Obliterate

Obliterate (pronounced uh-blit-uh-reyt (U) or oh-blit-uh-reyt (non-U))

(1) To remove or destroy all traces of something; do away with; destroy completely.

(2) In printing or graphic design, to blot out or render undecipherable (writing, marks, etc.); fully to efface.

(3) In medicine, to remove an organ or another body part completely, as by surgery, disease, or radiation.

1590–1600: From the Latin oblitterātus, perfect passive participle of oblitterō (blot out), from oblinō (smear over) and past participle of oblitterāre (to efface; cause to disappear, blot out (a writing) & (figuratively) cause to be forgotten, blot out a remembrance), the construct being ob- (a prefixation of the preposition ob (in the sense of “towards; against”)) + litter(a) (also litera) (letter; script) + -ātus (-ate).  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.  True synonyms include black out, eliminate, exterminate, annihilate, eradicate, delete, erase & expunge because to obliterate something is to remove all traces.  Other words often used as synonyms don’t of necessity exactly convey that sense; they include obscure, ravage, smash, wash out, wipe out, ax, cancel and cut.  Obliterate & obliterated are verds & adjetives, obliteration & obliterator are nouns, obliterature & obliterating are nouns, verb & adjective, obliterable & obliterative are adjectives and obliteratingly is an adverb; the noun plural is obliterations.

Social anxiety can be "obliterated".  Who knew?

The verb obliterate was abstracted from the phrase literas scribere (write across letters, strike out letters).  The noun obliteration (act of obliterating or effacing, a blotting out or wearing out, fact of being obliterated, extinction) dates from the 1650s, from the Late Latin obliterationem (nominative obliteratio), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of oblitterāre (to efface; cause to disappear, blot out (a writing) & (figuratively) cause to be forgotten, blot out a remembrance).  The related late fourteenth century noun oblivion (state or fact of forgetting, forgetfulness, loss of memory) was from the thirteenth century Old French oblivion and directly from the Latin oblivionem (nominative oblivio) (forgetfulness; a being forgotten) from oblivisci, the past participle of oblitus (forget) of uncertain origin.  Oblivion is if interest to etymologists because of speculation about a semantic shift from “to be smooth” to “to forget”, the theory based on the construct being ob- (using ob in the sense of “over”) + the root of lēvis (smooth).  For this there apparently exists no documentary evidence either to prove or disprove the notion.  The Latin lēvis (rubbed smooth, ground down) was from the primitive Indo-European lehiu-, from the root (s)lei- (slime, slimy, sticky).

Obliterature

The noun obliterature is a special derived form used in literary criticism, the construct being oblit(erate) + (lit)erature.  It describes works of literature in some way "obliterated or mad void", the most celebrated (or notorious according to many) being those which "interpreted" things in a manner not intended by the original author but the words is applied also to texts deliberately destroyed, erased or rendered unreadable, either as an artistic statement or as a result of censorship, neglect, or decay.  La biblioteca de Babel" (The Library of Babel (1941)) by Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986) was a short story which imagined a universe consisting of an infinite library containing every possible book but all volumes are some way corrupted or comprise only random strings of characters; all works wholly unintelligible and thus useless.  The chaotic library was symbolic of the most extreme example of obliterature in that all works had been rendered unreadable and devoid of internal meaning.

Nazis burning books, Berlin, 1933.

Probably for a long as writing has existed, there has been censorship (and its companion: self-censorship).  Some censorship is official government policy while countless other instances exist at institutional level, sometimes as a political imperative, some time because of base commercial motives.  The most infamous examples are literary works banned or destroyed as political or religious repression including occasions when the process was one of public spectacle such as the burning of books in Nazi Germany, aimed at Jewish, communist and other “degenerate or undesirable” authors.   The critique: “They burn the books they cannot write” is often attributed German-Jewish poet, writer and literary critic Heinrich Heine (1797–1856) whose work was among the thousands of volumes placed on a bonfire in Berlin in 1933 but it’s a paraphrase of a passage from his play Almansor (1821-1822), spoken by a Muslim after Christian had burned piles of the holy Quran: “Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen.”  (That was but a prelude; where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people as well.")

The Address Book (1983) by French conceptual artist Sophie Calle (b 1953) was based on an address book the author found in the street which, (after photocopying the contents) she returned to the owner.  She then contacted those in the book and used the information they provided to create a narrative about the owner, a man she had never met.  This she had published in a newspaper and the man promptly threatened to sue on the grounds of a breach of his right to privacy, demanding all examples of the work in its published form be destroyed.  Duly, the obliterature was performed.  Thomas Phillips' (1937–2022) A Humument: A treated Victorian novel (in various editions 1970-2016) is regarded by most critics as an “altered” book, a class of literature in which novel media forms (often graphical artwork) are interpolated to change the appearance and sometimes elements of meaning.  Phillips use as his base a Victorian-era novel (William (WH) Mallock's (1849–1923) A Human Document (1892)) and painted over its pages, leaving only select words visible to create new narratives, many of which were surreal.  This was obliterature as artistic device and it’s of historic interest because it anticipated many of the techniques of post modernism, multi-media productions and even meme-making.

