Mason

Mason (pronounced mey-suhn)

(1) A person whose trade is building with units of various natural or artificial mineral products, as stones, bricks, cinder blocks, or tiles, usually with the use of mortar or cement as a bonding agent.

(2) A person who dresses stones or bricks.

(3) A clipping of Freemason (should always use an initial capital but frequently mason and variations in this context (masonry, masonism etc) appear; a member of the fraternity of Freemasons.

(4) To construct of or strengthen with masonry.

1175–1225: From the Middle English masoun & machun (mason), from the Anglo-Norman machun & masson, from the Old French masson & maçon (machun in the Old North French), from the Late Latin maciō (carpenter, bricklayer), from the Frankish makjon & makjō (maker, builder; to make (which may have some link with the Old English macian (to make)) from makōn (to work, build, make), from the primitive Indo-European mag- (to knead, mix, make), conflated with the Proto-West Germanic mattijō (cutter), from the primitive Indo-European metn- or met- (to cut).  Etymologists note there may have been some influence from another Germanic source such as the Old High German steinmezzo (stone mason (the Modern German Steinmetz has a second element related to mahhon (to make)), from the primitive Indo-European root mag-.  There’s also the theory of some link with the seventh century Medieval Latin machio & matio, thought derived from machina, source of the modern English machine and the medieval word might be from the root of Latin maceria (wall).    From the early twelfth century it was used as a surname, one of a number based on occupations (Smith, Wright, Carter etc) and the now-familiar use to denote “a member of the fraternity of freemasons” was first recorded in Anglo-French in the early fifteenth century Mason is a noun & verb, masonry & masonism are nouns, masoning is a verb, masoned is an adjective & verb and masonic is an adjective; the noun plural is masons.

The noun masonry was from the mid-fourteenth century masonrie, (stonework, a construction of dressed or fitted stones) and within decades it was used to describe the “art or occupation of a mason”.  It was from the fourteenth century Old French maçonerie from maçon.  The adjective Masonic was adopted in the 1767 in the sense of “of or pertaining to the fraternity of freemasons” and although it was early in the nineteenth century used to mean “of or pertaining to stone masons”, that remained rare, presumably because of the potential for confusion; not all stonemasons would have wished to have been thought part of the order.  The stonemason seems first to have been used in 1733.  An earlier name for the occupation was the fifteenth century hard-hewer while stone-cutter was from the 1530s (in the Old English there was stanwyrhta (stone-wright).  The US television cartoon series The Simpsons parodied the Freemasons in well-received episode called Homer the Great (1995) in which the plotline revolved around a secret society called the “Stonecutters”.  Dating from 1926, Masonite was a proprietary name of a type of fiberboard made originally by the Mason Fibre Company of Mississippi, named after William H. Mason (1877-1940 and a protégé of Thomas Edison (1847-1931) who patented the production process of making it.  In 1840, the word enjoyed a brief currency in the field of mineralogy to describe a type of chloritoid (a mixed iron, magnesium and manganese silicate mineral of metamorphic origin), the name honoring collector Owen Mason from Rhode Island who first brought the mineral to the attention of geologists.

The Mason jar was patented in 1858 by New York-based tinsmith John Landis Mason (1832–1902); it was a molded glass jar with an airtight screw lid which proved idea for the storage of preserves (usually fruits or vegetables), a popular practice by domestic cooks who, in season, would purchase produce in bulk and preserve it using high temperature water mixed with salt, sugar or vinegar.  The jars were in mass-production by the mid-1860s and later the jars (optimized in size to suit the quantity of preserved food a family would consume in one meal) proved equally suited to the storage and distribution of moonshine (unlawfully distilled spirits).  Much moonshine was distributed in large containers (the wholesale level) but the small mason jars were a popular form because it meant it could be sold in smaller quantities (the retail level) to those with the same thirst but less cash.

A mason jar (left), Mason jar with pouring spout (centre) and mason jar with handle (right).

For neophytes, the classic mason jar can be difficult to handle either to drink from or to pour the contents into a glass.  Modern moonshine distillers have however stuck to the age-old jar because it’s part of the tradition and customers do seem to like purchasing their (now lawful) spirits in one.  South of the Mason-Dixon Line, “passing the jar” is part of the ritual of the shared moonshine experience and, being easily re-sealable, it’s a practical form of packaging.  To make things easier still, lids with pourers are available (which true barbarians put straight to their lips, regarding a glass as effete) and there are also mason jars with handles.

The Mason-Dixon Line and the Missouri Compromise Line.  

The Mason-Dixon Line was named after English astronomers Charles Mason (1728–1786) and Jeremiah Dixon (1733–1779) who between 1763-1767 surveyed the disputed boundary between the colonial holdings of the Penns (Pennsylvania) and the Calverts (Maryland), one of the many boarders (New South Wales & Victoria in Australia, Kashmir in the sub-continent of South Asia et al) in the British Empire which were ambiguously described (or not drawn at all) which would be the source of squabbles, sometimes for a century or more.  The line would probably by history have little been noted had it not in 1804 become the boundary between "free" and "slave" states after 1804, New Jersey (the last slaveholding state north of the line) passed an act of abolition.  In popular use “south of the Mason-Dixon Line” thus became the term used to refer to “the South” where until the US Civil War (1861-1865) slave-holding prevailed although, in a narrow technical sense, the line created by the Missouri Compromise (1820) more accurately reflected the political and social divisions.

