Epizeuxis

Epizeuxis (pronounced ep-i-zook-sis)

A literary or rhetorical device used as a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is repeated emphatically with the intention of producing some desired effect.

1580–1590: From the Modern Latin epizeuxis, from the Ancient Greek ἐπίζευξις (epízeuxis) (a fastening together, a joining; in rhetoric the repetition (of words), from ἐπιζευγνύναι (epizeugnúnai), the construct being epi- (the epi- prefix was from the Ancient Greek ἐπί (epí) (on top of; in addition to (in a special use in chemistry), it denotes an epimeric (of or pertaining to an epimer (any diastereoisomer that has the opposite configuration at only one of the stereogenic centres) form)).+ zeûxis (the yoking (of oxen)); a joining) a verbal noun from ζευγνύναι (zeugnúnai) (to yoke, to join).  Epizeuxis is a noun; the noun plural is epizeuxes.

In speeches and in debate (that term often used generously when they’re involved), politicians use epizeuxis essentially because they’ve been taught to follow what works in advertising: use simple words and phrases (preferably a TWS (three word phrase)), endlessly repeated in a manner of delivery something like a school teacher uses with the less bright children.  There’s seems a tendency among the more cynical commentators to suggest the less sincere a politician is, the more they’re inclined to be epizeuxistic and while that’s impressionistic, cases like Sir Tony Blair (b 1953; UK prime-minister 1997-2007 (education, education, education)) and Dr Kevin Rudd (b 1957; Australian prime-minister 2007-2010 & 2013 (jobs, jobs, jobs)) do come to mind.  Still, in the hands of a master rhetorician, an epizeuxis, especially if unexpected, can be effective.

Lyndon Johnson (left) & Sam Rayburn (right), Washington DC, 1954.  The few left in the modern Democratic Party with any sense of history recall with some nostalgia the Johnson-Rayburn congressional era when, at its peak, the Democrats held majorities of 64-36 in the Senate and 263-174 in the House of Representatives.

In the 1964 US presidential election Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969) faced the Republican nominee Barry Goldwater (1909–1998), the contest dubbed by some as “a crook versus a kook”.  Only days before the poll, LBJ turned up at Cresent City’s Jung Hotel in New Orleans to deliver a campaign speech which he began conventionally enough, telling the audience of 1500 Louisiana democrat faithful he would enforce the new civil rights law, guaranteeing every American free access to all public accommodations, which had passed with Senate support from “…two thirds of the Democrats and three-fourths of the Republicans.”  Years later, he would note the applause “…was less than overwhelming.”  He then paused before telling them of the words spoken to him by an old, dying Texas senator who had told house speaker Sam Rayburn (1882–1961) he wished he was well enough because “I would like to go back down there and make them one more Democratic speech.  I have one in me.  Poor old state, they haven’t heard a real Democratic speech in 30 years. All they ever hear at election time is Nigra, Nigra, Nigra.”

Even south of the Mason-Dixon Line, in 1964 for a president to utter the “N-word” (albeit in the form of a “polite southernism”) was startling and the reports in the press spoke of “...a collective gasp in the room” before the Southern audience gave the Southern president “…a five-minute standing ovation.”  It should though be remembered that in his massive biography (The Years of Lyndon Johnson, four of five volumes (1982-2012) thus far published), Robert Caro (b 1935) did note the conversion to racial equality came late in his life, his earlier uses of “Nigra, Nigra, Nigra” having a harsher edge.  Still, LBJ did achieve much to advance civil rights in the US and had the war in Vietnam not consumed his presidency, he would now be remembered differently although it was the reaction to his domestic policies which triggered the birth and growth of the “New Right” and the neo-liberal economic order which staged history’s greatest corporate takeover (ie most of the planet).  Political scientists have written much on the roots and evolution of the “New Left” but there remains a tendency to focus on the Reagan-Thatcher era (Ronald Reagan (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989) & Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013; UK prime-minister 1979-1990) as a kind of sudden “revolution” rather than something which really began in the wake of Goldwater’s massive defeat in 1964.

In rhetoric & literary use, the devices related to epizeuxis includes “anaphora, “diacope”, “contrastive reduplication” while in song writing and poetry there’s also “incremental repetition” (where a line is repeated with slight variations to advance the narrative or argument) and “refrain” (where a phrase or line repeated regularly, usually at the end of a stanza or verse.  Epizeuxis (known also as palilogia) involves the immediate repetition of words or phrases without any intervening words and often reinforced with, if written, an exclamation mark or if spoken, some sort of gesture.  As a device to convey vehemence, it works by emphasizing some point by (1) repetition & (2) delivery in quick succession.  It’s not the most refined of devices and in literature is best used with some infrequency because the power of its novelty fades fast although if deployed for comic effect, it can be used more often.  Joseph Conrad’s (Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski, 1857–1924) use of “The horror, the horror!” in Heart of Darkness (1899) is a classic example of the effect but as endlessly used in advertising, it’s often just intrusive.

Anaphora (from the Ancient Greek ἀναφορά (carrying back)) is the repetition of words or phrases at the beginning of successive sentences or clauses.  Borrowing from poetry and often the chorus passages from various forms of music, it creates emphasis and rhythm.  It was a favourite of William Shakespeare (1564–1616) and “This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England” from Richard II (1595) illustrates how he used anaphora to make language flow.  The companion term is epistrophe (or epiphora), the repeating of words at a clauses' end.  The combination of anaphora and epistrophe results in symploce.

