Dominion

Dominion (pronounced duh-min-yon)

(1) The power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority.

(2) Rule; control; domination; predominance; ascendancy.

(3) A territory, usually of considerable size, in which a single ruler-ship holds sway (used sometimes figuratively).

(4) Lands or domains subject to sovereignty or control.

(5) In political science, a territory constituting a self-governing commonwealth and being one of a number of such territories united in a community of nations, or empire.  Formerly applied to self-governing former colonies of the British Empire; Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and later, others.

(6) In law, a rare (probably archaic) alternative spelling of dominium.

(7) In taxonomy, kingdom.

(8) A specialized classification in theology; in biblical scholarship, an order of angel in Christian angelology, ranked above virtues and below thrones.

Mid 1400s: From the Middle English dominion (lordship, sovereign or supreme authority), from the Middle & Old French dominion (rule, power), from the Medieval Latin dominionem (nominative dominio) or dominium (lordship, right of ownership), from dominus (lord, master), corresponding to dominium (property, ownership) from domus (house) from the primitive Indo-European root dem (house, household).  The meaning "territory or people subject to a specific government” dates from the 1510s, the specific legal meaning at law “power of control, right of uncontrolled possession, use, and disposal" was codified by the 1650s.  In law, dominion was used from the 1510s to refer to (a territory or people subject to a specific government or control) and in the law of real property, from the 1650s assumed the meaning "power of control, right of uncontrolled possession, use, and disposal".

British sovereign colonies often were called dominions, hence the Dominion of Canada, the formal title after the 1867 union, Dominion Day, the Canadian national holiday in celebration of the union, and “Old Dominion”, the popular name for the US state of Virginia, first recorded 1778.  Dominions are best remembered as the quasi-independent nations under the British Crown, constituting the part of the British Empire best remembered as “the white dominions” or, later, “the white commonwealth”.  Canada was the first, declared in 1867 and Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa followed.  Later additions included the Irish Free State and the states of the old Raj, India, East and West Pakistan, and Ceylon.  The Balfour (Arthur Balfour (later Lord Balfour), 1848–1930, UK prime-minister 1902-1905; Lord President of the Council 1925-1929) Declaration of 1926 recognized the United Kingdom and the Dominions to be "...autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." and the Statute of Westminster (1931), in what was the first general enactment for the constitution of the British Empire since Lord North's (later Lord Guilford, 1732–1792; GB prime-minister 1770-1782) regulating act of 1778, granted them what was close to legislative independence.

The word dominion was earlier used to refer to a geographically-defined political entity without legal status mentioned above.  Wales was thus described between 1535-1801 and New England between 1686-1689.  It was also the popular name for the US state of Virginia, the use first recorded in 1778.  While never bothering fully to define the status, the covenant of the League of Nations made provision for the admission of any “fully self-governing state, Dominion, or Colony”, the implication being that Dominion status was something between that of a colony and a state.  That certainly reflected British Empire practice.

Flag of Canada, adopted 1965.

Canada, officially still uses the title though it’s now merely historical with no constitutional effect, the most obvious residual effect the annual "Canada Day" national holiday (1 July) in celebration of the 1867 act of union which some older folk still refer to as "Dominion Day", the official title until 1982.  Prior to the act of union, the idea of a confederation comprising the colonies of British North America had been for some time discussed and on 1 July 1867, the Imperial Parliament created such a dominion by passing into law the British North America Act which joined the then defined territories of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia.  In a typically British colonial "fix", the act created the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the latter to accommodate the French-speaking minority there clustered and made further provisions for other colonies and territories in future to join the dominion.  It was on this constitutional framework that Canada evolved into its present form, the next major event in 1982 when the structurally significant (though by most barely noticed) Canada Act was passed which included the symbolically notable word "patriation" apparently a prime-ministerial invention by Lester B Pearson (1897–1972; Canadian prime minister 1963-1968) who in 1966 coined the term as a as a back-formation from repatriation (returning to a country of origin).

