Egregious

Egregious (pronounced ih-gree-juhs)

(1) Extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant.

(2) Extraordinary in some good way; distinguished or eminent (archaic).

1525–1535: From the Middle English, from the Latin ēgregius (preeminent; outstanding, literally “standing out from the herd”), the construct being ē- (out (and in Latin an alternative to ex-)) + greg-, stem of grēx (flock, herd) + -ius.  Grēx was from the primitive Indo-European hzger- (to assemble, gather together) which influenced also the Spanish grey (flock, crowd), the Lithuanian gurguole (mass, crowd) and gurgulys (chaos, confusion), the Old Church Slavonic гроусти (grusti) (handful), the Sanskrit गण (gaṇá) (flock, troop, group) and ग्राम (grā́ma) (troop, collection, multitude; village, tribe), and the Ancient Greek ἀγείρω (ageírō) (I gather, collect) (from whence came ἀγορά (agorá)).  The link to the Proto-Germanic kruppaz (lump, round mass, body, crop) is contested.  The English –ous was a Middle English borrowing from the Old French -ous and –eux from the Latin -ōsus (full, full of) and is as doublet of -ose in unstressed position; it was used to form adjectives from nouns and to denote possession or presence of a quality in any degree, most commonly in abundance.  Egregious is an adjective, egregiously is an adverb and egregiousness is a noun; the noun plural is the delicious egregiousnesses.

Meaning adaptation & shift

There are many words in English where meaning has in some way or to some degree shifted but egregious is one of the rarities which now means the opposite of what it once did.  There are others such as nice which used to mean “silly, foolish, simple”; silly which morphed from referring to things “worthy or blessed” to meaning “weak and vulnerable” before assuming its modern sense; awful which used to describe something “worthy of awe” and decimate, once a Roman military term to describe a death-rate around 10% whereas it implies now a survival rate about that number.  In English, upon its sixteenth century adoption from Latin, egregious was a compliment, a way to suggest someone was distinguished or eminent.  That egregiously clever English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was flattering a colleague when he remarked, "I am not so egregious a mathematician as you are…" which would today be thought an insult.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) notes that in 1534, egregious unambiguously meant "remarkable, in a good sense" but as early as 1573, people were also using it to mean "remarkable, in a bad sense."  The documentary evidence appears sparse but the OED speculates the meaning started to switch because people were using the word sarcastically or at least with some gentle irony.  In the linguistically democratic manner in which English evolves, the latter prevailed, presumably because people felt there were quite enough ways to compliment others but were anxious always to add another insult to the lexicon.  Shakespeare, with his ear for the vernacular, perhaps helped.  Christopher Marlowe (1564–1593) employed it in the older sense in his Tamburlaine (1590), writing of “egregious viceroys of these eastern parts…” but within a generation, William Shakespeare (1564–1616) has Posthumus condemn himself in Cymbeline (1611) in the newer condemnatory sense: “egregious murderer”, echoing his earlier use in All's Well That Ends Well (1605).  Both meanings appear to have operated in parallel until the eighteenth century which must have hurt a few feelings or perhaps, in an age of dueling, something more severe.

Imogen Sleeping (from Shakespeare's Cymbeline), circa 1899 by Norman Mills Price (1877–1951).

In southern Europe however, the bard’s words failed to seduce the Romance languages.  The Italian formal salutation egregio is entirely reverential, as are the both the Spanish and Portuguese cognates, egregio and egrégio.

Molyneux

Molyneux (pronounced mol-un-ewe)

(1) A habitational surname of Norman origin, almost certainly from the town of Moulineaux-sur-Seine, in Normandy.

(2) A variant of the Old French Molineaux (an occupational surname for a miller).

(3) An Anglicized form of the Irish Ó Maol an Mhuaidh (descendant of the follower of the noble).

(4) In law in the state of New York, as the “Molineux Rule”, an evidentiary rule which defines the extent to which a prosecutor may introduce evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts or crimes, not to show criminal propensity, but to “establish motive, opportunity, intent, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.”

(5) In philosophy, as the “Molyneux Problem”, a thought experiment which asks:”If someone born blind, who has learned to distinguish between a sphere and a cube by touch alone, upon suddenly gaining the power of sight, would they be able to distinguish those objects by sight alone, based on memory of tactile experience?”

Pre 900: The French surname Molyneux was from the Old French and is thought to have been a variant of De Molines or De Moulins, both linked to "Mill" (Molineaux the occupational surname for a miller) although the name is believed to have been habitation and form an unidentified place in France although some genealogists have concluded the de Moulins came from Moulineaux-sur-Seine, near Rouen, Normandy.  Despite the continental origin, the name is also much associated with various branches of the family in England and Ireland, the earliest known references pre-dating the Norman Conquest (1066).  The alternative spelling is Molineux.