A diacope (from the Ancient Greek diakopḗ (cut in two) involves the repetition of words or phrases with a few intervening words, the emphasis achieved by a “sandwiching” (a special class of interpolation in structural linguistics) the repeated elements.  Again, Shakespeare provides perhaps the most famous example in English in having the Danish prince say “To be or not to be” (Hamlet (circa 1600) and a classically simple example is Ian Fleming’s (1908–1964)”Bond, James Bond”.  In linguistics there are three classes of diacope: (1) Vocative Diacope in which the repeated words are separated by nouns which directly are addressed (ie the noun must address something, or someone), (2) Elaborative Diacope where an adjective is used between the repeated words to enhance the meaning of the repeated word and (3) The extended diacope where for even more emphasis a word is repeated more than twice.

Lindsay Lohan and her then “girlfriend-girlfriend” Samantha Ronson (b 1977) at the release of her twin Charlotte Ronson's Spring 2009 line, New York Fashion Week, Bryant Park, New York, September 2008.  Among women, the “girlfriend-girlfriend” contrastive reduplication distinguishes “a friend who is female” from “a female lover”, the latter once often known by the euphemism “special friend”. (although author and one-time communist Jessica Mitford (1917-1996) liked "you-know-what-bian" which never caught on)  In this context “girlfriend” is exemplified by the gang of four in the HBO television series Sex and the City (1998–2004), based on Candace Bushnell’s (b 1958) compilation (the book Sex and the City (1996)) of columns (1994-1996) under the same title written for the New York Observer.  The same thing could be achieved by the adoption of the convention of using “girl friend” for friends and “girlfriend” for lovers (as men use the word) but that really works only in writing or with the addition of visual clues.

Contrastive reduplication (CR to the practitioners who treat the analysis as “phrasal focus movement (PFM)” although in the way of academic life it’s also called “identical constituent compounding” (ICC), “lexical cloning (LC)” “contrastive focus reduplication” (CFR) or “double construction” (DC), all grouped under the rubric of “syntactic reduplication” (SR)) is a widely practiced phenomenon of conversational speech in which a word or larger constituent is reduplicated to single out a default or prototypical meaning, one of the duplicates receiving or imparting the contrastive (focal) stress.  Sometimes used in conjunction with “air quotes”, structurally CR often makes no sense if deconstructed literary but they are widely understood:  “Do you like him or like-like him?” is in no way ambiguous, the first “like” interpreted as the default (dictionary” definition, the “duplicated like” carrying the “loaded” meaning.  In English, the first part of the reduplicant bears contrastive intonational stress.

Rebarbative

Rebarbative (pronounced ree-bahr-buh-tiv)

(1) Causing annoyance, irritation, or aversion; repellent (usually of people but can be applied to concepts or objects such as unpleasing buildings.

(2) Fearsome; forbidding (obsolete).

(3) An object (typically a fabric or other surface) having a coarse or roughly finish (rare and usually a literally device). 

1885: From the French rébarbative, the feminine form of the fourteenth century rébarbatif (disagreeable; repellent; unattractive), from the Middle French rébarber (to oppose; to stand up to;to be unattractive) from the Old French rebarber (to repel (an enemy), to withstand (him) face to face).  The construct was ré- + barbe (beard) + -atif (-ative).  The re- prefix was from the Middle English re-, from the circa 1200 Old French re-, from the Latin re- & red- (back; anew; again; against), from the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (again), a metathetic alteration of wert- (to turn).  It displaced the native English ed- & eft-.  A hyphen is not normally included in words formed using this prefix, except when the absence of a hyphen would (1) make the meaning unclear, (2) when the word with which the prefix is combined begins with a capital letter, (3) when the word with which the is combined with begins with another “re”, (4) when the word with which the prefix is combined with begins with “e”, (5) when the word formed is identical in form to another word in which re- does not have any of the senses listed above.  As late as the early twentieth century, the dieresis was sometimes used instead of a hyphen (eg reemerge) but this is now rare except when demanded for historic authenticity or if there’s an attempt deliberately to affect the archaic.  Re- may (and has) been applied to almost any verb and previously irregular constructions appear regularly in informal use; the exception is all forms of “be” and the modal verbs (can, should etc).  Although it seems certain the origin of the Latin re- is the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (which has a parallel in Umbrian re-), beyond that it’s uncertain and while it seems always to have conveyed the general sense of "back" or "backwards", there were instances where the precise was unclear and the prolific productivity in Classical Latin tended make things obscure.