Canada, officially still uses the title “Dominion of Canada”, though it’s now merely historical with no constitutional effect, the most obvious residual effect the annual "Canada Day" national holiday (1 July) in celebration of the 1867 act of union which some older folk still refer to as "Dominion Day", the official title until 1982.  Prior to the act of union, the idea of a confederation comprising the colonies of British North America had been for some time discussed and on 1 July 1867, the Imperial Parliament created the dominion by passing into law the British North America Act (1967) which joined the then defined territories of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia.  In a typically British colonial "fix", the act created the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the latter to accommodate the French-speaking minority there clustered and made further provisions for other colonies and territories in future to join the dominion.

It was on this constitutional framework that Canada evolved into its present form, the next structural event in 1982 when the significant (though by most barely noticed) Canada Act was passed which included the symbolically notable word "patriation" apparently a prime-ministerial invention by Lester B Pearson (1897–1972; Canadian prime minister 1963-1968) who in 1966 coined the term as a back-formation from repatriation (returning to a country of origin).  In this context the difference between "patriation" & “repatriation” was merely political, lawyers agreeing there was no technical point to be argued but as a symbolic gesture, it appealed to politicians who wished to make the point that the Canadian constitution was, for the first time, fully to be in Canadian hands.  Prior to the 1982 act, the process to amend the constitution required the parliament in Ottawa to request the parliament in Westminster to give effect to the change; the United Kingdom assembly thus still functioning as an imperial parliament.  This was the arrangement which prevailed upon the granting of dominion statue in 1867 and while the 1931 Statute of Westminster (limiting the circumstances win which the British Parliament's could legislate for Canada) and the 1949 British North America (No 2) Act (granting the (federal) parliament in Ottawa significant authority to amend the constitution) did render Canada de facto independence, the device of needing to refer major amendments to London remained.

The retention of this authority in London was not the choice of the colonial oppressors, successive British governments having offered to expedite any (patriative or repatriative as preferred; repatriate from the Latin repatriare, the construct being re- (back, backwards, again) + patria (homeland) and cognate to repair (to return)) request from the Canadian parliament, but rather the inability of the politicians in Ottawa to secure the agreement of the politicians in Quebec City about the exact model of any locally-held authority.  In one of the charming quirks which emerged as the decolonization processes of the twentieth century unfolded, the view, rightly or wrongly, of the French-speaking politicians in Quebec was that the UK politicians would be less likely to make changes disadvantageous to them than would other Canadian politicians.

In the end, despite decades of discussion, debate and dissent, unanimous agreement between the federal and provincial governments proved impossible to secure and it was announced by Ottawa that regardless of that, the request would be made unilaterally to patriate the constitution from Britain.  Several provinces challenged that in the Supreme Court of Canada but the judges (in something of an echo of the prevailing view about the circumstance of the 1975 dismissal of an Australian prime-minister in 1975) ruled that provincial consent was not a legal necessity although “substantial consent” by the provincial assemblies was a longstanding constitutional convention.  As it turned out, with a small legislative tweak, the Canadian prime-minister was able to obtain the agreement of nine of the ten provinces, thereby presumably satisfying both spirit and letter.

In Westminster, a few MPs took advantage of the situation to do a bit of virtue-signaling and generally practice the politics of “warm inner glow” by voting against the Canada Act (1982) claiming to be concerned about Canada’s prior treatment of Quebec and its indigenous peoples.  The UK government however, although concerned about a couple of technical points, quickly passed the act and from that point, Canada became wholly independent, the position of Queen Elizabeth II as head of state an entirely personal relationship with the Canadian government with no connection to the government of the UK.  Presumably to try to show the people of Canada something had happened, the name of the Dominion Day national holiday was changed to Canada Day.

King George V with prime ministers at the 1926 Imperial Conference. Back row: WS Monroe (Newfoundland), JG Coates (New Zealand), SM Bruce (Australia), JBM Hertzog (South Africa) and WT Cosgrave (Irish Free State).  Front row: Stanley Baldwin (United Kingdom), King George V, Mackenzie King (Canada).

Creating some confusion, which they seem often to have enjoyed, the Colonial Office referred to all the Empire’s possessions as dominions (with a small d) while those with a capital D were the Dominions (Australia, NZ et al) proper.  Thus all Dominions were dominions but not all dominions were Dominions.  How the Foreign Office must have envied the pedantry.  

Dylan Thomas’ poem And Death Shall Have No Dominion recalls Romans 6:9 (King James translation) “death hath no more dominion”.

