Urning & Urningin

Urning & Urningin (pronounced ern-ing & ern-ings)

A male homosexual person (obsolete, and when used should be in the historic context of the original meaning, a technically differentiated sense of homosexuals as a “third sex” rather than a variation of the spectrum within the (then) existing two).  The equivalent feminine form was urningin.

1864: From the German Urning (a male homosexual constructed as a third sex (Uranian), the related form being Urnigtum (homosexuality), referring Aphrodite (Ūrania), coined by the German writer Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825–1895) in 1864.  By the early twentieth century, except among some writers in German, the word in this sense had largely been supplanted by homosexual.  The link to Aphrodite lies in Plato’s Symposium (circa 385–370 BC), where the goddess Aphrodite, in her heavenly aspect (Ūrania), is described as inspiring a noble form of affection between older and younger men.  In Greek and Roman mythology, what’s described as “the heavenly aspect of Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of beauty and love, Ūrania (and her Roman counterpart Venus) is contrasted with the earthly aspect known as Aphrodite.  Ūrania is also the muse of astronomy.

Originally used by astrologers and astronomers, uranian is now rare, used only poetically.  It was from the Latin Ūrania (the muse of astronomy in Greek mythology) +‎ -an (the suffix forming agent nouns).  Ūrania was from the Ancient Greek Οὐρᾰνῐ́ᾱ (Ouraníā) (muse of astronomy), from οὐράνιος (ouránios) (of or relating to the sky, celestial, heavenly) (from οὐρανός (ouranós) (the sky; heaven, home of the gods; the universe) and probably ultimately from the primitive Indo-European hwers- (rain) + -ιος (-ios), the suffix forming adjectives meaning (pertaining to).  Uranical is equally rare.

When writing now of homosexuality, uranism should be described as a particular historical construct.  The suggestion in 1864 was that the Urning (male) and the Urningin (female) homosexuals should be regarded as a third sex, not on any spectrum within the then-accepted binary division of gender.  Despite that, it was an interesting anticipation of the later notion(s) of gender fluidity in that it it encompassed the idea of something feminine inherently within the male body and vice versa.

Psychopathia Sexualis

In English, urning seems to have become widely discussed in the medical profession after it appeared to be in Charles Chaddock's 1892 translation of the impressively titled Psychopathia Sexualis: eine Klinisch-Forensische Studie (Sexual Psychopathy: A Clinical-Forensic Study, also known as Psychopathia Sexualis, with Especial Reference to the Antipathetic Sexual Instinct: A Medico-forensic Study), published in 1886, a book by an Austro-German psychiatrist with a name of similarly imposing length, Richard Fridolin Joseph Freiherr Krafft von Festenberg auf Frohnberg, genannt von Ebing (1840–1902), work and author respectively cited usually as the more manageable Psychopathia Sexualis by Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing.

In his translation, US neurologist Charles Chaddock (1861–1936) set a couple of landmarks in English, one being apparently the first instance in print of the word “bisexual” being used in the sense of humans being sexually attracted to both women and men.  Prior to that "bisexual" was used either to refer to hermaphroditic plants (ie those with both male and female reproductive structures), or to mixed-sex schools (ie co-ed(ucational)) or other institutions, an instance of how meaning-shifts in language can make difficult the reading of historic texts.

Psychopathia Sexualis wasn’t the first publication to explore the topic but the scale and breadth of approach to sexual pathology makes it one of the seminal works in the field.  Although covering a wide range of paraphilias, it was notable for a then quite novel focus on male homosexuality (hence the "antipathetic instinct" in the subtitle).and introduced the newly coined terms "sadism and masochism".  Very much a book of its time, von Krafft-Ebing writings reflected the views of the medical mainstream, distilling Karl Ulrichs' Urning (1825–1895) theory with Bénédict Morel's (1809–1873) theory of degeneration (a handy model for frustrated psychiatrists, degeneration theory held there were psychological which were genetic and could not be cured by a psychiatrist; it could be used to explain any psychological condition).

Nor was there any unanimity of opinion within the profession but the book was influential in psychiatry for decades and it wasn’t until 1973, in preparation for the publication in 1974 of a seventh printing of the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II (1968)) that homosexuality ceased to be listed as a category of disorder although the revision was less than activists had hoped, the diagnosis instead becoming a "sexual orientation disturbance".  In the DSM-III (1980), it was again re-classified but it wasn’t until that volume was revised (DSM III-R) in 1987 that homosexuality ceased to be a treatable condition, a position which, in the West, would not everywhere for some years be reflected in legislation.

Aphrodite (1887), oil on canvas by Robert Fowler (1853–1926).

In Europe, one stream of the dissent against prevailing orthodoxy is traced to the mid-nineteenth century writings of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, a proto gay rights activist trained in law, theology, and history.  Using the nom-de-plume Numa Numantius, during the 1860s, he issued a number of political pamphlets asserting something with strands of the modern view: that some men were born with the spirit of a woman trapped in their bodies, these men constituting a third sex which, in 1864, he named urnings and that those we would now call a lesbians were urningin, a man’s spirit trapped in the body of a woman.  His theories gained little public support but he wasn’t entirely isolated.  In 1869, Hungarian journalist Károli Mária Kertbeny coined the terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality” in a political treatise against the Prussian penal code which criminalized the behavior among men, arguing the condition was inborn and unchangeable, one of many normal variations in the human condition.