Barbe was from the Latin barba (beard), literally “to stand beard to beard against”.  The French suffix -atif was used in to indicate “of, related to, or associated with the thing specified”.  The English equivalent was -ative, the construct of which was -at(e) + -ive.  The suffix -ate was a word-forming element used in forming nouns from Latin words ending in -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as estate, primate & senate).  Those that came to English via French often began with -at, but an -e was added in the fifteenth century or later to indicate the long vowel.  It can also mark adjectives formed from Latin perfect passive participle suffixes of first conjugation verbs -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as desolate, moderate & separate).  Again, often they were adopted in Middle English with an –at suffix, the -e appended after circa 1400; a doublet of –ee.  The –ive suffix was from the Anglo-Norman -if (feminine -ive), from the Latin -ivus.  Until the fourteenth century, all Middle English loanwords from the Anglo-Norman ended in -if (actif, natif, sensitif, pensif et al) and, under the influence of literary Neolatin, both languages introduced the form -ive.  Those forms that have not been replaced were subsequently changed to end in -y (hasty, from hastif, jolly, from jolif etc).  Like the Latin suffix -io (genitive -ionis), the Latin suffix -ivus is appended to the perfect passive participle to form an adjective of action.  Rebarbative is an adjective, rebarbativeness is a noun and rebarbatively is an adverb.

Although now applied almost always to tiresome people, rebarbative has been applied to buildings (modern architecture offering much scope for use), music (many the compositions of the twentieth century and beyond well deserving the critique) and poetry (again, modernism the culprit).  The French rébarbatif (repellent or disagreeable) was from the Middle French rebarber (to oppose), the construct being re- (in the sense of “again”) + barbe (beard) from the Latin barba (the distant relative of the English “beard” & “barber”) and etymologists say the literal meaning was “to stand beard to beard against”, leading etymologists to conclude the origin of the modern sense lay in the “itchy, irritating quality of a beard”, extended to anything or anyone “irritating or annoying”.  As recently as the 1930s it was also used in the literal sense of the tactile sensation engendered a surface “coarse or roughly finished”, applied to the fabric called “drugget”, from the French droguet, from drogue (cheap), of uncertain origin.  Dating from the sixteenth century, drugget was an inexpensive and coarse woolen cloth, used mainly for clothing.

Mutually rebarbative: Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021, left) & crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013, right), second presidential debate, 9 October 2016, Washington University, St Louis, Missouri.  Given recent events, crooked Hillary can now start calling him “crooked Donald”.

Since the 1890s rebarbative has applied now to anyone really annoying, repellent or generally disagreeable, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) listing the earliest known instance of the adjective rebarbatively as dating from 1934.  The state of disagreeability being obviously as spectrum, the comparative is “more rebarbative” and the superlative “most rebarbative”.  It’s not as if English lacks words with which to describe someone as “annoying or objectionable” but the charm of rebarbative is its rarity.  The meaning will however be obscure to many so if an immediate impact is important, the more commonly used synonyms include irritating, annoying, frustrating, disturbing, abrasive, exasperating, irksome, maddening, painful, bothersome, pesky, galling, peeving, carking, riling, rankling, chafing, troublesome, infuriating, disquieting, mischievous, burdensome, displeasing, discomforting, biting, troubling, offensive, importunate, distressing, stressful, upsetting, thorny, enraging, angering, worrisome, trying, jarring, grating & jangling; less heard forms include pestilential, pestiferous, vexatious, vexing, nettlesome, nettling, pestilent, plaguey, plaguy, pesty, distractive, brattish, bratty, spiny & importune.  Bridget Jones in Helen Fielding's (b 1958) Bridget Jones's Diary (1996) liked "vile" which is a wonderful word and one which for some reason is a genuine pleasure to say, the meaning emphasized by lengthening the sound.  Vile was from the Middle English vile, vyle & vyl, from the Anglo-Norman ville, from the Old French vil & vile, from Latin vīlis (cheap, inexpensive; base, vile, mean, worthless, cheap, paltry), from the Proto-Italic weslis, from the primitive Indo-European weslis, a deverbal adjective with passive meaning (which can be bought), from the root of venus (sale).  In Latin the comparative was vīlior and the superlative vīlissimus.

Ever the trendsetter, during one of her appearances in court (Los Angeles, July 2010), Lindsay Lohan illustrated a novel means by which rebarbativeness could be expressed: fingernail art.  However, after paparazzi photographs were published, Ms Lohan tweeted the message was not directed at the judge but was done “as a joke”, adding “It had nothing to do w/court… it’s an airbrush design from a stencil.”  Now we know, but it’s still a good technique.

For those who wish to convey a sense of resigned weariness the best choice is probably "tiresome" but a synonym of rebarbative which does sometimes annoy (though not aggravate) the pedants is "aggravate" which in Modern English has three senses: (1) To make worse or more severe; intensify (as anything evil, disorderly, or troublesome), (2) To annoy; to irritate; to exasperate and (3) In law (as aggravated), a class of criminal offence made more serious by certain circumstances which prevailed during its commission (violence, use of a weapon, committed during hours of darkness et al).  Dating from the 1420s, aggravate was from the late Middle English aggravate (make heavy, burden down), from the Latin aggravātus, past participle of aggravāre (to render more troublesome (literally to make heavy or heavier, add to the weight of)), the construct being ad- (to) + gravare (add to; to make heavy), from gravis (heavy), from the primitive Indo-European root gwere- (heavy).  The earlier English verb was the late fourteenth century aggrege (make heavier or more burdensome; make more oppressive; increase, intensify, from the Old French agreger.  Aggravate is a verb, aggravated & aggravative are adjectives, aggravator is a noun and aggravating a verb.

