Surplus

Surplus (pronounced sur-pluhs)

(1) Something that remains above what is used or needed.

(2) In agricultural economics, produce or a quantity of food grown by a nation or area in excess of its needs, especially such a quantity of food purchased and stored by a governmental program of guaranteeing farmers a specific price for certain crops.

(3) In accounting, the excess of assets over liabilities accumulated throughout the existence of a business, excepting assets against which stock certificates have been issued; excess of net worth over capital-stock value.

(4) In public finance, an excess of government revenues over expenditures during a certain financial year.

(5) In international trade, an excess of receipts over payments on the balance of payments.

(6) In economic theory, an unsold quantity of a good resulting from a lack of equilibrium in a market.  For example, if a price is artificially high, sellers will bring more goods to the market than buyers will be willing to buy.  In classical economics, the opposite of shortage.

(7) In Chancery law (and its successor courts), the remainder of a fund appropriated for a particular purpose.

1325–1375: From the Middle English surplus, from the Old French sorplus (remainder, extra), from the Medieval Latin superplūs (excess, surplus), the construct being super (over) + plūs (more).  Surplus in Italian is a borrowing from modern French where surplus has existed since the twelfth century.  In English, surplus has been used as an adjective since the fourteenth century.  Enjoying the same pronunciation, surplice and surplus are often confused.  A surplice is a liturgical vestment of the Christian Church, usually styled as a tunic of white linen or cotton material, with wide sleeves and often some lace embellishment or embroidered edges.  Lengths vary; in medieval times it reached almost to the ground but tends now to be shorter; some still retain the longer garments for the ceremonial.  As surplis, it was a thirteenth century Middle-English borrowing from the Anglo-French surpliz, a syncopated variant of Old French surpeliz, derived from the Medieval Latin superpellīcium (vestīmentum) over-pelt (garment), neuter of superpellīcius.  Construct was super (over) + pellīt(us) (clothed with skins or fur) + -ius (the adjectival suffix).  A clerical surplice is thus a kind of frock; a clerical surplus means too many priests.

Surplus Repression

German-American Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979) was a sociologist and philosopher, highly influential in the mid-late twentieth century.  Even today, Marcuse enjoys a cult following.

A critique of capitalism’s culture and economic arrangements, Marcuse's book Eros and Civilization (1655) drew, inter alia, from Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and described an alternative structure for society.  He didn’t reject Freud’s idea that repression of mans’ instinctive desires was necessary for civilization to endure but Marcuse distinguished between basic (or necessary) repression and surplus repression, detailing the differences between the biological vicissitudes of the instincts and the socially imposed.  His construct was that basic repression is that which man suppresses to permit peaceful societies to form; a repression or modification of the instincts being necessary “…for the perpetuation of the human race in civilization.”  Surplus repression meant those “…restrictions necessitated by [the] social domination” of the particular ruling-class or hegemony.  The purpose of surplus repression was to shape the instincts of individuals to conform to the requirements of modern capitalism, a surrender to what Marcuse called the “performance principle”, a construct building on Marx’s theories of alienation and surplus value.

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

Marcuse's writing did have the attraction of being more accessible than that of Marx or Freud (and certainly that of many neo-Marxists or Freudians) but that also meant it was easier for critics to cherry pick the points they found most objectionable.  For an explanation of why society need to be organized the way it was, conservatives seemed to prefer the rationalization of the "harsh but deliciously clever" English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) best known for his book Leviathan (1651) in which appeared the memorable passage describing the life of man in a world where there existed no restraining authorities forcing people to repress their worst instincts:

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Such a culture Hobbes called the "state of nature" by which he meant not an environmentally sustainable hippie commune but a place in which there was bellum omnium contra omnes (war of all against all) and murder went unpunished except by another murder.  Although the distinction is now an unfashionable one to draw, conservatives liked the way Hobbes seemed to know not all cultures were civilizations and that a little surplus repression was a small price to pay for for its benefits.  Hobbes lived through troubled times and his views on the importance of stable, strong governance should be understood as the writings of one who had seen what the alternative looks like but as a list of exculpatory bullet-points, it's something which can be ticked off by by the Ayatollahs in Tehran or the Chinese Communist Party.  Marcuse is not so transportable.

Sometimes, it really was read for the articles.  Michael G Horowitz's profile of Marcuse was published in the September 1970 edition of Playboy.