Richard von Krafft-Ebing, reviewed the literature and synthesised.  Describing homosexuality as a “degenerative” disorder, he adopted Kertbeny’s terminology, but not his notion of the normal; in Psychopathia Sexualis he viewed unconventional sexual behaviors through the lens of nineteenth century Darwinian theory: non-procreative sexual behaviors, masturbation included, were forms of psychopathology and his most intriguing mix of ancient and modern was that in being born with a homosexual predisposition ("born like this" in the 21C vernacular), the victim was a victim of congenital disease.  His views of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder were influential but even those who disagreed cemented the linguistic legacy, term “homosexual” quickly adopted as the standard term in the medical lexicon.  After the publication of Psychopathia Sexualis, views on the mater coalesced but prevailing opinion shifted little.  In opposition von Krafft-Ebing, German psychiatrist Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935) emerged as a neo-Urlichian, publishing and lecturing in support of a normative view of homosexuality and underground movements existed in many cities, some tolerated. 

It was the founder of psychoanalysis, Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), who offered the theory which would capture the popular imagination.  Disagreeing with both Hirschfeld’s theories of normal variation and Krafft-Ebing’s of pathology, Freud believed all were born with bisexual tendencies and therefore manifestations of homosexuality could be a normal phase of heterosexual development and an innate bisexuality allowed no possibility of a separate “third sex” constructed by Hirschfeld.  Nor could the “degenerative condition” described by von Krafft-Ebing be maintained because, inter alia, it was “found in people whose efficiency is unimpaired, and who are indeed distinguished by specially high intellectual development and ethical culture”.  That may amuse some now but, within Freudian theory, the internal logic is perfect, manifestations of adult homosexual behavior being caused by “arrested” psychosexual development, a theory of immaturity.

Yet, despite the interest aroused, after Freud’s death in 1939, most psychoanalysts came to view homosexuality as pathological and, in the massively expanded universities of the post-war years, research in the field exploded and sexology evolved from a professional niche to a well-funded discipline, the academic work increasingly augmented by popular publications aimed at the general reader as well as the profession.  By the mid-twentieth century, the intellectual centre of psychiatry had shifted from Europe to the United States and it was there that published what would quickly become the most influential publication in the field, the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  When the first edition (DSM-I) was released in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a “sociopathic personality disturbance” and this was the orthodoxy until revised in the DSM-II in 1968 when the term changed to “sexual deviation”, a nuance probably better understood by the profession than the patients although "sexual deviant" became a popular phrase and one applied to many activities.

One implication of sexologists becoming more numerous and active was to change the very nature of research.  Whereas psychiatrists and other clinicians drew conclusions from a skewed sample of patients seeking treatment for homosexuality or other difficulties, sexologists undertook field studies for which were recruited large numbers of subjects in the general population, most of whom had never presented themselves for psychiatric treatment.  The most famous of the reports published both generated headlines and became best-sellers.  The Kinsey reports, with sample sizes in the thousands, found homosexuality to be more common in the general population than the psychiatrists had claimed although the often-quoted 10% “statistic” is now discredited and thought a significant over-estimate.  Ford and Beach, looking at both diverse cultures and animal behavior, confirmed Kinsey’s view that homosexuality was more common than psychiatry maintained and that it was found regularly in nature.  In a number of smaller surveys of which psychologist Evelyn Hooker’s was typical, no evidence was found to suggest gay men were any more prone to severe psychological disturbances than anyone else although some did concede the perception they were "highly strung" and "dramatic" was supported by observational studies but that may be influenced by depictions in popular culture and thus perhaps even "learned or imitative".

The wealth of research, coupled with an increasingly strident gay activism and generational changed within the APA induced change, the awareness now that the real psychological damage being done might be the stigma caused by the “homosexuality” diagnosis.  Nevertheless, in 1973 when the APA met to discuss the matter, planning both for a revised DSM II and the new DSM-III, it was pondered whether “homosexuality” should be included in the APA nomenclature.  Implicit in this was the very question of what could be said to constitute a mental disorder so it was a matter of importance beyond the immediate issue.  Not wishing fundamentally to change the parameters of diagnosis, the APA came up with a masterful fudge, issuing a statement saying they had “reviewed the characteristics of the various mental disorders and concluded that, with the exception of homosexuality and perhaps some of the other 'sexual deviations', they all regularly caused subjective distress or were associated with generalized impairment in social effectiveness of functioning”.  Happy with the loophole, the APA’s Board of Trustees (BoT) voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM.

Less happy were many clinicians who insisted on a vote of the whole membership.  The APA agreed and the decision to remove was upheld by a 58% majority of 10,000 voting members although technically, the question on which they voted was not whether homosexuality should remain a diagnosis but whether to support or oppose the BoT’s decision and, by extension, the scientific process created to make the determination.  It seemed a fine distinction and the BoT’s decision did anyway not immediately end psychiatry’s pathologizing of some presentations of homosexuality.  Instead, a revision to the DSM-II text contained a new diagnosis: "Sexual Orientation Disturbance" (SOD).  SOD (one does have to wonder if the condition was so-named as some sort of in-joke among the DSM's editors) defined homosexuality as an illness if an individual with same-sex attractions found them distressing and wanted to change, an important difference which changed the emphasis from condition to consequence.  That of course implied a future for what came to be known as sexual conversion therapy which has consequences of its own and, presumably, meant anyone unhappy with being heterosexual could seek treatment in an attempt to turn them gay.

SOD was replaced in DSM-III (1980) by a new category called “Ego Dystonic Homosexuality” (EDH) but it was increasingly obvious both SOD and EDH were political fudges to fix an immediate problem and it was not sustainable to maintain a diagnostic criteria under which any identity disturbance could be considered a psychiatric disorder.  The generational shift had happened and EDH was deleted from the revised DSM-III-R, in 1987.  Officially, the DSM now regarded homosexuality as a normal variant of the human condition, essentially what was thought in 1973 but couldn’t then be said.  It didn’t mean the end of debate but did mean those individuals and institutions determined still to discriminate could no longer cite a medical or scientific rationale.

