Conversation

Conversation (pronounced kon-ver-sey-shuhn)

(1) A (usually) informal interchange of thoughts, information, etc, by spoken words; oral communication between persons; talk; colloquy.

(2) Association or social intercourse; intimate acquaintance.

(3) In tort law, as criminal conversation, an action variously available (according to circumstances), pursuant to adultery.

(4) Behavior or manner of living (obsolete).

(5) Close familiarity; intimate acquaintance, as from constant use or study (now rare).

1300–1350: From the Middle English conversacion & conversacioun, from the Old French conversacion (behavior, life, way of life, monastic life), from the Latin conversātiōnem (accusative singular of conversātiō) (conversation) (frequent use, frequent abode in a place, intercourse, conversation), noun of action from the past-participle stem of conversari (to live, dwell, live with, keep company with), the passive voice of conversare (to turn about, turn about with (conversor (abide, keep company with) a frequently used derivative)), from an assimilated form, the construct being com (with, together) + versare, frequentative of vertere (to turn), from the primitive Indo-European root wer (to turn, bend).  Both the mid-fourteenth century meanings (1) "place where one lives or dwells" and (2) "general course of actions or habits, manner of conducting oneself in the world" are long obsolete.  Those senses were picked up from the Old French conversacion and directly from the Latin conversationem.

The modern sense of "informal interchange of thoughts and sentiments by spoken words" dates from the 1570s but this for a long time ran in parallel with being a synonym for "sexual intercourse", in use since at least the late fourteenth century.  Depending on the circles in which one moved, that might have been the source of misunderstandings.  In common law, the tort of criminal conversation emerged in the late eighteenth century.  The "conversation-piece" was noted from 1712 in the sense of "painting representing a group of figures arranged as if in conversation" al la "still life"; by 1784 it had come to mean "subject for conversation, something about which to talk".

The tort of criminal conversation

Like “knowing” (of biblical origin), "conversation" was a euphemism for illicit sex and in this sense has long been obsolete except as “criminal conversation”. which, at common law, is a tort which can be used in proceedings pursuant to certain types of adultery.  Dating from the eighteenth century, although abolished in England in 1857, the tort survived in Australia until 1975 when the Family Law Act replaced the old Matrimonial Causes Act, a piece of law reform which much disappointed Liberal Party lawyers, not a few moralists (professional & amateur) and readers of the Melbourne Truth, a most disreputable tabloid noted for its outstanding racing form guide and publication of salacious photographs (often taken through the windows of St Kilda motels) used as evidence in divorce cases.  The action remains available in a handful of jurisdictions in the United States where the rules can be more liberal than permitted in English courts in that women are entitled to sue.  The name has always been misleading; although called "criminal" conversation, the action was only ever strictly a claim for damages in money.

Example one (Cheryl & Gareth): A man has an affair with a married woman.  

The husband of the unfaithful wife would have been able to sue the unfaithful husband in the tort of criminal conversation.

It was a precisely defined tort which existed to allow wronged parties to seek monetary compensation for acts of unfaithfulness.  Under criminal conversation, within certain limitations of timings and sequence of events, a husband could sue any man who slept with his wife, even if consensual.  If the couple was already separated, the husband could sue only if the separation was caused by the person he was suing.

Example two (Vikki & Barnaby): A man has an affair with an unmarried woman.  

No action would have been possible in the tort of criminal conversation because the woman has no husband to raise the action.  Only a husband could be the plaintiff, and only the "other man" could be the defendant.

Reflecting the moral basis of the tort, each separate adulterous act could give rise to a separate claim for criminal conversation and curiously, the plaintiff, defendant and wife were not permitted to take the stand, evidence being given by other observers, often servants in the employment of one of the parties to the suit.  The tort was a matter wholly a creature of civil law and the definitions of adultery codified in canon law had no relevance to the offence or any subsequent penalty.  Under canon law, someone was deemed to have committed adultery if they enjoyed intimacy with someone while married to another whereas if the other party was also married, the offence was double adultery but neither aggravated the offence or could be offered in mitigation.

Conversation piece: Lindsay Lohan in conversation with her sister Aliana, La Conversation bakery & café, West Hollywood, California, April 2012.  Sadly, La Conversation is now closed.