The "Molyneux Problem" is named after Irish scientist and politician William Molyneux (1656–1698) who in 1688 sent a letter to the English physician & philosopher John Locke (1632–1704), asking: Could someone who was born blind, and able to distinguish a globe and a cube by touch, be able to immediately distinguish and name these shapes by sight if given the ability to see?  Obviously difficult to test experimentally, the problem prompted one memorable dialogue between Locke and Bishop George Berkeley (1685–1753 (who lent his name, pronounced phonetically to the US university) but it has long intrigued those from many disciplines, notably neurology and psychology, because sight is such a special attribute, the eyes being an outgrowth of the brain; the experience of an adult brain suddenly being required to interpret visual input would be profound and certainly impossible to imagine.  Philosophers since Locke have also pondered the problem because it raises issues such as the relationship between vision and touch and the extent to which some of the most basic components of knowledge (such as shape) can exist at birth or need entirely to be learned or experienced.

The Molineux Rule in the the adversarial system 

The Molineux Rule comes from a decision handed down by the Court of Appeals of New York in the case of People v Molineux (168 NY 264 (1901)).  Molineux had at first instance been convicted of murder in a trial which included evidence relating to his past conduct.  On appeal. the verdict was overturned on the basis that as a general principle: “…in both civil and criminal proceedings, that when evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts committed by a person is offered for the purpose of raising an inference that the person is likely to have committed the crime charged or the act in issue, the evidence is inadmissible.”  The rationale for that is it creates a constitutional safeguard which acts to protect a defendant from members of a jury forming an assumption the accused had committed the offence with which they were charged because of past conduct which might have included being accused of similar crimes.  Modified sometimes by other precedent or statutes, similar rules of evidentiary exclusion operate in many common law jurisdictions.  It was the Molineux Rule lawyers for former film producer Harvey Weinstein (b 1952) used to have overturned his 2020 conviction for third degree rape.  In a 4:3 ruling, the court held the trial judge made fundamental errors in having “…erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose.” and therefore the only “...remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”

Harvey Weinstein and others.

Reaction to the decision of the appellate judges was of course swift and the opinion of the “black letter” lawyers was the court was correct because “…we don't want a court system convicting people based on testimony about allegations with which they’ve not been charged.”, added to which such evidence might induce a defendant not to submit to the cross-examination they’d have been prepared to undergo if only matters directly relevant to the charge(s) had been mentioned in court.  Although the Molineux Rule has been operative for well over a century, some did thing it surprising the trial judge was prepare to afford the prosecution such a generous latitude in its interpretation but it should be noted the Court of Appeal divided 4:3 so there was substantial support from the bench that what was admitted as evidence did fall within what are known as the “Molineux exceptions” which permit certain classes of testimony in what is known as “character evidence”.  That relies on the discretion of the judge who must weigh the value of the testimony versus the prejudicial effect it will have on the defendant.  In the majority judgment, the Court of Appeal made clear that in the common law system (so much of which is based on legal precedent), if the trial judge’s decision on admissibility was allowed to stand, there could (and likely would) be far-reaching consequences and their ruling was based on upholding the foundations of our criminal justice system in the opening paragraphs: "Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality. It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, or the pressure to convict."

The strict operation of the Molineux Rule (which this ruling will ensure is observed more carefully) does encapsulate much of the core objection to the way courts operate in common law jurisdictions.  The common law first evolved into something recognizable as such in England & Wales after the thirteenth century and it spread around the world as the British Empire grew and that included the American colonies which, after achieving independence in the late eighteenth century as the United States of America, retained the legal inheritance.  The common law courts operate on what is known as the “adversarial system” as opposed to the “inquisitorial system” of the civil system based on the Code Napoléon, introduced in 1804 by Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; leader of the French Republic 1799-1804 & Emperor of the French from 1804-1814 & 1815) and widely used in Europe and the countries of the old French Empire.  The criticism of the adversarial system is that the rules are based on the same principle as many adversarial contests such as football matches where the point of the rules is to ensure the game is decided on the pitch and neither team has any advantage beyond their own skill and application.

That’s admirable in sport but many do criticize court cases being conducted thus, the result at least sometimes being decided by the skill of the advocate and their ability to persuade.  Unlike the inquisitorial system where the object is supposed to be the determination of the truth, in the adversarial system, the truth can be something of an abstraction, the point being to win the case.  In that vein, many find the Molineux Rule strange, based on experience in just about every other aspect of life.  Someone choosing a new car, a bar of chocolate or a box of laundry detergent is likely to base their decision from their knowledge of other products from the same manufacturer, either from personal experience or the result of their research.  Most consumer organizations strongly would advise doing exactly that yet when the same person is sitting on a jury and being asked to decide if an accused is guilty of murder, rape or some other heinous offence, the rules don’t allow them to be told the accused has a history of doing exactly that.  All the jury is allowed to hear is evidence relating only to the matter to be adjudicated.  Under the Molineux Rule there are exceptions which allow “evidence of character” to be introduced but as a general principle, the past is hidden and that does suit the legal industry which is about winning cases.  The legal theorists are of course correct that the restrictions do ensure an accused can’t unfairly be judged by past conduct but for many, rules which seem to put a premium on the contest rather than the truth must seem strange.