Kyiv (formerly Kiev)

Kyiv (formerly Kiev) (pronounced kee-yiv (Ukrainian) or kee-yev (Russian))

(1) Capital of Ukraine, in the north-central region of the country on the Dnieper River.

(2) An oblast (a region or province in Slavic or Slavic-influenced countries (plural oblasts or oblasti)) of Ukraine, the medieval principality centered on Kiev (the Kievan state (Kievan Rus)).

(3) In culinary slang, a shortened for the dish Chicken Kiev (a breast of chicken stuffed with butter, garlic and parsley, rolled, breaded and fried). 

Pre 1000: From the Ukrainian Kýjiv or Kyyiv (Ки́їв), from the Russian Kíjev (Ки́ев), perhaps from the name Кий (Kij or Kyi), one of the city’s four legendary founders, from the Proto-Slavic kyjь (stick, club) although some historians regard this as a folk etymology and instead link it to an evolution of something from the local language.  The alternative forms are Kyïv, Kyjiv & Kyyiv, the earlier forms Kiou, Kiow, Kiovia, Kiowia, Kiew, Kief, Kieff & Kief all obsolete.  Historically, in Western use, an inhabitant of Kiev was a Kievan.

The Ukrainian government's official roman-alphabet name for the city is Kyiv, according to the national standard for romanization of Ukrainian Київ (Kyjiv), and has been adopted by geographic naming databases, international organizations, and by many other reference sources.  In the West, many style guides have been updated to reflect the government’s recommendation the preferred spelling should be Kyiv (although a few historians insist it should be Ki'iv), pronounced kee-yiv and a transliteration of the Ukrainian Київ.

The Russian form was a transliteration from the Russian Cyrillic Киев and, along with the associated pronunciation, was the internationally accepted name during the Soviet era, something that lasted well into the twenty-first century and many who couldn’t have found the place on a map would have been familiar with both because of the eponymous chicken dish introduced to popular Western cuisine in the 1960s.  The post-Soviet reaction to the Russification of Ukraine encouraged the Ukrainian authorities to adopt the local spelling, the cultural sensitivities heightened by Russia’s military incursions into Ukrainian territory since 2014.  The changing of locality names is nothing new in Europe, various parts of the continent having changed hands over thousands of years and names of localities have often been altered better to suit the needs of conquerors, sometimes as a form of triumphalism and sometimes just to ease the linguistic difficulties.  The area in which sits Kyiv has at times over the last millennium fallen under Mongol, Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, Soviet and now Ukrainian rule and while Russian and Ukrainian are both east Slavonic languages (as opposed to west Slavonic languages such as Polish, and south Slavonic ones like Bulgarian) and from the one original root they have, like just about all languages, diverged in forks which sometimes evolved and sometimes went extinct.

In the early modern period, Ukrainian absorbed some Polish influences and a number of vowels came to be pronounced differently from their Russian counterparts, the kind of regional difference quite familiar to those in England, Germany or the United States.  That would be variation enough to account for many differences but in its evolution, several letters of the alphabet became unique to Ukrainian (such as the ї in Київ) and the variations can make it difficult for native Russian speakers to understand some words or expressions when spoken by Ukrainians.  Still, there must be acknowledgement that name changes imposed from Moscow (whether Russian, Tsarist or Soviet) have so often reflected an astute understanding of propaganda and the implications of language.  When in the 1660s the Ukraine was taken from the Kingdom of Poland, the Russians promptly renamed the territory "Little Russia" although despite the assertions of some that here began the Kremlin's manufactured fiction that Russians & Ukranians are the one people with the one language, the root of that lie earlier.  The legend shared by three Slavic peoples is of three brothers, Czech, Lech & Rus who set off in three directions from the family and later settled in different places, the three fathering the Czechs, the Poles and the Rus (which begat both the Russians and Ukranians).     

Sometimes the changes effected by governments happen instantly upon occupation such as much as what was done in Nazi-occupied Europe but sometimes, the rectification or correction waits for centuries.  Although the Byzantine capital Constantinople fell to the Ottomans in 1453, it wasn’t until the Turkification movement, which began in the 1920s after the formation of the modern Turkish state, that the government began to encourage other countries to use Turkish names for Turkish cities, instead of the transliterations to Latin script which had been used during the Ottoman era.  In 1930, the Government gazetted the official change of name from Constantinople to Istanbul.  Ankara’s interest in linguistic hygiene was recently revived, the Turkish authorities issuing a communiqué advising the country’s name would change from the internationally recognized name from "Turkey" to “Türkiye”.  The concern is said to be the association of Turkey with other meanings in English (not the birds but rather “a person who does something thoughtless or annoying; an event or product which fails badly or is totally ineffectual”).  Around the word, those in chancelleries dutifully adjusted their directory entries while cynics wondered if the Turkish president might be looking for something to distract people from their problems.

The Chicken Kiev speech

What came to be known as the “Chicken Kiev speech” was delivered by President Bush (George HW Bush, George XLI; 1924–2018; US president 1989-1993) to a session of the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine in Kyiv on 1 August 1991.  The tone of his words came to be much criticized by the right of the Republican Party, still infused with the spirit of Ronal Reagan and heady from breathing in the dust which rose as the Berlin Wall fell.  Three weeks after the speech, the Ukrainian Declaration of Independence would be presented and a few months after that, over 90% of Ukrainians would vote to secede from the Soviet Union which would collapse before the year was out, an event at least hastened by Ukrainian independence.  Bush’s speech came directly after his meetings with Mikhail Gorbachev (b 1931; leader of the USSR 1985-1991), the last Soviet leader, who seems to have impressed the US president with both his sincerity and ability to pursue economic and political reform. 