Conversation piece: The Schutz Family and their Friends on a Terrace (1725) by Philip Mercier, Tate Gallery.  As a genre in painting, the "conversation piece" was a notionally informal (though obviously often staged) group portrait, usually small in scale and depicting families (and sometimes groups of friends) in domestic interior or garden settings.  They were popular for much of the eighteenth century, the most noted artists in the style including Philip Mercier (1689-1760), William Hogarth (1697-1764), Arthur Devis (1712-1787) and Johan Zoffany (1733-1810).

The form is interesting because it reflects the emergence of a new component of the leisured class, the newly rich merchants, or mine and factory owners whose wealth was derived from the profits of industrial revolution and the country’s expanding international trade.  The painters tended to show their subjects in genteel interaction, taking tea, playing games or sitting with their pets.  Conversation pieces were thus different from the formal court or grand style portraits favored by the aristocracy and were an attempt to represent the new middle class behaving as they imagined the old gentry did in everyday life.  Their influence worked also in reverse, aristocratic and royal patrons soon commissioning artist to paint their families in a similar vein.

Homily

Homily (pronounced hom-uh-lee)

(1) In Christianity, a kind of sermon, usually on a Biblical topic and often of a practical, non-doctrinal nature.

(2) An admonitory or moralizing discourse.

(3) A platitude or cliché intended to be inspirational.

1545-1555: From the Middle English omelī, omelīe & omelye, from the twelfth century Old French omelie (which persists in Modern French as homélie)and the Ecclesiastical Latin homilia & omilia (homily; a sermon), from the Ancient Greek ὁμιλία (homilía) (homily; instruction), from ὅμῑλος (hómīlos) (an assembled crowd; a throng), from the primitive Indo-European somalo- (a suffixed form of the root sem- (one; as one, together with) + -ῐ́ᾱ (-íā) (the suffix used to form abstract nouns).  The construct of the Greek ὅμῑλος was ὁμός (homós) (common; same) + ῑ̓́λη (ī́lē) (crowd), from εἴλω (eílō) (to aggregate).  The related common forms in Greek were homilia (conversation, discourse) & homilein (to converse with) and were cognate with the Sanskrit melah (assembly) and the Latin miles (in the senses of “an ordinary soldier”).  Under ecclesiastical influence, the Latinate form was restored in sixteenth century English.

The noun homilist, dating from the early seventeenth century described one who delivers a homily (although in some parishes in England the word was applied to a deacon or other junior cleric who wrote the text of a homily or sermon to be delivered by a bishop, dean etc).  The adjective homiletic was first recorded in the 1640s and was used to mean “of or pertaining to sermons” and was from the Late Latin homileticus, from the Ancient Greek homiletikos (of conversation, affable, a conversationalist), the related form the rare homiletical which rarely escaped the specialized field of study in divinity known as homiletics, a discipline which created also homilete & homiletical.  A bound or published collection of homilies or sermons is a homiliary (1844), a name used first in 1844 and they remain a feature of church publishing, especially those of leading figures (popes, archbishops etc).  The homiliary of Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger, b 1927; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus since) is an outstanding collection and an illustration why he remains the best pope since Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli 1876-1958; pope 1939-1958).  Homily is a noun & adverb, the noun plural is homilies.

The words homily and sermon are sometimes used interchangeably and not always without justification because, if one respects the traditional distinctions, there are sermons which read like homilies and vice versa.  In the Christian churches (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran religions), a homily is commentary delivered by a priest or deacon after the reading of scripture, the purpose being to reduce the sometimes abstract theological issues raised to something practical and expressed in a conversation voice; it's essentially an explanation of the passage from the Bible.  Sermon was from the Middle English sermoun, from the Anglo-Norman sermun (and the Old French sermon), from the Latin sermō & sermōnem (speech or discourse).  A sermon is a speech or discourse on theology or morality and may be in direct reference to a scriptural text but may also be an abstraction from Christian teaching or indeed any matter of morality or which touches on some matter of religious significance.  Strictly speaking, sermons need not be restricted to what is delivered as part of a service and indeed can be book-length endeavors which hints perhaps at why “sermon” is also casually used to mean a tedious and usually long lecture delivered as an admonishment.  The Second Vatican Council (Vatican II; 1962-1965) muddied the waters and it’s tempting to think it was the negative association of the word “sermon” (until then the commonly used word) which convinced the bishops to rebrand the message delivery system as "homily".  This may also account for why some believe the two interchangeable.