A mason’s mark etched into a stone (left) and and image created from one of the registers of mason’s marks (right).

A mason's mark is literally a mark etched into a stone by as mason and historically they existed in three forms (1) an identifying notch which could be used by those assembling a structure as a kind of pattern so they would know where one stone was to be placed in relation to another, (2) as an mark to identify the quarry from which the stone came (which might also indicate the type of rock or the quality but this was rare within the trade where there tended to be experts at every point in the product cycle) and (3) the unique identifying mark of the stonemason responsible for the finishing (rather in the manner of the way the engineer assembling engines in companies like Aston Martin or AMG stamp their names into the block).  With the masons, these were known also bankers’ marks because, when the payment was by means of piece-work (ie the payment was by physical measure of the stone provided rather than the time spent) the tally-master would physically measure the stones and pay according to the cubic volume.  Every mason, upon their admission to the guild would enter into a register their unique mark.

Reinhard Heydrich (second from left, back to camera) conducting a tour of the SS Freemasonry Museum, Berlin, 1935.

Freemasonry has always attracted suspicion and at times the opposition to them has been formalized.  As recently as the papacy of Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958), membership of Freemasonry was proscribed for Roman Catholics, Pius disapproving of the sinister, secretive Masons about as much as he did of communists and homosexuals.  In that he was actually in agreement with the Nazis.  By 1935, the Nazis considered the “Freemason problem” solved and the SS even created a “Freemason Museum” on Berlin’s Prinz-Albrecht-Palais (conveniently close to Gestapo headquarters) to exhibit the relics of the “vanished cult”.  SS-Obergruppenführer (Lieutenant-General) Reinhard Heydrich (1904–1942; head of the Reich Security Main Office 1939-1942) originally included the Freemasons on his list of archenemies of National Socialism which, like Bolshevism, he considered an internationalist, anti-fascist Zweckorganisation (expedient organization) of Jewry.  According to Heydrich, Masonic lodges were under Jewish control and while appearing to organize social life “…in a seemingly harmless way, were actually instrumentalizing people for the purposes of Jewry”.  That wasn’t the position of all the Nazis however.  Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945 and Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) revealed during the Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) that on the day he joined the party, he was actually on his way to join the Freemasons and was distracted from this only by a “toothy blonde” while during the same proceedings, Hjalmar Schacht (1877–1970; President of the German Central Bank (Reichsbank) 1933–1939 and Nazi Minister of Economics 1934–1937) said that even while serving the Third Reich he never deviated from his belief in the principles of “international Freemasonry”.  It’s certainly a trans-national operation and the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d’Or has never denied being a branch of the Freemasons.

In an indication they'll stop at nothing, the Freemasons have even stalked Lindsay Lohan.  In 2011, Ms Lohan was granted a two-year restraining order against alleged stalker David Cocordan, the order issued some days after she filed complaint with police who, after investigation by their Threat Management Department, advised the court Mr Cocordan (who at the time had been using at least five aliases) “suffered from schizophrenia”, was “off his medication” and had a "significant psychiatric history of acting on his delusional beliefs.”  That was worrying enough but Ms Lohan may have revealed her real concerns in an earlier post on twitter in which she included a picture of David Cocordan, claiming he was "the freemason stalker that has been threatening to kill me- while he is TRESPASSING!"  Being stalked by a schizophrenic is bad enough but the thought of being hunted by a schizophrenic Freemason is truly frightening.  Apparently an unexplored matter in the annals of psychiatry, it seems the question of just how schizophrenia might particularly manifest in Freemasons awaits research so there may be a PhD there for someone.

The problem Ms Lohan identified has long been known.  In the US, between 1828-1838 there was an Anti-Mason political party which is remembered now as one of the first of the “third parties” which over the decades have often briefly flourished before either fading away or being absorbed into one side or the other of what has for centuries tended towards two-party stability.  Its initial strength was that it was obsessively a single-issue party which enabled it rapidly to gather support but that proved ultimately it’s weakness because it never adequately developed the broader policy platform which would have attracted a wider membership.  The party was formed in reaction to the disappearance (and presumed murder) of a former Mason who had turned dissident and become a most acerbic critic and the suspicion arose that the Masonic establishment had arranged his killing to silence his voice.  They attracted much support, including from many church leaders who had long been suspicious of Freemasonry and were not convinced the organization was anything but anti-Christian.  Because the Masons were secretive and conducted their meetings in private, their opponents tended to invent stories about the rituals and ceremonies (stuff with goats often mentioned) and the myths grew.  The myths were clearly enough to secure some electoral success and the Anti-Masons even ran William Wirt (1772-1834 and still the nation’s longest-serving attorney-general (1817-1829)) as their candidate in the 1832 presidential election where he won 7.8% of the popular vote and carried Vermont, a reasonable achievement for a third-party candidate.  Ultimately though, that proved the electoral high-water mark and most of its members thereafter were absorbed by the embryonic Whig Party.

Quash

Quash (pronounced kwosh)

(1) To put down or suppress completely; quell; subdue; used usually in a military or paramilitary context.

(2) To make void, annul, or set aside (a law, indictment, decision etc); to reject (an indictment, writ, etc) as invalid.

(3) To crush or dash to pieces (obsolete and thought possibly an imperfect echoic of squash).