Oligarch

Oligarch (pronounced ol-i-gahrk)

(1) In political science, one of the rulers in an oligarchy (a system of government characterized by the institutional or constructive rule of a few and the literal or effective exclusion of the many); a member of an oligarchy.

(2) A very rich person involved in business in a manner which interacts intimately with the organs of government, the nature of the relationship varying between systems but usually with the implication of mutually beneficial corrupt or improper (if sometimes technically lawful) conduct.

(3) In cosmogony, a proto-planet formed during oligarchic accretion.

1600-1610: From the French oligarque & olygarche, from the Late Latin oligarcha, from the Ancient Greek ὀλιγάρχης (oligárkhēs) and related to oligarkhia (government by the few), the construct being olig- (few) (from stem of oligos (few, small, little) (a word of uncertain origin)) +‎ -arch (ruler, leader) (from arkhein (to rule)).  The noun plural was oligarchs.  In English, an earlier form of oligarchy was the circa 1500 oligracie, a borrowing from the Old French.

Oligarch is a noun; the related words are oligarchal, oligarchic (adjective), oligarchical, oligarchy (noun) and the playful “minigarch”.  Oligarchie & oligarchisch are sometimes used to convey a deliberate sense of the foreign.  Oligarch is now almost never used in its classical sense to refer to rulers of a political entity but instead to describe the small numbers of those who have become exceedingly rich, usually in some improper (even if technically lawful) way with the corrupt and surreptitious cooperation of those in government, the implication being they too have benefited.  Words like plutocrat, potentate and tycoonocrat are sometimes used as synonyms but don’t covey the sense of gains improperly and corruptly achieved.

In modern use, an oligarch is one of the select few people who have become very rich by virtue of their close connections to rule or influence leaders in an oligarchy (a government in which power is held by a select few individuals or a small class of powerful people).  Unlike the relationship between “monarch” & “monarchy”, “oligarch” & “oligarchy” are not used in the literature of political science in quite the same way.  A monarch’s relationship to their monarchy is a thing defined by the constitutional system under which they reign and that may be absolute, despotic or theocratic but is inherently directly linked.  However, even in a political system which is blatantly and obviously an oligarchy, the members of the ruling clique are not referred to as oligarchs by virtue of their place in the administration, the more common descriptors being autocrat, despot, fascist, tyrant, dictator, totalitarian, authoritarian, kleptocrat or other terms that to varying degrees hint at unsavoriness.  Instead, the word oligarch has come to be used as a kind of encapsulated critique of corruption and economic distortion and the individual oligarch a personification of that.  The modern oligarch is one who has massively profited, usually by gaining in some corrupt way either the resources which once belonged to the state or trading rights within the state which tend towards monopolistic or oligopolistic arrangements.  Inherent in the critique is the assumption that the corrupt relationship is a symbiotic one between oligarch and those in government, the details of which can vary: oligarchs may be involved in the political process or entirely excluded but a common feature to all such arrangements is that there is a mutual enrichment at the expense of the sate (ie the citizens).  The word oligarch has thus become divorced from oligarchy and attached only to oligopoly.

The word oligopoly dates from 1887, from the Medieval Latin oligopolium, the construct being the Ancient Greek ὀλίγος (olígos) (few) + πωλεῖν (poleîn) (to sell) from the primitive Indo-European root pel (to sell) and describes a market in which an industry is dominated by a small number of large-scale sellers called oligopolists (the adjectival form oligopolistic from a surprisingly recent 1939).  Oligopolies, which inherently reduce competition and impose higher prices on consumers do not of necessity form as a result of improper or corrupt collusion and may be entirely organic, the classic example of which is two competitors in a once broad market becoming increasingly efficient, both achieving such critical mass that others are unable to compete.  At that point, there is often a tendency for the two to collude to divide the market between them, agreeing not to compete in certain fields or geographical regions, effectively creating sectoral or regional monopolies.  If competitors do emerge, the oligopolists have sufficient economic advantage to be able temporarily to reduce their selling prices to below the cost of production & distribution, forcing the completion from the market, after which the profitable price levels are re-imposed.

A classic game theory model of oligopolistic behavior.

Although not thought desirable by economists, they’ve long attracted interest interest because they create interesting market structures, especially when they interact with instruments of government designed to prevent their emergence or at least ameliorate the consequences of their operation.  The most obvious restriction governments attempt to impose is to prevent collusion between oligopolists in an attempt to deny them the opportunity to set prices of particular goods.  Even if successful, this can only ever partially be done because most prices quickly become public knowledge and with so few sellers in a market, most of which tend to operate with similar input, production & distribution costs, each oligopolist can in most cases predict the actions of the others. This has been of interest in game theory because the decisions of one player are not only in reaction to that of the others but also influences their behavior.

Dartz Prombron: The Prombron is now typical of the preferred transport for an oligarch, the traditional limousine not able to be configured to offer the same level of protection against attacks with military-grade weapons.  Prombrons were originally trimmed with leather from the foreskins of whale penises but the feature was dropped after protests from the environmental lobby.