Marcuse’s work was acknowledged as a landmark in the synthetization of Marxist and psychoanalytic theories but was criticized for being just another of the utopian visions written of since antiquity, work cut adrift from the moorings of the political reality which seemed in the 1960s more urgently to demand attention.  Marcuse acknowledged the distance of his work from reality and conceded his theories could reach actualization only by revolution or gradual infiltration of the structures of the power-elite and, after the disappointments of the moments in 1968 when revolution fleeting was in the air, he preferred the latter.  German student activist Rudi Dutschke (1940–1979) had advocated a "…march through the institutions of power", radically to change society from within government and cultural institutions by becoming part of the machinery and structures under which capitalism operated.  This too owed a debt to the theories of hegemony and Marcuse wrote to Dutschke in 1971 saying he “regarded your notion of the "march through the institutions" as the only effective way.”  It all failed.  It was the highly unusual coincidence of circumstances in the post war (1948-1973) Western world which briefly in 1968 made the system seem internally vulnerable and the hegemony learned the lesson: they would control who manned the institutions that matter and the troublemakers could march through things like theatre trusts, literary festivals and art gallery committees.

Coterminous

Coterminous (pronounced koh-tur-muh-nuhs)

(1) Having the same border or covering the same area; bordering; contiguous.

(2) Being the same in extent; coextensive in range, scope, time etc.

1790–1800: A re-formation of conterminous from the Latin conterminus, the construct being con- (with) + terminus (border, end).  The prefix con- is derived from the Latin preposition cum (with).  Terminus is from the primitive Indo-European térmn̥ (boundary) of uncertain origin but perhaps from terh- (pass through).  It was cognate with the Ancient Greek τέρμα (térma) (a goal) and τέρμων (térmōn) (a border) and although contested, some etymologists suggest a relationship with the Sanskrit तरति (tar-) (to overcome), the Classical Latin trāns (through, across, over) and even possibly intrō (I enter, I go into).  Coterminal is the adjective, coterminously the adverb.

Most dictionaries insist that despite having been in use since the 1630s, the hyphenated co-terminous is a malformation but, coterminous being a rare word, it’s not often disputes arise.  Purists who prefer always to stick to the classics reject both as needless formations and prefer the original Latin: conterminous.

The advantage of being original

The constitutions of some nations were forged out of war, revolutions or long struggles between sovereign and subjects so their foundation documents, their basic law, often contain stirring words, preambles especially sometimes even with literary merit.  The Constitution of Australia is not one of those documents.  While there were arguments during the eight-odd years it took for the six self-governing British colonies to agree on a draft, the matters in dispute mostly were procedural and mercantile rather than the rights of man and the pursuit of happiness.  Things were hammered-out in committees and smoke-filled rooms, no mobs taking to the street or storming a parliament; apparently not even an effigy was burned.  The document which emerged has proved durable and adaptable but not a great read, befitting a nation which gained its independence (if originally incomplete until 1986) not through battle but bureaucracy.  The draft reached London in 1900 and was soon passed by the imperial parliament as the Constitution of Australia Act which effectively created the country, its executive, legislature and judiciary, empowering a parliament to meet.  Thus assembled, the Parliament of Australia passed the Constitution of Australia Act, becoming effective on 1 January 1901, the first day of the new century.

So Australia was born not out of struggle on streets running with blood but by a grant of freedom from a colonial oppressor which had learned the lessons of 1776.  The constitution passed has since been little modified but has accommodated some changes better to be the basic law of a place where things do change.  It tends to be forgotten that, even in 1901, anything like what’s now thought to be genuine democracy was rare anywhere and, where it existed to the extent it did, it was a recent and sometimes fragile thing.  The Australian constitution did however create a framework for one structural aspect of democracy now thought fundamental: the equality of the value of the individual citizen’s vote. 

While that didn’t apply to the upper house, that was one of the prices to pay for nationhood; the smaller states would never have agreed to federate had they not been afforded equality of representation in what they seemed genuinely to believe would be the place where their interests would be protected.  That illusion didn’t long last but the distortions, now actually worse, remain.  Regarding the lower house, Chapter I, Part III, Section 24 of the constitution provides (1) it shall have twice the number of members of the upper house and (2) the number of members in each of the six states shall be in proportion to the state’s population.  That, even today, is about as equitable as is possible but a further clause provided that (3) none of the original states can have fewer than five members, regardless of the math imposed by (1) & (2).