(4) In the civil procedure rules of US courts (as motion to quash), a specific request that asks the court to render the decision of a previous lower court ruling invalid.  It is similar to a motion to dismiss, except it asks the court to nullify a previous ruling rather than the current filing.

Circa 1275: From the Middle English quaschen, quasshen, cwessen, & quassen (to smash, break, overcome, suppress) from the Old French quasser, in part from the Latin quassāre (to shake), present active infinitive of quassō, frequentative of quatere (to shake) and in part from the Late Latin cassāre (to annul), a derivative of the Latin cassus (empty, void) under the influence of the Alatin cassō (I annul), from the Latin quatiō (I shake).  Ultimate root was the primitive Indo-European kweht- (to shake), the source also of the words pasta, paste, pastiche, pastry; cognate with Spanish quejar (to complain).  Similar to some degree are suppress, squash, repress, crush, quell, invalidate, annul, revoke, reverse, veto, void, undo, vacate, squelch, repeal, overrule, rescind, scrunch, annihilate and subdue.  Regarding quash and squash, the verb quash is now used to describe the crushing of something in a nonphysical sense whereas squash is applied when an object is physically crushed but both were for hundreds of years used in both senses, quash losing its physical sense only in the twentieth century.  Urban Dictionary also lists a number of non-standard meanings.  Quash & quashed are verbs, quasher is a noun, quashing is a noun & verb and quashable is an adjective; the most common noun plural is quashings.

In the matter of Cardinal Pell

Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023): On appeal, the prosecution not having proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction was quashed.

Quash means to nullify, void or declare invalid and is a procedure used in both criminal and civil cases when irregularities or procedural defects are found.  In a unanimous (7-0) judgment (Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12)) quashing Cardinal Pell’s conviction (Pell v The Queen [2019] VSCA 186), the High Court set aside the verdict and substituted an acquittal; in a legal sense it is now as if the original verdict never happened.  What the court did was declare existing law and provide what are not exactly parameters but are more than guidelines.  If nothing else, it’s likely the judgment will cause trial judges more precisely to instruct juries about reasonable doubt:

(1) The accused on trial in a serious criminal matter is presumed to be innocent.

(2) The accused may but is not obliged to offer a defense; it is incumbent upon the prosecution (almost always the state) to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused.

There’s nothing controversial about those positions, they’ve well known and have for centuries been accepted orthodoxies for the administration of criminal law in common law jurisdictions.  What the Pell judgment did was draw attention to other orthodoxies not as widely known:

(3) A jury is presumed to be comprised of reasonable people who impartially will assess the evidence (contested facts) presented; matters of contested facts are subjective and for the jury.

(4) It is the responsibility of the judge accurately and lucidly to instruct the jury on such matters of law which may be relevant to their consideration of matters of fact; matters of law are objective and for the judge.

Reasonable people on juries are thus required to decide if there is a reasonable doubt the prosecution’s case has proven guilt.  Reasonable doubt went back a long way but the phrase “reasonable person” was defined by English courts in negligence cases, an attempt to provide an example of the “the average man” or “the man in the street”.  Descriptions by judges vary but usually mean something like a “…reasonably intelligent and impartial person unversed in legal esoteric” (Jones v US, DC Court of Appeals), sketched rather more poetically by an English judge as “the man on the Clapham omnibus” (“a bloke on the Hornsby train” in Australian parlance).

(5) In exercising their subjective judgment to determine if the prosecution has proven their case beyond reasonable doubt, the jury is required to decide this on the objective basis of reasonable doubt detailed in the judge’s direction or summing up.

(6) If a court of appeal found a jury, acting reasonably, on the basis of the evidence presented, should have found reasonable doubt of guilt, the judge(s) can order the conviction quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered instead.

Not only verdicts can be quashed.  If within their jurisdiction, a judge can quash a warrant or order.

Fabulous

Fabulous (pronounced fab-yuh-luhs)

(1) Exceptionally good or unusual, wonderful or superb; fashionable, glamorous (which pedants insist is informal but it’s long been the standard meaning).

(2) Almost impossible to believe; incredible.

(3) In slang or as a euphemism, gay or pertaining to gay people; camp, effeminate ("a fabulousity" suggested as a collective noun for gay men but it never caught on) .

(4) In slang, fashionable, glamorous.

(5) Of or about fables; stories wholly or substantially of the imaginary and known of through myth or legend; something in the record known to be unhistorical.

Circa 1550: From the Late Middle English fabulous & fabulose, from the Latin fābulōsus (celebrated in fable; rich in myth), the construct being fābul(a) (a story, a tale) + -ōsus (the adjectival suffix).  The –ōsus suffix (familiar in English as –ous) was from Classical Latin from -ōnt-to-s from -o-wont-to -s, the latter form a combination of two primitive Indo-European suffixes: -went & -wont.  Related to these were –entus and the Ancient Greek -εις (-eis) and all were used to form adjectives from nouns.  In Latin, -ōsus was added to a noun to form an adjective indicating an abundance of that noun.  As a literary genre (and some fables came from oral traditions) fables were stories told usually to make some moral point or illustrate the consequences of one’s actions and while they could sometimes involve fantastical creatures like winged stallions or unicorns, sometimes they involved fictional characters who were mere flesh & blood and even a multi-volume, epic-length novel like Don Quixote (1605-1615) by Miguel de Cervantes circa 1547–1616) can be thought a fable.  Fabulous is an adjective, fabulousness & fabulosity are nouns and fabulously is an adverb; the use is the plural is rare but both fabulousnesses & fabulosities exist.  There is some evidence of use in the gay community of fabulous as a (non-standard) noun, sometime in the form “uber-fabulous” although that construction is also used generally as an adjective of especial emphasis.

