Celsius

Celsius (pronounced sel-see-uhs or sel-shee-us)

(1) As a measure of temperature, pertaining to or noting the Celsius scale of temperature scale in which 0° represents the point (at sea level (ie under normal atmospheric pressure)) where pure water freezes and 100° the point at which it turns to steam.  The Symbol is “C” and the term Centigrade is for most general purposes interchangeable.

(2) In thermodynamics, of or relating to a temperature scale having the same units as the Celsius scale but in which the zero point has been shifted so that the triple point of water has the exact value 0.01°; Celsius temperatures are computed from Kelvin values by subtracting 273.15 from the latter.  The symbol is “CC”.

1742: Named after Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius (1701–1744) who in 1742 proposed the centigrade scale and invented the centigrade thermometer.  The surname Celsius is Latinized from the estate's name, celsus (mound).  The synonyms are centigrade and the rare centesimal.  The term Celsius came into use in 1797 to describe the thermometer and in 1812 in reference to the scale of temperatures.  The companion adjective centigrade (consisting of 100 degrees, divided into 100 equal parts) was a construct of the Latin centi- (from centum (one hundred)) + grade (degree), the second element from Latin gradus (step) & gradi (to walk, go, step), from the primitive Indo-European root ghredh- (to walk, go).  The centigrade thermometer divides the interval between the freezing and boiling points of water into 100 degrees.

It wasn’t until 1948 (at the ninth meeting of the General Conference on Weights and Measures and the Comité International des Poids et Mesures (CIPM)) that the word Celsius (in honor of Anders Celsius) was adopted (by international agreement) as the standard measure of 100^o increment temperatures; prior to that, the unit was known as centigrade and the two terms were for decades in common, interchangeable use.  Most of the world’s population has long used Celsius, the US the only large country still expressing temperature in the old Fahrenheit scale although, even then, Celsius is in wide use in the scientific community and among others dealing with international institutions.  The other widely used scale is kelvin (symbol is “K”), which had a particular applicability in cosmology, physics and other disciplines, 0 K (-273.15 °C) being absolute zero (the lowest possible temperature (thus far something only theoretically described and measured only as “tending to”) at which the motion of particles at a point in time and space cease to move so stopping the generation of heat, the product of energy.  Between 1948 and 2019, through a series of international agreements, the temperature scales were refined and made more precise and the degree Celsius is now precisely equal to the kelvin.

Curiously, the original Celsius was the reverse of the modern practice: Then, the boiling point was 0° C and the freezing point 100° C.  For scientists that was manageable but for most people would have seemed counter-intuitive so in 1743, the scale inversion proposed by French physicist Jean-Pierre Christin (1683–1755) was accepted.  Monsieur Christian was also influential in the development of the mercury thermometer.  For most people, temperature is a well-understood and unconventional measure although, now that climate change is “baked in” and a rise in average global temperature well over 2° C inevitable, a matter in which there is heightened interest.  Temperatures in parts of England exceeding 40° C, something once thought impossible, have focused the minds of many.

Some have however long been aware of the implications.  Mountaineers have long understood how hard it is to get a good cup of tea while climbing because, the higher one climbs, the lower the air pressure and thus the boiling point of water.  Atop Mount Everest (29031.7 feet, 8,848.86 m) water boils at 68° C which is not hot enough to extract the best flavor from the leaves.  The culinary implications go beyond that.  At sea level where water boils at 100° C, the hard-boiled egg is a mundane item but it’s unknown up Mount Everest because the white cooks at 85°C and the yoke at 65°C; up there, the whole of an egg will never cook.  A climber especially fond of hard-boiled eggs could take to the peak a pressure cooker and that would work, the boiling point rising to around 107.5 °C.

Lindsay Lohan and Brittany Byrd (b 1994) emerging from one of Zimmer's cryotherapy cold chambers which run at a temperature as low as -110°C, June 2015.

Although cryotherapy was intended originally as a treatment to hasten an athlete's recovery from injury, cryo-chambers are available for anyone although most presumably don't undertake the treatment wearing a strappy bandage monokini by Moeva London.  That said, the choice was a reminder lime & grey is an underused combination.

Vomitory

Vomitory (pronounced vom-i-tawr-ee or vom-itohr-ee)

(1) Inducing vomiting; to make vomitive.

(2) An emetic (a vomitory agent).

(3) Of or relating to vomiting.

(4) An aperture through which matter is ejected or discharged.

(5) In architecture, an opening, as in a stadium or theater, designed to permit large numbers of people to enter or leave (also called vomitorium).

(6) A container for receiving vomitus (whatever is discharged) (obsolete except in historic context).