Oligarchs in the modern sense operate differently and the Russian model under Mr Putin has become the exemplar although some on a smaller scale (notably Lebanon since 1990) are probably even more extreme.  The Russian oligarchs emerged in the 1990s in the chaos which prevailed after the dissolution of the old Soviet Union.  They were men, sometime outside government but often apparatchiks within, well-skilled in the corruption and the operations of the black market which constituted an increasingly large chunk of the economy in the last decade of the USSR and these skills they parlayed into their suddenly capitalistic world.  Capitalism however depends on there being private property and because the USSR was constructed on the basis of Marxist theory which demanded it was the state which owned and controlled the means of production and distribution, there was little of that.  So there was privatization, some of it officially and much of it anything but, the classic examples being a back-channel deal between the oligarch and someone in government purporting to be vested with the authority to sell the assets of the state.  Few in government did this without a cut (often under the guise of a equity mechanism called “loans for shares”) and indeed, some apparatchiks sold the assets to themselves and those assets could be nice little earners like oil & gas concessions or producers, electricity generators, transport networks or financial institutions.  One of the reasons the assets were able to be sold at unbelievably bargain prices was a product of Soviet accounting: because the book value of assets had so little meaning in communist accounting, in many cases recorded asset values hadn’t be updated in decades and were in any case sometimes only nominal.  There were therefore sales which, prima facie, might have appeared to verge on the legitimate.

2021 Aurus Senat, now the official presidential car of the Russian state.

Few were and in any event, even if the aspiring oligarch didn’t have the cash, somewhere in government there would be found an official able to arrange the state to loan the necessary fund from the resources of the state, if need be creating (effectively printing) the money.  From that point, newly acquitted assets could be leveraged, sold to foreign investors at huge profit or even operated in the novelty of the free market, an attractive proposition for many given the asset obtained from the state might be a natural monopoly, competition therefore of no immediate concern.  Thus was modern Russian capitalism born of what were economic crimes on a scale unimaginable to the legions condemned to death or years in the Gulag under comrade Stalin.  Even before becoming prime-minister in 1999, Mr Putin was well aware of what had happened, being acquainted with some of the players in the process but shortly after assuming office, he had small a team of lawyers, accountants and economists undertake a forensic analysis to try more accurately to quantify who did what and who got how much.  Although the paperwork his investigative project produced has never been made public, it was reputed to have been reduced to a modestly-sized file but the contents were dynamic and put to good use.

In either 2003 or 2004, Mr Putin, assisted by officers of the FSB (successor to the alphabet-soup of similar agencies (Cheka, GPU, OGPU, NKGB, NKVD, SMERSH, MGB & (most famously) KGB)) experts in such things, “arranged” a series of interviews with the oligarchs whose conduct in the privatizations of 1990s had been most impressive (or egregious depending on one’s view).  Well aware of the relationship between wealth and political influence, Mr Putin’s explained that the oligarchs had to decide whether they wished to be involved in business or politics; they couldn’t do both.  Mr Putin then explained the extent of their theft from the state, how much was involved, who else facilitated and profited from the transactions and what would be the consequences for all concerned were the matters to come to trial.  Then to sweeten the deal, Mr Putin pointed out that although the oligarchs had stolen their wealth on the grandest scale, “they had stolen it fair and square” and could keep it if they agreed to refrain from involvement in politics.  The Russian oligarchy understood his language, the lucidity of his explanation perhaps enhanced by oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky (b 1963; then listed as the richest man in Russia and in the top-twenty worldwide) being arrested on charges of fraud and tax evasion, shortly before the meetings were convened (he was convicted in 2005 and sentenced to nine years in prison and while serving his sentence was charged with and found guilty of embezzlement and money laundering.  Mr Putin later pardoned Khodorkovsky and he was released to self-imposed exile in late 2013).  Few failed to note the significance of Mr Khodorkovsky having been "meddling in politics". 

Mr Putin being taken for a drive by George W Bush (b 1946; George XLIII, US president 2001-2009) in the Russian president's GAZ M21 Volga and admiring his 2009 Lada Niva.

In a sign the oligarchs were wise to comply, it was estimated by Bill Browder (b 1964; CEO and co-founder of the once Moscow-linked Hermitage Capital Management) during his testimony to the US Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017 that the biggest single increase in Mr Putin’s personal wealth happened immediately after Mr Khodorkovsky was jailed.  Given the history, Mr Browder is perhaps not an entirely impartial viewer but the pact between the autocrat and the oligarchy has been well-understood for years but what has always attracted speculation is the possibility that attached to it was a secret protocol whereby Mr Putin received transactional fees, imposing essentially a license to operate in Russia, alleged by some to be a cut of as much as 50%, based apparently on assessed profits rather than turnover.  Even if a half-share is too high and his cut is a more traditional 10%, the amount payable over the years would have been a very big number so there’s been much speculation about Mr Putin’s money, some estimates suggesting he may have a net wealth in the US$ billions.  That would seem truly impressive, given the Kremlin each year publishes a disclosure of their head of state’s income and assets and the last return disclosed Mr Putin enjoys an annual salary of US$140,000 and owns an 800-square-foot (74 m²) apartment, his other notable assets being three cars: a 1960 (first series) GAZ M21 Volga, a 1965 (second series) GAZ M21P Volga and a 2009 Lada Niva 4x4.  Keen on the outdoors, he also owns a camping trailer.