Looking fabulous: Lindsay Lohan Fabulous magazine, August 2010.

The original sense was “of or pertaining to fable” and dates from the 1550s.  The now familiar meaning shift began as early as the turn of the seventeenth centuries when the word was recorded to convey the sense of “incredible” which soon extended to “enormous, immense; amazing” and by the mid-twentieth century it was used almost exclusively to mean “marvelous; wonderful, superb”.  The clipping to create the slang “fab” was in used by at least 1957 and use spiked after 1963 when the alliterative “fab four” was used to describe the pop group, The Beatles.  When in 1965 revising Henry Fowler’s (1858–1933), A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), Sir Ernest Gowers (1880–1966) maintained his predecessor’s disapproval of much that was a bit too modern, noting that correctly fabulous meant “…mythical, legendary, but was long ago extended to do duty as an adjective for something that is real but so astonishing that you might not think it was legendary if you did not know better.”, adding that it had “…become fabulously popular as a term of eulogy or allure.”  He seemed though to suspect it might be a “fad word”, noting it and its contracted forms “fab” & “fabs”, like “fantastic”, were perhaps the latest “…in that long list of words which boys and girls use for a time to express high commendation and then get tired of, such as, to go no farther back than the present century, topping, spiffing, ripping, wizard, super, posh, smashing.”  Decades on however, fabulous seems to have endured in its contemporary uses and even the portmanteau adjective fantabulous (the construct being fanta(stic) + (fa)bulous) has survived in its niche.  Fabulous probably gained a new lease of life when it was in the late 1960s picked up by the gay community which has used it even as a noun and it remains an essential element in the camp vocabulary.  Unless it’s between scholars, those wishing to convey the original meaning should probably use terms such as “fabled” or “mythological” rather than fabulous and even “legendary” can be ambiguous because it’s now often used to mean something like “famous” or “very well-known”.

Lindsay Lohan in an unusual cage cutout top, the lines assuming or relaxing from the orthogonal as the body moves (maybe an instance of "a shifting semiorthogonal"), The World's First Fabulous Fund Fair in aid of the Naked Heart Foundation, The Roundhouse, London, February 2015.  An opportunity was missed by not adding a sympathetic clutch purse.

George W Bush, Condoleezza Rice & Colin Powell.

The phrase “the fabulous invalid” refers to live theater & stage productions generally, the use derived from a 1938 stage play of that name by George S Kaufman (1889-1961) and Moss Hart (1904-1961) which traced the that follows the seesawing fortunes of a fictitious Broadway theater between 1900-1930.  In a touching irony, while the play was barely a modest success and not highly regarded by its authors, the title has endured as a synonym for the theatre.  George W Bush (George XLIII, b 1946; US president 2001-2009) who (admittedly unwittingly) contributed more than most to coining new words & novel grammatical structures, probably wasn’t deliberately alluding the original meaning of fabulous when he used it to describe the performance of his first foreign minister, Colin Powell (1937–2021; US secretary of state 2001-2005) but if considered thus it certainly reflected his view that the general’s favorable public image reflected more myth than reality and he’d prefer a secretary of state who both ticked a few boxes and was more attuned to his brutish world-view.  In Dr Condoleezza Rice (b 1954; US secretary of state 2005-2009) he certainly got that but in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, whatever might have been his better judgment, the general did his job because, as Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel (1882–1946; head of Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW), the Nazi armed forces high command) put it at the Nuremberg Trial (1645-1946): “For a soldier, orders are orders.”  His flirtation with politics is a fable and story of Condoleezza Rice’s career in government even more so: a cautionary tale of what can happen when a nice young lady from a good family gets mixed up with an unsavory crowd (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al).

White House transcript of press conference assembled when the president met with Colin Powell and Richard Armitage (b 1945; US deputy secretary of state 2001-2005) at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Wednesday, 6 August 2003:

THE PRESIDENT: First, it's been my real privilege and honor to welcome the Secretary of State back to Crawford. He and Dick Armitage came, and we spent yesterday evening and this morning talking about our country's desire to promote peace and freedom, our obligations as a prosperous and strong nation to help the less fortunate. And we had a good strategy session, and now we're about to go out and brand some cows -- well, not exactly. (Laughter)

QUESTION: Sir, you've seen the report that Secretary Powell and Secretary Armitage are going to leave at the end of this administration. Do you expect them to stay on if there is a second Bush administration? Would you like them to?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first things first, we hope there is a second Bush administration. And I will work hard to convince the American people that their confidence in me is justified. And we'll deal with it at the right time.  Listen, this guy has done a fabulous job. Washington, particularly in August, is a dangerous period -- a dangerous time, because there's a lot of speculation. And all I can tell you is, the man flies to Crawford and we spend a good 24 hours talking about how we're going to work together to make the world a better place.

QUESTION: But, Mr. President, you said, we'll deal with it…

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Elizabeth.