By the early twenty-first century, that meant in New South Wales, there was one senator for every 680,000-odd souls whereas one represented every 45,000 Tasmanians, a impressive imbalance around 85:15; in the lower house it was a much more democratic 62:38.  Better still, if ever Tasmanians feel somehow unrepresented, there’s also a state parliament with an upper and lower house and a layer of local government.  These distortions do happen in other countries (notably the United States Senate) but among those with some claim to free and fair electoral systems, the Tasmanian example is probably extreme.  In Australia, it pays to be an original state.

In that state parliament, a feature of Tasmania’s mysterious Hare-Clark electoral system for the House of Assembly (state lower house) is that its five electoral divisions are coterminous with the five House of Representatives (Commonwealth lower house) divisions (Bass, Braddon, Clark, Franklin and Lyons).  Although it may sound a rare example of bureaucratic efficiency, it’s dictated more by the practicalities of the multi-member Hare-Clark system.

Squoval

Squoval (pronounced sqwoh-vuhl)

(1) In cosmetology, a description applied mostly to describe the shape of certain fingernails and faces; essentially an oblong (a rectangle with partially ovoid shorter sides).

(2) In commerce, a trademark of the bicycle company Cervélo, describing the cross sectional shape of a downtube used in frame construction.

1984: A portmanteau word, sq(uare)- + oval.  Square is from the Middle English square, sqware & squyre from the Old French esquarre & esquerre, (which survives in modern French as équerre), from the Vulgar Latin exquadra, derived from the Latin quadro, from quadrus (square), from quattuor (four).  Oval is from the Late Latin ovalis, from ovum (egg); it was cognate with the French and Italian ovale and the Dutch ovaal.  Used both as noun and adjective, coinage is credited to Paula Gilmore, a noted manicurist.

Art of the fingernail

A pleasing creation, sqoval is misleading because it’s used to reference a shape which is actually a rectangle with the shorter sides defined by curves which tend to the semi-circular.  In geometry, such a shape is called a stadium, discorectangle or an obround.  It’s not to be confused with a square with rounded corners which is a quartic, the mathematically perfect expression of which is Lamé's special quartic.

Squoval is thus a commercial descriptor in the fingernail business rather than a precise geometric description.  The basic rectangle metaphor is important in fingernail shaping because manicurists borrow from art and architecture the golden ratio which suggests humans find most aesthetically pleasing, shapes with an aspect ratio of about 1.6:1 which, coincidentally, is the relationship between a kilometre and a mile.  Nails can be shaped beyond the nominally perfect 1.6:1 but tend either to be thought exaggerated or created purely for artistic display, often to create a large surface for designs.

Manicurists, certainly in the Instagram age, are an imaginative profession and there’s been a proliferation of terms to describe species.  However, within the fingernail family, there are eight basic genera, practitioners inventing or classifying species as they emerge.  To date, the lipstick is the only defined form which is asymmetric.

The classic oval is said to be a symmetrical ellipse where the curve of the tip exactly mirrors the curve of the cuticle but, in real-world conditions, the former usually only tends to the latter.  The shape is natural, flattering and adaptable to both long and short nails.

Long coffins.

A natural coffin demands long nails with the fragility that implies.  The nail needs to be sufficiently long so both sides can be filed to a tapered point something like a stiletto before the tip is squared-off.  Because of that, they’re often constructed with acrylics.  Coffin in this context is actually a modern appropriation to describe what was historically known as the ballerina, a descriptor some European fashion houses still prefer but the Instagram generation has moved on and like coffin.  Coffins are rare worn in the elongated form.

Square nails provide a shape which is less susceptible to damage than many but doesn’t suit all shapes.  It’s best adopted by those with a narrow nail bed because the flat tip creates an optical illusion of additional width, making nails appear wider than they are.  Rarely seen variations include the cut out (a twin-peaked effect), the lipstick (uniquely, with an asymmetric tip) and the trapeze or flare (where the metaphor is the bell-bottom trouser leg).

A statement shape, something of a triumph of style over functionally, the stiletto gains its dramatic effect from long and slender lines and can be shaped with either fully-tapered or partially square sides.  They’re vulnerable to damage, breaking when subjected to even slight impacts and almost never possible with natural growth.  True obsessives insist they should be worn only with stiletto heels and then only if the colors exactly match.

Squovals in Dior 999.

With straight sides and a curved top, the squoval, while not as dramatic as a coffin, is good, functional engineering because its softer edges are less prone to snagging and tearing than those of a square and break less the more more delicate almonds.  Technically, the squoval is just a species of the square but its popularity meant it came to be classified as its own genus.