A country cottage on the Black Sea coast alleged to be owned by Mr Putin.  The large grounds surrounding the cottage are an indication why Mr Putin needs his 2009 Lada 4x4 & camping trailer.

On the basis of that, income and net wealth seem not at all out of alignment but intriguingly, he’s been photographed with some high-end watches on his wrist, including an A. Lange & Söhne 1815 Tourbograph which sells for around US$500,000.  He is rumored to be the owner of a 190,000 square-foot (17,650 m²) mansion which sits atop a cliff overlooking the Black Sea (reputedly Russia’s largest private residence and known, in a nod to the understated manner of the rich, as “Putin’s country cottage”) which has an ice hockey rink, a casino, a nightclub with stripper poles, an extravagantly stocked wine cellar and the finest furniture in Louis XIV style, the toilet-roll holders apparently at US$1,250 apiece (although, given the scale of the place, he may have received a bulk-purchase discount).  It demands a full-time staff of forty to maintain the estate, the annual running costs estimated at US$2-3 million.  Designed by Italian architect Lanfranco Cirillo (b 1959), and officially owned (though alleged to be held under a secret trust of which Mr Putin is the sole beneficiary) by oligarch Alexander Ponomarenko (b 1964), the construction cost was estimated to be somewhere around a US$ billion which seems expensive but a yacht currently moored in Italy and alleged also to belong to Mr Putin is said to have cost not much less to launch so either or both may actually represent good value and to assure privacy, the Russian military enforces a no-fly zone around the property.  Like many well-connected chaps around the world, a few of Mr Putin’s billions figured in the release of the Panama Papers in 2016.

1962 GAZ-M21 (rebuilt to KGB (V8) specifications).

Apart from the Black Sea palace, there are unverified reports Mr Putin is the owner of 19 other houses, 58 aircraft & helicopters and 700 cars (although it’s not clear if that number includes his two Volgas and the Lada).  No verified breakdown of the 700 cars has ever been published but given Mr Putin’s apparent fondness for Volgas, it may be his collection includes the special-variant of the GAZ-M21 Volga, 603 (as the GAZ-M23) of which were produced between 1962-1970 for the exclusive use of the KGB and other Soviet “special services”.  Equipped with the 5.53 litre (337 cubic inch) V8 engine from the big GAZ-13 Chaika (Gull) (1959-1981 and in the Soviet hierarchy, second only to the even bigger ZIL limousines (1936-2012)), the car was said to be a not entirely successful piece of engineering but it was certainly faster than the four-cylinder model on which it was based.  It’s never been clear just what was the top speed because the speedometer was calibrated only to 180 km/h (112 mph) but one intrepid KGB apparatchik claimed to have achieved that and reported the Volga was “still accelerating”.  Known to be nostalgic for the old ways of the KGB, it’s hoped Mr Putin has preserved at least one.

Mr Putin agitprop.

Mr Putin has admitted: "I am the wealthiest man, not just in Europe but in the whole world: I collect emotions. I am wealthy in that the people of Russia have twice entrusted me with the leadership of a great nation such as Russia. I believe that is my greatest wealth."  Quite how rich Mr Putin might be is such a swirl of estimates, rumors, supposition and doubtlessly invention (lies) that it's unlikely anyone except those disinclined to discuss the matter really know and after all, if he's rich as his detractors claim, he probably isn't exactly sure himself.  Given that, his statement seemed intended to clear up any misunderstandings.

Janus

Janus (pronounced jey-nuhs)

(1) In Roman mythology, a god of doorways (and thus also of beginnings), and of the rising and setting of the sun, usually represented as having one head with two bearded faces back to back, looking in opposite directions, historically understood as the past and the future.

(2) When used attributively, to indicate things with two faces or aspects; or made of two different materials; or having a two-way action.

(3) In zoology, a diprosopus (two-headed) animal.

(4) In chemistry, used attributively to indicate an azo dye with a quaternary ammonium group, frequently with the diazo component being safranine.

(5) In astronomy, a moon of the planet Saturn, located just outside the rings.

(6) In figurative use, a “two-faced” person; a hypocrite.

(7) In numismatics, a coin minted with a head on each face.

(8) In architecture, as the jānus doorway, a style of doorway, archway or arcade, the name derived from the Roman deity Iānus being the god of doorways.