1595–1605: From the Latin vomitōrius, the construct being vomi- (variant stem of vomere (to vomit) + -tōrius (the suffix added to a participle to create a first- and second-declension adjective).  Vomit as a verb was an early fifteenth century adoption from the Latin vomitus (past participle of vomitare) and was developed from the fourteenth century noun vomit (act of expelling contents of the stomach through the mouth), from the Anglo-French vomit, from the Old French vomite, from the Latin vomitus, from vomō & vomitare (to vomit often), frequentative of vomere (to puke, spew forth, discharge), from the primitive Indo-European root weme- (to spit, vomit), source also of the Ancient Greek emein (to vomit) & emetikos (provoking sickness), the Sanskrit vamati (he vomits), the Avestan vam- (to spit), the Lithuanian vemti (to vomit) and the Old Norse væma (seasickness).  The used of the noun to describe the matter disgorged during vomiting dates from the late fourteenth century and is in common use in the English-speaking world although Nancy Mitford (1904–1973 and the oldest of the Mitford sisters) in the slim volume Noblesse Oblige: an Enquiry into the Identifiable Characteristics of the English Aristocracy (1956) noted “vomit” was “non-U” and the “U” word was “sick”, something perhaps to bear in mind after, if not during, vomiting.  Vomitory is a noun & adjective (vomitorium is a noun); the noun plural is vomitories.

Predictably, the sight of the words vomitory & vomitorium (and its plural vomitoria) captured the always vivid imaginations of a few medieval “historians” who decided these were specially-built spaces designated for the purpose of allowing an Ancient Roman indulging in epic feats of eating and drinking at an orgy (another medieval favorite when describing the lives of Roman decadents) to stagger off and tickle their throat with a feather, inducing them to vomit up what had just been consumed, emptying the stomach so they might return to gorge more.  The idea of frequent orgies which included binge and purge cycles as an institutionalized feature of Roman life is wholly erroneous.

The correct (sixteenth century) translation of the Latin vomitorium (from the use in Roman architecture) noted the helpfully illustrative derivation from vomere (to vomit) and defined the word as “disgorging the spectators”.  Architects refined the use in the mid-eighteenth century when vomitory first appeared in the literature, then defined as “an entrance piercing the banks of seats of a theatre, amphitheater, or stadium and designed to permit the most efficient ingress & egress of people in volume”.  At the definitional level nothing has since changed although improvements in machinery, engineering and materials have permitted the construction of larger structures with greater human capacity and this has meant the planning and design process in determining the points and process of ingress & egress has assumed increasing importance, to optimize economy of operation, logistical efficiency and, critically, safety, modern building codes especially emphasizing the latter.  In architecture, the word vomitory is often used casually to refer to the whole sub-structure but one is made of components which can includes aisles, cross-aisles (sloped & level walking surfaces), ramps, stairs, tunnels and the particular constructions which are the bulk entry/exit apertures and areas at each end of the system.

Circle in the Square Theatre, Broadway, New York City, built wit classic vomitory.

The term “theatre-in-the-round” can be misleading because the arrangement of the performance areas, while central, is rarely executed as an actual circle, the reference instead being to the audience being seated “all around”.  The classic design is a square or polygonal formation and, except in some one-act performances, actors enter through vomitories between the seating, directors moving them as necessitated by the need to relate to an audience viewing from anywhere in the 360^o sweep, the scenery minimal and positioned avoid obstructions.  Because theatre-in-the-round inherently deconstructs the inherently two-dimensional nature of the classical stage, it was long a favorite of the avant-garde (there was a time when such a thing could be said to exist).  The arena theatre is theatre-in-the-round writ large, big auditoria with a central stage and like the sports stadia they resemble, typically rectangular and often a multi-purpose venue.  There’s a fine distinction between arena theatres and hippodromes which more recall circuses with a central circular (or oval) performance space surrounded by concentric tiered seating with deep pits or low screens often separating audience and performers.

Lindsay Lohan descending a vomitory after selecting an audience member to participate in a skit, Late Night With Jimmy Fallon, November 2012. 

New York’s Circle in the Square Theatre, originally located in another place, sits now in mid-town Manhattan and is one of only two Broadway theaters which feature a thrust stage extending on three sides into the audience.  The architect’s combination of a tri- thrust stage and a U-shaped seating arrangement was chosen to enable the intimacy associated with the company’s older, smaller performance space to be maintained in what was a much larger room.  The design made possible a configurable seating arrangement for up to 650 in which no member of the audience member would be more than eight rows from the stage and the theatre is also one of the few in Broadway with a vomitory, used in some productions as an entry or exit point for members of the cast.

The rare use as an artistic device aside, the purpose of a modern vomitory remains what it was for Roman architects; a thing of pure functionality, the form of which is dictated by efficiency of operation.  Thus, as the volume of stadiums grew, vomitories needed to become either larger or more numerous and there were a number of factors which compelled architects sometimes to follow both courses.  However, just as skyscrapers can’t practically be built as tall as techniques of structural engineering now permit because beyond a certain point the internal volume which needs to be allocated to lift-shafts and stairwells renders them uneconomic, neither can vomitories be allowed disproportionately to absorb space.

Classic vomitory (left) and latitudinal vomatory (right).