Usually very long, the almond has an elongated shape and a tapered tip.  Even when applied to nails with a narrow bed, they’re inherently weak at the tip so most are constructed from acrylics.  It’s a style which attracts many variations on the theme, often tending to a truer emulation of the nut at which point some should probably be classified as pointed.

Realistically, pointed nails, certainly in their more extreme iterations (sometimes called mountain peaks, edges, arrow-heads, claws or talons), are more for short-term effect than anything permanent.  Best used with acrylics, the knife-like style can be a danger to the nail itself and any nearby skin or stockings.  Those contemplating intimacy with a women packing these should first ponder the implications.

Lindsay Lohan with rounds, 2006

Rounds are less a style than a detailing of the natural human shape.  Usually worn short and simple and rarely needing an acrylic overlay, it’s a classic look with the added benefit of durability and low maintenance.

Constitution

Constitution (pronounced kon-sti-too-shun)

(1) The formal or informal system of primary principles and rules regulating a government or other institution.

(2) In law, a legal document describing such a formal system.

(3) In Roman Catholicism, a document issued by a religious authority serving to promulgate some particular church laws or doctrines.

(4) A person's physical makeup or temperament, especially in respect of robustness; the general health of a person (now less common except in technical use).

1350-1400: From the Middle English constitucioun & constitucion (edict, law, ordinance, regulation, rule, statute; body of laws or rules, or customs; body of fundamental principles; principle or rule (of science); creation), from the twelfth century Old French constitucion (constitution, establishment) (which persists the in modern French constitution), a learned borrowing from the Latin cōnstitūtiō & cōnstitūtiōnem (character, constitution, disposition, nature; definition; point in dispute; order, regulation; arrangement, system), from cōnstituō (to establish, set up; to confirm; to decide, resolve).  A common use of cōnstitūtiōnem was as a noun of state from past-participle stem of constituere (to cause to stand, set up, fix, place, establish, set in order; form something new; resolve),  The construct was constitute +‎ -ion.  Constitute was from the Middle English constituten, from the Latin cōnstitūtum (neuter of cōnstitūtus, past participle of cōnstituō (to put in place, set up, establish).  The –ion suffix was from the Middle English -ioun, from the Old French -ion, from the Latin -iō (genitive -iōnis).  It was appended to a perfect passive participle to form a noun of action or process, or the result of an action or process.  Constitution & constitutionality are nouns, constitutionally is an adverb, constitutional is an adjective; the noun plural is constitutions.

The meaning “action of establishing; creating" dates from circa 1400 while that of "way in which a thing is constituted" was from circa 1600.  The once common sense of "physical health, strength and vigor of the body" was from the 1550s, extended some thirty year later to "temperament & character", both now rare though not yet archaic.  The sense of "mode of organization of a state" emerged around the turn of the seventeenth century, evolving gradually to by the 1730s conveying the idea of a "system of principles by which a community is governed", finally by the late eighteenth century being understood as “document of basic or foundational laws”, something which reflected the influence of the US and French constitutions.  Although rare, constitutions of nations can be described as “unwritten” which is a little misleading because probably every aspect of an “unwritten” constitution in a modern state does exist somewhere in writing (statute, legal judgments etc) so a better expression is probably “un-codified”.  The best known example of the “unwritten constitution” is that of England where it’s understood as the collective name for the fundamental principles established by the political development of the English people embodied variously in common law, statute and in long-accepted precedents.  Liking the flexibility afforded, no British government has ever seriously contemplated a written constitution.

The adjective constitutional dates from the 1680s in the sense of "pertaining to a person's (physical or mental) constitution" and came to be used to mean "beneficial to bodily constitution" in the mid-eighteenth century and came later to be applied adjectivally to heath remedies as varied as morning walks and the odd medicinal brandy.  The meaning in legal judgements "authorized or allowed by the political constitution" was first used in 1765 while the “constitutional monarchy” (a monarchy constrained by law and democratic institutions) was first described (in France and apparently without irony) in 1801.  From constitutional as a legal concept came the inevitable adverb constitutionally, recorded first in 1767 although the noun constitutionality (quality of being in accord with a constitution) seems not to have left the judicial pen until 1787.

The substantive moments in Australian constitutional development

1770: Captain James Cook, on a voyage under the auspices of the Admiralty, claims eastern coastline of Australian continent for the British Crown.