Erasure Poetry takes an existing text and either erases or blacks-out (the modern redaction technique) words or passages to create a new poem from the remaining words; in the most extreme examples almost all the original is obliterated, with only fragments left to form a new work.  Ronald Johnson (1935–1998) was a US poet who in 1977 published the book-length RADI OS (1977), based on John Milton's (1608–1674) Paradise Lost (1667-1674) and used the redactive mechanism as an artistic device, space once used by the obliterated left deliberately blank, surrounding the surviving words.

Some critics and literary theorists include unfinished and fragmentary work under the rubric of obliterature and while that may seem a bit of a definitional stretch, the point may be that such texts in many ways can resemble what post modern (and post-post modern) obliterature practitioners publish as completed work.  There are many unfinished works by the famous which have been “brought to conclusion” by contracted authors, the critical response tending to vary from the polite to the dismissive although, in fairness, it may be that some things were left unfinished for good reasons.  The Portuguese author Fernando Pessoa (1888-1935) was extraordinarily prolific and apparently never discarded a single page, leaving a vast archive of unfinished, fragmented, and often unreadable manuscripts, the volume so vast many have never been deciphered.  It’s interesting to speculate that had Pessoa had access to word processors and the cloud whether he would have saved as much; if he’d lived in the age of the floppy diskette, maybe he’d have culled a bit.

The obliteration of animal carcasses with explosives

Strictly speaking, “to obliterate something” means “to remove or destroy all traces” which usually isn’t the case when explosives are used, the result more a wide dispersal of whatever isn’t actually vaporized but there’s something about the word which attracts those who blow-up stuff and they seem often to prefer obliteration to terms which might be more accurate.  As long as the explosion is sufficiently destructive, one can see their point and obliteration does memorably convey the implications of blowing-up stuff.  The word clearly enchanted the US Forest Service which in 1995 issued their classic document Obliterating Animal Carcasses with Explosives, helpfully including a step-by-step guide to the process.  Given it’s probably not a matter about which many have given much thought, the service explained obliterating large animal carcasses was an important safety measure in wilderness recreation areas where the remains might attract bears, or near picnic areas where people obviously wouldn’t want rotting flesh nearby.  A practical aspect also is that in many cases there is no way conveniently to move or otherwise dispose of a large carcass (such as a horse or moose which can weigh in excess of 500 kg (1100 lb) which might be found below a steep cut slope or somewhere remote.  So, where physical transportation is not practical, the chemistry and physics of explosives are the obvious alternative, the guide recommending fireline devices (specially developed coils containing explosive powder), used also to clear combustible materials in the path of a wildfire. 

Interestingly, the guide notes there will be cases in which the goal might not be obliteration.  In some ecosystems, what is most desirable is to disperse the carcass locally into the small chunks suited to the eating habits of predators in the area and when properly dispersed, smaller scavenging animals will break down the left-overs, usually within a week.  To effect a satisfactory dispersal, the guide recommends placing 20 lb (9 kg) of explosives on the carcass in key locations, then using a detonator cord to tie the charges together, the idea being to locate them on the major bones, along the spine.  However, in areas where there’s much human traffic, obliteration is required and the guide recommends placing 20 lb (9 kg) pounds of explosives on top and a similar load underneath although it’s noted this may be impossible if the carcass is too heavy, frozen into the ground, floating in water or simply smells too ghastly for anyone to linger long enough to do the job.  In that case, 55 lb (25 kg) of fireline should be draped over the remains although the actual amount used will depend on the size of the carcass, the general principle being the more explosives used, the greater the chance obliteration will be achieved.  Dispersal and obliteration are obviously violent business but it’s really just an acceleration of nature’s decomposition process.  Whereas a big beast like a horse can sit for months without entirely degrading, if explosives are used, in most cases after little more than a week it’d not be obvious an animal was ever there.  With regard to horses however, the guide does include the warning that prior to detonation, “horseshoes should be removed to minimize dangerous flying debris.”  Who knew?

It’s important enough explosives are used to achieve the desired result but in carcass disposal it's important also not to use too much.  In November 1970, the Oregon Highway Division was tasked with blowing up a 45-foot (14 m) eight-ton (8100 kg) decaying whale which lay on the shores near the town of Florence and they calculated it would need a half-ton (510 kg) of dynamite, the presumption being any small pieces would be left for seagulls and other scavengers.  Unfortunately, things didn’t go according to plan.  The viewing crowds had been kept a quarter-mile (400 m) from the blast-site but they were forced to run for cover as large chunks of whale blubber started falling on them and the roof of a car parked even further away was crushed.  Fortunately there were no injuries although most in the area were splattered with small pieces of dead whale.  Fifty years on, Florence residents voted to name a new recreation ground Exploding Whale Memorial Park in honor of the event.