QUESTION: We'll deal with it at the right time. That isn't "yes".

THE PRESIDENT: Deal with what at the right time?

QUESTION: With whether Secretary Powell will serve in a second term. Is that, "yes" or "no"? I mean, are you going to offer him a spot in the second term?

SECRETARY POWELL: I don't have a term. I serve the President. (Laughter)

QUESTION: No, but the President…

THE PRESIDENT: Elizabeth, look, first things first, and that is, we've got a year-and-a-while during my first term to make the world a more peaceful place and we'll deal with it. Washington loves speculation. Clearly, you love speculation. You love it. You love to speculate about…

QUESTION: It wasn't my story. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish, please; let me finish. You love to speculate about whether so-and-so is going to be a part of the administration or not. And I understand the game. But I have got to do my job, and I'm going to do it. And I'm going to do it with the Secretary of State. And the fact that he is here in Crawford, Texas, talking about issues of importance, should say loud and clear to the American people that he's completely engaged in doing what he needs to do, and that is, serve as a great Secretary of State.

QUESTION: Do you want to serve more than four years, Mr. Secretary?

SECRETARY POWELL: I serve at the pleasure of the President, and this is all August speculation with no basis in fact. There was no basis for this story to begin with, and we're doing our jobs together.

THE PRESIDENT: All right. We're going to get a burger. Thank you.

Versus

Versus (pronounced vur-suhs or vur-suhz)

(1) Against, used especially to indicate an action brought by one party against another in a court of law, or to denote competing teams or players in a sporting contest.

(2) As compared to or as one of two (or more) choices; as alternative to; in contrast with.

1400–1450: From the Late Middle English, from the Latin versus (facing; literally “towards” ie “turned so as to face (something), opposite, over against) and originally the past participle of vertere (to turn, change, overthrow, destroy), from the primitive Indo-European wert- (to turn, wind) from the root *wer (to turn, bend).  Versus is a preposition, the accepted abbreviations are “v” & “vs”.  The Latin vertere being a word of conflict, it’s been predictably productive in English.  In psychology, ambivert & ambiversion were coined in 1927 to describe a "person exhibiting features of an extrovert and an introvert.  Advert was an adaptation of the mid-fifteenth century averten (to turn (something) aside) from the twelfth century Old French avertir (later advertir) (to turn, direct; turn aside; make aware, inform) from the Latin advertere (turn toward, turn to).  English restored the -d- in the sixteenth century.  Versus is a preposition.

Averse was a mid-fifteenth century form meaning "turned away in mind or feeling, disliking, unwilling", from the Old French avers (hostile, antagonistic) and directly from the Latin aversus (turned away, turned back), past participle of avertere (to direct one's attention to; give heed, literally "to turn toward”).  Averse in English is used almost exclusively in the mental sense, while averted is applied to physical acts.  Advertise was from the early fifteenth century advertisen (to take notice of (a sense now obsolete)), from the Old French advertiss-, present-participle stem of the twelfth century advertir (the earlier form was avertir) (make aware, call attention, remark; turn, turn to), again from the Latin advertere.  The mid-fifteenth century transitive sense of "give notice to others, inform, warn; make clear or manifest" was by influence of advertisement; the specific commercial meaning "call attention to goods for sale, rewards, etc" not in use until the late eighteenth century.  The idea of the adversary (unfriendly opponent, enemy) emerged originally in religious writing as a descriptor of Satan as the enemy of man.  It was from the mid-fourteenth century aduersere (hostile opponent, enemy), from the thirteenth century Anglo-French adverser and the twelfth century Old French adversarie (which in Modern French is adversaire), from the Latin adversarius (an opponent, rival, enemy) the noun use of the adjective meaning "opposite, hostile, contrary.  The Classical Latin was glossed in Old English by wiðerbroca.

The verso (reverse, back, or other side of some object," especially a printed page or book) dates from 1839 and was from the Latin verso (folio), ablative singular neuter of versus, past participle of vertere (to turn).  Retroversion was first noted in the 1580s in the sense of a “tilting or turning backward" noun of action or state from the Latin retroversus (turned or bent backwards).  The late fourteenth century controversy (disputation, debate, prolonged agitation of contrary opinions) was from the from Old French controversie (quarrel, disagreement" from the Latin controversia (a turning against; contention, quarrel, dispute), from controversus (turned in an opposite direction, disputed, turned against), the construct being contra "against" + versus (turned toward or against), past participle of vertere.  Vice versa (the order being changed) dates from circa 1600, the construct being vice, ablative of vicis (a change, alternation, alternate order) + versa, feminine ablative singular of versus, past participle of vertere.  The Century Dictionary notes the phrase has the “complete force of a proposition”, meaning “a transposition of antecedents, the consequents also transposed".

Sinister, the idea being the left being opposite the right is also involved.  When, in 1856, botanists needed a word to describe the direction of spiral structures in nature, they coined the adjective sinistrorse, from the Latin sinistrorsus (toward the left side), the construct being sinister (left) + versus (turned), past participle of vertere.  It was paired with dextrorse but, in the pre-internet age, communication between scientists in different places was slow or limited and confusion arose about what was the proper point of view to reckon leftward or rightward spiraling, both interpretations used and documented as sinistrorse.  It limited the utility of the word.  Universe dates from the 1580s in the sense of "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things", from the twelfth century Old French univers, from the Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of the neuter of the adjective universus (all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all, literally "turned into one), from unus (one (from the primitive Indo-European root oi-& no- (one, unique)) + versus, past participle of vertere.