And death shall have no dominion.
Dead man naked they shall be one
With the man in the wind and the west moon;
When their bones are picked clean and the clean bones gone,
They shall have stars at elbow and foot;
Though they go mad they shall be sane,
Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again;
Though lovers be lost love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion.
 
And death shall have no dominion.
Under the windings of the sea
They lying long shall not die windily;
Twisting on racks when sinews give way,
Strapped to a wheel, yet they shall not break;
Faith in their hands shall snap in two,
And the unicorn evils run them through;
Split all ends up they shan't crack;
And death shall have no dominion.
 
And death shall have no dominion.
No more may gulls cry at their ears
Or waves break loud on the seashores;
Where blew a flower may a flower no more
Lift its head to the blows of the rain;
Though they be mad and dead as nails,
Heads of the characters hammer through daisies;
Break in the sun till the sun breaks down,
And death shall have no dominion.

Guggenhat

Guggenhat (pronounced goo-gin-hat)

1960: The construct was Guggen(heim) + hat.  Solomon Guggenheim (1861–1949) was a US businessman and art collector who in 1939 established the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, best known for the Guggenheim Museum in Manhattan, NYC, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and opened in 1960.  Hat (a shaped covering for the head, usually with a crown and brim, especially for wear outdoors) was pre-900, from the Middle English hat, from the Old English hætt (head-covering, hat) (variously glossing the Latin pileus, galerus, mitra & tiara), from the Proto-Germanic hattuz (hat, hood, cowl), from the primitive Indo-European kad- (to guard, cover, care for, protect).  It was cognate with the North Frisian hat (hat), the Danish hat (hat), the Swedish hatt (hat), the Icelandic hattur (hat), the Latin cassis (helmet), the Lithuanian kudas (bird's crest or tuft), the Avestan xaoda (hat), the Persian خود‎ (xud) (helmet), the Welsh cadw (to provide for, ensure) and the Old Norse hattr &  hǫttr (cap, cowl, hood).  The Proto-Germanic hattuz is of uncertain etymology although etymologists have suggested a link with the Lithuanian kuodas (tuft or crest of a bird) and Latin cassis (helmet), the latter thought perhaps more persuasive although most maintain the source of this was Etruscan.

Sally Victor's Airwave hat created for Mamie Eisenhower (1896–1979; first lady of the United States 1953-1961) to wear at her husband's (Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969) US president 1953-1961) inauguration.  The shape reflected the influence Ms Victor noted that wartime advances in aerodynamics and the increased understanding of fluid dynamics had had on many aspects of the built environment and industrial design.

Sally Victor (1905–1977) was a US milliner active between 1928-1967 who supplied both celebrities as well as the first ladies of both the Eisenhower (1953-1961) and Kennedy (1961-1963) White Houses and in a tactic that was used by the manufacturers of many products, while maintaining the exclusivity of her signature lines, she also sold mass-market ranges under the name Sally V.  Although her designs borrowed from the history of fashion, Sally Victor was interesting in that she was inspired not only by various traditions from the visual arts of many cultures but also industrial influences such as machinery, military vehicles and, most memorably, modernist architecture.  Unlike many designers serving the upper reaches of the market, even before such things became fashionable in the post-war world, she was never reticent in using synthetic materials in her hats, valuing the novel possibilities in shape and rigidity they afforded compared to the usual felts and silks of the time.

The Gugenhat and the Guggenheim, 1960.

Her most famous hat, known informally as the “gugenhat” was based on one of the landmarks of modernism, the Solomon R Guggenheim Museum (usually styled "the Guggenheim") on Manhattan's Fifth Avenue, designed by US architect Frank Lloyd Wright (1867–1959).  Solomon Robert Guggenheim (1861–1949) was an American businessman and art collector who in 1939 established the Solomon R Guggenheim Foundation.  Although his early interest in art had been in the works of the old masters, in the 1920s his attention switched to modern art, then a fashionable if not entirely respectable cult and it was in this field that he decided to specialize.  Initially, his collection was private with the occasional public exhibition but in 1939, he took the lease on a space in New York City and opened a public gallery, the Museum of Non-Objective Painting.  The size of the collection grew rapidly, in part because of the large numbers of modern works becoming suddenly available because of Adolf Hitler's (1889-1945, Führer (leader) of Nazi Germany 1933-1945) distaste for "modern art", an attitude the Nazi's imposed not only on the German state but also the territories in occupied Europe.  While the Nazis didn't want the works seen in any place under their control, they were pragmatic about them being sold for hard currency.  So large did Guggenheim's collection of the avant-garde become that in 1943, Frank Lloyd Wright was commissioned to design a dedicated structure which would become a permanent exhibition space, his remit including the stipulation that in addition to being a practical, function building, it should reflect also the nature of the contents.  Guggenheim died in 1949 and in 1952 the museum was renamed the Solomon R Guggenheim Museum, the new building opening in 1959.