Mid-late 1500s: From the Latin Iānus (the ancient Italic deity Janus), to the Romans of Antiquity, the guardian god of portals, doors, and gates; patron of beginnings and endings.  The Latin Iānus (literally “gate, arched passageway”) may be from the primitive Indo-European root ei- (to go), the cognates including the Sanskrit yanah (path) and the Old Church Slavonic jado (to travel).  In depictions, Janus is shown as having two faces, one in front the other in back (an image thought to represent sunrise and sunset reflect his original role as a solar deity although it represents also coming and going in general, young and old or (in recent years) just about anything dichotomous).  The doors of the temple of Janus were traditionally open only during the time of war and closed to mark the end of the conflict, the origins of allusions to the “temple of Janus” being used metaphorically to mean conflict or wartime and the month of January is named after Janus, the link being to “the beginning of the year.  Janus is a noun or proper noun and Janian is an adjective.

A discarded proposal for the depiction of Lord Voldemort (left) in the Harry Potter films had him two-faced and Peter Dutton as imagined in the same vein (right).

One of the proposed models for the character of Lord Voldemort in JK Rowling's series of Harry Potter children's fantasy novels used as Janus-like two-faced head.  It's an urban myth Ms Rowling's inspiration for Lord Voldemort was Peter Dutton (b 1970; leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition in the Australian parliament since 2022) although, should his career in politics end soon (God forbid), he could find a new career in film, bringing Voldemort the evil and sense of menace the character has never quite achieved.  Mr Dutton has never denied being a Freemason.

An eighteenth century carving of Janus in the style of a herm.

A part of the etymological legacy of the Roman Empire, the name Janus appears in several European languages.  In Danish (from the Latin Iānus), it’s a Latinization of the Danish given name Jens.  In Faroese, it’s a male given name which begat (1) Janussson or Janusarson (son of Janus) and (2) Janusdóttir or Janusardóttir (daughter of Janus).  In Estonian it’s a male given name.  In Polish, it’s both a masculine & feminine surname (the feminine surname being indeclinable (a word that is not grammatically inflected).  There is no anglicized form of the Latin name Janus.  Although it was never common and is now regarded by most genealogy authorities as "rare", when used in the English-speaking world the spelling remain "Janus".  Often, when Latin names were adopted in English, even when the spelling was unaltered, there were modifications to suit local phonetics but Janus is pronounced still just as it would have been by a Roman.

Tristar pictures used the janus motif in the promotional material for I Know Who Killed Me (2007).

Dating from the 1580s, was from the Latin ianitor (doorkeeper, porter), from ianua (door, entrance, gate), the construct being ianus (arched passageway, arcade" + tor (the agent suffix).  The meaning “usher in a school” and later “doorkeeper” emerged in the 1620s white the more specific (and in Scotland and North America enduring) sense of “a caretaker of a building, man employed to attend to cleaning and tidiness” seems first to have been documented in 1708 (the now unused feminine forms were janitress (1806) & janitrix (1818).  Why janitor survived in general use in Scotland and North America and not elsewhere in the English-speaking world is a mystery although the influence of US popular culture (film and television) did see something of a late twentieth century revival and in  sub-cultures like 4chan and other places which grew out of the more anarchic bulletin boards of the 1980s & 1990s, a janitor is the (often disparaging) term for a content moderator for a discussion forum.

Augustus Orders the Closing of the Doors of the Temple of Janus (circa 1681), oil on canvas by Louis de Boullogne (1654–1733), Rhode Island School of Design Museum.

Among the more annoying things encountered by those learning English are surely Janus words, those with opposite meanings within themselves.  Examples include:

Hew can mean cutting something down or adhering closely to it.  Sanction may mean “formal approval or permission” or “an official ban, penalty, or deterrent”.  Scan can mean “to look slowly and carefully” or “quickly to glance; a cursory examination”.  Inflammable, which many take to mean “easy to burn” but the treachery of the word lies in the in- prefix which is often used as a negative, with the result that inflammable can be deconstructed as “not flammable”.  Trip can (and usually does) suggest clumsiness but can also imply some nimbleness or lightness of foot, as in the saying “trip the light fantastic”.  Oversight is a particularly egregious example.  To exercise oversight over someone or something is provide careful, watchful supervision yet an oversight is an omission or mistake.  In the ever-shifting newspeak of popular culture, the creation of the janus-word is often deliberate.  Filth can mean “of the finest quality”, wicked can mean “very good” and in the way which might have pleased George Orwell "bad" has become classic newspeak.   “Bad weed” can  mean the drug was either good or bad depending on the sentence structure: “that was bad weed” might well suggest it was of poor quality while “man, that was some bad weed” probably means it was good indeed.  Saying nice now seems rarely to mean what dictionaries say nice has come to mean but can variously describe something appalling or disgusting.

Muppet

Muppet (pronounced mup-it)

(1) A usually derogatory slang term for somebody conspicuously stupid (never capitalised).  Can be used affectionately and references intelligence; distinct from cultural references such as bogan, chav, redneck etc although they can (indeed sometimes should) be used in conjunction.

(2) Any puppet character so named in various TV programmes (always capitalised).