Reprobate

Reprobate (pronounced rep-ruh-beyt)

(1) A depraved, unprincipled, or wicked person; degenerate; morally bankrupt.

(2) In Christianity (from Calvinism), a person rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation and damned to eternal punishment in hell, forever hearing only their own screams of agony, smelling only their own decaying flesh and knowing only the gnashing of their decaying teeth.

(3) Rejected; cast off as worthless (archaic).

1400-1450: From the late Middle English reprobaten (condemn, disapprove vehemently; rejected as worthless) from the Latin reprobātus (disapproved, rejected, condemned), past participle of reprobāre (to reprove or hold in disfavour).  The construct was re- (back, again (here indicating probably "opposite of, reversal of previous condition")) + probare (prove to be worthy).  Used often in the form reprobacioun (rejection), the usual spelling in Church Latin was reprobationem (nominative reprobation (rejection, reprobation), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of reprobāre.  A doublet of reprove.

Notorious dispensationalist and reprobate, crooked Hillary Clinton in pantsuit.

The earliest use in English was as a verb meaning "to disapprove”; the specific religious meanings were adopted in the mid-fifteenth century, the general sense of an unprincipled person emerging decades later.  The sense of "reject, put away, set aside" dates from circa 1600 and the meaning "abandoned in character, morally depraved, unprincipled" is attested from the 1650s.  The specifically religious idea of "one rejected by God, person given over to sin, from the adjectival sense was from the 1540s whereas the generalized "abandoned or unprincipled person" was noted from the 1590s.  The use in theology was more specialised still.  The meaning "the state of being consigned to eternal punishment" was used since the 1530s and from the 1580s, this extended to any "condemnation as worthless or spurious" the more broad sense of "condemnation, censure, act of vehemently disapproving" used since 1727.  Other nouns once used in English include reprobacy (1590s), reprobance (c. 1600), reprobature (1680s, legal); never common, most are now archaic except a technical, historic terms.  Although the word has many synonyms (tramp, scoundrel, wastrel, miscreant, wretch, rascal, cad, rogue, outcast, pariah, wicked, sinful, evil, corrupt) it has always attracted authors who enjoy detailing the reprobacy of the habitually reprobative.

You are a heartless reprobate, sir; a heartless, thankless, good-for-nothing reprobate.  I have done with you.  You are my son; that I cannot help - but you shall have no more part or parcel in me as my child, nor I in you as your father.

Anthony Trollope (1815-1882), Barchester Towers (1857)

The fate of all reprobates.  The Harrowing of Hell (c 1499), by Hieronymus Bosch (1450–1516)

Christians are much concerned with the fate of reprobates, all of whom should be condemned.  Israel Folau (b 1989), a Tongan-born Australian football player (of the country’s three oval-ball codes) however attracted some condemnation himself when he posted on Instagram: “Warning – Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolaters. HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT! ONLY JESUS SAVES”.  There were many who rose to defend the homosexuals but all seemed oblivious to the feelings of the others on his list, the chattering classes content to let drunks, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters rot in Hell.  Noted drinker and adulterer Barnaby Joyce (b 1967; thrice (between local difficulties) deputy prime minister of Australia 2016-2022) must have felt put-upon. 

Some have been more expansive on the matter of reprobates than Mr Folau, Loren Rosson on his Busybody page detailing in three tiers, the worst of the sins committed by man, according to Pastor Steven Anderson (b 1981), preacher & founder of the New Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement and pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church, Tempe, Arizona.  Anderson first came to national attention in August 2009 after preaching a sermon in which he prayed for the visitation of the Angel of Death to Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017).  In what he may suspect is a a conspiracy between the Freemasons and the Jews, Anderson has been denied entry to South Africa, Botswana, Jamaica, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Republic of Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.

Tier 1: The irrevocably damned. Those beyond redemption, God having rejected them eternally.

(1) Homosexuals/pedophiles.  Note the absent ampersand; in Anderson’s view the two are inseparable, it being impossible to be one without being the other; they are the worst of the worst.  Anderson believes sodomites are not only sinners, but actual reprobates, based on the Book of Romans, God having tired of them, he turned them into sodomising perverts:  “God gave them up to vile affections” (Romans 1:26); “God gave them over to a reprobate mind” (Romans 1:28); “God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts” (Romans1:24).  This, Anderson argues, is the explanation for homosexuality and surprisingly he’s in agreement with the gay view that “God made me like this” though not “born like this” faction, God making them that way only when they rejected the truth and the light; God “discarding them by turning them into homos.”  As reprobates, sodomites, unlike most sinners (those in tiers 2 and 3), cannot possibly be saved, nor should anyone want to try saving them: “He that is filthy, let him be filthy still” (Revelation 22:11).  The internal logic is perfect, God turned them into sodomites because of their God-hating hearts and it’s all their fault.