Lindsay Lohan at Lady Gaga's (b 1986) Fame Eau de Parfum launch party, Guggenheim Museum, New York, 13 September 2012.

The Guggenheim Museum, Manhattan, NYC.

The building was not without its critics and it’s true that the architect did seem to be uncompromising in maintain the integrity of the interior design, even if that meant imposing inherent limitations of the size and shape of what could be displayed.  Despite that, as a building it has aged well and has for decades exerted an influence which is still not spent although few who have since done art galleries have seemed anxious to be seen to be following in the footsteps.  In the 1990s, the building was extended, most impressed with how sympathetically the new was interpolated into the existing structure although the usual suspects objected, maintaining that given its historical significance, it should have been maintained in its original form.

Hat (left), designed in silk by Cristóbal Balenciaga (1895-1872) and made for Eisa (Spain) in 1962.  It evokes the spirals used by French architect Emilio Terry (1890-1969) in his Spiral house (1930) (centre) and later picked up by Philip Johnson (1906-2005) for his Church of Thanks-Giving, Dallas, Texas (1977) (right), inspired by the Great Mosque in Samarra, Iraq which itself borrowed from the square, spiral Pillar of Gor in Persia.

Nor, in 1960, was the Guggenhat a novel concept, artists and others long having been playing with the idea of the motifs of architecture being applied to hats, clothing and shoes, among the milliners the Eifel Tower, once a popular model.  Among curators, the trend had been noted and in 1954, New York’s Museum of Modern Art commissioned Sidney Peterson to direct Architectural Millinery, a short film (seven minutes duration) comparing the tops of New York skyscrapers with the styles of hats and there was a reason it wasn’t a feature-length production: To design a hat which displays the recognizable influence of an architectural style or a particular building while being both wearable and aesthetically successful is difficult.  In that sense Ms Victor choose well because the New York Guggenheim was an example of a building which might well have been inspired by a hat and such structures are rare.  Other buildings, however admired for their other qualities don’t offer milliners quite so obvious a blueprint.

Guggenheim Museum Bilbao.

The Guggenheim Museum in Abando, Bilbao, in Spain’s Basque Country, was designed by Canadian-American architect Frank Gehry (b 1929) and opened in 1997 to almost universal acclaim from architects and it’s certainly eye-catching, even if one suspects comrade Stalin might have thought Gehry’s pencil drifted a little towards “formalism”.  Still, despite the odd back-handed compliment from a curmudgeon who found the lines “a fine example of modern art”, few in the last quarter-century seem to have revised their opinions although there have been criticisms of the internal dimensions which, unlike the Guggenheim in Manhattan will certainly accommodate large installations, some suggesting such art is prevalent enough without encouraging more.  Those who thought smaller pieces somehow suffered diminishment by being dwarfed by the enveloping space just don’t get the implications of art.

It could be done although there would be many who would say it shouldn't be done: The Guggenhat (Bilbao), a three-piece installation (digitally altered image).  Stranger stuff has been seen on catwalks but the Bilbao Guggenheim, as a whole, doesn’t lend itself to being rendered as a hat though in fairness to the architect, that’s not something likely to have piqued his interest.  The various interesting bits of the building might make several different hats but to get the effect, one would presumably need models walking carefully and closely in formation.

Even the Sydney Opera House (built between 1959-1973), perhaps more obviously geometrically promising (in millinery terms) has yet to inspire anything truly memorable although some kitsch (intended and not) shows up from time to time.

Zaha Hadid Architects' H-Line Hat for the Friends of the High Line, New York.