Bush started well enough, telling his audience “…today you explore the frontiers and contours of liberty…”, adding “For years, people in this nation felt powerless, overshadowed by a vast government apparatus, cramped by forces that attempted to control every aspect of their lives.”  That encouraging anti-Moscow direction must have raised expectations but they were soon dashed, Bush continuing “President Gorbachev has achieved astonishing things, and his policies of glasnost, perestroika, and democratization point toward the goals of freedom, democracy, and economic liberty.”  Just to make sure there was no hint that Washington might be encouraging in Ukrainian minds any thoughts of independence, Bush provided clarification, telling his by now perhaps disappointed audience that “…freedom is not the same as independence.  Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred."

The speech had been written by Condoleezza Rice (b 1954; US secretary of state 2005-2009), then on the eastern Europe desk at the National Security Council and a special assistant to the president for national security affairs although the "suicidal nationalism" flourish was inserted by Bush himself.  Commenting later, Dr Rice and Mr Bush would acknowledge the speech did not capture the moment, the winds of change which had been blowing since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, but both in their (sort of) apologias made the point that August of 1991 was a very different time and place from December and nobody had predicted the imminent demise of the Soviet Union.

Whatever the reaction of the Ukrainians, it was no more severe than that unleashed at home by the aggregations of anti-communists, American exceptionalists and right-wing fanatics, New York Times columnist William Safire (1929-2009) calling it the "Chicken Kiev speech" and a "colossal mis-judgment".  Later presidents, all of course who served in a post-Soviet environment, seemed to agree and changed direction, pushing for an aggressive expansion of NATO to embrace all the former Soviet bloc.  NATO would, at the now famous Bucharest summit in 2008, go further still, pledging that Ukraine and Georgia would one day be invited to join the alliance. Perhaps wishing to atone for the sins of the father, another President Bush (George W Bush, George XLIII; b 1946; US president 2001-2009) then wanted immediately to offer both nations membership roadmaps but even then, Berlin and Paris were cautious about antagonizing Russia and put both the former Soviet republics on the back-burner.  There they’ve stayed.

Chicken Kiev (côtelette de volaille in Russian & Ukrainian cuisine)

Chicken Kiev variations.

Ingredients

4 rashers of smoked streaky bacon
Olive oil
4 x 150 g skinless chicken breasts
3 tablespoons of plain flour
2 large free-range eggs
150 g fresh breadcrumbs
Sunflower oil
2 large handfuls of baby spinach or rocket
2 lemons
Butter
4 cloves of garlic
½ a bunch (15g) of fresh flat-leaf parsley
4 knobs of butter (at room temperature)
1 pinch of cayenne pepper
800 g Piper potatoes
1 head of broccoli
1 knob of unsalted butter

Instructions

Fry bacon in a pan at medium heat with no more than a drizzle of olive oil, until golden and crisp, then remove.

For the butter, peel garlic, then finely chop with the parsley leaves and mix into the softened butter with the cayenne.  Refrigerate.

Stuff the chicken breasts.  Pull back the loose fillet on the back of the breast and use a knife to slice a long pocket.

Cut the chilled butter into four and insert into the pocket, then crumble in a rasher of crispy bacon.  Fold and seal back the chicken, completely covering the butter so it becomes a wrapped parcel.

Preheat oven to 350°F (180°C).

Place flour in a shallow bowl, whisk the eggs in another and put breadcrumbs and a pinch of seasoning into a third.  Evenly coat each chicken breast in flour, then beaten egg, letting any excess drip off, and finally, turn them in the breadcrumbs, repeating until all four are evenly coated.

Shallow-fry in ¾ inch (20 mm) of sunflower oil on a medium to high heat until lightly golden (should take no more than 2-3 minutes), then transfer to a tray and bake in the oven until cooked through (typically around 10-12 minutes).  The alternative method is to bake them completely in the oven and skip the frying process; this requires drizzling them with olive oil and baking for about 20 minutes; taste will be the same but they won’t have the golden surface texture.

While cooking, peel and roughly chop the potatoes and cook in a large pan of boiling salted water until tender (typically 12-15 minutes).

Chop up broccoli and add it to the potatoes for the last 8-odd minutes of cooking.  Drain and leave to steam dry, then return to the pan and mash with a knob of butter and a pinch of salt and pepper.

Dollop the mash on the serving plates, placing a Kiev atop each. Lightly dress the spinach leaves or rocket in a little oil and lemon juice, then sprinkle over the top as garnish. Serve with a wedge of lemon.

Corps

Corps (pronounced kore)

(1) A military body with a specific function (intelligence corps, medical corps etc).

(2) A military unit of ground combat forces consisting of two or more divisions and other troops.

(3) A group of persons associated or acting together (diplomatic corps; press corps et al).

(4) In printing, a continental designation that, preceded by a number, indicates size of type in Didot points of 0.0148 inches (3.8 mm).

(5) An alternative word for a corpse (obsolete).

(6) In classical ballet, as the corps de ballet, the group of dancers who are not soloists

1225-1275; Middle English corps and Middle French cors, both derived from Latin corpus (body) from the primitive Indo-European kwerp- (body, form, appearance).  Sense in English evolved from dead body (thirteenth century) to live body (fourteenth century) to body of citizens (fifteenth century).  The modern military sense (dating from 1704) is from French corps d'armée, picked up in English during Marlborough's campaigns, the use at the time not based on a specific number of troops but the more generalized "a part of an army expressly organized and having a head".  In English, pronunciation was corse at first and this persisted until the eighteenth century by which time it was archaic except for poetic use.