1955: The Muppets were created by puppeteer Jim Henson (1936-1990) who variously would claim the word was (1) a construct of m(arionette) + (p)uppet and (2) it had no specific etymology and was coined because he liked the sound.  The US trademark dates from 1972 with usage claimed from 1971 (and in print from 1970) and the eponymous US network TV programme was broadcast between 1976-1981.  Well-scripted and meta-referential, Muppets aren’t stereotypically stupid; the slang term apparently applied to dopy people because Muppets look stupid.  Use of the slang appears restricted to parts of the English-speaking world though not North America, having currency only in the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.

They are everywhere

Muppet & muppet: Kermit the frog with crooked Hillary Clinton.

The clusters are self-replicating; as one muppet departs, one or more appears and often, muppets reach critical-mass.  Think about it, at one time there must have been only a few muppets; now look how many there are.  Muppets are everywhere, seeming sometimes to populate whole streets or even suburbs.  In workplaces also they tend to cluster and there are corporations in which entire departments appear staffed by muppets.  Although low in productivity, muppet departments are harmonious workplaces and one muppet, witnessing some act of egregious stupidity by another, will playfully chide them, usually with the phrase “you muppet!”  That’s also often heard in shopping centre car-parks when muppets have locked their keys in the car or can’t remember where it’s parked.

Lindsay Lohan with Telly the Muppet, The Letter Z Decides to Quit the Alphabet, Sesame Street (1995).

Wypipology

Wypipology (pronounced wahy-pee-pol-uh-jee)

A (usually darkly) humorous slang term for the (uncredentialed) branch of cultural anthropology in which a “researcher”, usually a person of color, “observes or studies” the behavior of wypipo (white people).

2017: The construct being wypipo (African-American slang for “white people” generally, especially those perceived to be racist, unaware of their own privilege, or engaging in cultural appropriation) based on African-American colloquial pronunciation of the phrase “white people”) + -ology (formed from -o- (as an interconsonantal vowel) +‎ -logy).  The origin in English of the -logy suffix lies with loanwords from the Ancient Greek, usually via Latin and French, where the suffix (-λογία) is an integral part of the word loaned (eg astrology from astrologia) since the sixteenth century.  French picked up -logie from the Latin -logia, from the Ancient Greek -λογία (-logía).  Within Greek, the suffix is an -ία (-ía) abstract from λόγος (lógos) (account, explanation, narrative), and that a verbal noun from λέγω (légō) (I say, speak, converse, tell a story).  In English the suffix became extraordinarily productive, used notably to form names of sciences or disciplines of study, analogous to the names traditionally borrowed from the Latin (eg astrology from astrologia; geology from geologia) and by the late eighteenth century, the practice (despite the disapproval of the pedants) extended to terms with no connection to Greek or Latin such as those building on French or German bases (eg insectology (1766) after the French insectologie; terminology (1801) after the German Terminologie).  Within a few decades of the intrusion of modern languages, combinations emerged using English terms (eg undergroundology (1820); hatology (1837)).  In this evolution, the development may be though similar to the latter-day proliferation of “-isms” (fascism; feminism et al).  The alternative spelling is wipipology, a practitioner in the discipline is thus a wypipologist or wipipologist.

Michael Harriot, world-renowned wypipologist.

Technically, wypipology is a back-formation from wypipologist, the term coined by journalist Michael Harriot (b 1972), formerly a contributor to the Black-focused website theroot.com and still writing for certain mainstream publications such as the Guardian.  Mr Harriot appears first to have used the word on-line in 2017 although there are unattested references to instances of use in 2016; in his self-edited biographical note on the Root website, Mr Harriot describes himself as a “world-renowned wypipologist.”  The core of wypipology lies in creating something of a parody of (what to some extent may itself be a caricature) the manner in which generations of white cultural anthropologists and sociologists used a language of “otherness” to describe Black societies, contrasting the civilized (white) cultures with those of the Blacks which were characterized variously as uncivilized, primitive, backward, savage etc.

Due for publication in January 2023, Michael Harriot says his Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America (HarperCollins, 288 pp, ISBN:0358439167) will be a comprehensive appraisal of American history in which the dominant narrative is directly confronted and corrected to showcase the perspectives and experiences of Black Americans.

The point was not that white sub-cultures weren’t studied or observed; indeed, in the era of massive growth in sociology during the post-war years, many sub-sets of white society, divided across many lines, were the subject of many studies.  However, just as Edward Said (1935-2003) in Orientalism (1978) created a critique of the (Western) field of Oriental Studies in which he deconstructed the distorted cultural representations which he claimed were the product of centuries of Eurocentric prejudice against what lies east and south of Suez, Hariott identified the prevalent white attitude as one of cultural insularity which, combined with a feeling of superiority to non-whites, meant the prevailing attitude could be only inherently racist and oblivious to their multi-layered privileges of whiteness.  One advantage of Hariott’s wypipology was that it was couched in the style of darkly absurdist humor, not something that could be said of Said’s inch-thick polemic and the instances cited by an observant wypipologist might range from the ridiculous to the deadly.  In recent years, theroot has given awards to the white folks thought to have committed the most egregious offences but there were none in 2021, perhaps because Mr Hariott ceased his association.  