The motifs can however be separated from the whole.  Zaha Hadid Architects' H-Line Hat for the Friends of the High Line, New York was created in 2018 as part of a project to encourage architectural millinery based on the H-Line, an abandoned freight rail line which community action turned into a into a vibrant public park when the historic structure was under the threat of demolition.  Named (in a perhaps unimaginative but certainly simple piece of product association) the H-Line hat, the design was rendered in dégradé colors, the white melting into an electric blue around a brim the color of the sky and was inspired by an eleven storey residential building, the first project by Zaha Hadid Architects in New York and located near the High Line.  The hand-fixed steel façade of the building features a series of interlocking chevrons, steel bands and rounded corners, all evocative of Chelsea's industrial past and the decorative curves of the H-Line hat echoes these chevrons, weaving in open and closed forms around the wearer.

Tiara

Tiara (pronounced tee-ar-uh, tee-ahr-uh or tee-air-uh (non-U))

(1) A jeweled, usually semi-circular, ornamental coronet worn by women.

(2) In the Roman Catholic Church. a head-piece consisting of three coronets on top of which is an orb and a cross, once worn by the pope, or carried before him during certain non-liturgical functions; a symbol of the position, authority and dignity of the pope.

(3) A high headdress, or turban, worn by the ancient Persian Kings and other men of rank.

1545–1555: An English borrowing, via Italian, from the Latin tiara (headdress) from the Ancient Greek tiā́ra & the Ionic τιήρης (tiḗrēs) (a kind of turban).  The etymology of the Latin and Greek forms is wholly unknown.  In English, there was an earlier anglicized form tiar, attested from the 1510s and tiara became common by the eighteenth century.  Tiara is a noun and tiaraed is a verb & adjectives; the noun plural is tiaras.

Grace Kelly (1929–1982; Princess Consort of Monaco 1956-1982), in tiara, pre-wedding photograph, 1956.

The Triple Tiara

Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent (circa 1545), woodcut by an unknown Venetian artist.  Historians suspect the depiction of the splendid jewel-studded helmet was substantially accurate but the object may simply have been too heavy safely to wear for all but static, set-piece events, the risk of injury to the neck too great.

The papal triple tiara is a crown which has been worn by popes of the Roman Catholic Church since the eighth century.  Traditionally it was worn for their coronation but no pontiff has been so crowned since Saint Paul VI (1897-1978; pope 1963-1978) in 1963 and he abandoned its use after the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II, 1962-1965).  The name tiara refers to the entire headgear and it has used a three-tiered form since a third crown was added during the Avignon Papacy (1309–1378).  It's also referred to as the triregnum, triregno or Triple Crown.  In a piece of one- (or perhaps four-) upmanship, Suleiman I (Süleyman the Magnificent, 1494-1566, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire 1520-1566) commissioned from Venice a four tier helmet to show, in addition to the authority claimed by popes, he could add the symbol of his imperial power.  Often put on display as the centrepiece of Ottoman regalia to impress visitors, there's no documentary evidence the sultan ever wore the four layer tiara, crowns not part of the tradition and, fashioned from gold and gemstones, it would anyway have been extraordinarily heavy.

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

Documents in the Vatican Archive suggest by 1130 the papal tiara had been modified to become a conventional (and temporal) symbol of sovereignty over the Papal States.  In 1301 during a dispute with Philip IV (Philip the Fair, 1268–1314, King of France 1285-1314), Boniface VIII (circa 1230–1303; pope 1294-1303) added a second layer to represent a pope’s spiritual authority being superior to an earthly king’s civil domain.  It was Benedict XII (1285–1342; pope 1334-1342 (as the third Avignon pope)) who in 1342 who added the third, said to symbolize the pope’s moral authority over all civil monarchs, and to reaffirm Avignon’s possession.  A changing world and the loss of the Papal States deprived the triple crown of temporal meaning but the silver tiara with the three golden crowns remained to represent the three powers of the Supreme Pontiff: Sacred Order, Jurisdiction and Magisterium.

Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958) in the papal triple tiara, at his coronation, 1939.

Not since 1963 has a pope worn the triple crown.  Then, the newly-elected Paul VI, at the end of his coronation ceremony, took the tiara from his head and in what was said to be a display of humility, placed it on the altar.  In a practical expression of that humility, the tiara was auctioned, the money raised used for missionary work in Africa although, keeping things in house, the winning bidder was the Archdiocese of New York.  Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) and Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) received tiaras as gifts but neither wore them.  Benedict’s, in a nice ecumenical touch, was made by Bulgarian craftsmen from the Orthodox Church in Sofia, a gesture in the name of Christian unity.  Benedict would have appreciated that, having always kept burning in the window a candle to guide home the wandering daughter who ran off to Constantinople.