(2) Bible translators and scholars.  Anderson condemns these folk as irredeemable reprobates because of the Revelation 22:19, which damns all who tamper with the Word of God, ie altering the original text of the King James Bible (KJV 1611).

Tier 2: Especially wicked sinners:  These offenders are at least capable of being saved, if they accept Christ the Lord as their savior.

(3) Physicians who perform abortions, pro-choice crusaders; women who obtain abortions.  Anderson’s view is that all those involved in the abortion industry, the medical staff, the proponents and the women who procure the operation are simply those who murder the most innocent and vulnerable; they are reprobates. 

(4) Zionists.  Israel is the most ungodly nation on the planet according to Anderson and he calls the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 a diabolical fraud.  The Jews are not God’s chosen people and have not been so for two millennia, replacement theology a basic premise of the New Testament: “If the kingdom of God is taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, you’ve been replaced! You were the people of God, you were that holy nation of the Old Testament, but now you have been replaced. And today, the physical nation of Israel has been replaced by believers, by a holy nation made up of all believers in Christ, whether they be Jew or Gentile, no matter what the nationality.” According to Anderson, Zionism is more anti-Christ than any other of the major world religions.

(5) Modalists.  Anderson hates and despises modalists more even that the atheists who deny the very holiness of Christ.  Modalism is a heresy that denies the trinity and maintains God is only one person or entity (there are factions) who has three modes (or faces, or masks) which do not exist simultaneously, and that He changes modes by assuming whatever mode circumstances demand.  Thus to modalists, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same person or entity, there not being the three in one but just one who shifts modalities as required.  This is of course heresy because Christianity teaches the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct. There is of course but one God but within God there are three entities which Christians call trinity.

(6) Atheists & evolutionists.  It’s not entirely clear if Anderson regards these two as interchangeable but it’s probably a tiresome technical point, both equally at risk of becoming reprobates who, if they persist in their rejection, God will turn into sodomites.

(7) Litterbugs.  Anderson might find some sympathy for this category.  Anderson hates those who drop litter whether on city streets or in the wilderness and can quote scripture to prove God too disapproves.

(8). Men who piss sitting down.  Anderson identifies this sin as one especially prevalent among Germans and other secular Europeans but any man who allows himself to be pussy-whipped into effeminate behavior in the loo is suspect.  Although among the less well-known passages in the Bible (KJV; 1611), “him that pisseth against the wall” (1 Samuel 25:22; 1 Samuel 25:34; 1 Kings 14:10; 1 Kings 16:11; 1 Kings 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8), it's known to Anderson who cites as a symbol of proper manliness.  However, the original translators may have been a little more nuanced, scholarship suggesting it’s best understood as “able-bodied men”.  Anderson condemns preachers, presidents & potentates who “pee sitting down” and demands leadership of the country be restored to those “who want stand up and piss against the wall like a real man.”  Anderson assures his congregation he’s a "stand and piss man".  For men wishing to score points with God and obtain redemption, this is one of the sins most easily forever renounced.  However, don’t lie, for God knows how you pee.

(9) Physicians and technicians who perform in vitro fertilization; women who undergo the treatment.  Anderson explains those who conceive using IVF instead of waiting naturally to fall pregnant are stealing babies from God, a concept he expresses more graphically in sermons as “ripping babies from the hands of God”.

(10) Male gynecologists.  Anderson says men who do this are disgusting perverts; their medical qualifications are irrelevant

Tier 3:  Sinful Christians. Those who preach or espouse these views could either be false Christians, or simply misguided believers in Christ who need to be educated.

(11) Pre-tribbers.  Anderson is actually on sound historical and theological ground here.  The idea that Christians will, on the day of the rapture, be taken bodily up to heaven before the apocalyptic tribulation is a wholly un–biblical notion unknown before the mid-nineteenth century and barely known before being spread in pop-culture.  It seems to have begun as a way of marketing Christianity as something more attractive.  As the Book of Revelation makes clear, Christians not only expected to suffer the tribulation before they were raptured, that suffering lies at the core of their holy duty.  Pre-tribulation is an un-Christian cop-out.

(12) Dispensationalists. Anderson is also correct that dispensationalist is another nineteenth century heresy and a kind of cultural relativism and while he doesn’t dwell on it, thinks cultural relativists are among the worst reprobates).  Anderson asserts that God never changes, noting “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).  The Old Testament carries the same moral imperatives it always did, and the God of the New Testament aligns completely with it.