1788: Government of the UK conducts successful invasion on 26 February.  Colony of NSW established and occupation of the continent begins as a colonial project, initial as a penal settlement.

1825: Limited self-government granted by the Colonial Office which (with variations in detail) is between 1825-1890 introduced for the colonies of NSW, Tasmania, New Zealand, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia.

1901: The six Australian colonies federate as the Commonwealth of Australia.  The Australian Constitution, an act of the Imperial Parliament, becomes basic law on 1 January 1901 creating the Parliament of Australia which subsequently also passes the act of constitution, thus creating the nation state in its original form.

1903: High Court of Australia constituted.

1927: Division of the Imperial Crown which, in effect, creates the Kingdom of Australia although this will not be formalised until 1973.  This was the mechanism which began the process of the relationship with the monarch being one increasingly disconnected from the UK government.

1931: Statute of Westminster granted (almost complete) legislative independence to the Dominions (including Australia) although it would be some time before the Australian government sought to formalize the implications of this.

1949: Australian citizenship created.

1969: The removal of rights of appeal from federal courts to the Judicial Appeal Committee (the board) of the Privy Council.  This had the effect of making rulings of the High Court final in all matters of Commonwealth law while appeals to London from state and territory courts remained possible.

1986: The Australia Acts (simultaneous acts of the UK and Australian parliaments) sunder last remaining legal connections between the two parliaments and legal systems (section 74 of the constitution notwithstanding).

The passage of the Australia Acts meant Australia retained two remote constitutional connections of which, strictly speaking, only one was with the United Kingdom.  The first is through the monarch, not as the King of England but of Australia and of each of the states and the relationship between the monarch (as head of state) and the Commonwealth is purely personal and wholly unconnected with the UK.  Were the UK to become a republic this would have no constitutional effect in Australia and the head of state would remain whomever is the relevant living successor in the line of succession from Queen Victoria (1819-1901; Queen 1837-1901).  The argument that more correctly the line of succession should begin from a later monarch because of the change in constitutional relationship is an interesting one for legal theorists but because of the biological continuity, there’s no difference in consequence.

King William IV sits before a pie containing two dozen blackbirds, served to him by Lord Melbourne (1836), colored lithograph by HB (John Doyle (1797-1836).  Lord Melbourne (1779–1848; UK prime-minister 1834 & 1835–1841) was the last prime minister dismissed by the monarch, William IV (1765–1837; King of the United Kingdom & King of Hanover 1830-1837) determining his commission in 1834.

The relationship is of interest because in legal theory, everything done by the governments (state and federal) is lawful because of powers which can be traced back to those of the monarch.  These powers are a construct of conventions, codified law, legal fictions and precedent and can be understood when deconstructed rather than observed in operation.  For example, the King, being the Lord Paramount in Australia technically owns all the land and other traditional forms of ownership (leasehold & freehold) are actually grants from the crown which may be revoked.  This is of course best thought of as a legal fiction and more of a trustee relationship but does illustrate the way that all power exercised by governments is ultimately derived from those held by the monarch.

A saltwater crocodile.

The powers of the monarch of course exist but can’t in most cases be exercised by the monarch.  Of great interest to Australians is the right of the monarch to dismiss a prime-minister and this power still exists in the UK (those who suggest otherwise have no basis on which to base the assertion) but because the powers in Australia have been delegated to a governor-general, the monarch does not usually have this personal authority.  However, although it’s not certain, it’s probable that a monarch does re-assume the power if standing on Australian so, something no politically unthinkable so if the need arose to sack an Australian prime-minister when a Monarch was visiting, they would immediately be taken for a day’s deep-sea fishing, it being necessary only to be 12 miles (20 km) off the coast to be in international waters, thus allowing the Governor-General do their dirty work.  If the need was to dismiss a state premier or Territory chief minister, then the monarch would need only to go for a swim because once beyond the low-water line off the coast, they would be splashing around in commonwealth waters and the state governor would be free to swing the axe.  That sound tactic would be fine except in the Northern Territory because up there, anyone stepping foot in the ocean will probably be eaten by a crocodile so a wise monarch will make a sudden dash for the Queensland border.  Even though the Northern Territory government has (most unfortunately) done away with the de-restricted (ie no speed limits) roads in the outback, the monarch is exempt from such rules so it’d be a quick trip.

Taking a morning constitutional: Lindsay Lohan out walking, Los Angeles, 2010.