Lindsay Lohan, the wandering daughter who ran off to Dubai in Lynn Kiracofe tiara, W Magazine photo- shoot, April 2005.

Flummery & Pabulum

Flummery (pronounced fluhm-uh-ree)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pabulum (pronounced pab-yuh-luhm)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lemon, Orange & Passionfruit Flummery

Ingredients

115g (½ cup) caster sugar

2 tablespoons plain flour

1 tablespoon powdered gelatine

250ml (1 cup) water

2 oranges, juiced & strained

1 lemon, juiced & strained

125ml (½ cup) fresh passionfruit pulp

Whipped cream, to serve

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

Method

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

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

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

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

Hezbollah

Hezbollah (pronounced hez-buh-lah or khes-bah-lah (Arabic))

A Shiʿite Muslim political and military organization (though genuinely with cross-denomination support), based in Lebanon but involved also in various regional operations.

1985: From the Persian hezbollah and the Arabic حِزْبُ اللّٰه‎ (ḥizbu llāh) (literally "Party of God"), the alternative spellings being Hizbullah, Hizballah & Hizb Allah, the construct being hezb (hizb) (party) + Allah (God); an adherent is styled a Hezbollahi although in Western commentaries that term seems to be applied more loosely.  Hezbollah is a proper noun.  Hezbollahzation & Hezbollahization are non-standard nouns used only in political science although, like balkanize etc, if use spreads they may enter general use.

The Hezbollah

Flag of the Hezbollah (right), the public display of which is banned in some jurisdictions where both the organization's political & military wings are listed as "terrorist organizations".  The national flag of Mozambique (left) also includes a depiction of a Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle although the Africans fixed a bayonet to the barrel which was a nice touch.  Mozambique gained independence from Portugal in 1975 although the flag wasn’t officially adopted until 1983 as a modified version of what was essentially the battle flag of the Frente de Libertação de Moçambique (FRELIMO, the Mozambique Liberation Front, the Marxist (later styled “democratic socialist”) resistance movement which fought a war of liberation (1964-1974) against the Portuguese colonial forces).

Although the Hezbollah began to coalesce in 1982-1983 (in the wake of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon), it wasn’t until 1985 it assumed the familiar structural arrangement with both military and political wings.  Unlike many organizations with similar pasts, although the personnel structures don't (wholly) overlap, the Hezbollah has never made any attempt to suggest there is any functional or philosophical separation between their political & military wings.  Despite that, during periods when regional tensions are more subdued, they do receive invitations usually restricted to the respectable and a Hezbollah delegation attended the coronation of Pope Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022).

Like the Hezbollah, Hamas, a militant Palestinian resistance movement also operates as an apparatus with military, political and administrative divisions but the distinctions are less defined than those of the Lebanese operation and the name of Hamas comes from a similar linguistic tradition.  Formed in 1987 after the outbreak of the First Intifada against the Israeli occupation, its roots lie in Muslim Brotherhood so, unlike the Hezbollah, it’s thus a Sunni group although the historical and theological differences haven’t prevented the two cooperating when the circumstances have appeared compelling.  The word Hamas is an acronym of the Arabic phrase حركة المقاومة الإسلامية (Ḥarakah al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah) (Islamic Resistance Movement), used originally as the initializsm HMS.  In 1988, when the The ميثاق حركة المقاومة الإسلامية حماس (Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and better known in the West as the “Hamas Covenant” or “Hamas Charter”) was published, this was glossed by the adoption of the Arabic word (حماس) (hamās) (strength, zeal, bravery).