The word verse came from late Old English, replacing the earlier Old English fers which was an early West Germanic borrowing directly from Latin and meant "line or section of a psalm or canticle" which by the fourteenth century had extended to "line of poetry", from the Anglo-French and Old French vers (line of verse; rhyme, song), from the Latin versus (a line, row, line of verse, line of writing), again from the primitive Indo-European wer-.  The metaphor is of plowing, of "turning" from one line to another, in the sense of vertere (to turn) as the plowman does at the end of each furrow.  The New Testament in English translation was first divided fully into verses in the 1550s Geneva version.  The metrical composition dates from circa 1300 but, perhaps surprisingly, as the non-repeating part of a modern song (ie the text which exists between repetitions of the chorus), verse wasn’t used until 1918.  That was noted in the book Negro Folk-Songs (1918) by US ethno-musicologist Natalie Curtis Burlin (1875-1921) which documented the traditions and forms of what used to be called “negro spirituals”.  Seemingly for the first time, the structure was defined as consisting of "chorus and verses, the chorus being a melodic refrain sung by all which opens the song; then follows a verse sung as a solo, in free recitative; the chorus then repeated; then another verse, the chorus again and so on until the chorus, sung for the last time, ends the song.”

In law reporting, versus, and, & against

Carbolic Smoke Ball Company’s offer to the whole world.

In the English speaking world, in the reporting of legal actions which reach the stage of being filed by a court register (or equivalent), the convention is that the first party named is the plaintiff (appellant) and the second the defendant (respondent).  So, in the famous case in English contract law of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892, EWCA Civ 1) before the Court of Appeal, Mrs Carlill was the appellant and the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company the respondent.  The carbolic smoke ball case remains interesting because it established in English law the principle that advertisements offering something can constitute a binding contract even if the person claiming to have entered the contact hasn’t advised the author of the offer of their intent to perform the acts required in the terms of the offer.

Doubling down: The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company wasn't discouraged by the loss in the Court of Appeal, subsequently increasing both the reward to £200 and the small print to discourage claims.

During the deadly influenza pandemic in the northern winter of 1889-1890, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company it would pay £100 (equivalent to some £12,000 in 2021) to anyone who became ill with influenza after using their smoke ball in accordance with the instructions enclosed with the product.  Mrs Carlill was concerned enough by the flu to buy a ball which, following the instructions, she used thrice daily for some weeks but nevertheless, caught the flu.  Unable to persuade the company to pay her £100, Mrs Carlill brought an action, in court claiming a contract existed which the company denied.  At first instance, despite being represented by a future prime-minister, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company lost, a verdict upheld unanimously by the Court of Appeal.  It was a landmark in the development of contract law, refining the long-established principles of (1) offer, (2) acceptance, (3) certainty of terms and (4) payment although, it would be decades before the implications would begin comprehensively to be realized in legislation.  Not only did Mrs Carlill secure her £100 but she survived the pandemic, living to the age of ninety-six.  On 10 March 1942, she died after catching influenza.

In the UK and most of the Commonwealth, civil cases are reported in the form of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company but in oral use spoken as Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (although for notorious cases like this, an informal shorthand such as “carbolic” or “carbolic smoke” usually emerges).  Where a proceeding does not have formally designated adverse parties, the construct becomes “In the matter of”, spoken and written usually as “In re” or, more commonly “Re”.  In the US, the written form is the same for civil and criminal proceedings but when spoken, the “v” or “vs” is pronounced “vee” or “versus”.  Neither system appears helpful and it would be an improvement if both could agree to use “and” and “against” as required and write them in that form too.  It will never happen.

Criminal matters are written using the same convention but the “v” is spoken as “against”.  In Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (969 1 QB 439) a defendant’s conviction, for refusing to move his car after having inadvertently reversed over a policeman’s foot, was upheld.  Absurd as the facts of the case turned out to be, it was a useful illustration of the relevant legal principles.  In criminal law, there’s the requirement that both actus reus (act) and mens rea (intention) be present for a crime to take place.  Fagan argued that when he made the actus reus, because it was an accident, he had no men’s rea, but when he obtained mens rea, there was no corresponding actus reus.  There have been philosophers who would have found the logic of that compelling but the judges proved earthier, ruling that while omission cannot establish an assault, the actus reus of driving onto the foot and deciding to remain there constituted a continuing criminal act which was present when the mens rea occurred.  Mr Fagan’s conviction thus stood.

In the matter of Grand Theft Auto (GTA5): Lindsay Lohan v Take-Two Interactive Software Inc et al, New York Court of Appeals (No 24, pp1-11, 29 March 2018)

In a case which took an unremarkable four years from filing to reach New York’s highest appellate court, Lindsay Lohan’s suit against the makers of video game Grand Theft Auto V was dismissed.  In a unanimous ruling in March 2018, six judges of the New York Court of Appeals rejected her invasion of privacy claim which alleged one of the game’s characters was based on her.  The judges found the "actress/singer" in the game merely resembled a “generic young woman” rather than anyone specific.  Unfortunately the judges seemed unacquainted with the concept of the “basic white girl” which might have made the judgment more of a fun read.