The field corps, a tactical unit of an army and which contained two or more divisions, was one of Napoleon’s structural innovations in military re-organization although such formations, ad-hoc or planned, had long been a known feature of battlefield tactics. The word was soon extended to other organized groups under a leader, as in corps de ballet (1826) or corps diplomatique (1796), although with the latter, the leader (dean of the diplomatic corps) is an appointment for ceremonial purposes, often, by convention, extended to the papal nuncio.  The special use Corpsman (enlisted medical auxiliary) was used first by the US military in 1941.

The corps in army organizational structures.

Standard of the Corps of Royal Engineers.  Specialized formations (intelligence corps, medical corps et al) exist in all branches of the military with no rules or consistency in the numbers of their establishment.  However, whereas the structures of navies (squadrons, flotillas, fleets etc) and air forces (flights, squadrons, wings, groups etc) are based on the number of vessels or airframes attached, the army (mostly) defines its organization by the number of personnel allocated, the numbers listed below generally indicative based on historic formations.  

Command Group   Size of Command

Army Group           400,000-2,000000

Army                     150,000-360,000

Corps                    45,000-90,000

Division                 10,000-30,000

Brigade                 1500-5000

Regiment              1500-3500

Battalion               500-1500

Company              175-250

Platoon                 12-60

Squad                   4-24

Most armies use all or a subset of the above although the numbers vary (greatly).  A division is made up of 3-4 brigades, a corps of 3-4 divisions and so on.  In western armies, the numbers listed above reflect the big-scale mass formations used during World War II; peacetime armies are a fraction of the size but the organizational framework is retained, most forces actively using only the smaller clusters.  During WWII, US army command groups tended to be up to twice the size of British units though within the same army, divisions often varied in size, an infantry division being usually larger than the armored.  A corps can be assembled from the armies of more than one nation, the Australian & New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) being formed in 1915 prior to deployment as part of the Dardanelles Campaign.  Other organizational tags such as squadron also exist but tend now either to be rare or, like battery, applied to specialized units based on function rather than size.  A special case is troop which is generally an alternative word for platoon but there are exceptions.

In twenty-first century wars, entire divisions are rarely committed operationally and brigade level engagements are regarded as large-scale.  In the world wars of the twentieth century, uniquely big, multi-theatre affairs, the standard battlefield unit tended to be the division of which the Soviet Union fielded nearly five-hundred.  The numbers in the world wars were certainly impressive but in a sense could be deceptive, the percentage of those listed on the establishment actually committed to combat sometimes surprisingly low (though this tended to apply less to those of the USSR).  One British prime-minister, pondering this, complained to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff (and the CIGS was a noted ornithologist) that the army reminded him “…of a peacock; all tail and very little bird”.  Dryly, the field marshal responded by pointing out “the peacock would be a very poorly balanced bird without its tail”.

Royal Flying Corps publicity photograph, 1917.

The Royal Flying Corps (RFC) was created in 1912 as the air arm of the British Army.  Late in the First World War, it was merged with Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS), the Royal Air Force (RAF) being formed on 1 April 1918.  Military aviation didn't however become exclusive to the RAF, the army retaining its own operations, mainly for communications, reconnaissance and meteorological services.  The Admiralty was never entirely happy about the merger and the Fleet Air Arm (FAA), though still an operational unit of the RAF, was formed in 1924, necessitated by the launching that year of the of the Royal Navy's first aircraft carrier.  By 1937, even the RAF was convinced naval aviation was different and in 1939 FAA reverted to the Admiralty, operating both from carriers and ground stations.

United States Army Air Corps Curtiss P-40, 1940.

Military aviation in the US was formalized in 1907 with the creation of the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC); the service renamed to United States Army Air Force (USAAF) in 1941.  It wasn't until 1947 when, as part of the National Security Act of that year that the US Air Force (USAF) was established as the fourth branch of the US military.  Remarkably, given it was the US which in the 1940s created the parameters for modern, carrier-based warfare, the admirals, still hankering for the great set-piece, high seas clash of the battleship fleets (which would never happen, largely because of aircraft), tried in 1919 to abolish naval aviation because there was “…no use the fleet will ever have for aviation."  The naval aviators (pilots work for the air force they say) however weren't forced to walk the plank and the navy received its first carrier in 1922 though the intra and inter service squabbles would continue for years.

Invasion

Invasion (pronounced in-vey-zhuhn)

(1) A military action consisting of armed forces of one (usually geopolitical) entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory & altering or overthrowing an established government.

(2) The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease; the entry without consent of an individual, group or species into an area where they are not wanted.

(3) Entrance as if to take possession or overrun.

(4) Infringement by intrusion.

(5) In pathology, the spread of cancer from its point of origin into surrounding tissues.

(6) In Botany, the movement of plants to a new area or to an area to which they are not native.

(7) In surgery, the breaching of the skin barrier.

1400–1450: From the late Middle English, From the Middle French invasion from the Late Latin invāsiōnem, accusative of invāsiō, from invāsus, past participle of invādō, the construct being in- (in, into) +‎ vādō (I go, rush).  Invāsus was the past participle of invādere + -iōn-.  The noun was from the mid-fifteenth century Middle English invasioun (an assault, attack, act of entering a country or territory as an enemy), from the twelfth century Old French invasion (invasion, attack, assault), from the Late Latin invasionem (nominative invasio) (an attack, invasion), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of invadere (to go, come, or get into; enter violently, penetrate into as an enemy, assail, assault, make an attack on), the construct being in- (in) from the primitive Indo-European root en- (in)) + vadere (to go, to walk, go hastily) from the primitive Indo-European root wadh- (to go) (source also of the Old English wadan (to go) and the Latin vadum (ford).  Of the meanings in the extended senses, of diseases it referred to "a harmful incursion of any kind; with reference to rights etc, it was about "infringement by intrusion, encroachment by entering into or taking away what belongs to another".