The very existence of the Hezbollah disturbs some but certainly not the structural-functionalists who note that for an institution to continue to exist, the niche it inhabits must remain.  Those whose fastidiousness in this & that lead them to suggest some alternative to Hezbollah would be preferable seem never to go into details and the reluctance is understandable.  There are many countries in which the substitution of one political party for another can be modelled and the implications pondered but it's scarcely possible to imagine Lebanese politics without the Hezbollah.  As far as can be foreseen, it seems something permanent and Lebanon has for decades been a troubled place, badly served by its elite; it is not going to become a liberal democratic state in the Nordic mode.  Just as the yakuza (the Japan-based transnational organized crime syndicates and usually in katakana as ヤクザ) deploy rapidly in the aftermath of disasters like the Kobe earthquake (1995) and the Fukushima “incident” (2011) to provide affected populations with food, shelter and medical aid, it was the Hezbollah’s well-resourced (compared with the Lebanese state) social welfare infrastructure which was mobilized to provide the first response after the explosion in the Port of Beirut (2020).

The Beirut Port explosion, 20 August 2020, viewed from the sea, showing the mushroom cloud and effect of the blast wave.  It was one of the most powerful non-nuclear, man-made explosions ever recorded.

Such comparisons are intriguing because the yakuza are an integral part of the Japanese nuclear industry and much money was paid to them by TEPCO (the Tokyo Electric Power Company which ran the Fukushima plant) to keep secret the existence of cracks in vital parts of the machinery.  Although much of the world seems to think the meltdown (TEPCO and the Japanese government preferred “incident”, a word with a long cultural tradition until the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) called a spade a spade) was something which “happened in 2011”, it’s an ongoing event and will be for the next 40-50 years because unless TEPCO continues to pump water into the “hot” reactor core, the meltdown will resume.  That water has to go somewhere and for those 40-50 years the plan is to continue to pump it into the Pacific Ocean; there is no immediate alternative.  The pumping project will likely demand increasing yakuza involvement because they are willing lucratively to be involved in projects others prefer to avoid.  Some allege the invaluable role fulfilled by the Hezbollah in responding to the explosion at the Port of Beirut in August 2020 has a similar quality of circularity because the triggering of some 2¾ tonnes of ammonium nitrate (an explosive equivalent in excess of 1 kiloton of TNT (similar to some small, tactical nuclear weapons)) because a Hezbollah weapons cache was held in the same facility.  No evidence has been produced to support that and most analysts believe the blast was the result of an enormous quantity of explosive being stored in a low security environment, welding work on the day said to have “lit the fuse”.  However, whether all will ever be known about the matter is unclear because the Hezbollah (and others with their own reasons) have managed to ensure investigations have been curtailed.

Lindsay Lohan's Instagram post of photographs taken while on holiday in Lebanon, June 2022. 

Hezbollah has been the name of various Islamic groups in the twentieth century, the first known reference in English being from 1960, describing an Indonesian guerilla battalion of 1945 that appears to have been either an off-shoot of or successor to Laskar Hizbullah, formed by the Japanese to give military training to young Muslims they had recruited to their cause (an aspect of which was the training to become a kamikaze (ie suicide bomber)).  Laskar Hizbullah was ostensibly national-wide but, unlike the Lebanese namesake, had little effective central organization and, given the circumstances of 1945, didn’t enjoy the ongoing support from Tokyo the Hezbollah has had from the ayatollahs in Tehran.  It was militarily ineffective but its idea (if not the actual structures) carried over to post-war anti-colonial forces and (debatably) the communist movement which in the mid-1960s the Indonesian government suppressed, the death-toll of that claimed to be close to half-a-million.

Contra

Contra (pronounced kon-tra)

(1) Against; contrary or opposed to; in opposition or contrast to; against, anti.

(2) An arrangement (usually between companies) whereby they exchange goods and/or services on a basis agreeable to both, often without any exchange of cash.

(3) In politics (sometimes used in a derogatory sense), a conservative; originally tied to Nicaraguan counter-revolutionaries.

(4) In accounting, as contra-entry or contra-account, an entry or account which cancels another entry or account.

(5) In music, an informal term for any of the musical instruments in the contrabass range (contrabassoon, contrabass clarinet or (especially) double bass).

(6) In dance, a type of country dance most identified with the New England region in the US (mostly obsolete).