Another approach is the so-called latitudinal vomatory which is not new, the best-known extant example of the tradition seen in Warsaw's Royal Lazienki Park, the Theatre on the water (often referred to as the Theatre on the Isle) designed by Jan Chrystian Kamsetzer (1753–1795) and thought one of the more interesting pieces of eighteenth century theatre architecture.  A striking feature of the latitudinal approach is the complete functional and structural separation of stands & vomitories and visually it appeals to architects because it reduces the number of interruptions to the sweep of the horizontal lines which define the terraced surfaces.  The sympathy with the shape of the terraces mean it’s thought by many a truer representation of vomitories as a stadium’s circulatory system, a favorite expression of architects from Antiquity.

Warsaw's Theatre on the water (1790-1793) in the Royal Lazienki Park.  The amphitheatre showing the stairs of the latitudinal vomitory (left), the vista from above (centre) & the lobby level entrance to the vomitory (right).  The design of the amphitheatre borrowed from structures built in ancient Herculaneum.

Nolle

Nolle (pronounced nol-ee)

In law, an oral and verbal shorthand for nolle prosequi (pronounced nol-ee pros-i-kwahy or nol-ee pros-i-kwee): an entry (historically a certificate) made upon the records of a court when the plaintiff or prosecutor will proceed no further in a suit or action. The official abbreviation is nol. pros.

1681:  From the Latin, the construct being nolle (unwilling) + prosequi (to pursue), literally “unwilling to pursue” which, in the context of legal proceedings, is a formal notice of discontinuance by a prosecutor or plaintiff.  Nolle was the present active infinitive of nōlō (I do not wish; I refuse), a formation based on ne- (not) +‎ volō (I want) or velle (will).  Prosequi was the present active infinitive of prōsequor (I escort, I pursue, I describe), the construct being prō- (forward direction, action) +‎ sequor (follow).  As a verb, nolle-pross is attested from 1880.

No-billing

The legal shorthand is “to nolle” but the more common expression is now “no-bill”.  The nolle prosequi is most familiar in criminal cases when it’s used by the state to discontinue prosecutions but some jurisdictions maintain the device in civil matters where it may used as a declaration by a plaintiff voluntarily withdrawing a claim although a retraxit (a motion for voluntary dismissal) is now a more commonly used procedure,

A nolle prosequi is not the same as a verdict of not guilty; it merely terminates the existing case and, as a general principle, doesn't disbar continuation of the case at a later date, if a prosecutor so empowered wishes.  However, the common law position has been modified in some jurisdictions to provide that if the attorney- general issues a certificate of nolle prosequi, no-one may prosecute the charges.  That exemption aside, anyone whose prosecution has been subject to a nolle prosequi is not “found not guilty” and therefore cannot plead autreufois acquit (a peremptory plea made before the commencement of a trial in which a defendant asserts they were earlier tried for the same crime under same facts of the case) in respect of the relevant offence at any subsequent resumption; as a general principle, double jeopardy cannot apply.

Attorneys-general in Australia have been reluctant to intervene in matters if they regard a request as political rather than technical or procedural.  In 1977, Bob Ellicott QC (b 1927), attorney-general in the second (1975-1980) Fraser administration, resigned rather than accede to the prime-minister’s request he take over a (somewhat bizarre) politically-inspired case and close down the prosecution (although in resigning he also cited the matter of costs).  In 2022 however, the new Australian Labor Party (ALP) attorney-general Mark Dreyfus (b 1956; Attorney-General of Australia 2013 & since June 2022) announced he had directed Commonwealth prosecutors to nolle the prosecution of lawyer Bernard Collaery (b 1944), prosecuted for his part in exposing a bugging operation undertaken by agents of the Australian Security Intelligence Service (ASIS; the overseas intelligence organization) against Timor-Leste during negotiations over the ownership of oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea.

One must be sympathetic to any attorney-general who is expected to reconcile matters involving international relations (probably always somewhere within the rubric of “national security”) with legal or democratic principles.  The attorney sits atop the legal system in Australia, representing a government which insists all who appear in the nations courts must always speak the truth and imposes sometimes severe punishment on those who do not yet he was in the position of considering whether to continue the prosecution of someone who would be brought before one of those courts and accused of telling the truth.  It’s true that historically one has been able to fall foul of the law for telling the truth (such as in matters of defamation) but as a general principle courts do insist on hearing and protecting the truth.  National security matters are however a special case and there are also laws imposed on those working from agencies such as ASIS which prevent public or other disclosures, truthful or otherwise.