(13)  Calvinists, and others who deny free will.  It matters not to Anderson whether one cites a theological or biological basis for rejecting the doctrine of man’s free will; both are wrong.

(14) The lazy box-tickers. It’s not enough just occasionally to walk the neighborhood streets and leave in the mailboxes a flyer about Jesus, at least twice a week a Christian must go about their district, knocking on doors and spreading the word of the Lord.

US screenwriter & film director Paul Schrader (b 1946) really knows how to hurt someone's feelings.

Dreadnought

Dreadnought (pronounced dred-nawt)

(1) A type of battleship armed with heavy-calibre guns in turrets: so called from the British battleship HMS Dreadnought (1906); a name used by the Royal Navy for many ships and submarines.

(2) A garment made of thick woolen cloth that can defend against storm and cold.

(3) A thick cloth with a long pile (known also as fearnought).

(4) Slang a heavyweight boxer in the heavyweight class.

(5) By extension, something the largest or heaviest in a given field.

(6) A person who fears nothing; something that assures against fear.

(7) A type of acoustic guitar with a very large body and a waist less pronounced than in other designs, producing a deep, "bold" sound.

1800-1810: The construct was dread + nought.  Dread was from the Middle English dreden, from Old English drǣdan (to fear, dread), aphetic form of ondrǣdan (to fear, dread), from and- +‎ rǣdan (from which English picked up read); corresponding to an aphesis of the earlier adread.  The Old Saxon was antdrādan & andrādan (to fear, dread), the Old High German was intrātan (to fear) and the Middle High German entrāten (to fear, dread, frighten).  Nought was from the Middle English nought & noght, (noȝt), from the Old English nōwiht & nāwiht (the construct being nay +‎ a +‎ wight), which in turn came from ne-ā-wiht, a phrase used as an emphatic "no", in the sense of "not a thing".  In the transition to Modern English, the word reduced gradually to nought, nawt and finally not; a doublet of naught.  The alternative spelling (though never used by the Admiralty) is Dreadnaught.  Dreadnought is a noun; the noun plural is dreadnoughts.

The dreadnoughts

HMS Dreadnought, 1906.

Launched in 1906, HMS Dreadnought is often said to have revolutionized naval power, the design so significant it proved the final evolution of what had, by the late nineteenth century, evolved into the battleship.  Subsequent vessels would be larger, faster, increasingly electronic and more heavily armed but the concept remained the same.  HMS Dreadnought rendered instantly obsolete every other battleship in the world (including the rest of the Royal Navy) and all other battleships then afloat were immediately re-classified as pre-dreadnoughts.  In naval architecture, so epoch-making was the ship that it changed the nomenclature in navies world-wide: after 1906 there would be pre-dreadnoughts, semi-dreadnoughts, demi-dreadnoughts & super-dreadnoughts (hyphenated and not),  The adjective dreadnoughtish was non-standard but was used to describe ships of a design beyond that of the orthodox battleship of the late nineteenth century but with only some of a dreadnought's distinguishing characteristics.  Presumably someone in the Admiralty would have coined dreadnoughtesque but no document seems to have survived as proof.    

HMS Dreadnought.

Her main design features were speed, armor, steam turbine propulsion and, especially, firepower almost exclusively of weapons of the largest caliber.  In the decades after her launch, British, German, American, Japanese and other navies would build larger and heavier dreadnoughts until, during world war two, their utility was finally seen to been eclipsed by both aircraft carriers and submarines.  The last dreadnought, HMS Vanguard, launched in 1946, was scrapped in 1958 but the US Navy maintained until 2004 (on either the active or reserve list), at least one of the four battleships it retained from World War II (1939-1945) when the last was decommissioned.

HMS Dreadnought, 1908.

That it was the Royal Navy which first launched a dreadnought doesn’t mean the British Admiralty was alone in pursuing the concept.  Naval strategists in several nations had noted the course of battle between the Russian and Japanese fleets in 1905 and concluded the immediate future of naval warfare lay in the maximum possible deployment of big guns, able to launch attacks from the longest possible range, subsidiary smaller caliber weapons seen even as a disadvantage in battle.  That the Royal Navy was the first with such a ship afloat was a testament to the efficiency of British designers and shipbuilders, not the uniqueness of its plans.

Much read in palaces, chancelleries and admiralties around the word was a book released in 1890 called The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660–1783 by US naval officer and theorist Captain Alfred Mahan (1840-1914).  Published in what, in retrospect, was a historical sweet-spot (technologically and politically) for the views it espoused, it brought Mahan great fame and exerted an extraordinary influence on diplomacy, military planning and the politics of the era.  The book was not alone the cause of the naval arms-race in the decade before World War I (1914-1918) but was at least a sharp nudge, push or shove depending on one’s view.  Curiously though, although a work primarily about naval strategy, while many of the maritime powers seemed convinced by Mahan’s arguments about the importance of naval sea power in geopolitics, not all admiralties adopted the strategic template.  What all agreed however was they needed more ships.