Beware of imitations: The real Lindsay Lohan and the GTA 5 ersatz, a mere "generic young woman".

Concurring with the 2016 ruling of the New York County Supreme Court which, on appeal, also found for the game’s makers, the judges, as a point of law, accepted the claim a computer game’s character "could be construed a portrait", which "could constitute an invasion of an individual’s privacy" but, on the facts of the case, the likeness was "not sufficiently strong".  The “… artistic renderings are an indistinct, satirical representation of the style, look and persona of a modern, beach-going young woman... that is not recognizable as the plaintiff" Judge Eugene Fahey wrote in his ruling.  Ms Lohan’s lawyers did not seek leave to appeal.

Lagniappe

Lagniappe (pronounced lan-yap or lanny-yap)

(1) A small gift given with a purchase to a customer, by way of compliment or for good measure; bonus (mostly southern Louisiana and south-east Texas).

(2) Something given or obtained as a gratuity (tip) or bonus

(3) A gratuity or tip.

(4) An unexpected or indirect benefit.

(5) A windfall, an unexpected turn of good fortune

1840s: An Americanism, from the Cajun French lagniappe, from the Latin American Spanish la ñapa or la yapa, the construct being la- (the feminine definite article) + a variant of ñapa or yapa (small gift or additional quantity given to a valued customer), from the Quechua (known also as Runasimi (people's language), an indigenous language family spoken by the Quechua peoples of the Peruvian Andes) yápa (addition; that which is added; increase, supplement (which existed also in the form yapay (addition; sum).  The word (in its various spellings) is found most commonly in southern Louisiana and south-east Texas but exists also in Mississippi and Trinidad & Tobago).  The synonyms include pasella (South Africa), brotus (southern US) and tilly or luck penny (Ireland).  The idea was in England institutionalized as “the baker’s dozen” whereby the standard quantity of items sold by the dozen (12) was set at 13.  The first documented record of the word dates from 1849 in the sense of “something extra, given by a merchant to a customer to reward or encourage patronage” and it was a part of transactional New Orleans Creole.  Mark Twain (1835-1910) in Life on the Mississippi (1883) noted the practice was universal among Louisiana shopkeepers and to his ear, the pronunciation was lanny-yap although variations have been noted throughout the southern US and the Caribbean.  Twain observed the practice frequently and recorded the way people would use the word wryly to describe some historic transactions: "The English were trading beads and blankets to them [the native Americans] for a consideration and throwing in civilization & whiskey 'for lagniappe'."    The alternative spellings are lagnappe, lanyap & lanyappe.  Lagniappe is a noun; the noun plural is lagniappes.

In Japanese commerce, the concept of the lagniappe was long a part of the retailing low-cost, mass-produced items and was known as御負け (omake) and while the small “giveaways” were intended originally to stimulate sales, the industry came to realize that if produced as sets the additional inclusions could in themselves become desirable collectables and it wasn’t unknown for purchases to being made not for the purpose of obtaining the notionally priced item but instead the free gift.  The highest form of this concept was wrapping or otherwise concealing the gift so that people had to keep purchasing until they managed to “snag” the missing part of the set.  Controversial among consumer organizations (especially with products appealing to children), the trick is still used, both in Japan and beyond.  A variation of the idea (as an ad-hoc form of the baker’s dozen) is the “bundle”, the classic example of which is the inclusion of extra material (tracks, interviews, deleted scenes, bloopers etc) on optical (CD, DVD, Blu-Ray) releases of films or music.  The bundle actually remains one of the most common forms of convincing consumers they’re benefiting from “added value”, the trick being that the “free” extras can be advertised as being worth their recommended retail price (which in many cases, for many reasons, the manufacturer or retailer has worked out they have few prospects of ever realizing), a value vastly higher than their actual cost or the even lower book value.  In the days when cars had vast option lists, the US manufacturers were past masters at "bundling", stocks of slow-selling items off-loaded in seemingly attractively priced "bundles".

Mean Girls Special Collector's Edition (2004) on DVD, Paramount Pictures (part number D341604D).

Bundled extras: There’s no defined standard for what is included in “special” editions of commercially released films but unlike “director’s cut” versions which to some extent change the actual content of the original releases (cinema, optical, TV or streaming), “special editions” tend to be the original plus a bundle of “extras”.  Assembled usually as “featurettes”, typically, the additional content will consist of interviews with the cast, director or writers, out-takes, bloopers, deleted scenes, advertising and other promotional material and sometimes commentaries from critics or commentators with expertise in some issue of interest.  For nerds, there’s sometimes even content about technical aspects of production, an addition most often seen with product made with much use of special effects but discussions about matters such as fashion or history might also appear.

The Mean Girls Special Collector's Edition included (1) discussions about casting, (2) an interview with Rosalind Wiseman (b 1969), author of Queen Bees and Wannabes (2002) on which the Mean Girls screenplay was based, (3) commentary by the writers and producers, (4) “Word Vomit” (the Blooper Reel), (5) deleted scenes with commentary, (6) “Plastic Fashion” (a discussion about costume design and the use of clothing as a metaphor for character development), (7) interstitials (advertising material created with original material not used in the final cut) and (8) promotional trailers for other Paramount films.

Democratic Party campaign material: 1996 US presidential election.