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

Bugging the government of another nation, perhaps especially an ally and close neighbor when the intelligence sought was essentially commercial, does raise ethical issues and also of note was that “Witness K” (who revealed the bugging) actually used proper channels to report what he regarded an inappropriate action he had been ordered to execute although, interestingly, a judge would during the course of the proceedings rule that it was not relevant whether or not the action undertaken by ASIS was lawful.  That may sound strange but in the context of national security matters and the details of the charges actually presented, it’s undoubtedly the correct ruling.  The competing principles displayed in the long tale illustrate why, in matters of national security, it pays not to be too bothered by (sometimes shifting) principles and focus instead on the essentially un-shifting interest of national security and there are precedents from the UK which support this view.  Everybody spies on everybody else and it’s usually the best course that these things remain secret; we have a right not to know.  No-billing the prosecution was surely the best thing to do but really, those who find distasteful the idea of bugging other people’s offices perhaps shouldn’t go into the spying business.

Party comrade Jacob Zuma in court.

Certificate of nolle prosequi issued by the office of the South African Director of Public Prosecutions (KwaZulu-Natal Division) in response to complaint made by Jacob Zuma.

William (Billy) Downer (b 1956) is a retired South African prosecutor.  In an echo of the case (Sankey v Whitlam & Others, (1978) 142 CLR 1, (1978) HCA 43) which in 1977 Bob Ellicott declined to nolle, Mr Downer is privately prosecuting the former President of South Africa, party comrade Jacob Zuma (b 1942; President of South Africa 2009-2018) on charges of fraud and corruption.  Mr Zuma objected to Downer’s involvement in his case and claimed that the retired prosecutor acted unlawfully by leaking information to the media.  Despite a request from Mr Zuma, the Director of Public Prosecutions declined to prosecute Mr Downer, issuing a no-bill while noting this did not preclude the former president initiating a private prosecution; this, Mr Zuma has undertaken.  The first hearing of Mr Downer's case against Mr Zuma has been set down for August 2022.

DARVO

DARVO (Pronounced dhar-vo)

The acronym of Deny, Attack & Reverse Victim and Offender.

1997: Coined by US academic psychologist Dr Jennifer J Freyd in 1997 in Violations of power, adaptive blindness, and betrayal trauma theory in the journal Feminism & Psychology (7, 22-32).  The initialism references both the behavior of perpetrators of wrongdoing (said to be prevalent especially among sexual offenders) and the tactic used in courtrooms by counsel for the defense, attacking the victim, reversing the roles of victim and offender.

DARVO references the reaction noted sometimes of perpetrators of wrong doing.  Said to be most prevalent among sexual offenders, as a general principle, it’s treated as a response to being held accountable for their behavior and is in its simplest form an elaborated claim of self-defense or provocation, legal concepts well known (and often codified) in the criminal law as a defenses in assault-related cases.  It can be thought an instance of "victim blaming".  DARVO deconstructed is:

Deny the behavior: This is actually standard legal advice; whatever else may happen during an investigation or subsequent proceedings, an initial denial is unlikely to compromise a later defense whereas an admission, even if later recanted, can be most damaging.  An extreme example was the (unsuccessful) defense strategy of Ernst Kaltenbrunner (1903–1946; Austrian-born head of Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) in Nazi Germany 1943-1945) during the main Nuremberg trial (1945-1946).  Whatever he was accused of, Kaltenbrunner, a trained lawyer, denied it; when shown his signature on a documents, he denied it was his, when shown photographs in which he appeared, he denied he'd ever been there and when witnesses attested to what he'd said, he denied he'd ever met them.

Attack the individual doing the confronting: This is the basis of the claim of self-defense or provocation.  Self-defense can, depending on the fact of the case, be a good defense to a charge of assault and can succeed even in instances of death where the charge can be murder.  The defense of provocation where the prior conduct of the victim tends to be either remote in time or indirect in the sense of something said rather than a physical attack, can succeed as a defense but is introduced more often in mitigation as a factor when considering sentencing.

Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender: The perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim (who can be a whistle blower previously unknown to the perpetrator) into an alleged offender.  The variations on this theme most typically include (1) the perpetrator assumes the role of one "falsely accused" or (2) attacks the accuser's credibility and blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation.

There is also Institutional DARVO which occurs when the DARVO is done by an institution (or with institutional complicity) such as when police wrongly charge rape victims with making a false complaint, institutional DARVO a form of what in the literature of political science is called “institutional betrayal”.  Structural DARVO describes the cultural construct in patriarchal societies where institutions act to protect the interest of its hegemonic components (in Western cultures those white, male and rich).  Other layers can be added to the analysis depending on the structure of a society: In non-Western cultures which can be essentially heterogeneous at what can be defined on some ethnic or racial basis, it can benefit those belonging to the dominant religious, cultural or tribal group.  Anti-DARVO is an omnibus term which encompasses both (1) the research & teaching in academic work describing ways to reduce the negative impact of DARVO (2) actual legislative and procedural innovations such as restrictions placed on the conduct of defense counsel in certain proceedings, especially sexual assault cases.

Dr Jennifer J Freyd.

