels made of fabric of a matching hue; the shoes were Christian Louboutin (b 1964, he of the red soles) peep-toe booties.  It’s a classic example of why most think illusion dresses work best if tailored in solid colors with a marked contrast between material and skin tone.

Kylie Jenner (b 1997, left) in 2017 used the idea in what was (by the standards of her clan) quite subtle but trolls quickly realized the possibilities offered by digital editing (centre).  Swedish musician Tove Lo (Ebba Tove Elsa Nilsson, b 1987, right) actually enhanced the illusion with a T-shirt which included shadow effects so the look would be consistent even in settings where ambient light was unhelpful.  Pairing the T-shirt with an oversized, double-breasted teal blazer was a nice touch.

Ms Jenner’s interest in transparency is more than surface-deep.  In 2025, in response to a fan’s enquiry, she revealed (what could, in the social media age, be thought a kind of “product disclosure statement”) the technical details of her much-admired breast augmentation procedure:  Performed by plastic surgeon Dr Garth Fisher (b 1958), the silicone implants were a displacement of 445 cm3 with a “moderate profile” (a measure of “projection or fullness”), placed using the “dual plane” technique (in which the implant sits partially under the pectoral muscle and partially under the breast tissue).  According to Dr Fisher, the combination of a moderate profile and the dual plane method produces the “most natural look”.  While obviously, in a sense, an illusion, the result looked good enough to be “real” so according to theories of cognition, in another sense they are real.  Almost instantly, the combo was being spoken off as “the Kylie Special” but Dr Fisher cautioned the variables (implant construction & size, profile, installation technique etc) need to be assessed on a patient-by-patient basis because what suits one may not suit another.  Essentially, the advice was YMMV (your mileage may vary).

Model Kate Moss (b 1974) in a Stella McCartney (b 1971) illusion dress from her label’s Winter 2012 collection, London Eveningwear Presentation & Dinner, London, February 2012.

As a garment, an illusion dress is not technically difficult to cut or assemble but for its effect it relies on a close congruence between the colors of panel and the skin.  Assuming such fabrics are either available or can be dyed to suit, that’s fine for bespoke creations but in the vastly bigger prêt-à-porter (ready-to-wear) market, buyers are compelled to pick whatever is the closest match, the technique of choice being to alter the skin tone for the occasion, fake tanning product the usual choice which is fine if a darker hue is needed but when lightening that’s needed, the creams used temporarily to cover tattoos are said to work well, better even than the (now often controversial and in some cases dangerous) skin-lightening preparations popular in some markets.  On the catwalks, it's not unusual for creams and various forms of "tanners" to be used if it necessary to have skin-tone and fabric match.

Model Ashley Graham (b 1987, left) in cage bra with the focus on flesh under a "curtain reveal" and singer Ricki-Lee Coulter (b 1985 right) in a (sort of) dress with an illusion panel under the strappings.

The illusion industry variously exchanges and borrows motifs.  A cage bra is built with a harness-like structure which (vaguely) resembles a cage, encapsulating the breasts using one or more straps (which can recall the struts used in airframes or the futtocks which are part of nautical architecture.  Few actually use the straps predominately to enhance support and the effect tends to be purely aesthetic, some cage bras with minimal (or even absent) cup coverage and a thin band or multi-strap back.  Some things about cage bras can be illusory but the skin on show is usually real whereas when used over a skin-toned panel, the straps exist to enhance the illusion although, there’s no reason why they can’t also be structural, functioning effectively as an external bra.  

Illusion bra in red with flesh tone panels.

Many bras purposefully are designed to create an illusion of some sort (bigger, smaller (despite what men tend to believe the “minimizer” concept really is a thing), higher etc) but there is a class of cups which borrows its motif from the illusion dress and, like the dress, there’s an art to the illusion bra and a successful execution seems best achieved when adopting the “less is more” approach; smaller panels well-placed creating a more effective illusion than using too much surface area.  In some cases illusion bras are structurally identical to a conventional model, the only difference being the use of a flesh tone fabric in certain parts of the cup.  The most dramatic effect is achieved when built using the cage bra model but most implementations tend to be more modest.  To achieve the best match with human skin, the fabric of choice is often a de-lustred satin and given the cultural sensitivities, such things are no longer advertised with the phrase “skin-tone”.