The classic (if not now exactly typical) sermon in Christianity is the The Sermon on the Mount (anglicized from the Matthean Vulgate Latin in which it was called Sermo in monte), an assembly of words attributed to Jesus of Nazareth and found in the Gospel of Matthew (chapters 5-7) that encapsulates his moral teachings.  It is the first of five discourses in the Gospel and remains one of the most extensively quoted (and misquoted).  Winston Churchill, no moral theologian and self-described as “an external buttress rather than a pillar of the Church” thought “Christ’s story was unequalled and his death to save sinners unsurpassed” and “the Sermon on the Mount was the last word in ethics” but while he always admired the teachings, he didn’t always follow their strictures and probably imagined God would forgive his sins because he “had a few runs on the board”.

The idea of the homily or sermon isn’t restricted to Christianity.  The Prophet Muhammad delivered the last sermon (or Khutba) on Friday, ninth Dhul Hijjah (twelfth month of Islamic year), in mount Arafat’s Uranah Valley, the message delivered to humanity, telling all they are accountable to God for their deeds.

O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and TAKE THESE WORDS TO THOSE WHO COULD NOT BE PRESENT HERE TODAY.

Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion…All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety (taqwa) and good action.

Archbishop Porteous and the place of women & others

Homilies can be deployed as sword or shield and sometimes there’s a bit of overlap.  Late in October 2022, in faraway Tasmania, Archbishop Julian Porteous (b 1949; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Hobart since 2013) decided to use his Sunday homily to attack those who opposed him interpolating a so-called “submission reading” into the graduation mass he was to conduct at St Mary's College, an all-girls Roman Catholic school.  The reading the archbishop agreed to drop from the service was from Ephesians 5: 21-33 (KJV 1611):

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.  Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.  So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:  For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.  Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Apparently the archbishop intended to use a newer translation, thinking, not unreasonably, the archaic phrasing of the King James Version (1611) might make elusive the meaning he was trying to convey but why he thought the modernized text might be better received by the girls isn’t clear:

Wives should regard their husbands as they regard the Lord, since as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is a husband the head of his wife; and as the Church submits to Christ, so should wives submit to their husbands, in everything.

Archbishop Porteous summing up.

Tasmania however has moved on from the seventeenth century (and even from 1997 when it was the last Australian jurisdiction to remove the criminal sanction for homosexual acts between men) and the reaction among staff, students and parents was swift, the backlash accelerated by the inevitable social media pile-on.  Doubtless disappointed by his flock's response, the archbishop felt compelled to change his script although he seemed unconcerned about whether a passage demanding women submit to the demands of their husbands upon marriage was an appropriate choice to deliver to young women celebrating graduation, many of whom were soon to begin higher education as a prelude to professional careers.  Nor did he comment on the possible implications of the phrase “so should wives submit to their husbands, in everything” in a country where in some jurisdictions, because the inheritance of English common law, it wasn’t until the 1990s that it became possible to prosecute cases of rape within marriage.

The archbishop had other worries and in his Sunday homily noted it was "not unusual for the teaching of sacred scripture to be at variance with the attitudes and ethos of our age", adding that increasingly Christians were being “criticized and persecuted because we believe what the scriptures teach and we desire to live by its imperatives, even when they are at variance with the ethos of our times."  Of particular interest to the archbishop (and others) was the recent case of a Christian who was compelled to resign from an appointment as Chief Executive Office with an Australian Rules (AFL) club (the AFL itself something of a religion among many) after it was revealed the “City on a Hill” church (where he sits on the board) had published a series of articles critical of homosexuality and abortion.  Promptly, the club issued a statement saying the church’s views were contrary to the club's values and handed its CEO an ultimatum requiring he either disavow the position of his church or resign as CEO.  He chose his faith (in Christ, not the Essendon Football Club) and submitted to corporate crucifixion.

Drawing the comparison between one line of his reading from Ephesians and one fragment of a statement from the City on the Hill being taken out of context, he concluded "This tells us that our society is becoming increasingly hostile to Christian beliefs found in sacred scripture and actually to demand that people abandon their Christian faith if they wish to exercise public office.”  He went onto explain the theological basis of St Paul’s words in Ephesians and how they were such a radical approach to enhancing the status of women and the sanctity of marriage in what was still a pagan society, issuing a statement noting scripture needed to be read “within the total understanding of the faith” and that “…taking one sentence in isolation fails to do this”.  In that he’s correct but it’s unlikely the bolshie schoolgirls will be much impressed with his nuances.