The use of DARVO had for some time been controversial before Dr Freyd in 1997 coined the acronym and some jurisdictions had introduced some restriction of the extent to which defense counsel were permitted to attack victims (judges are limited in the extent to which they can intervene), especially on matters not directly connected with the offence.  It was also of interest to the mental health community, empirical research published in the literature of psychology & psychiatry both noting the prevalence of DARVO during victim-perpetrator confrontations and a striking correlation among many of the victims displaying feelings of self-blame, the more DARVO the perpetrator used during the interactions, the more victims reported feeling blameworthy for the wrongdoing.  Given the long history of the understanding of the imbalance in the power relationship between perpetrators (usually male) and victims (usually female), the findings were not suggested as unexpected.  One of the most interesting findings to emerge was the importance perpetrators place on the building of the social capital which surrounds their relationship with the victim.  For those who have committed abusive acts, the ability to influence how others perceive them and their victims is indispensable and typically this involves convincing those within their social circle (and even bystanders) either that nothing abusive happened and even if it appeared so it was not harmful.  Constructing a perception that the victim is untrustworthy gives the perpetrator a clear advantage in both social networks and the legal system.  Ultimately, in the absence of other evidence (as, inherently is often the case in these matters), in court it is a battle of competing narratives, the credibility of the authors often decisive.

Dr Freyd’s codification of DARVO however focused attention, both in law reform and the mental health community, the latter having previously documented tactics adopted by perpetrators to temper reactions to their wrongdoings, the umbrella term “outrage management” a construct which included a set of techniques employed to mitigate observers’ negative evaluations of both perpetrators and their objectionable behaviors.  Notably, this included casting doubt onto the credibility of the victim and denying the victims’ versions of events or, more typically, re-constructing the narrative to make them seem something innocuous.  Also identified were strategies intended to deflect blame for wrongdoing even if to some extent admitted: (1) Emphasize previous good behavior or (2) highlight some past suffering (thus inherently identifying as a victim).  Again, both these approaches will be familiar to defense counsel, even those never involved with sexual assault cases.  DARVO may thus be understood as generalized critique, although it’s most associated with sexual assault cases or other violence against women. 

Research about the real-world effect of DARVO is interesting. The findings do suggest that exposure to a perpetrator’s use of DARVO does to some extent displace at least some of the blame for the abusive behavior from the perpetrator to the victim, this hinting at why defense counsel so often adopt the tactic: It works.  The success of DARVO is not that it usually reverses the perception of a victim as blameless in favor of them being wholly culpable but that it introduces elements of doubt.  DARVO indeed often seemed to decreases the extent to which perpetrators are viewed as believable so the technique has the general effect of rendering both victims and perpetrators less believable.  That’s perhaps a predictable consequence of something so obviously antagonistic ("relational aggression" in the jargon).  However, as a legal tactic, success is not infrequent because the purpose of DARVO is not to actually render perpetrator as victim but to induce a perception of doubt about the victim; in criminal law, if that reaches the threshold of reasonable doubt then a jury, if properly instructed, must acquit.  In civil proceedings, cases are decided on a “balance of probabilities” but there too, the element of doubt must affect perceptions.

Amber Heard (b 1986).

DARVO would presumably have remained little more than part of the jargon of law and psychology had it not been for a well-publicized defamation lawsuit (John C Depp II v Amber Laura Heard (CL-2019-2911; Fairfax County Circuit Court)) between two celebrity actors, the matters of dispute relating to the period of their brief and clearly turbulent marriage.  It was a trial notable for reasons other than bringing the concept of DARVO to public attention, it being unusual in the US for defamation suits by public figures to succeed, based on precedent followed for some sixty years.  The substance of the suit was a piece written by Ms Heard and in 2018 published in The Washington Post.  Although the conventional legal wisdom is that where the choice exists, one sues the party with the capacity to pay whatever judgment one hopes to gain, in this case that was tempered by the robust protection courts have afforded the news media under the First Amendment to the constitution.  Mr Depp, as a public figure was anyway limited in his capacity to seek redress for defamation but his strategy seemed more risky still because of the earlier outcome in a defamation trial in an English court in which he sued a newspaper which printed allegations much more serious than anything mentioned by Ms Heard (who in her piece didn’t mention his name).  In that case (the verdict later upheld on appeal) the judge ruled against Mr Depp, noting in his judgment that "…the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard” of having, on the balance of probability, to have occurred as alleged.  The conventional wisdom, widely shared at the time, was that Mr Depp’s likelihood of success in a US court was smaller still.

Johnny Depp (b 1963).

As it was, the judge in Virginia ruled any mention of the English case or its verdict inadmissible but whether or not the jury were aware (or during proceedings made themselves aware) of the matter isn’t known.  The celebrity association aside, it was thus a trial of some technical interest, Ms Heard in her piece taking the precaution (if any doubt existed) of self-identifying as ”…a public figure representing domestic abuse".  Mr Depp sued on the grounds that Ms Heard’s statements had damaged his career and reputation; Ms Heard counter-sued on the basis that one or Mr Depp’s legal team had defamed her in statements published in an English newspaper.  Ms Heard’s defense was on the basis of (1) truth and (2) her free speech being protected by the First Amendment.