The Great Illusion (1910) by Norman Angell (1972-1967) was first published in the United Kingdom in 1909 as Europe's Optical Illusion.  Angell’s theme was that the economies, financial systems, markets and supply chains of the world’s big industrial and military powers had become so inter-twined and inter-dependent that war had become impossible.  Angell proved that not only would war be unprofitable, in any big conflict, the victor would suffer at least as much as the vanquished so no nation would be so foolish as to start one.  Quickly, The Great Illusion was translated in eleven languages and in the optimistic world of early twentieth century Europe, it became a cult, its thesis a dogma.  The aristocrat commissioned to review the British Army after its disastrous performance in the Boer War (1899-1902) were understood instantly became an adherent to the idea that “new economic factors clearly prove the insanity of aggressive wars”, delivering lectures in which he pointed out that “a twentieth century war would be on such a scale… that its inevitable consequences of commercial disaster, financial ruin and individual suffering [would be] so pregnant with restraining influences” as to render the thought of war unthinkable.

Read even now, the wealth of examples he offered and the incontrovertibility of his argument seem convincing.  Unfortunately, Wilhelm II (1859–1941; Kaiser (Emperor) of the German Empire 1888-1918), although it’s known he received a copy of the book, was more influenced by one published in 1911 by the Prussian General Friedrich von Bernhardi (1849–1930) with the unambiguous title Deutschland und der Nächste Krieg (Germany and the Next War).  Bernhardi’s text is of great interest to students of military, diplomatic and political history but the casual reader can gain the necessary understanding merely by glancing at the table of contents, the uncompromising chapter headings including The Right to Make War, The Duty to Make War and World Power or Downfall.  In case anyone might have thought he had written a work of abstract theory, another chapter was titled Germany’s Historical Mission.   Describing war as a "divine business", his central two-pronged strategy was the one which would doom both the Second Reich and the Third: Wage wars of aggression and ignore treaties.

World War I (1914-1918) was something probably worse than even Angell had prophesized and in its aftermath the phrase “the war to end all wars” was popular although some of the delegates leaving Paris after the Treaty of Versailles (1919) weren’t so sanguine, reckoning all that had been gained was a truce with estimates of its duration ranging between 10-25 years.  Despite the cynicism however, the 1920s were the years in which the (now mostly forgotten) successes of the League of Nations (1920-1946) included the notion that war had been made not only unthinkable (both because of Angell’s analysis and the shock of what was then called "the World War") but actually unlawful.  It was a brief, shining moment and by 1933 Angell felt compelled to add to a revised edition of The Great Illusion the new theme of the need for collective defense.  Other things happened in 1933, the implications of which would mean that too would prove an illusion but that year, Angell was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Illusions however seem to be something to which men can’t help but be drawn and by the late twentieth century, as globalization 2.0 accelerated, another part of Angell’s conceptual framework gained a new audience.  Angell had noted the obvious: That the imperative of modern capitalism was profit, not romantic nationalism and that there was more to be gained from peaceful trade than attempts at conquest with its unpredictable outcomes.  By the 1990s, political commentator Thomas Friedman (b 1953) had reduced this to what came to be called the Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention (the idea that countries with McDonalds restaurants didn’t go to war with each other) and while that’s since been proved untrue (few rules apply in the Balkans), the point he was making was the same as Angell: That democracies run according to the rules of market capitalism don’t go to war with each other because the it’s too threatening to the hegemonic class which owns the means of production and distribution.

By the time Mr Putin (Vladimir Putin, b 1952, president or prime-minister of Russia since 1999) began his special military operation (the invasion which started the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022), it’s doubtful there were many left in Europe with illusions about the nature of man.  Unfortunately, it may be that in the Kremlin the reading of Bernhardi may not have gone beyond those first few bellicose chapters because deeper into his book, the author moved beyond the justification of “necessity” to the nuts and bolts of “method” for once one convinces one’s self one has a duty to make war, one must ensure it is waged with success.  To be successful he explained, the state must begin a war at “the most favourable moment” of its own choosing, striking “the first blow” in a manner which guarantees victory.  Mr Putin had illusions of his own, about the people of Ukraine, about the West and about the state of his own military.

In 2014, an illusion outfit attracted much comment when the Colombian women’s cycling team uniform was first seen at an event in Italy, held in honour of former Italian champion Michela Fanini (1973–1994).  Despite the appearance, it wasn’t a two-piece, the otherwise standard strip augmented by a (vaguely) flesh-coloured section across the lower torso and upper hips.  The photographs caused a stir and the unusual degree of international attention must have pleased the team’s sponsor, the city government of Colombia's capital, Bogota.  Innovations like this might be one way to redress the imbalance in the media coverage afforded to women's sport.