The nineteenth century of Pax Britannica ("British Peace", echoing the Pax Romana of the Roman Empire), describes the century of relative great-power stability between the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) and the outbreak of war in 1914 encompasses the idea of British Empire as the global hegemon, a role possible only because the Royal Navy enjoyed an unchallenged ability to patrol and protect the key maritime trade routes.  The effective control of these transport corridors not only guaranteed the security of the British Empire but it meant also the British effectively controlled maritime access to much of Asia, the Americas, Oceania the south Pacific, although, one factor in the success was it was that London ran things essentially in accordance with US foreign policy, assisting Washington in enforcing the Monroe Doctrine which upheld the US preponderance of interest in the Americas.  It can be argued the roots of the so-called "special relationship" took hold here.

The British Empire, in terms of the impression created by a map of the world on which its colonies and dependencies were colored usually in some shade of red, was deceptive, the remit of the local administrators sometimes extending little beyond the costal enclaves, even the transport links between towns not always entirely secure.  Never did the Empire posses the military resources to defend such vast, remote and disparate territories but it was the control of the sea, uniquely in history, which allowed the British for centuries to maintain what was, with no disparagement intended, a confidence trick.  The reason the empire could be maintained was not because of control of big colonies, it was all the little islands dotted around the oceans which enabled the navy to operate outposts which housed the ports and coaling stations from which ships could make repairs or provision with fuel, food and water.  All those little dots on the map were the "keys to the world".  Mahan’s book had drawn its influential conclusions from his study of the role of sea power during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; what the British did was take advantage of the circumstances of the nineteenth century and deploy their sea power globally, in competition when necessary, in cooperation when possible and in conflict when required.  The practical expression of all this was British naval policy: that the Royal Navy must be of sufficient strength simultaneously to prevail in war against the combined strength of the next two biggest navies, either in separate theatres or as a massed fleet.

By the early twentieth century, economic and geopolitical forces combined to render the policy impossible to maintain, Britain no longer able to operate in “splendid isolation” (another somewhat misleading phrase of the era), needing alliances to spread the load of imperial defense.  It wasn’t just the rapid growth of the German fleet which had changed the balance of power but that alone was enough for the British and the French to reach an accommodation which is remembered as the Entente Cordiale (Cordial Agreement) of 1904 which may or may not have been an alliance but was enough of one for the admiralties in Paris and London cooperatively to organize the allocations of their fleets.  It certainly illustrated Lord Palmerston's (1784–1865) doctrine that the country had neither eternal allies nor perpetual enemies but only permanent interests for despite the centuries of enmity between Britain and France, the self-interest of both dictated the need to align against the German threat.

Royal Navy battlecruiser HMS New Zealand, 1911.

It was in this atmosphere the great naval arms race took place, plans for which were laid before the Wright brothers had flown a hundred–odd feet, barely off the ground, torpedoes were in their infancy and submarines were little threat more than a few miles from the coast.  The measure of a fleet was its battleships and their big guns and whichever side could put to sea the most firepower was winning the race.  It intrigued the navalists, strategists and theorists who knew from history that such a race, if left to run, could end only in war, the great, decisive set-piece battle of which would be the clash of massed fleets of battleships on the high seas, trading shell-fire at a range of twenty miles (32 km), before closing for the kill as the battle climaxed.  Dreadnought was one strand of the theorists’ imagination but there were others.  There was a school of thought which favored an emphasis on radio communications and a greater attention to the possibilities offered by the torpedo and, most influentially, what seems now the curious notion of a complimentary range of faster capital ships, essentially battleships with the big guns but little armor, the loss of protection off-set by the few knots in speed gained; these ships were called battlecruisers.  The argument was they could fight at such range nothing but a battleship would be a threat and those the battlecruiser could outrun because of their greater speed.  It seemed, to many, a good idea at the time.

Super-Dreadnought: HMS Iron Duke, Port Said, 1921.