The later noun incursion (hostile attack) dates from the early fifteenth century, from the fourteenth century Old French incursion (invasion, attack, assault) or directly from the Latin incursionem (nominative incursio) (a running against, hostile attack), the noun of action from past participle stem of incurrere (run into or against, rush at).  Although in practice often synonymous with invasion, “incursion” is often in a specifically military context used to distinguish a operation which is either a prelude to or a distinct part of an invasion.  It’s a practice of historians rather than a convention of use and is one of a number of words used to describe the mechanics of an invasion including: aggression, assault, breach, infiltration, infringement, intrusion, offensive, onslaught, raid, violation, entrenchment, foray, infraction, inroad, irruption, maraud, offense & transgression.

The (second) Italian invasion of Ethiopia

Italy’s invasion in of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935 was a curious business.  Conceived by the Duce (Benito Mussolini (1883-1945, prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943) as the means by which his country might acquire a colony of note, a rightful thing he thought denied by the ineptness of previous regimes in Rome and the unfairness of the treaty of Versailles from which Italy had gained so little from the spoils of victory to which she’d made a slight contribution.  In his mind too was the memory of the last Italian adventure in East Africa when in 1896 the Ethiopians had inflicted upon the would-be conquerors from Europe a brutal defeat on the battlefield at Adowa, seared in the memory of the Italian army as the headline “Ten-thousand dead and seventy-two cannon lost”.  Looking first at the map of the old Roman Empire, then the splendid possessions held by Britain and France and finally the few sparse deserts which made up “his” empire, the Duce decided on an African conquest.  Even in 1935 it was seen in other European capitals as an unfashionable venture, the idea of the conquest of other people’s lands no longer the respectable thing to do and there was an increasing awareness that nor was it any longer the profitable thing to do.  Mussolini however was convinced and embarked on what proved to be imperialism’s last great set-piece crusade.

David Low (1981-1963), 1936.

The world of 1935 however was a different place than that of the nineteenth century.  Not only was Ethiopia internationally recognized (including by Italy) as a sovereign, independent state but it was also a member of the League of Nations (1920-1946), the predecessor of the United Nations (UN), formed in an attempt to ensure there could never be another world war, the mechanisms of resolving conflict listed in its covenant. Central to the covenant was collective security and the settling of international disputes through negotiation and arbitration.  The League’s approach did not much commend itself the Mussolini who announced Ethiopia presented a military threat to the neighboring Italian possessions of Eritrea and Italian Somaliland and that anyway his historic destiny was to fulfil a civilizing mission which would “…help Africa to progress from its primitive state.”

David Low, 1936

Obviously the League of Nations could not countenance one of its members invading another and the Britain’s foreign secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare (later Viscount Templewood, 1880–1959; UK Foreign Secretary 1935), making what may have been the finest speech the unfortunate assemble ever heard, declared the UK was wholly committed to the principle of collective security and that acts of unprovoked aggression strenuously would be resisted.  Hoare’s principled stand lasted as long as the next cabinet meeting in London and as quickly it became clear that member nations of the League would not be imposing any economic or diplomatic sanctions which had any substantive effect, let alone threaten a military response, Mussolini invaded.  Able to deploy aircraft, chemical weapons, heavy artillery, tanks and other armored vehicles, the Italians slowly secured victory, culminating in the battle of Amba Aradam, the biggest and bloodiest battle of the imperial era.

David Low, 1936.

By then Hoare had been forced from office by the public outcry over his back-channel deal with the palindromic Pierre Laval (1883–1945, French prime minister 1935-1936 and later executed for his role in the Vichy administration (1940-1944)) which, although in the tradition of the League’s earlier acts of conciliation in the far east, is better remembered as a preview of the later techniques of appeasement which so failed to satisfy Hitler.  What Hoare and Laval had agreed was a deal under which two-thirds of Ethiopia would be ceded to Italy in exchange for the Ethiopians being granted a land-corridor to a nearby port.  Both the belligerents actually anyway rejected the deal and Hoare was the sacrificial scapegoat for a plan which had the cabinet’s support.

The affair revealed the European democracies as divided and the League of Nations as ineffectual and doomed.  Although the League would continue to talk, few now listened as Europe drifted to war and after hostilities began, the organization went into abeyance except for a skeleton administrative structure which ticked-over until the League was dissolved in 1946.  Of the many speeches made after the Italian invasion, the only one still remembered is that made in June 1936 the Emperor Haile Selassie I (1892–1975; Emperor of Ethiopia 1930-1974) in which he condemned the league for its inaction, prophesized war and warned the assembled delegates “It is us today.  It will be you tomorrow.”

Sonder

Sonder (pronounced sonn-duh)

The realization that each random passerby is living a life as vivid and complex as one’s own. 

2012: Coined by John Koenig and thus entered English.  From the Middle French sonder, from the Old French sonder (to plumb), from sonde (sounding line), from the Old English sund ((sounding), as in sundġierd (sounding-rod)), sundlīne (sounding-line, lead) & sundrāp (sounding-rope, lead), from sund (ocean, sea), from the Proto-Germanic sundą (a swim, body of water, sound), from the primitive Indo-European swem (to be unsteady, swim) and cognate with the Old Norse sund (swimming; strait, sound).  The words which most obviously capture the meaning are probably the modern German sonder (special) and the modern French sonder (to probe).