Lindsay Lohan (b 1986), recently married to Credit Suisse trader Bader Shammas (b 1987) is thought unlikely to “submit to her husband in everything”.  It would be out of character.

Not helping the archbishop in his latest battle in the culture wars was that he has “a bit of previous” in the assault on modernity.  In 2015 he distributed to some 12,000 families with children in Tasmanian Catholic schools a pamphlet entitled "Don’t Mess With Marriage" in which it was argued that those from the LGBTQQIAAOP community "pretending that their relationships are ‘marriages’ is not fair or just to them."  It must have taken some intellectual gymnastics to reach that conclusion and even with a most careful reading the Old and New Testaments, while it’s not hard to work out that for men to lie with other men as others might with women is as much an abomination to the Lord as it would be for them to lie with beasts of the field, it’s hard to find a passage where there’s much concern for fairness towards them.  Still, the archbishop will be better acquainted with scripture than most so his insights may reveal a rare vision.  The pamphlet aroused the ire of the usual suspects and there were attempts to have the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner take the case but their interest was hard to arouse and after a desultory six months of meandering, the matter was withdrawn.

Vis-a-vis

Vis-a-vis (pronounced vee-zuh-vee or vee-za-vee (French))

(1) A French phrase, literally, “face to face” constructed with the prepositional use of the adjective.

(2) In numismatics (of a coin) having two portraits facing each other.

(3) As a preposition (some pedants disapprove of some of the extensions of meaning), in relation to; compared with; as opposed to.

(4) A type of horse-drawn carriage commonly made by Amish coachbuilders, mostly in the mid-western US; also produced for the tourist trade in various places.  In the horse-drawn era, vis-à-vis carriages were usually described as barouches, berlines or landaus depending on their configuration.

(5) A sofa in the shape of the letter “S” with seats for two, so arranged that the occupants can be face to face while sitting on opposite sides; sometimes called the tête-à-tête (literally head to head).

(6) One’s date or escort at a social event (obsolete).

(7) In limousines, a coach-builder’s term for a rear compartment configured with two rows of seats, facing each other.

1755: From the French prepositional use of the adjective vis-à-vis (face to face) from the Old French vis (face).  Vis is from the Old French viz, from the Latin vītis (vine) from the primitive Indo-European wéhitis (that which twines or bends, branch, switch), from wehiy- (to turn, wind, bend) which influenced also the Latin vieō and the English withe.  The à is from the Old French a, from the Latin ad, from the primitive Indo-European ád (near; at).  The French vis was an obsolete word for “face”, replaced in contemporary French by visage.  The literal meaning has long run in parallel with the modern meanings (“in comparison with; in relation to; as opposed to” although pedants disapprove because of the imprecision).  In French, the original sense is preserved also as real estate jargon meaning the windows of one house are within sighting distance of those of the neighboring house (literally that the occupants can see into each-other’s homes).  In English, the un-accented spelling vis-a-vis is now more common. 

Prostoria Vis-a-vis Sofa Segment.

The companion term tête-à-tête (from the French and literally “head-to-head”) means “a private conversation between two people, usually in an intimate setting”) and thus, strictly speaking, refers to a process rather than a seating arrangement and, since advances in communication technology, one can have a tête-à-tête over a phone call whereas to be vis-a-vis with them, physical closeness is demanded.  However, the two terms are often used interchangeably and the use of vis-a-vis is also sometimes the victim of linguistic promiscuity, suggesting sometimes just about any juxtaposition.  Furniture makers also variously describe the “S” shaped sofas using either term.  Occasionally, those who use vis-a-vis in its classic sense will baffle others as Horace Greeley Hjalmar Schacht (1877–1970) managed while being cross-examined during his trial before the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg (1945-1946):

Prosecutor: The position you took, as I understand it, was that the Wehrmacht was important not so much as an aggressive weapon against strong countries, Austria & Czechoslovakia, as against, or vis-a-vis, if you will, the larger powers, the concert of nations in Europe… in other words, the army stood there… as a weapon… vis-a-vis the Austrians.

Schacht: Not vis-à-vis the Austrians but vis-a-vis the Allies.

Prosecutor: I am a little naïve about these things, I must say.  You say… not vis-a-vis Austria but against the powers?

Schacht: Not against the powers but vis-a-vis the powers.

The rarely convivial Hjalmar Schacht, standing right behind Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945).  Dr Schacht was a confessed Freemason.