Dr Kate Manne.

The jury found for both Mr Depp and Ms Heard in their respective suits although, given the nature of the claims and the quantum of damages awarded, it could hardly be represented as anything but a victory for Mr Depp.  That of course was greeted with much commentary on social media though little of that was helpful, reflecting mostly the nature of celebrity culture, Mr Depp’s groupies both more numerous and more strident than those of his ex-wife.  More serious criticism did however discuss the extent to which the verdict could be thought a successful execution of DARVO.  Tellingly, many lawyers noted not only was it exactly that but nor was unusual, the novelty more the publicity attached to it being something between film stars.  The feminist critique was more severe, some claiming that DARVO works as well as it does because it interacts with “himpathy” (the construct him + (sym)pathy) coined by Cornell philosophy professor Dr Kate Manne (b 1983) and defined as “the inappropriate and disproportionate sympathy men and boys (and the more powerful or influential the man the greater the himpathy) often enjoy in cases of sexual assault, intimate partner violence, homicide and other misogynistic behavior”).

DARVO and himpathy are recent constructs but both are said to represent the long history of sympathy shown toward male perpetrators of sexual violence, women having long been expected to endure sexism (including violence) as part of their defined gender role which includes protecting men's reputation and power.  That of course went beyond being a social construct and was reflected in Western legal systems, women (and the bulk of her possessions) often literally “owned” by a husband or father and rape within marriage a statutory impossibility until well into the twentieth century.  DARVO for its success draws on those cultural biases.

Johnny Depp & Amber Heard, Australia, 2015.

Depp v Heard (a civil matter with a jury not sequestered and thus exposed to what were essentially un-mediated publicity campaigns on social media) was obviously not a typical trial and what its effect might be on later criminal matters (with which DARVO is more associated) is uncertain.  Lawyers do however note that in the US, relatively few cases actually proceed to trial and the greatest (and substantially unpublicized) effect is on prosecutors who decide not to proceed with cases (or downgrade charges) because, cognizant of the effectiveness of DARVO, take the decision there’s no reasonable prospect of securing a conviction.  This can be understood as an example of institutional DARVO, reinforcing the imbalance of power which typically exists between victim (typically female) and perpetrator (typically male) and it should not be unexpected that an institution created by the hegemon should act to protect the hegemony.  So, there was nothing contradictory when lawyers remarked of Depp v Heard that the jury’s verdict was remarkable given the evidence and unsurprising given the history.

Couplet

Couplet (pronounced kuhp-lit)

(1) In literature, most often in poetic form, a pair of successive lines of verse, usually rhymed and of the same metre.

(2) A pair; a couple.

(3) In musical composition, any of the contrasting sections of a rondo occurring between statements of the refrain.

(4) In computing, a pair of interdependent programming statements.

(5) In the induction or exhaust systems of internal combustion engines, a pipe running between main tubes for the purpose of flow-balancing.

(6) In town planning and traffic management, a pair of one-way streets which carry opposing directions of traffic through gridded urban areas.

(7) In taxonomy, a pair of two mutually exclusive choices in a dichotomous key.

1570-1580: From the Middle French couple (a little pair), the construct being couple from the Old French couple, from the Vulgar Latin cōpla, from the Classical Latin cōpula (doublet of copule) + -et from the Middle French and Old French –et from the Medieval Latin –ittus (Suffix indicating diminution or affection).  Couplet was used first in poetry in the 1570s and in music since 1876.  Later adoptions all emerged in the twentieth century or later.

Closed and Heroic Couplets

A rhyming couplet is two lines of around the same length which rhyme and complete one thought.  Rhyming words are those of a similar sound when spoken; they don't of necessity have to be similar in spelling.  A couplet is closed when the lines form a bounded grammatical unit like a sentence whereas a heroic couplet is written often in iambic pentameter, though with some variation of the meter.

A closed couplet from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.

Good night, good night. Parting is such sweet sorrow

That I shall say good night till it be morrow.

Several characteristics distinguish the heroic couplet from the regular couplet. A heroic couplet is always rhymed and is usually in iambic pentameter and is also usually closed, meaning that both lines are end-stopped and are a self-contained grammatical unit.

This rhymed, closed, iambic pentameter couplet from Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116 is not however a heroic couplet.

If this be error and upon me prov'd,

I never writ, nor no man ever lov'd.

That’s because for a couplet to be heroic, it demands a heroic setting.  The subjectivity inherent in this is why satirists were attracted to the form, using the heroic form when writing of the mundane or banal; the Dadaists being the twentieth century’s most celebrated practitioners.

This fragment is from John Dryden's translation of Virgil's The Aeneid, and because it’s one of the dramatic epic poems of antiquity, these are heroic couplets. 

Soon had their hosts in bloody battle join'd;

But westward to the sea the sun declin'd.