The literal sense in English (make heavier) has been long obsolete, the modern meanings (1) "to make a bad thing worse" dates from the 1590s while (2) the colloquial sense (to exasperate or annoy) is from 1611.  So, although it has for centuries disturbed the usage mavens, the meaning "to annoy or exasperate” has been in continuous use since the sixteenth century.  There are sources which note the later meaning emerged within twenty years of the first but it’s a highly technical point of definition and the original meaning, “to make worse” did have roots in Classical Latin.  Henry Fowler (1858-1933) in his authoritative A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) was emphatic in saying aggravate has properly only one meaning: “to make (an evil) worse or more serious” and that to “use it in the sense of annoy or exasperate is a vulgarism that should be left to the uneducated.”  Henry Fowler was always a model of clarity.  He was also a realist and acknowledged “usage has beaten the grammarians” and that condemnation of the vulgarism had “become a fetish.  The meaning “to annoy” is now so ubiquitous that it should be thought correct; that’s how the democratic, unregulated English language works.  However, for the fastidious, it may be treated in the same way as the split infinitive, something tolerated in casual but not formal discourse and certainly never in writing.

Equiluminant

Equiluminant (pronounced ee-kwuh-loom-uh-nuhnt)

(1) In optics, the quality of two or more objects or phenomenon being equally luminant.

(2) Figuratively, two or more people being judged equally illustrious, attractive, talented etc.

1860s: The construct was equi- +‎ luminant.  As an adjective, luminant means "that which illuminates; that which is luminous" while as a noun it describes "an illuminating agent".  Luminant was from the Latin verb lūminant, the third-person plural present active indicative of lūminō, the construct being lūmen, from the Proto-Italic louksmən, from the primitive Indo-European léwk-s-mn̥, from the root lewk- (bright) +‎ -ō (appended to form agent nouns).  The accepted synonym is isoluminant and equiluminescent is the alternative form.  When used figuratively, although it would make no sense in science, the comparative is “more equiluminant” and the superlative most “equiluminant”.  Equiluminant & equiluminescent are adjectives and equiluminance is a noun; the noun plural is equiluminances (which some list as non-standard).

The prefixes: equi-, homo-, peri- & iso-

The prefixes “equi-”, “homo-”, “peri-” & “iso-” are all used to in same way suggest a concept of sameness or equality, but by tradition and convention, are used in different contexts to produce different meanings or emphasis:

Equi- is used to indicate equality, evenness, or uniformity and is often seen in mathematical, scientific & technical publications to describe something is equal in measure or evenly distributed such as equilateral (a shape having all sides of equal length, equidistant (being at equal distances from two or more points) & equilibrium (a state of balance where opposing forces or influences are equal).  Homo- is used to imply “same” or “alike” and thus sameness or (sometimes by degree) similarity.  In technical use it is a standard form in biology, chemistry & the social sciences to indicate sameness in kind, structure, or composition and by far the most common modern use is in the now familiar “homosexual” which in many jurisdictions is now a proscribed (or at least discouraged) term because of negative associations (“homo” as a stand-alone word also having evolved as a slur used of, about or against homosexual men).  The uses of the prefix are illustrated by homogeneous (composed of parts or elements that are all of the same kind, homologous (having the same relation, relative position, or structure) & homonym (in linguistics words which sound the same or are spelled the same but have different meanings).  Iso- is used to denote equality, uniformity, or constancy in terms of specific characteristics like size, number, or configuration and is most used in scientific and mathematical publications.  Examples of use include isometric (having equal dimensions or measurements, isothermal (having constant temperature) & isosceles (having two sides of equal length).  Peri- is used to denote “surrounding or enclosing”, or “something near or around a specific area or object”, examples including perimeter (the continuous line forming the boundary of a closed geometric figure), periscope (an optical instrument for viewing objects that are above the level of direct sight, using mirrors or prisms to reflect the view & peripheral (relating to or situated on the edge or periphery of something.

So equi-focuses on equality in measure, distance, or value, homo- focuses on sameness in kind, structure, or composition, iso- focuses on equality or uniformity in specific characteristics or conditions while peri- :focuses on surrounding or enclosing, or being near or around something.  For most purposes equi- & iso- can be used interchangeably and which is used tends to be a function of tradition & convention.

Equiluminant colors

An example the equiluminant in blue & orange.  In color the text appears at the edges to "shimmer" or "vibrate".  When re-rendered in grayscale, because the value of the luminance is so close, the two shades become almost indistinguishable.

In optics, “equiluminant” is a technical term used to colors with the same (or very similar) luminance (brightness) but which differ in hue (color) or saturation (intensity).  The standard test for the quality is to convert a two-color image to grayscale and, if equiluminant, the colors would appear nearly indistinguishable because they share the same level of “lightness”.  It’s of some importance in fields as diverse as military camouflage, interior decorating, fashion, astronomy and cognitive psychology.  In the study of visual Perception, when colors are equiluminant, the human visual system relies primarily on the differences in hue and saturation rather than brightness to distinguish them and can create unique visual effects and challenges in perception, as the brain struggles will in most cases struggle to segregate colors based solely on luminance; essentially, there is a lack of information.

An enigmatic abstraction (2024) by an unknown creator.  This is an example of the use of non-equiluminant shades of orange & blue.