Although that exchange was not critical in Schacht securing one of the three acquittals the bench handed down, the judges doubtlessly enjoyed it more than the prosecution.  At various times during the Third Reich, Dr Schacht had served as Minister of Economics, Plenipotentiary General for War Economy and President of the Reichsbank (the German central bank) and he’d been indicted on counts one (conspiracy to commit crimes against peace) & two (crimes against peace).  His acquittal on both disappointed many but there were many technical difficulties in the case (especially the first count which was essentially one of "conspiracy", something with which only the Americans and British were familiar as a legal concept) and the prosecution lacked the expertise in matters of public finance and international banking needed to understand the details, let alone pursue them to the standard needed to convince the judges (except for the Russians, comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) convinced of the guilt of all) to convict.  To be fair, the matters were complex and the financial wizardry with which Schacht concocted the money to allow the Nazi’s rearmament programme to be funded was hardly orthodox monetary policy.  In particular his invention of the Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft (thankfully abbreviated to Mefo) which essentially meant the Reichsbank loaned money to the government (which under any other circumstances would have been unlawful) without raising loans or increasing the money supply seemed mysterious to the lawyers.  It was quite a trick and indicative of the intricacies which littered the case.  While awaiting trial at Nuremberg, the defendants had been interviewed by a number of specialists including a psychologist who, among a battery of tests, included relatively simple mental arithmetic.  The tester had been "amazed at Schacht’s inability to do mental arithmetic; he had expected great things from a financial wizard."  This Schacht explained as a virtue rather than an inadequacy, claiming: "Any financial wizard who is good at arithmetic is probably a swindler."  One can see how Schacht convinced the judges to grant him an acquittal.

The vis-a-vis limousines

1967 Lincoln Continental limousine in Black Satin over black leather (front) & light tan cloth (rear), by Lehmann-Peterson of Chicago, built originally for August "Gussie" Busch II (1899–1989; chairman of Anheuser-Busch 1946-1975).  Most of the Lehmann-Peterson “stretched” Continentals were badged “Executive Limousine” which may seem tautological but internally the company distinguished between “executive”, “government” and “funeral” limousines which all differed in the details of their interior fittings although the mechanical structure was shared.

Although the original company was in 1972 absorbed by another corporation, the Lehmann-Peterson brand is a rare survivor in the once well-populated world of coach-builders.  The company was founded in Chicago in 1963 by George Lehmann (1938-1972) & Robert "Pete" Peterson (1924-1995) with the conversion of a single Lincoln Continental sedan into a limousine, subsequently displayed to the Ford Motor Company.  Ford was impressed with the execution and taken especially by the layout of the rear compartment which was a most accomplished execution of the vis-à-vis seating, then rare in US limousines.  Because of the elongation, Ford’s concern was the limousine’s rigidity but their extensive testing at the company’s proving ground (covering a reputed 40,000 miles (64,300 km)) revealed the modified platform was a little stiffer than the donor vehicle, something they chose not to publicize.  That the structural integrity was able to be maintained (indeed, enhanced) was related to the platform of the 1961-1969 Lincolns being designed to accommodate the four-door convertible body available between 1961-1967 and was a development of the huge Lincolns of 1958-1960, then the largest cars ever produced with unitary construction.  Lehmann-Peterson during the 1960s enjoyed great success with their Continental limousines, building almost a thousand for government and private use.  One of the most notable was the popemobile (though that term was not then in use) used by Paul VI (1897-1978; pope 1963-1978) for his one-day visit to New York City on 4 October 1965 to address the United Nations General Assembly, calling for peace and disarmament, a recurring theme in papal pronouncements which seems little more effective now than then.  It was a packed itinerary for the pontiff who as well as celebrating Mass at Yankee Stadium, visited St. Patrick's Cathedral and enjoyed the pleasure of an audience with Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969).

The ex-comrade Marshal Tito 1968 Mercedes-Benz 600 Pullman Landaulet (six-door, long-roof) with jump seats. 

The optional vis-a-vis seating configuration in the rear compartment of the Mercedes-Benz 600 (W100;1963-1981) Pullman was something of a novelty, the competitor limousines from the UK or US built usually with an opulent rear bench for two or three with a pair of utilitarian fold-away (jump or occasional) seats for staff or other temporary occupants (even the infamous X-100, the Lincoln Continental in which John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US president 1961-1963) was assassinated used jump seats).  There had been the odd exception.  While the limousines or horse-drawn carriages of kings and emperors had side-by-side seats for two to accommodate a consort, the Roman Catholic popes were granted a single, raised, throne-like chair for, unlike less spiritual heads of state, the bachelor Bishop of Rome never (officially) had a consort to accommodate (there were a few concubines but (as far as is known) they predated the automobile.