The other connection has long been thought a historic relic.  Section 74 of the constitution provides for an appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council if the court issues a certificate that it is appropriate for the Privy Council to determine an inter se (a case concerning constitutional relations between the Commonwealth and one or more states or between states) matter.  The only such certificate was issued in 1912 and in 1985, the High Court judges (unanimously) observed that the power to grant such a certificate “…has long since been spent… and is obsolete".  However, it’s there with full legal force so, in the strict constitutional sense, an appeal from the High Court, however unlikely, remains possible.

Vogue

Vogue (pronounced vohg)

(1) Something in fashion at a particular time or in a particular place.

(2) An expression of popular currency, acceptance, or favor.

(3) A highly stylized modern dance that evolved out of the Harlem ballroom scene in the 1960s, the name influenced by the fashion magazine; one who practiced the dance was a voguer who was voguing.

(4) In Polari, a cigarette or to light a cigarette (often in the expression “vogue me up”).

1565–1575: From the Middle English vogue (height of popularity or accepted fashion), from the Middle French vogue (fashion, success (literally, “wave or course of success”)), from the Old French vogue (a rowing), from voguer (to row, sway, set sail), from the Old Saxon wegan (to move) & wogōn (to sway, rock), a variant of wagōn (to float, fluctuate), from the Proto-Germanic wagōną (to sway, fluctuate) and the Proto-Germanic wēgaz (water in motion), wagōną (to sway, fluctuate), wēgaz (water in motion) & weganą (to move, carry, weigh), from the primitive Indo-European weǵh- (to move, go, transport (and an influence on the English way).  The forms were akin to the Old Saxon wegan (to move), the Old High German wegan (to move), the Old English wegan (to move, carry, weigh), the Old Norse vaga (to sway, fluctuate), the Old English wagian (to sway, totter), the Proto-West Germanic wagōn, the German Woge (wave) and the Swedish våg.  A parallel development the Germanic forms was the Spanish boga (rowing) and the Old Italian voga (a rowing), from vogare (to row, sail), of unknown origin and the Italianate forms were probably some influence on the development of the verb.  Vogue & voguer are nouns (voguette an informal noun), voguing is a noun and adjective, vogued is a verb and vogueing & voguish are adjectives; the noun plural is vogues.

All etymologists seem to concur the modern meaning is from the notion of being "borne along on the waves of fashion" and colloquially the generalized sense of "fashion, reputation" is probably from the same Germanic source.  The phrase “in vogue” (having a prominent place in popular fashion) was recorded as long ago as 1643.  The fashion magazine (now owned by Condé Nast) began publication in 1892 and the young devotees of its advice are voguettes.  In linguistics, vogue words are those words & phrases which become suddenly (although not always neologisms) popular and fade from use or becoming clichéd or hackneyed forms (wardrobe malfunction; awesome; problematic; at this point in time; acid test; in this space; parameters; paradigm et al).  Because it’s so nuanced, vogue has no universal synonym but words which tend to the same meaning (and can in some circumstances be synonymous) include latest, mod, now, rage, chic, craze, currency, custom, fad, favor, mode, popularity, practice, prevalence, style, stylishness, thing, trend & usage.

Lindsay Lohan cover, Vogue (Spanish edition), August 2009.

In Cornwall, the hamlet of Vogue in the parish of St Day gained its name from the Medieval Cornish vogue word for a medieval smelting furnace (blowing house); producing much smoke, vogue was also a word used to mean “fog or mist”.  Clearly better acquainted with law than geography, in early 2022 counsel for Condé Nast sent a cease and desist letter to the inn-keeper of the village’s The Star Inn at Vogue pub, demanding the place change its name to avoid any public perception of a connection between the two businesses.  The pub’s owners declined the request and Condé Nast subsequently apologized, citing insufficient investigation by their staff.

1981 Range Rover In Vogue from the first run with the standard stylized steel wheels (left) and a later 1981 In Vogue with the three-spoke aluminum units.

Much of the 1970s was spent in what to many felt like a recession, even if there were only some periods in some places during which the technical definition was fulfilled and the novel phenomenon of stagflation did disguise some of the effects.  Less affected than most (of course) were the rich who had discovered a new status-symbol, the Range Rover which, introduced in 1970 had essentially created the luxury four-wheel-drive (4WD) segment although the interior of the original was very basic, the car’s reputation based on the excellence of the engineering.  So good was the Range Rover, both on and off-road that owners, used to being cosseted in leather and walnut, wanted something closer to that to which they were accustomed and dealers received enquiries about an up-market version.