But it was the Dreadnoughts which captured the imagination and defined the era.  Impressive though she was, HMS Dreadnought was not long unique as navies around the world launched the own and, as happens in arms races, the original was quickly out-classed and the next generation of ships, bigger and more heavily gunned still, came to be known as super dreadnoughts.  War did come but the grand battle on the high seas which the navalists had, for a quarter century been planning, never happened.  There were smaller clashes of squadrons but the imperative of the Royal Navy was more practical and traditionally British: avoid defeat.  As Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955), then First Lord of the Admiralty (minister for the navy), emphasized to the First Sea Lord (the navy’s senior admiral), against a continental empire like Germany, while the Royal Navy couldn’t in a year win the war, because Britain’s empire was maritime, they could lose it in one afternoon.  Accordingly, the Royal Navy made no sustained attempts to induce a massed battle, focusing instead on a blockade, keeping the German fleet confined to its ports.  It was the German admirals who attempted to force the British to a set-piece battle, venturing into the North Sea in May 1916 with a fleet of nearly a hundred, including sixteen dreadnoughts and five battlecruisers.  Against this, the British assembled a hundred and fifty odd with twenty-eight dreadnoughts and nine battlecruisers.  The action came to be known as the Battle of Jutland.

Imperial German Navy battlecruiser SMS Goeben, 1914.

On paper, although the result described as inconclusive, it was a tactical success for the Germans but strategically, the British achieved their goal.  The dreadnoughts barely engaged, most of the action confined to the battlecruisers and, unlike the smaller Battle of Tsushima (May 1905) in the Far East, fought by pre-dreadnoughts a decade earlier between the Japanese and Russian fleets, there was no winner in the traditional sense of naval warfare.  The German's tactical success in retrospect was something of a Dunkirk moment but the strategic implications were profound.  British losses were heavier but their numeric advantage was such they could absorb the loss and had the financial and industrial capacity to restore the fleet’s strength.  Damage to the German fleet was less but they lacked the time or capacity to build their navy to the point it could be used as a strategic weapon and it remained confined to its ports.  Both sides learned well the inherent limitations of the battlecruiser.

WWI era German U-Boot (Unterseeboot (under-sea-boat)), anglicized as U-Boat.

After Jutland, the German admirals concluded that to venture again against the British Home Fleet would either be an inconclusive waste or lead to the inevitable, decisive defeat.  They accordingly prevailed on the politicians and eventually gained approval to use the only genuinely effective weapon in their hands, the submarine.  It was the consequences of unrestricted submarine warfare which would bring the United States into the war in 1917 as a belligerent and without that intervention, the war would certainly have followed a different course and reached perhaps a different conclusion.

Although HMS Dreadnought lent her name to an era and remains one of the most significant warships built, she's remembered for the geopolitical reverberations in the wake of her launching rather than any achievement at sea, missing even the anti-climatic Battle of Jutland (1916) because of a scheduled re-fit.  Indeed, her only achievement of note in combat was the ramming and sinking of German U-Boat SM U-29 on 18 March 1915 although that does remain a unique footnote in naval history, being the only time a battleship deliberately sank an enemy submarine.  Dreadnought was decommissioned in 1920 and scrapped the next year.  Later, under the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty which sought to prevent another naval arms race, most of the surviving dreadnoughts were scrapped or scuttled but many of the super-dreadnoughts remained in the fleets, some not scrapped until after World War II.  The name has a strong resonance in the halls of the Admiralty (now the Navy Command in the UK's Ministry of Defense) and has been chosen for the class of vessels to replace the existing Vanguard class ballistic nuclear-missile submarines.  Now under construction, the first of the nuclear-powered Dreadnought class boats is expected to enter service early in the 2030s.

Dreadnought coats

The term “dreadnought coat” was adopted by the UK’s garment industry in 1908 to refer to a heavy, durable and water-resistant overcoat.  It was an opportunistic “borrowing” that verged on what would now be called “ambush marketing” and took advantage on the extensive publicity the name attracted during the so-called “naval scare” during that decade, the attraction being the arms-race had done the hard word of “brand-name recognition”.  The reference point of the design was the heavy “pea coat” (the construct being the Dutch pij (cowl) + the English coat) issued to Royal Navy sailors (although similar garments were worn in many navies).  Typically, naval pea coats were made from a thick wool yarn, designed to protect against the harsh maritime weather encountered in coastal environments as well as on the high-seas.  Pea coats were of rugged construction, almost always double-breasted and featured large lapels (for extra warmth around the neck, often turned up in cold weather) and deep pockets.

A dreadnought pea coat by Triple Aught ("Dreadnaught Peacoat" the spelling used) (left), Lindsay Lohan in dreadnought coat (London, June, 2014, centre) and in trench coat (London, October 2015, right).

To facilitate ease of movement and avoid becoming entangled in the ropes and chains which are a feature of a ship’ deck, the classic naval pea coat was hip-length, unlike the ankle-length great coats used by armies.  When the double-breasted design was extended to the civilian market, the pea coat was almost unchanged (although many were of lighter construction and navy blue remained the most popular color.  When the style of a pea coat is extended to something calf or ankle-length, it becomes a “dreadnought coat” which should not be confused with a “trench coat” which is of lighter construction, traditionally beige and belted and, as all fashionistas know, the belt is always tied, never buckled.