1957 Imperial Limousine by Ghia (left), 1964 Crown Imperial Limousine by Ghia (centre) and 1967 Imperial Limousine by Theodorou with the unusual folding vis-a-vis seats (right).  

The 600’s much-admired vis-a-vis option arrangement did seem to affect the US coachbuilders, the configuration seating seen more frequently in the years that followed its debut.  Prior to that, the elongated editions of Cadillacs, Packards, Lincolns and Imperials usually had rear compartments (often trimmed in leather unlike the cars from the UK which traditionally used leather only in front (for the chauffeur) with “West of England cloth” for the passengers) equipped with jump seats.  Even the Imperial Limousine built for Chrysler with exquisite care and precision in Italy by Ghia (1957-1965) used them but when production was outsourced to US operators, coach-builders such as Chicago-based Andrew Theodorou included what they called “conversation seats” which, cleverly, were arranged vis-a-vis but folded in such a way that most of the additional space afforded by the conventional jump seats was retained.  During the stretch limousine era in the US, vis-a-vis seating was often used.

Mercedes-Benz 600 Pullman Landaulet (four-door, short-roof) with vis-a-vis seats.  Almost all the 600s delivered to North America, Australia and the UK were trimmed in leather but in Europe and some export markets, mohair wasn't unusual and the factory even made available its famously durable MB-Tex (a high quality vinyl rumored to verge on indestructible) but none were ever so equipped. 

Seated vis-a-vis, Lindsay Lohan (b 1986, right) and her sister Aliana (b 1993, left), enjoying a tête-à-tête (literally, head to head"), La Conversation bakery "& café, West Hollywood, California, April 2012.  Sadly, La Conversation is now closed.

Mercedes-Benz offered the vis-a-vis configuration, in a choice of leather or mohair, in both the 600 Pullman’s closed form and the rare landaulets with their fold-back roof.  The landaulets however were often parade vehicles, used to percolate along crowd-lined boulevards with a prince, president, pope or potentate standing and waving and for this purpose, the vis-a-vis seats intruded too much and the fold-away jump seats, which afforded more standing room, were preferred.  That’s why illustrious 600 Landaulet owners such as comrade Marshall Tito, North Korea’s Great Leader, Dear Leader & Supreme Leader, the Shah of Iran, Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, Mobutu Sese Seko, Idi Amin, Nicolae Ceaușescu, P W Botha and a dozen-odd others of varying degrees of virtue, all eschewed the vis-a-vis arrangement because it made it harder to stand and wave.  Only ever produced in small numbers (although such was the factory’s misplaced optimism they hoped they might make a thousand a year) the 600 was introduced at the Internationale Automobil-Ausstellung (IAA, the  Frankfurt Motor Show, September 1963) and in a run of eighteen-odd years (1964-1981), only 2,677 were made, 2,190 of the standard-length sedan (referred to often as the short-wheelbase (SWB), a relative term given it was over eighteen feet (5.5 m) long), 487 of the twenty and a half foot long Pullmans of which 59 were landaulets.  Of the rare landaulets, most had a convertible top which exposed only rear-most of the back seats, twelve being built with a longer fabric roof which rendered open the entire rear compartment, this dozen often called the “presidential landaulets” although this was never an official name.  Although the specification sometimes varied, the Pullmans with the jump-seats usually were configured with six doors while the vis-a-vis models used four.

Vis-à-vis: Matra 530: The LX (left) and the SX (right).  The SX was France's most notable contribution to the small community of "bug-eyed" cars.

Eavesdrop

Eavesdrop (pronounced eevz-drop)

(1) Secretly to listen to the private conversation of others; to hear a conversation one is not intended to hear.

(2) To eavesdrop upon.

(3) A concealed aperture through which an occupant of a building can surreptitiously listen to people talking at an entrance to the building.

(4) Water that drips from the eaves (also as eavesdrip) (rare).

(5) The ground around a structure on which such water drips (rare).

(6) In zoology, to listen for another organism's calls, so as to exploit them.