The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows

The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows (Simon & Schuster (2021) pp 288, ISBN13: 9781501153648) is a multi-media project by John Koenig, encompassing a website, YouTube channel and, since 2021, a printed book.  Koenig’s purpose is to coin and define neologisms for emotions which, in English, do not have a single encapsulating word or brief phrase, the entries listed on the website and the companion volume with paragraph-length descriptions while the YouTube channel includes illustrative clips.  Koenig does not use free-form construction; not arbitrary, his words are crafted in a way not dissimilar to the manner in which English has for more than a thousand years created or absorbed words as they proved useful, his research exploring etymologies, prefixes, suffixes, and word roots.  Some may endure and some not, just how English has always evolved; for better or worse, not all tongues enjoy such linguistic promiscuity.

#freckles Opia: Looking into the eyes of Lindsay Lohan.

So there’s nothing unusual about the creation of words although in English, they’ve tended to be invented to describe new things (eg motherboard), fantastical imaginings (eg Lewis Carroll’s (1835—1898) Jabberwocky (1871)) or for literary purposes such as the whole lexicon created by Anthony Burgess (1917–1993) for A Clockwork Orange (1962).  It differs too from English’s traditional borrowing of foreign words if they do a more elegant job than that which in English demands a phrase and thus borrowed are zeitgeist (spirit of the age), schadenfreude (pleasure in the suffering of others) and fuselage (main body of an airframe).  Koenig decided to create the dictionary because, as a poet, he found the words needed to suit the rhythm of his verse simply didn’t exist.  In engineering or many other fields his approach would be uncontroversial but there may be poets (there certainly will be critics) who disapprove and suggest it’s cheating for one to create new words just because one can’t think a way to use one of the hundreds of thousands English already has.  In a similar vein, JRR Tolkien (1892–1973) criticized CS Lewis’ (1898–1963) The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, the first of the seven volumes of The Chronicles of Narnia (1950–1956).  On more substantive grounds he’d issued a critique of the heavy-handed way Lewis interpolated Christian themes but his letters also reveal he rather looked down of what he thought was cheating or at least literary laziness: Tolkien took years to construct his geography; Lewis just said there was a door in the back of a wardrobe.

Fragments from The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows

Adronitis: The frustration induced by the time it takes to get to know another.

Ambedo: A moment so mesmerizing, so enchanting, that one is compelled to experience it for its own sake.

Anecdoche: A conversation in which all are talking and none are listening.

Anemoia: A nostalgic longing for a time one has never known.

Chrysalism: The feeling of an amniotic envelopment if safe and warm inside while outside a thunderstorm rages.

Ellipsism: The sadness of knowing one will never know how history unfolds.

Énouement: The bitter-sweetness of having arrived in the future and knowing how things turned out but not being able to warn one's younger self.

Exulansis: The tendency to give up speaking of certain things because others never understand.

Jouska: A hypothetical conversation conduced wholly in one's own mind.

Kenopsia: The eerie, forlorn atmosphere of a place usually bustling but now deserted and silent.

Koinophobia: The fear of living an ordinary life.

Kuebiko: A state of exhaustion induced by acts of senseless violence.

Lachesism: A desire to be struck by disaster.

Liberosis: The desire to care less.

Lutalica: The realization one doesn’t need a label to belong.

Mauerbauertraurigkeit: The inexplicable to push away all, even those usually close to one.

Monachopsis: A subtle but persistent feeling of being out of place.

Nodus Tollens: The realization the track of one's life no longer makes sense.

Occhiolism: The awareness of the smallness of one in the universe.

Olēka: The awareness of how few days are truly memorable.

Onism: The awareness of how little of the world one will experience.

Opia: Of the ambiguity of brief, intense eye contact and our reaction to it happening.

Rubatosis: The unsettling awareness of the beat of one's own heart.

Rűckkehrunruhe: Realizing a recent, intense, immersive experience is rapidly fading from memory.

Socha: The hidden vulnerabilities in those around you.

Sonder: The realization that each random passer-by is living a life as vivid and complex as one’s own.

Vellichor: The gentle charm of shops which sell old books.

Vemődalen: The frustration felt when having composed an extraordinary photograph, one discovers a myriad of similar images already exist.

Yù Yī: A desire to again experience intensely.

Soupçon

Soupçon (pronounced soop-sawn)

(1) A slight trace, dash, hint, modicum or vestige, as of a certain taste or flavour; a very small amount; a hint; a trace, slight idea; an inkling.

(2) A suspicion; a suggestion (dated; now rare).

1766: From the Middle French soupçon (suspicion), from the twelfth century Old French sospeçon (suspicion, worry, anxiety) derived from the Medieval Latin suspectiōnem & suspectiōn (stem of suspectiō), from the Classical Latin suspīciō (suspicion) and a doublet of the now obsolete suspection.  In Late Latin, the word seems to have evolved as suspectionem although there no consensus among etymologists.  It is not a doublet of suspicion although such use has been seen.

In English, use of soupçon spiked after the French Revolution (1789), something owed less to literature than to political pamphleteers and technical writers such as the authors of cookbooks.  It tended to decline in the twentieth century and beyond as the fashion for the interpolation of obviously foreign words faded, especially when English offered so many well-known and serviceable synonyms (although more than a soupcon of those enjoyed a recent foreign past): crumb, drop, pinch, scintilla, shred, bit, smidgen, trace, whiff, dab, dash, hint, iota, particle, speck, suggestion, tinge, whisper, modicum & vestige.  Although there will always be those inclined to “drop it in” wherever possible, it’s probably most natural in English if writing of something French, a recipe, a style, a cut, an era et al although not all approve of “Gallicisms”.  In his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), Henry Fowler (1858–1933) noted the evolution of English had for centuries depended on the absorption of “…words and phrases that were once Gallicisms but, having prospered, are no longer recognizable as such; and of the number now on trial, some will doubtless prosper in like manner” and commended “...the conversational usage of educated people in general, not… predilections or a literary fashion of the moment.”