Crapper

Crapper (pronounced krap-er)

(1) A proprietary trade name for a brand of loo; toilet; lavatory etc.

(2) A slang term for the loo; toilet; lavatory etc.

1920s: The construct was crap + er.  Dating from 1375-1425, crap was from the Middle English crappe (which at various times existed in the plural as crappen, crappies and craps) (chaff; buckwheat) from the Old French crappe & crapin (chaff; siftings, waste or rejected matter).  In the Medieval Latin there were the plural forms crappa & crapinum, apparently from the Old Dutch krappen (to cut off, pluck off) from which Middle Dutch gained crappe & crap (a chop, cutlet) and Modern Dutch krip (a steak); the most obvious modern relative is crop.  The Middle English agent suffix er was from the Old English ere, from the Proto-Germanic ārijaz and generally thought to have been borrowed from the Latin ārius.  The English forms were cognate with the Dutch er & aar, the German er, the Swedish are, the Icelandic ari and the Gothic areis.  Related are the Ancient Greek ήριος (ḗrios) and the Old Church Slavonic арь (arĭ).  Although unrelated, the development of er was reinforced by the synonymous Old French or & eor and the Angle-Norman variant our, all derived from the Latin (ā)tor, the ultimate root being the primitive European tōr.  Dating from 1846, crap was the English slang for the proper term crapping ken which is crap’s first documented application to bodily waste although etymologists suspect it had been in widespread use for some time prior.  In this context, crap was used in the earlier English and French sense of “siftings, waste or rejected matter” and ken was an existing term for a small building or house.

The urban myth is part-truth, part-crap

The brand-name Crapper was first applied to a toilet designed and by plumber Thomas Crapper (1836-1910) and manufactured by the company he founded, Thomas Crapper & Co, Licenced Plumbers & Sanitary Engineers.  In 1884, the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII (1841–1910; King of the UK & Emperor of India 1901-1910)) purchased Sandringham House and asked Mr Crapper to supply the plumbing, including thirty flushing loos with cedarwood seats and enclosures.  Impressed with the quality, the prince granted the company their first Royal Warrant.  The occupational surname Crapper is a dialectal variant of cropper (harvester of crops, farmer).

It’s a linguistic coincidence that a Mr Crapper choose to become a plumber and begin manufacturing loos bearing his name which bore such similarity to both crap and crapping which had earlier been used to describe bodily and other waste.  Despite being a coincidence, decades before the internet spread fake news, the urban myth was well-established that the terms words crap and crapper, in their scatological sense, all derive from the efforts and products of Mr Crapper.  The myth is often fleshed-out with reference to US soldiers stationed in England during World War One popularizing the phrase "I'm going to the crapper", after seeing the name on barracks’ cisterns.  In the way army slang does, it was taken home when the servicemen returned to the US.  Despite this, most dictionaries cite the origin of the slang term to the 1920s with popular use becoming widespread by the mid 1930s.  It spread with the empire and was noted in the era to be in use in the Indian Army although, after 1947, the troops came often to prefer "I am going to Pakistan".

ride) and (4), spit out after brushing and do not rinse (this maintains the fluoride concentration level).

Selfie with crapper backdrop: Lindsay Lohan on the set of HBO's Eastbound & Down (2013), brushing teeth while smoking.  It's an unusual combination but might work OK if one smokes a menthol cigarette and uses a nurdle of mint toothpaste.  Other combinations might clash.

By one's name, one shall be remembered.

The long-standing urban myth that Mr Crapper actually invented the flushing loo seems to lie in the 1969 book Flushed with Pride: The Story of Thomas Crapper by New Zealand-born humorist Wallace Reyburn (1913–2001) which purported to be a legitimate history.  Reyburn later wrote a "biography" of an influential inventor who created another product without which modern life also (for half the population) would be possible but less comfortable.  His 1971 volume Bust-Up: The Uplifting Tale of Otto Titzling and the Development of the Bra detailed the life of the putative inventor of the brassiere, Otto Titzling.  Unlike Mr Crapper, Herr Titzling (Reyburn helpfully mansplaining that the correct pronunciation was "tit-sling") never existed.  In truth, the flushing loo has probably existed in a recognizably modern form since the 1400s but, although the designs were gradually improved, they remained expensive and it was not until the nineteenth century they achieved any real popularity and it was well into the next century with the advent of distributed sanitation systems that they became expected, everyday installations.  To mark the day of his death in 1910, 27 January is designated International Thomas Crapper Day.  Each year, on that day, at the right moment, briefly, all should pause, reflect and then with gratitude, proceed.

Lindsay Lohan mug shots on the doors of the crappers at the Aqua Shard restaurant.  Located on the 31st floor of The Shard in London, the view is panoramic.