In art and design, the qualities of is used to create visual effects, the perception of some “shimmering” or “vibrating” at the edges where colors meet actually a product of the way the different hues are perceived by the brain to be “less defined” (a process not dissimilar to the “grayscaling”) and thus “dynamic”, lending the impression of movement even in a static image, especially if seen with one’s peripheral vision.  While a handy device for visual artists, that’s something of significance in the world of practicalities because the close conjunction of equiluminant colors can make certain visual tasks more difficult, most obviously reading text or distinguishing shapes and objects.  All that happens is the luminance contrast can means there’s a perception of fuzziness at the edges of shapes which means people can suffer a diminished ability to distinguish fine details and the smaller the object (text, numerals or geometric shape), the more acute the problem.  The phenomenon has been well researched, scientists using the properties in equiluminant colors to study how the brain processes color and the findings have been important in fields like instrumentation the production of warning signs.

Richard Petty's 1974 NASCAR Dodge Charger (left) and 3 ton Super-Duty Jack, produced under licence by the Northern Tool Company (right).  1974 was the last year in which the big-block engines were allowed to run in NASCAR; the big-block era (1962-1973) was NASCAR's golden age. 

Richard Petty (b 1937) used a "reddish orange" to augment his traditional blue when he switched from Plymouth to Dodge as the supplier of his NASCAR stockers in the early 1970s.  His team was actually sponsored by STP rather than Gulf and STP wanted their corporate red to be used but in the end a "reddish orange" compromise was negotiated.  However, when he licenced the Northern Tool Company to sell a "Richard Petty" jack, the shade used appeared to be closer to the Gulf orange.  

At scale, equiluminance doesn’t have to be obvious for it still to have desirable “side effects” and while it’s often noted two specific hues: (1) the blue Llewellyn Rylands pigments 3707 (Zenith Blue, replicated by Dulux as “Powder Blue”) & (2) the orange Rylands pigments 3957 (Tangerine, replicated by Dulux as “Marigold”) are “equiluminant colors”, that their use in combination appears so often on cars, motor-cycles and other stuff with wheels is due less to the claim the shades seem at the edge to “vibrate” that the striking combination appearing on some of the Gulf Oil sponsored Ford GT40s and Porsche 917s during sports car racing’s golden era which ended in the early 1970s.  Given the surface area involved, the effect is probably imperceptible which viewed at close range but the science does suggest that at speed (and these were fast machines), at the typical viewing range found on racetracks, there was what the optical analysts call “visual pop”, something which heightens the brain’s perception of motion,

Ford GT40 chassis# 1075, winner of the 1968 & 1969 Mans 24 hour endurance classic in Gulf livery.

Gulf Oil however didn’t explicitly have the equiluminescent in mind when they choose to adopt the combination.  Originally, the Gulf GT40s were painted in the their corporate colors of dark blue & orange but Gulf was an acquisitive conglomerate and in late 1967 it took over the Wilshire Oil Company of California, the corporate colors of which were powder blue and orange, something which Gulf’s management thought “more exciting” and better suited to a racing car.  The change was made for the 1968 season with the Fords now running as five-litre (302 cubic inch) sports cars, governing body having banned the seven-litre engines the cars previously had used (under a variety of names, motorsport has for decades been governed by some of sport’s dopiest regulatory bodies).  In the Gulf colors, GT40 chassis #1075 won the Le Mans 24 hour endurance classic in 1968 & 1969 (repeating the brace Ford had achieved with the seven-litre (427 cubic inch) machines in 1966-1967), the first time the same car had achieved victory twice.  In 1968, the same car won the BOAC International 500, the Spa 1000-kilometer race, and the Watkins Glen 6-hour endurance race, while in 1969 it also took the Sebring 12-hour race, a remarkable achievement for a race car thought obsolescent.  The livery has since been much replicated.

1971 Porsche 917K in Gulf livery.  The fins were added to improve straight-line stability and were strikingly similiar to those which appeared on some late 1950s US Chryslers although the aerodynamic properties of those were dubious.

Interestingly, the team painting the GT40s were aware of the issue created by equiluminant colors and as a matter of professional pride didn’t want it thought they’d created something with “fuzzy edges” so deliberately they included a dark blue hairline-border around the orange, reducing the optical illusion to ensure everything looked immaculately smart when photographed.  When the Gulf team in 1970 switched to using Porsche 917s for the World Sports Car championship, they adopted the expedient of a black line of definition between the blue & orange so the whole enduring appeal of the combination lies just in the striking contrast and relies not at all on the equiluminance.

Ford GT Heritage Edition First Generation (left) and Second Generation (right). 

Little more than 100 GT40s were built but Ford noted with interest the ongoing buoyancy of the replica market, thousands of the things built in a number of countries.  In the twenty-first century, the company decided to create their own replicas although the new GT (2004-2006) was hardly a clone and although it shared the basic mechanical layout and the shape (although larger) was close, it was a modern machine.  The car wasn’t called GT40 because the rights to the name had ended up with another company and Ford declined to pay the demanded price.  Over 4000 were built and one special run was a tribute to the 1968-1969 cars in Gulf livery, 343 of the “Heritage Editions” produced.  A second generation of GTs was produced between 2016-2022 and was very modern, the demands of the wind-tunnel this time allowed to prevail over paying tribute to the classic lines of the 1960s.  Although the supercharged 5.4 litre V8 didn’t return and the new car used a turbocharged 3.5 litre (214 cubic inch) V6, it outperformed all its predecessors over the last 60-odd years (all the original GT40 chassis built between 1964-1969) including the 7 litre (427 cubic inch) monsters which won at Le Mans in 1966 & 1967 so it took decades, but eventually there really was a "replacement for displacement".  The V6 also was used also in pick-up trucks which doesn't sound encouraging but versions of the small & big block V8s used in the GT40s also saw similar service, the latter even first appearing in the doomed Edsel.  Production of the second generation was limited to 1350 units, 50 of which were “Heritage Editions” in the Gulf colors, one of several “limited editions”.