Pre 900: From the Middle English evesdrope & evesdripe, from the Old English yfesdrype (water dripping from the eaves).  The late Middle English evisdroppyr was apparently literally “one who stands on the eavesdrops in order to listen to conversations inside the house”.  The ultimate source may be the Old Norse upsardropi, the construct being ups (eaves) + -sar- (container) + dropi (a drop).  The noun eavesdropper seems to have come into use in the mid-fifteenth century in the sense of “one who lurks at walls or windows to overhear what's going on inside.”  The same form was adopted for those who “listened in” even if well away from eaves such as those inside listening through keyholes and in the security community, it’s also used informally of wiretaps, listening devices etc.  The word eavesreading was coined on the model of eavesdropping and meant “surreptitiously to read something”; it’s main use appears to be in spy fiction but the extent of actual use among spies is of course difficult to estimate.  Eavesdrop & eavesdropping are nouns & verbs, eavesdropped is a verb, eavesdropper is a noun and eavesdroppingly is an adverb; the noun plural is eavesdrops (the more common probably eavesdroppers).

Cross-section of eaves.

Eaves (eave the alternative form) was from the Middle English eves (projecting lower edge of a roof), from the Old English efes, yfes & ofes (edge of a roof), from the Proto-West Germanic ubisu (hall), from the Proto-Germanic ubiswō (and related to the Gothic ubizwa, the Old High German obasa (hall; porch; roof) and perhaps ultimately from the primitive Indo-European upér (above; over) from which English ultimately gained “over”.  Drop in this context was from the Late Middle English droppe, from the Middle English drope (small quantity of liquid; small or least amount of something; pendant jewel; dripping of a liquid; a shower; nasal flow, catarrh; speck, spot; blemish; disease causing spots on the skin), from the Old English dropa (a drop), from the Proto-West Germanic dropō (drop of liquid), from the Proto-Germanic drupô (drop of liquid), from the primitive Indo-European drewb- (to crumble, to grind away).

Long distance eavesdropping: Marketed as an "Extreme Sound Amplifier Professional Bionic Ear Listening Device", Amazon notes the Guppy is ideal for bird watchers, nature lovers and outdoor because it can detect "voice equivalent sounds" at distances up to 75 m (250 feet).  Recommended for children aged six and above, it's said to improve children's audiovisual perception, help them explore nature and stimulate their imagination and curiosity.  While Amazon doesn’t dwell on the matter, the Guppy could be used as a dual-purpose device.

The noun eavesdrop described (1) the dripping of rain-water from the eaves of a building (2) the space of ground onto which the water fell and (3) the container at the end of a pipe or spout which collected the water so it would be available for other uses such as gardening, cleaning etc.  In the ninth century the word was eavesdrip which in early Modern English evolved to become eavesdrop.  The Old English words efes, yfes & ofes (edge of a roof) from which eaves was derived were all singular but in the way these thing happened in the Medieval period, the final -s was assumed to indicate a plural (on the basis of the relationship enjoyed by many other words), thus the emergence of the Middle English eves which later became eaves, reputedly because with “Eve” appearing in version of the Bible, the clergy objected to the spelling being used for a form of drainage which was a remarkable concern for the one they held responsible for original sin, the downfall of man and the banishment of humanity from the Garden of Eden.

Stasi eavesdropping ceremony: Stasi officers undertook their duties seriously but there were also office parties where dark good humor was on show.  Operatives who have proved outstanding at eavesdropping and eavesreading could be "dubbed" and conferred with a "knighthood" in the Abhörgerät der Ordnung alten (Ancient order of the Wiretap).  The Stasi (Ministry for State Security) fulfilled in the German Democratic Republic (the GDR (1949-1990), the old East Germany) a function similar to that of the Soviet KGB and is renowned still as history's most prolific eavesdroppers, their surveillance of written and oral communication so extensive and intrusive that for much of the state's existence, individuals needed to assume their telephone calls were being monitored.  The Stasi's (1950-1990) capacity to watch an entire population may soon be exceeded because advances in artificial intelligence (AI) mean it may become possible for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) literally to listen to every telephone call and read every electronic exchange.  In China, it may be that carrier pigeons and typewriters will be made illegal as the CCP moves to ensure there is no communication of which they are unaware.

Lindsay Lohan under the eaves, possibly eavesdropping.