Lagniappe: In some countries, politicians literally buy votes with physical cash.  In this West this happens but the process is sanitized and degrees of remoteness introduced.  There are also more abstract forms such as the Democratic Party including campaign material in the 1996 US presidential election which essentially offered “a free copy of crooked Hillary with a re-elected Bill.  Whether the voters thought this “added value” isn’t clear but Bill Clinton (with some help from Ross Perot (1930-2019) won with almost 50% of the vote so there's that.  Intriguingly, whether because or despite of being bundled with free copy of crooked Hillary, polls at the time indicated that had (post-Monica) Bill been able to run in 2000 for a third term, he'd have won even more handsomely.

Elector

Elector (pronounced ih-lek-ter)

(1) A person who elects or may elect, especially a qualified voter (ie one correctly enrolled).

(2) A member an electoral college (chiefly US use but rarely used except in a technical context and often with initial capital letter).

(3) One of the (mostly) German princes entitled to elect the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (usually initial capital letter).

1425–1475: From the late Middle English elector & electour, from the Late Latin ēlēctor (chooser; selector) agent noun from past-participle stem of eligere (to pick out, choose), the construct being eleg- (variant stem of ēligere, second-person singular future passive indicative of ēligō (from ex- (out of, from) +‎ legō (choose, select, appoint)) + -tor (genitive -tōris), the Latin suffix used to form a masculine agent noun.  An earlier alternative form was electour but it was obsolete by the sixteenth century; the office in court documents was often described by the noun electorship and there were feminine forms, used with an initial capital letter when grammar demanded: electress, electress consort & princess-electress.  Elector & electorship are nouns; the noun plural is electors.

Elections in the First Reich

The Holy Roman Empire (Sacrum Imperium Romanum in Latin; Heiliges Römisches Reich in German) endured from the crowing of Charlemagne (747–814) on Christmas day 800 until it was dissolved in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars although, technically, the imperial connection existed only since Otto I (912-973) proclaimed himself emperor in 962 and it wasn’t until the thirteenth century the term "Holy Roman Empire" came into use.  Prior to that, the empire was known variously as universum regnum (the whole kingdom (as opposed to the many regional kingdoms in Europe), imperium christianum (Christian empire) or Romanum imperium (Roman empire), but the Emperor's mystique, if not his constitutional legitimacy, was always underpinned by the concept of translatio imperii (that his supreme power was an inheritance from the old emperors of Classical Rome).

The Bishop Consecration of the Elector Clemens August by Benedikt XIII (1727) (in the New Castle Schleißheim), oil on panel in Rococo style by by George Desmarées (1697-1776). 

Accession to the throne of Holy Roman Emperor was sometime dynastic and sometimes political but from the thirteenth century, it was formalised as elective, the electoral college comprised mostly of German prince-electors, the high-ranking aristocrats who would meet to choose of their peers a King of the Romans to be crowned emperor (until 1530 by the Pope himself).  From then on, emperors, keen to assert the idea their authority was independent of the papacy, gained their legitimacy solely from the vote of the electors.  The prince-electors were known in German as Kurfürst; the heir apparent to a secular prince-elector a Kurprinz (electoral prince).  The German element Kur- was based on the Middle High German irregular verb kiesen and was related to the English word "choose" (from the Old English ceosan, participle coren (having been chosen)) and the Gothic kiusan.  The modern German verb küren means "to choose" in a ceremonial sense.  Fürst is German for “prince” but while German distinguishes between the head of a principality (der Fürst) and the son of a monarch (der Prinz), English uses "prince" for both concepts.  Fürst is related to the English first and is thus the “foremost” person in his realm, “prince” being derived from the Latin princeps, which carried the same meaning.

In modern democratic systems, there’s quite a variety of electoral systems and a handful of states even make voting compulsory.  Although political operatives and theorists have constructed elaborate arguments in favor of one arrangement or another, it’s remarkable how, over a number of electoral cycles, the pattern of outcomes produces results which are strikingly similar.  One thing which tends to be common across different systems is that the actual dynamic of the electoral contest is the battle for the votes of a relative handful, the base support of the established parties, although there’s be a general tendency of decline, not falling below a certain critical mass.  So, all the clatter of election campaigns exists to convince a small part of the population to vote differently and these are the famous “swing” voters, those who can be persuaded to change.  Swing voters can bring joy or despair to political parties and in tight contests they’re a particular challenge because they can’t all be nudged to change by the same carrot or stick; some need to be offered hope, some need to be made fearful and some wish simply to be bribed.  The other problem with swing voters is they can swing back so they need again and again to be massaged.  Consider Lindsay Lohan who in 2008 endorsed Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) only to say in 2012 she was “as of now” backing Mitt Romney (b 1947; Republican candidate for president 2012).  Once, she referred to Sarah Palin (b 1964; Republican vice presidential nominee 2008) as a “narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe” yet, presumably using the same deductive process, found Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) was “good people”, a view expressed within a year of declaring herself anti-Brexit voice, a thing Trump supported.  There is of course no reason why people have to align themselves with everything a candidate supports and it seems unknown which way Lindsay Lohan has voted or even if she votes but her seasonal shifts are indicative of the difficulties the parties face and the reason they’re so attracted to the possibilities offered by mining big data so messaging can be scoped down to individual electors.  That's merely the latest refinement in advertising which has moved in less than a century from broadcasting to all, narrowcasting to groups to now messaging to each soul what they want to hear.