Lindsay Lohan who when swimming uses both orange and blue, sometimes as solids (left and centre), sometimes in combination (right).

Sycophancy

Sycophancy (pronounced sik-uh-fuhn-see)

(1) The usually self-seeking, servile flattery or fawning behavior of a sycophant.

(2) The character or conduct of a sycophant.

(3) An informer, a bearer of tales (obsolete).

1537: From the Latin sȳcophanta (informer, trickster), from the Ancient Greek sykophantia (false accusation, slander; conduct of a sȳcophanta) from συκοφάντης (sykophántēs), the construct being sûkon (fig) + phaínō (I show).  The gesture of "showing the fig" was an “obscene gesture of phallic significance”, made by sticking the thumb between two fingers, a display which vaguely resembles a fig and was symbolic of a vagina (sûkon also meant “vulva”), the gesture understood in many cultures in many places.  Technically, it was a way of expressing one’s thoughts without actually speaking an obscenity.  The politicians in Ancient Greece were said not to use this vulgar gesture but urged their followers to deploy it in the taunting of opponents, a tactic familiar to observers of modern politicians who like to delegate the dirty work to others.  It was cognate with Italian sicofante and the Spanish sicofanta and the later Greek form was sykophantia, from sykophantes.  Sycophancy, sycophantism & sycophant are nouns, sycophantize is a verb, sycophantic & sycophantish are adjectives and sycophantishly is an adverb; the noun plural is plural sycophancies (sycophants is more commonly used).

When young, Lindsay Lohan had her troubles and in a 2012 interview blamed them on loneliness, “sycophants and bad influences”, adding “be careful who you surround yourself with”.

As late as the sixteenth century, sycophancy was still used in the now long obsolete sense of “informer, talebearer, slanderer” which was from the French sycophante and directly from Latin sȳcophanta.  Such was the influence of the often fanciful notions of Medieval scholars whose writings were copied with such frequency that by virtue of sheer volume they assume authority that it wasn’t until the twentieth century the old tale that a sycophant was “one who informed the authorities against someone unlawfully exporting figs” was universally discredited.  The general sense of “a parasite; mean, servile flatterer” (especially of those in power) was in use in English by the 1570s.  The phrase “yes-man” (a man who agrees from self-interest or fear with everything put to him by a superior) was first used in 1912, a creation of American English, the male-centric wording indicative of the predominance at the time of men in corporate structures but there's no exclusivity of gender, women too can be “yes-men” although “yes-women” doesn't as easily roll from the tongue and nor does the collective “yes people”.  To even suggest someone is a “yes man” or “yes woman” may be at least a micro aggression so to avoid compounding the offence with another “yes person” is recommended.

The sexy fig.

The modern meaning is that of the "insincere flatterer", the "yes man", the motive presumed usually to be personal gain.  Historians from antiquity suggest the origin of the word lies in agricultural policy, Plutarch (46–circa 120) writing that the source was in laws forbidding the export of figs, and that those who made accusations against others of illegally exporting figs were therefore called sycophants.  Plutarch was citing "Solon's Laws" which included regulations which stipulated also: “(1) trees should not be planted within five feet of a neighbour’s property, except in the case of olives and fig-trees, which were not to be planted within nine feet (for these trees spread out their roots farther than others, and spoil the growth of any others by taking away their nourishment and by giving off hurtful juices), (2) Trenches and pits must be dug as far away from another man’s property as they were deep and (3) no hive of bees was to be placed within three hundred feet of those already established by another man.”  Because the laws permitted only the export of oil, the export of figs was forbidden and the men who informed against those who had done so were therefore called sycophants (fig-shower).

Later, Sir William Blackstone's (1723–1780) Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1770) noted there were laws making it a capital offense to break into a garden and steal figs, and that law was thought so odious that informers were given the name sycophants.   Another variant in the fig jam was that a sycophant was a shaker of trees: before the court, the sycophant's false accusations makes the accused yield up the truth; in the fig grove, sycophant's shaking forces the tree to yield up its fruit.  Certainly, the fig linkage runs strong in the language, the making of false accusations held to be such an insult to the accused it was said to be "showing the fig", an obscene gesture “of phallic significance" and that false charges were often so flimsy as to be worth “not a fig".