The noun eavesdrop (also as eavesdroppe) & eavesdrip had a significance beyond domestic storm-water management because they were measurements used first in ancient customary law and later in early English common law as part of what would now be thought a building or planning code.  Under the doctrine, a land-holder was not permitted to erect a roofed-structure so close to the boundary of his land that the water which fell from the roof might fall upon and damage adjacent land.  In customary law, the actual distance was expressed in different ways including “the extended arm-span of a man” (sometimes the parish priest was nominated) but when English measures were (more or less) standardized, that became “not lesse than two footes”.  Wind and water being what they are, it was obviously not possible to guarantee absolutely none of the water from one’s roof would end up on a neighbor’s land so there emerged the common law “right of drip” which technically created an easement upon the affected land, restricted to drips from the roof.  That would now be understood under the notion of “reasonableness” and drips would be held to be reasonable while torrents would not and an order of rectification could be made to demand the torrents in some way be reduced to drips.  This protected the neighbor (the dripee one might say) from water-damage but also meant that if economic benefit was derived from even a torrent (such as free agricultural irrigation), the dripor could not claim for a share of value against the dripee.

The noun eavesdropper was created to refer to “one who stands within the eavesdrop of a house to overhear conversations inside” and the first known record of use in the Presentments at the Sessions of the Borough of Nottingham, 1 October 1487, written in the Legal Latin of the day:

Juratores Constabulariorum dicunt, super sacramentum suum, quod Henricus Rowley, de Notingham, in Comitatu villae Notingham, yoman, die Jovis proximo ante festum Sancti Michaëlis Archangeli, anno regni Regis Henrici Septimi tertio, ac diversis aliis diebus et vicibus, communiter et usualiter, apud Notingham praedictam, est communis evysdropper et vagator in noctibus, in perturbationem populi Domini Regis et contra pacem suam.

The jurors of the Constables say, upon their oath, that Henry Rowley, of Nottingham, in the County of the town of Nottingham, yeoman, on Thursday next before the feast of Saint Michael the Archangel, in the third year of the reign of King Henry the Seventh, and upon divers other days and occasions, commonly and usually, at Nottingham aforesaid, is a common eavesdropper and night-wanderer, to the perturbation of our Lord the King’s folk and against his peace.

There may in the charge have been the implication Henry Rowley was more than a quidnunc keeping up with things and may have been “casing the joint” with nefarious intent but in its pure sense eavesdropper was later defined in one of the first dictionaries of legal terms; Les Termes de la Ley: or Certaine difficult and obscure Words and Termes of the Common Lawes and Statutes of this Realme now in vse expounded and explained (London, 1636), by John Rastell (circa 1475-1536) and his son, William Rastell (circa 1508-1565):

Euesdroppers are such as stand vnder walls or windowes by night or day to heare newes, and to carry them to others to make strife and debate amongst their Neighbors, those are euill members in the Cōmon-wealth, and therefore by the Statute of Westminst. (I. cap. 33.) are to bee punished.

Etymologists differ on the matter of sequence.  Because the verb eavesdrop is first attested more than a century after the noun eavesdropper, some maintain former is a back-formation while others (on the basis of much linguistic precedent) suggest the very existence of the noun implies the pre-existence of the verb.  Sill the earliest use of the verb known to be extant was in the writings of the English playwright & poet George Chapman (circa 1560-1634) in the comedy Sir Gyles Goosecappe Knight (London, 1606) in which Momford and Lord Furnifall are in the house and plotting to repair to the gallery outside in order secretly to listen to the conversation between Clarence and the physician, Doctor Versey:

Momford: Bring hether the key of the gallerie, me thought I heard the Doctor and my friend.

Lord Furnifall: I did so sure.

Momford: Peace then a while my Lord.  We will be bold to evesdroppe.

It’s a forgotten play but Chapman is not because his translations of the Iliad (1598-1611) and the Odyssey (1616) rank with the most highly regarded in English and the evocative beauty of his style influenced many.  It was his work which inspired the Romantic poet John Keats to write the sonnet On First Looking into Chapman’s Homer.

On First Looking into Chapman's Homer (1816) by John Keats (1795–1821).

Much have I travell'd in the realms of gold,
And many goodly states and kingdoms seen;
Round many western islands have I been
Which bards in fealty to Apollo hold.
Oft of one wide expanse had I been told
That deep-brow'd Homer ruled as his demesne;
Yet did I never breathe its pure serene
Till I heard Chapman speak out loud and bold:
Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken;
Or like stout Cortez when with eagle eyes
He stared at the Pacific—and all his men
Look'd at each other with a wild surmise—
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.