Lindsay Lohan at the opening of the Ninety years of Vogue covers exhibition, Crillon Hotel, Paris, 2009.

That had been Rover’s original intention.  The plan had been to release a basic version powered by four cylinder engines and a luxury edition with a V8 but by 1970 time and development funds had run out so the car was released with the V8 power-train and an interior so utilitarian it could be hosed out, something which was touted as a competitive advantage although it’s doubtful it was a feature many owners chose to exploit.  However, if the rich were riding out the decade well, British Leyland (which owned Rover) was not and it lacked the resources to devote to the project.  Others took advantage of what proved a profitable niche and the rich could choose from a variety of limited-production and bespoke offerings including long-wheelbase models, four-door conversions, six wheelers and even open-topped versions from a variety of coach-builders such as Wood & Pickett and low-volume manufacturers like Switzerland’s Monteverdi which anticipated the factory by a number of years with their four-door coachwork.

Rendez-vous à Biarritz, Vogue magazine, March 1981.

However, British Leyland was soon subject to one of the many re-organizations which would seek (without success) to make it a healthy corporation and one consequence was increased autonomy for the division making Range Rovers.  No longer forced to subsidize less profitable arms of the business, attention was turned to the matter of a luxury model, demand for which clearly existed.  To test market reaction, in late 1980, the factory collaborated with Wood & Pickett to design a specially-equipped two-door model as a proof-of-concept exercise to gauge market reaction.  The prototype (HAC 414W) was lent to Vogue magazine, a crafty choice given the demographic profile of the readership and the by then well-known extent of women’s own purchasing power and influence on that of their husbands.  Vogue took the prototype to Biarritz to be the photographic backdrop for the images taken for the magazine’s co-promotion of the 1981 Lancôme and Jaeger fashion collections, published in an eight-page advertising spread entitled Rendez-vous à Biarritz in the March 1981 edition.  The response was remarkable and while Lancôme and Jaeger’s launch attracted polite attention, Vogue’s mailbox (which then was letters in envelopes with postage stamps) was overwhelmingly filled with enquiries about the blinged-up Range-Rover.

Vogue's Range Rover In Vogue (HAC 414W) in Biarritz, 1981, all nuts on board or otherwise attached.

Rover had expected demand to be strong and the reaction to the Vogue spread justified their decision to prepare for a production run even before publication and the Range Rover In Vogue went on sale early in 1981, the limited-edition run all replicas of the photo shoot car except for the special aluminum wheels.  The three-spoke wheels (based on the design Ford had used on the 1979 (Fox) Mustang) had actually proved a problem in Biarritz, the factory supplying the wrong lug nuts which had a tendency to fall off, meaning the staff travelling with the car had to check prior to each shoot to ensure five were present on each wheel which would appear in the picture.  Not until later in the year would the wheels be ready so the In Vogue’s went to market with the standard stylized steel units, meaning the brochures had to be pulped and reprinted with new photographs.  Quite how many were made remains unclear.  The factory said 1000 would be built, all in right hand drive (RHD) but many left hand drive (LHD) examples seem to exist and it’s thought demand from the continent was such that another batch was built although this has never been confirmed.  The In Vogue’s exclusive features were:

Light blue metallic (the model-exclusive Vogue Blue) paint with twin broad coach-lines in two-tone grey
High-compression (9.35:1) V8 engine
Transfer box with taller (0.996:1) high ratio
Air conditioning
Polished-wood door cappings
Stowage box between front seats
Map pockets on back of front seats
Fully carpeted load area
Carpeted spare wheel cover and tool kit curtain
Custom picnic hamper mounted in rear load-space
Stainless steel tailgate capping
Black centre caps for the wheels

Condé Nast would later describe the In Vogue’s custom picnic hamper as the car’s piece de resistance.  Demand for the In Vogue far exceeded supply and production runs of various volumes followed before the Vogue in 1984 became the regular production top-of-the-range model for many years (although when sold in the US it was called the Country).  For both companies, the In Vogue (and the subsequent Vogues) turned out to be the perfect symbiosis.

Vogue, January 1925, cover art by Georges Lepape.