Modern historians enjoy the explanations but tend to be dismissive of their veracity though all seem to agree the original sense is of a word used to disparage one who, by the levelling of unjustified accusations, has perverted the legal system beyond a mere abuse of process.  Pervading all is the suggestion the term was thought always at least slightly obscene, the linkage presumably because of the symbolism of the fig in ancient Greek culture in that sense.  The attachment to legal process in Athenian culture, separate from any hint of obscenity, did grow and the net was cast wide, sycophants not only vexatious litigants but also those who issued writs merely to try to induce defendants to make a payment in exchange for dropping the case or third parties otherwise unconnected to the sometime ancient matters before the court, appearing only to seek an undeserved profit.  In time, to accuse a litigant of sycophancy became a serious thing, such was the opprobrium society had come to direct towards the conduct and there are surviving texts written by those defending themselves from the charge.  Athenian law responded, imposing fines on litigants whose matters were found vexatious or which were clearly an abuse of process and there are echoes still of these acts in modern Greek domestic law where, as in France, sycophant is used still in the original sense.    The phenomenon attracted the playwrights too, explored by Aristophanes (circa 446 BC-circa 386 BC) in his satires.

Impact Of Wealth (1563) by Philips Galle (1537–1612) & Hadrianus Junius (1511–1575).

In the English-speaking world, the meaning shift seems to have happened during the Renaissance, meanings old and new running in parallel until the sense of the "insincere flatterer" came to prevail.  It was an organic linguistic morphing, not something induce by some event or individual, the common thread probably that both behaviors were perceived parasitic and insincere. 

Notable Sycophants in History and Literature

Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) had been an early critic of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) so to redeem himself, spent the rest of his career in fawning devotion, initiating the Heil Hitler salute and insisting on the use of Der Führer (the leader, originally just a party title) as an official title. His letters and diaries are full of groveling praise and his propaganda campaigns created the modern personality cult.  In fairness to Goebbels, his work was inspired and sometimes brilliant and when the fortunes of war turned there was even the hint of criticism (his acute sense of things picking up the difference between a "leadership crisis" and a "leader crisis") but other sycophants in the Third Reich were less impressive.  While Goebbels’ work sparkled, youth leader, Baldur von Schirach (1907-1974; party functionary 1931-1945), wrote verse after verse of dreary poetry in praise of Hitler though there’s no suggestion the Führer much troubled himself to read his oeuvre.  At least Goebbels and Schirach stayed loyal to the end (though the latter would recant when on trial for his life in Nuremberg (1945-1946) and avoid the hanging he deserved.  Sycophant number one and head of the SS, Heinrich Himmler (1900-1945; head of the SS 1929-1945), called himself “the truest of the true” and Hitler agreed, often referring to the Reichführer-SS as “der treue Heinrich" (the faithful Heinrich), and, although never part of the inner circle, was much valued for his sycophancy and unconditional obedience.  Himmler though, by 1944 and perhaps earlier, worked out things weren’t going too well and eventually, in negotiating with the enemy and planning ways to ingratiate himself to General Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969; US president 1953-1961), delivered the Führer a final stab in the back and the one which seems to have hurt the Führer the most.  By then it was already too late and Hitler has long concluded none of his sycophants were worthy enough to be his successor, deciding Rudolf Hess (1894–1987; Deputy Führer 1933-1941) had gone mad and Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945) had lost the sympathy of the German people.  Both judgements were fair enough but his reason for rejecting Himmler made sense only in Hitler's bizarre world view: He thought the Reichführer-SS "unartistic".

Julia Gillard looking at Penny Wong.

Appointed to cabinet by Prime Minister Julia Gillard (b 1961; Australian prime minister 2010-2013), Australian politician Penny Wong (b 1968) Australian minister for Foreign Affairs since 2022 (and one of the Australian Senate's three "mean girls")) was never reticent in praising Gillard’s fine judgment and feminist solidarity.  That was until she finally worked out things weren’t going too well and so voted to back-stab Gillard and resuscitate the previously knifed Dr Kevin Rudd (b 1957; Australian prime-minister 2007-2010 & 2013).  Modern identity politics helpfully provides Wong with handy cover; any criticism, however justified, she can condemn as misogyny, homophobia or racism.  Centuries before, early in the reign of Caligula (Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, 12–41; Roman emperor 37-41), he fell ill, inspiring one Roman to offer to sacrifice own life if the emperor recovered. This kind, if extravagant, vow was declared publicly, in the hope his show his deep loyalty would elicit some generous award.  Caligula did recover but the sycophant’s tactic backfired; the dutiful emperor decided to accept the chap’s offer and ordered his execution.

Secretary of State Dr Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon, East Room, White House, 22 September 1973.  

There are many who list former US National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Dr Henry Kissinger (1923-2023; US national security advisor 1969-1975 & secretary of state 1937-1977) as among the famous sycophants, a reasonable achievement in Washington DC, a city full of the breed, but it’s probably unfair although, in his fascinating relationship with President Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974), he certainly aimed to please.  Kissinger met with Israeli prime-minister Golda Meir (1898–1978; prime-minister of Israel 1969-1974) in 1973 and she asked him to pressure Moscow to allow more Soviet Jews to emigrate to avoid persecution.  Nixon, intent on détente with the USSR, sought to avoid the request. Kissinger, himself Jewish, responded “…the emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy and if they put Jews into gas chambers in Russia, it’s not an American concern… maybe it’s a humanitarian concern”.  Not for nothing was Dr Kissinger thought dean of the school of power-realists.

Plácido Domingo (b 1941) in Giuseppe Verdi’s (1813–1901) Otello (1993), a studio recording from Paris noted for its technical perfection.  It featured Cheryl Studer (b 1955) as Desdemona and in Act IV she delivered perhaps the loveliest version of the Willow Song available on disc.