Intrench'd before the town both armies lie,

While Night with sable wings involves the sky.

Like many seminal literary forms, the heroic couplet attracted parody, known in literary theory as the mock-heroic, most commonly associated with Alexander Pope, his best-known example of this work of this kind being The Rape of the Lock in which a minor transgression is written of in a narrative of epic proportions, recalling the legends and magic of mythology.

Here Thou, great Anna! whom three Realms obey,

Dost sometimes Counsel take—and sometimes Tea.

In a case which legal commentators described as "speculative" and "optimistic" Lindsay Lohan in 2011 sued Rapper Pitbull (Armando Christian Pérez, b 1981), objecting to some lines in his single Give Me Everything (2011), the offending couplet being:

Hustlers move aside, so I’m tiptoein’, to keep flowin’

 I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan.

Rapper Pitbull.

Grounds for the suit were the negative connotations in the text and claims she should have been compensated for the use of her name in the song.  The suit sought unspecified damages for characterizing her as a person who has been to jail, when actually she is a professional actor, designer, and devotee of charitable causes. It was alleged the lyrics were clearly “destined to do irreparable harm” to Lohan’s reputation.  The case was dismissed by a federal judge who ruled the words were protected by the First Amendment, which covers freedom of speech and creative expression.

Canossa

Canossa (pronounced kuh-nos-uh or kah-naws-sah (Italian))

(1) A province in Northern Italy (and a name used in other places and not to be confused with the proper noun Canosa).

(2) As Canossa Castle (now a ruin), near Reggio nell'Emili, the scene in 1077 of the penance of Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV of before Pope Gregory VII (the “Walk to Canossa”).

(3) In idiomatic use, for a person to humble themselves.

Circa 940: The castle was built around 940 by a princely family of Lombardy at the summit of a hill overlooking the region.  As well as the family’s seat, the castle incorporated a convent, a Benedictine monastery and the church of Sant'Apollonio.  Reflecting the practice of military architecture in the Middle Ages, the central structure was protested by there, progressively more fortified stone walls and, prior to the development of modern artillery, was close to impregnable under conventional assault, vulnerable only to a protracted siege.

Going to Canossa

The coronation of Christmas Day, 800 when Charlemagne (747-814, Emperor of the Carolingian Empire (and retrospectively regarded first Holy Roman Emperor)), was crowned Emperor was an event which turned out to be one of the most significant of the Middle Ages, the consequences unfolding in Europe over a thousand years, some of which are visible still today.  One aspect of the coronation at the Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome which Charlemagne almost immediately realized as a mistake was that the crown was placed on his head by Leo III (circa 750-816; pope 795-816, described by one historian as “one of the shiftiest” popes and one accused of perjury & adultery) with the words “To Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned by God, the great and peace-giving Emperor, life and victory.”  The squabble for primacy between the “vicar of Christ on earth” and the earthly rulers wasn’t new but this didn’t help their cause.  In 1804, at Notre Dame de Paris, snatching the crown from the hands of Pope Pius VII (1742–1823; pope 1800-1823), Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821, Emperor of the French 1804-1814 & 1815) did not repeat the error.

One famous round in that squabble was Henry IV’s Walk to Canossa (also called the Road to Canossa or the Humiliation of Canossa.  It describes the ritualistic submission in 1077 of the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV (1050–1106; King of Germany 1054-1105, Holy Roman Emperor 1084-1105) to Pope Gregory VII (circa 1015–1085; pope 1073-1085) at Canossa Castle, the climax of what came to be called the investiture controversy.  Popes and emperors had for generations argued about the precedence of ecclesiastical or secular authority but Gregory had attempted further to assert the authority of Rome by claiming an exclusivity of right to "invest" bishops, abbots and other clergy, a dispute with modern echoes.  Despite attempts at mediation, the conflict grew, pope and emperor both appointing bishops, not recognized by each-other and eventually, the battle evolved into each side gathering bishops and organizing the numbers to excommunicate the other.  Given the communications of the age it was something of a slow-motion war of words but eventually (though not without the odd close scrape), Gregory prevailed and the excommunicated Henry lost the numbers, clerical and secular.  To seek his throne, he would have to capitulate, apologize and beg forgiveness.

Heinrich IV barefoot in Canossa (1862), woodcut by Hermann Freihold Pluddemann (1809-1868).

Accordingly, in what was said to be the coldest winter in almost forty years, Henry and his party made the trek to Canossa where the pope was staying, a journey made longer, more difficult and colder still by having to “go the long way round” because passage through the more convenient (and safer) alpine passes, controlled by forces aligned with the pope, was denied.  The journey took more than three months, the party reaching Canossa Castle on 25 January 1077.  There, the pope ordered he be refused entry, the suspicion of historians being that some message was passed to the visitors suggesting the gates might be opened were the emperor for three days to display “sufficient penance”.  According to legend, Henry (and perhaps some of his entourage including his wife) for the three days donned the simple robe of a monk, fasted and walked barefoot in the snow.