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

Shampoo

Shampoo (pronounced sham-poo)

(1) To wash the head or hair, especially with a cleaning preparation that does not leave a soap film.

(2) To clean rugs, upholstery, or the like with a special preparation.

(3) To massage (archaic); originally a traditional Indian and Persian body massage given after pouring warm water over the body and rubbing it with extracts from herbs.

(4) A (usually liquid or cream) preparation used for shampooing, especially one that does not leave a soap film.

1762: From the Hindi चाँपो (cā̃po), imperative form of चाँपना (cā̃pnā) (to press, knead), from the Sanskrit root चपयति (capayati) (to pound, knead or smooth).  Under the Raj, the original anglicized form was champo (later champoo) from the Hindi chāmpo (to massage), an inflected form of chāmpnā (to knead; literally “to press”) itself derived from the Sanskrit root चपति (chapati or capayati), which meant “to press, knead, or soothe”.  Under the Raj, the word the word initially referred to any type of pressing, kneading, or soothing with the definition extended to mean “wash the hair” by 1860.  Although people had for centuries been using a variety of soapy preparations, it was in 1954 that the first packaged products (initially for domestic rather than commercial use) called “carpet shampoo” appeared.  Shampoo is a verb or a noun, shampooer is a noun and the other verbs (used with object) are shampooed & shampooing; the accepted adjective is shampooed but the inventive shampooish has been noted.

Cultures since antiquity have made shampoo using mixtures of herbs and extracts from vegetation, the mix dictated by what was available for harvest in the local area or through trade and in India, a favorite formula was that concocted by boiling an extract of the fruit of the Sapindus, mixed with fragrant herbs.  Sapindus is a tree which grows across the Indian sub-continent and under the Raj came to be known as the soapberry or soapnut, the extract of which when mixed with water created a soap-like lather know as phenaka.  Widely used to wash the hair and mixed with a variety of herbs which lent both fragrance and color, it was this which traders and colonial officials brought back to Europe where the idea evolved into packaged  "champoo" although prior to that, "shampooing" centres were opened although these focused on shampoo in the sense of "massage", conducted in conjunction with "vapor baths", based on the idea popular at the time that breathing in certain preparations was most efficacious in the treatment of many ailments.  The word "champoo" didn't long endure and by the early twentieth century, "shampoo" was the accepted spelling, the early shampoos little more than mild, liquid detergents but by the 1930s, synthetic surfactants had begun to replace the soap component.  Many claims are made for modern shampoos and conditioners but there are hairdressers who claim nothing is as good for achieving shiny, bouncy hair than pure aloe vera gel, squeezed straight from a freshly-cut leaf; some use it as a substitute for conditioner while others mix it with a mild liquid soap.

Wikihow have published a guide for those seeking to achieve the classic Lindsay Lohan look, including the hair.  Those who want the look might be tempted to try GHD’s Oracle which uses as U-shaped clamp, with one cooling plate on top and ceramic heater plates on each arm to maintain the temperature at 365˚f (185˚c), the design innovation meaning the heated hair is cooled before leaving the styler; GHD say it helps set curls in place.  Stylists note the advantage but say that because of the way it interacts with the moisture left in the hair after washing, the extent to which the hair is dried should vary according to hair type and users may need to experiment to determine what works best.

Step 1: Wash with shampoo and conditioner.  As a general principle it's best to shampoo in two sessions, the first removing the layer of oil & dirt which inevitably attaches to the strands, the second to allow the cleansing of the whole scalp and take advantage of any properties the shampoo may offer.  Some manufacturers describe the properties as "nourishing" and this needs to be read-down (hair being dead tissue), but the health of the scalp and hair roots can be improved.  The need for the double-shampoo technique does vary with the environment, it being less beneficial for those who wash their hair every day but valuable for those who spend their days in areas with high levels of atmospheric pollution.  Either way, when shampooing, focus on the roots, massaging with the finger-tips; this will result in the cleanest hair.  When finished, take time to ensure all shampoo is rinsed from the hair and when conditioning, use a generous amount to ensure there's enough to swamp all the hair, gently massaging as it's applied.  For the length of time the conditioner is left on the hair, manufacturers do vary in their recommendations and it best to follow their instructions but there's probably little benefit in conditioning for more than a couple of minutes.

Step 2: Gently towel-dry the hair; a fluffy cotton towel is best and it's necessary to dry it only to the point where the water stops dripping.  Then blow-dry, using the coolest setting on the dryer and dry only partially, the hair left moist to the touch.

Step 3: Apply some root-pump, working the hair through the fingers and using the finger-tips to push at the roots.  Despite what some say about this "increasing volume", it has no such effect and is simply a form of scalp massage, said to increase blood flow to the roots which may well be beneficial.

Step 4: Once the hair is completely dry, use a styling iron (sometimes called a curling or straightening iron).  Section the hair into 3-6 parts depending on volume and when parting, gather the hair and put each in an elastic band.

Step 5: Start curling the hair just below the elastic.  The placement of the elastic band determines the outcome of the curls so it should be tied higher or lower depending on desired effect.  For the Lindsay Lohan look, the curls need to be very loose.

Step 6: Product: The classic Lindsay Lohan look is achieved with a surprisingly small dose of hairspray, the hair gently teased with a wide-toothed comb. the operative word gently; less is more.  It's a specific look, quite long-lasting and easy to maintain, the volume maintained with little more than a running of the fingers through to the top of the hair, re-separating the curls.

Blondes have more shampoo.  John Frieda blonde shampoo range.