In David Copperfield (1849-1850), Charles Dickens (1812–1870) created one of literature’s most repulsive sycophants, the reptilian Uriah Heep.  Dickens, never one to understate his characters, ensures readers will revile Heep by emphasizing his physical creepiness: cadaverous and lanky, with clammy hands and sleepless eyes.  Trained in being “umble” by his father, Heep is always quick to affirm his lowly station and abase himself.  Chaplain to the Bishop of Barchester, the duplicitous Obadiah Slope in Anthony Trollope’s (1815-1882) Barchester Towers (1857), epitomizes the "lick up-kick down" sycophant,  fawning before the powerful, tyrannical towards subordinates.  For Australians, one of the real pleasures in reading Barchester Towers is imagining Bronwyn Bishop (b 1942; speaker of the Australian House of Representatives 2013-2015) when picturing the bishop’s wife (both deserving the memorable phrase "that ghastly woman").  Nobody however did it better than William Shakespeare (1564–1616) in Othello (1603).  The play is a roll-call of strategies for ingratiation, subversion, and destruction, as Iago corrupts the mind of the noble Othello. No work in English better shows the devastating personal consequences of sycophancy or so starkly renders its intricate ties to other vices for Shakespeare knew the sycophant is capable of every fraud, every hypocrisy, every deceit.

Mr Dutton in one of his happier moments.  Interestingly, despite many opportunities, Mr Dutton has never denied being a Freemason.

In politics, the word sycophantic seems surprising rare, probably because punchier forms like “arse-kisser”, “arse-licker”, “brown noser”, “suck-up”, “lap-dog”, “flunky” & “lackey” are preferred, at least behind closed doors because all these would probably be ruled “unparliamentary”.  Of course it’s behind closed doors the more amusing stuff happens, the internecine party squabbles and factional battles more intense and pursued with more passion than the often confected sturm und drang between actual opponents.  Still words like “obsequious” and “sycophantic” have the advantage they can be used on the floor or parliament and in May 2024, in the Australian House of Representatives, sycophantic made a rare appearance when Peter Dutton (b 1970; leader of the opposition and leader of the Australian Liberal Party since May 2022) spoke: “Why did this weak and incompetent prime minister [Anthony Albanese (b 1963; prime-minister of Australia since 2022)] put his close and sycophantic relationship with Jacinda Ardern ahead of the safety of Australians?”

The context of Mr Dutton’s waspish attack was the matter of Ministerial Directive 99 (MD-99) of 23 March 2023, issued by Andrew Giles (b 1973; Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs since 2022), an instruction to his department which required the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT, a statutory authority soon to be replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) & Administrative Review Council (ARC)) to consider the cases of non-citizens facing deportation pursuant to section 501 (as revised in 2014) of the Migration Act (1958) by applying a number of criteria including “Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia”.  Previously, the law required mandatory visa cancellations for any non-citizens sentenced to jail for twelve months or more, or those convicted of a child sex offence.  The way MD-99 was applied by the tribunal resulted in a number of serious offenders not being deported, some of whom subsequently re-offended, one currently awaiting trial for murder.

Two Fabians: Jacinda Ardern and Anthony Albanese, press conference, Sydney, July 2022.  It has been confirmed the man taking the photograph is not Mr Dutton.

The origin of MD-99 was in a dinner in July 2022 between Mr Albanese and Jacinda Ardern (b 1980; Prime Minister of New Zealand 2017-2023).  The matter of criminals who hadn’t lived in New Zealand for decades, sometimes having left as infants, had been a matter of concern to successive New Zealand Governments but until 2023 no Australian government had been prepared to alter the policy.  However, Ms Ardern was at the time something of a political pin-up of the left and a role model to social democrats around the planet and their admiration for her progressive policies and general “wokeness” at least verged on the sycophantic.  Mr Albanese and Mr Giles are both members of the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) Socialist Left (or Progressive Left) faction, a label which means less than once it did and shouldn’t be taken too literally but the tribal aspect of the factionalism is as strong as ever.

The idea of dozens (literally) of violent criminals being released into the community whereas prior to MD-99 they would have been deported created a furore and not even the usual suspects felt it wise to leap to a defence of the policy.  Following the manual, Mr Giles for a few toughed it out with the usual obfuscation but seldom has the tactic sounded so unconvincing.  He was defended (at least to the extent of not being sacked) by the prime minister which really he was compelled to do because it would have been his instruction to Mr Giles which resulted in MD-99.  Mr Albanese also stuck to the manual, having the department trawl the archives so he could quote instances of criminals being released into the community a decade-odd earlier when Mr Dutton was immigration minister.  Unlike the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946), there was no International Military Tribunal (IMT) to deny use of the tu quoque defense.

Andrew Giles, House of Representatives, Canberra, Australia, May 2024.

However, after a few days it became obvious deniability was never going to become plausible and the issue couldn’t be spun out of the media cycle.  Mr Albanese announced MD-99 would be dumped, replaced by the overriding direction that “…community safety must be considered the top priority in deciding whether to allow someone to remain in Australia”.  Mr Giles said the new direction would “…ensure the protection of the community outweighs any other consideration", adding this had always been the government's “highest priority”.  Neither Mr Albanese nor Mr Giles have commented on the tone of their discussions behind closed doors and it’s assumed an account is unlikely to appear in any memoir either may write.