1350–1400: From the Middle English contra (against, over against, opposite, on the opposite side; on the contrary, contrariwise) from the Latin contrā.  The Latin contrā (against) meant originally "in comparison with" and was the ablative singular feminine of com-teros, from the Old Latin com (with, together) + -tr, (zero-degree form of the comparative suffix -ter-).  As used as a noun in English, it meant "a thing which is against another" by 1778, an evolution of the earlier sense of "the contrary or opposite" from the 1640s.  English also picked up the practice from Late Latin in using contra as a prefix.  In French, it became contre- which passed into English as counter-, the Old English equivalent of which was wiðer (which survived in dialectical English as withers and in Scottish as widdershins), from wið (with, against).  There was also contraindicate (to indicate the contrary of (a course of treatment, etc)) from the 1660s, an evolution from the 1620s forms contraindicated & contraindication, contra-indicate the rare verb.  The use to describe the forces opposed to the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua since 1979 began in 1981, Contra a shortened form of the Spanish contrarrevolucionario (counter-revolutionary).  Contra is a noun, verb, adjective & adverb; the noun plural is contras.  

The contras and the Sandinistas

Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) Flag.

The contras were active from 1979 to the early 1990s in opposition to the left-wing government in Nicaragua (the Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction).  The term was a short-form of la contrarrevolución (counter-revolution) although there were intellectuals in the movement who disliked the label because they thought it suggested something negative or reactionary.  They preferred comandos (commandos) though peasant sympathizers also called the rebels los primos (the cousins), reflecting in many ways the character of the early movement as one of civilian irregulars.  In the White House, contra wasn’t greatly favored either and by the mid-1980s, marketing types in the Reagan administration (1981-1989) introduced “democratic resistance” to press conferences though it never caught on outside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Undeterred, by the press’s scepticism towards newspeak, on the ground, the ever-optimistic CIA liaison operatives encouraged use of la resistencia.

National flag of Nicaragua.

Believing the domino theory applied as much to central America as once it had been applied in east Asia, almost from the beginning the contras received military and financial aid from the US.  Congress cut the appropriations but the White House continued support with funding provided through a variety of imaginative (and covert) money-making schemes and slush funds which culminated in the Iran-Contra affair (Iran-Contragate), the biggest scandal of the Reagan years.  The affair (noted if not openly discussed by the ayatollahs in the Persian ماجرای ایران-کنترا‎ and definitely not by the Contras in the Spanish Caso Irán–Contra) was a back channel CIA (the US Central Intelligence Agency) operation run out of the White House, secretly to sell weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran, then subject to an arms embargo.

The cover story for the operation was the armament shipments were part of an intricate web of deals to free seven American hostages held in Lebanon by the Hezbollah, a paramilitary operation which started as modestly as many others but which would evolve into a something which simultaneously would effectively take over the Lebanese state while acting as the regional proxy of Tehran (or a sub-contractor to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard depending on the interpretation).  The story wasn’t entirely untruthful but the administration arranged the first sales prior to the hostages being seized.

Sandinista graffiti.

Ronald Reagan’s (1911–2004; US president 1981-1989) world view was never as simple as his detractors suggest but it was starker than most of the Washington establishment and he didn’t support the position, which had become predominate during the Cold War and certainly after the Vietnam war, that the geopolitical structure of the world should be thought of as stable and permanent.  That was the view of the power-realists like Henry Kissinger (b 1923; US national security advisor 1969-1973 & secretary of state 1973-1977), theorists who believed problems needed to be managed over decades whereas Reagan thought problems needed to be solved: the Soviet Union was a problem, Cuba was a problem and the Sandinistas were a problem.  The Congress however had prohibited the provision of aid to the Contras. 

In 1985, the administration began a diversion of the profits the Iran operation to the Contras although it’s still not certain the president authorized this, so many of the supporting documents having been destroyed, the lesson of Nixon’s tapes well-learned: If stuff gets burned it can’t become evidence.  Within a year the story broke and after many denials about many things, Reagan was forced to appear on nationally television, taking “full responsibility” for the affair, suggesting what began with good diplomatic intensions, ran astray in a classic case of mission creep.  A commission was appointed to investigate and concluded no evidence existed to prove the president either knew of or approved the detail of operations.  Although several dozen administration officials were indicted and some were convicted, many were overturned on appeal and while a couple served terms of probation, most of the rest were pardoned by President George HW Bush (1924–2018; George XLI, US President 1989-1993) even before coming to trial, some noting the evidence suggested George XLI had his own reasons for not wishing the some matters to be aired in court although whether that included the role the CIA allegedly played in the distribution of crack cocaine in US cities during the 1980s has never been clear.