Fist bump: Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV before Pope Gregory VII (1875), woodcut after a drawing by Friedrich Hottenroth (1840-1917).

On 28 January, the pope ordered the castle gates opened and it’s said Henry supplicated himself on his knees before the pope and begged forgiveness.  Clearly impressed (or at least satisfied), Gregory granted absolution and revoked the act of excommunication, that evening offering the emperor communion in the chapel of Sant'Apollonio.  All’s well that ends well then, the pope lingering for a few months before returning to Rome with his authority confirmed and Henry headed home, soon to extract what vengeance he could.  Almost immediately the alpine pilgrimage was regarded as a humiliation for Henry but even some medieval scholars would soon create a revisionist history, arguing the emperor’s strategy was a masterstroke, gaining much which was important and sacrificing little.  Modern historians tend not to be convinced by the “stoops to conquer” school, regarding it a humiliation still and the phrase "going to Canossa" endures as a reference to an act of penance or submission.

Whether Canossa was much on the mind of President Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) as he flew to Saudi Arabia hasn’t been revealed but at least Air Force One is comfortable and he certainly didn’t need to go the “long way round”, his 747 granted a direct flight path from Tel Aviv to Jeddah, a presidential first and something long thought unimaginable.  Interestingly, according to the president, as recently as June 2022, also unimaginable was him meeting with Saudi Arabia’s de-facto leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud (b 1985 and referred to colloquially as MBS).  “I’m not going to meet with MBS” Mr Biden had last month assured the press.  “I’m going to an international meeting, and he’s going to be part of it.”  That might seem a fine distinction but in the language of diplomacy, a not unreasonable one.

President Biden meets King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (b 1935; King of Saudi Arabia since 2015) Jeddah, July 2022.

However, the world has changed since the 2020 presidential campaign in which Mr Biden vowed to make the Saudi government “pay the price and make them in fact the pariah that they are”, his stridency a reaction to the murder and dismemberment in Saudi’s Istanbul consulate of Washington Post journalist (and Saudi citizen) Jamal Khashoggi (1958-2018) by agents of the Saudi state.  On advice from the US intelligence community, Mr Biden in 2020 made clear he held MBS personally responsible for Khashoggi’s death although doubts have by some been expressed, their thinking that MBS may well have authorized “an extraction” but not “an execution” and the unfortunate consequences were a product either of misunderstandings as the message proceeded down the line or the allocation of a specialized task to specialists in another field.  MBS has always denied ordering the killing of Mr Khashoggi, answering with an emphatic “Absolutely not” when asked directly by the US press.  “This was a heinous crime” he said in an interview, adding that he took “…full responsibility as a leader in Saudi Arabia, especially since it was committed by individuals working for the Saudi government.”  The taking of responsibility for acts committed by others, including those of which one has no knowledge, is the essence of the Westminster system of ministerial responsibility although a more nuanced expression of the concept which extended to a “collective responsibility” was later developed by Albert Speer (1905-1980) during the first Nuremberg trial (1945-1946).  The Saudi government had initially denied any involvement in the matter although later it would admit the death was an accident which happened when an intelligence team was attempting to extradite (in Turkish law presumably a kidnapping) the journalist, against his will, to Saudi Arabia.

Fist bump: President Biden meets Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, Jeddah, July 2022.

But the world has changed and to mark that, Mr Biden and MBS met, a friendly fist bump a photo opportunity for the gathered press pack, the entrance to the Al Salman Palace a good backdrop.  According to Mr Biden, MBS “…basically said that he was not personally responsible” for the killing of Khashoggi and “I indicated that I thought he was.”  What’s done is done and can’t be undone so, the discussion of human rights complete, the president and crown prince then got down to the substantive matter of oil and how helpful it would be if the kingdom could pump more of it from their fields, the unchallenging idea being that if supply could be made to exceed demand (which is already the case so presumably what Mr Biden would prefer is a glut), then the price would fall, this eventually being reflected in the cost of a gallon of gas in the US, hopefully in good time for the US mid-term congressional elections in November.

Just like the old days.

Industry analysts have cast doubt on whether the Saudis have the additional extractive and distributional capacity greatly to affect the price of oil which has anyway recently declined in response to concerns about a global economic slowdown although jitters remain, the oil futures market reacting hourly to news of COVID lockdowns and hints about monetary policy from those central banks which matter.  It’s thought MBS is unlikely to have done more than agree to act in unison with whatever increase in supply the Organization of Oil Producing Countries (OPEC) may undertake to implement when it (actually the expanded OPEC+) meets in August.  Still, August is a couple of months before the mid-terms so there’s that but these are troubled times, few anxious to predict what the economy or geopolitics will look like by then, any more than there's a model precisely to measure the effects of what the US Treasury still insist will be the next round of sanctions on Russian oil & gas.  Like the OPEC+ meeting, these are due in August.