From the start, Vogue was of course about frocks, shoes and such but its influence extended over the years to fields as diverse as interior decorating and industrial design.  The work of Georges Lepape (1887-1971) has long been strangely neglected in the history of art deco but he was a fine practitioner whose reputation probably suffered because his compositions have always been regarded as derivative or imitative which seems unfair given there are many who are more highly regarded despite being hardly original.  His cover art for Vogue’s edition of 1 January 1925 juxtaposed one of French artist Sonia Delaunay’s (1885–1979) "simultaneous" pattern dresses and a Voisin roadster decorated with an art deco motif.

One collector in 2015 was so taken with Pepape’s image that when refurbishing his 1927 Voisin C14 Lumineuse (literally “light”, an allusion to the Voisin’s greenhouse-inspired design which allowed natural light to fill the interior), he commissioned Dutch artist Bernadette Ramaekers to hand-paint a geometric triangular pattern in sympathy with that on the Vogue cover in 1925.  Ms Ramaekers toook six months to complete the project and the car is now being offered at auction.

Voisin's extraordinary visions:  1934 C27 Aérosport (left), 1934-1935 Voisin C25 Aérodynes (centre) & 1931 C20 Mylord Demi Berline (right).

There are few designers as deserving of such a tribute as French aviation pioneer Gabriel Voisin (1880–1973) who made military aircraft during the First World War (1914-1918) and, under the name Avions Voisin, produced a remarkable range of automobiles between 1919-1939, encapsulating thus the whole inter-war period and much of the art deco era.  Because his designs were visually so captivating, much attention has always been devoted to his lines, curves and shapes but the underlying engineering was also interesting although some of his signature touches, like the (briefly in vogue) sleeve valve engine, proved a mirage.  Also a cul-de-sac was his straight-12 engine.  Slow-running straight-12 (there is even a straight-14 which displaces 25,340 litres (1,546,000 cubic inches) and produces 107,290 hp (80,080 kW)) engines are actually not uncommon at sea where they’re used in big container ships but on the road (apart from some slow-running engines in military vehicles), only Voisin and Packard ever attempted them, the former making two, the latter, one.  Voisin’s concept was simple enough; it was two straight-6s joined together, end-on-end, the same idea many had used to make things like V12s (2 x V6s) straight-8s (2 x straight-4s) and even V24s (2 x V12s) but the sheer length of a straight-12 in a car presented unique problems in packaging and the management of the torsional vibrations induced by the elongated crankshaft.

1934 Voisin C15 Saloit Roadster.

The length of the straight-12 meant an extraordinary amount of the vehicle’s length had to be devoted to housing just the engine and that resulted in a high number for what designers call the dash-to-axle ratio.  That was one of the many reasons the straight-12 never came into vogue and indeed was one of the factors which doomed the straight-8, a configuration which at least had some redeeming features.  Voisin must however have liked the appearance of the long hood (bonnet) because the striking C15 Saloit Roadster (which could have accommodated a straight-12) was powered by a straight-4, a sleeve valve Knight of 2500 cm³ (153 cubic inch).  The performance doubtlessly didn’t live up to the looks but so sensuous were those looks that many would forgive the lethargy.

Using one of his trademark outdoor settings, Norman Parkinson (1913-1990) photographed model Suzanne Kinnear (b 1935) adorning a Daimler SP250, wearing a Kashmoor coat and Otto Lucas beret with jewels by Cartier.  The image was published on the cover of Vogue's UK edition in November 1959.

The Daimler SP250 was first shown to the public at the 1959 New York Motor Show and there the problems began.  Aware the little sports car was quite a departure from the luxurious but rather staid line-up Daimler had for years offered, the company had chosen the pleasingly alliterative “Dart” as its name, hoping it would convey the sense of something agile and fast.  Unfortunately, Chrysler’s lawyers were faster still, objecting that they had already registered Dart as the name for a full-sized Dodge so Daimler needed a new name and quickly; the big Dodge would never be confused with the little Daimler but the lawyers insisted.

Imagination apparently exhausted, Daimler’s management reverted to the engineering project name and thus the car became the SP250 which was innocuous enough even for Chrysler's attorneys and it could have been worse.  Dodge had submitted their Dart proposal to Chrysler for approval and while the car found favor, the name did not and the marketing department was told to conduct research and come up with something the public would like.  From this the marketing types gleaned that “Dodge Zipp” would be popular and to be fair, dart and zip(p) do imply much the same thing but ultimately the original was preferred and Darts remained in Dodge’s lineup until 1976, for most of that time one of the corporation's best-selling and most profitable lines.  The name was revived between 2012-2016 for an unsuccessful and unlamented compact sedan.