Variations on the idea of subverting the constructs of white civilization and their comparison with Black backwardness have often used the language of cultural anthropology and sociology to make the point: 

The fictitious tribe Nacirema ("American" spelled backwards) was first described in a satire of academic anthropology in the June 1956 edition of American Anthropologist and is still used in universities to demonstrate to students the extent to which they are racially pre-conditioned.  In a passage describing seemingly ritualistic practices involving cleaning the mouth, because it's written in a style usually associated with that detailing the practices of pre-modern people, most students when asked, associate it with Black people gathered in a clearing in the jungle.  It's actually a description of 1950s middle-class white Americans brushing their teeth.

Babakiueria (1986) (released on VHS Tape & DVD as Babakiueria (Barbeque Area)) was a satire in which the history of a white invasion of an indigenous nation was reversed.  The events stayed much the same, only the colors were changed.

The 1992 Austrian film Das Fest des Huhnes (The festival of the chicken) was a presentation of the customs and lifestyles of the "native peoples" of Upper Austria, described by a team of Black African anthropologists, using the language and style of white anthropologists.

Wiglomeration

Wiglomeration (pronounced wig-glom-uh-rey-shuhn)

Needlessly or pointlessly complicated, time-consuming legal wrangling (listed by most sources as “always derogatory” but it’s presumed within the profession it’s sometimes an expression of admiration).

1852: The construct was wig + (agg)lomeration.  Wiglomeration is a noun, the noun plural is wiglomerations.  Although some must have been tempted, there seems no evidence anyone has ever created derived forms such as wiglomerative, wiglomerating, wiglomerator etc.

Wig (a head of real or synthetic hair worn on the head (1) to disguise baldness, (2) for cultural or religious reasons, (3) for fashion, (4) by actors better to resemble the character they are portraying or (4) in some legal systems by advocates or judges during court proceedings) was a shortened form of periwig, from the Middle French perruque which was probably borrowed from the western Lombard perrucca & parrucca which are of uncertain origin, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) suggesting there may be some relationship with the Latin pilus (hair) but, noting the phonetic variations, ponder that instead it could be related to parrocchetto (parakeet), the reference being to the bird’s feathers.  Linguistically, the process might have been similar to the phonetic changes of the intervocalic “L” into “R” of Italian parlare and Sicilian parrari.  Among fisherman, a wig was also “an old seal” although that use is now rare.  The meaning “to reprimand” is thought related to the slang term “bigwig” (that dating from the seventeenth century fashion in England of wearing big (and in the era increasingly bigger) wigs in England, a trend which peaked in early in 1700s) because of the association with aristocrats, nobles, lawyers and judges, the size and grandeur of one’s powdered wig a status symbol used to convey a perception of wealth and social standing.  Fashions however change and during the eighteenth century, the use declined and while among a few they lingered into the early 1800s, the French Revolution (1789) really was their death knell just about everywhere except courtrooms.

Interestingly, academic sources inside the construct was wig + (agg)lomeration rather than the more obvious wig + (g)lomeration, this based on an analysis of the unpublished notes of the author who coined the word.  Glomerate (to gather or wind into a spherical form or mass; to collect certain objects) was from the Latin glomeratus, past participle of glomerāre (to wind or add into a ball; to glomerate).  Agglomerate (the act or process of collecting in a mass; a heaping together; the state of being collected in a mass; a mass; cluster) was from the Latin agglomerātus, past participle of agglomerāre, the construct being ad- (to) + -glomerāre, from glomus (a ball; a mass), from globus (genitive glomeris), (a ball of yarn) of uncertain origin.

Wigs galore: Court of Chancery, Lincoln's Inn Hall (1808-1810), a book illustration created by Rudolph Ackermann, WH Pyne, William Combe, Augustus Pugin & Thomas Rowlandson, British Library collection.

Wiglomeration was coined by Charles Dickens (1812–1870) for a bit of a rant by Mr Jarndyce in the serialized novel Bleak House (1852-1853) which told the tale of the fictional probate case Jarndyce vs Jarndyce (spoken as “Jarndyse and Jarndyse” in the conventions of English legal language) which, over the decades it unfolded in the Court of Chancery Court, absorbed in legal fees all of the vast estate which the proceedings were initiated to distribute to the rightful beneficiaries.  The legal establishment at the time of publication criticized the depiction as “an exaggeration” but while it wasn’t typical, nor was it without basis because cases lasting over a decade were known and one famously ended (with the subject estate exhausted in legal costs) only in 1915 after running for 117 years.  Even well into the twentieth century, judicial sluggishness was not unknown: the House of Lords once took almost 19 years to hand down a decision.  In his youth as a court reporter Dickens had witnessed much wiglomeration.

Bleak House Chapter 8 (Covering a Multitude of Sins):

“He must have a profession; he must make some choice for himself. There will be a world more wiglomeration about it, I suppose, but it must be done.”

“More what, guardian?” said I.

“More wiglomeration,” said he. “It’s the only name I know for the thing. He is a ward in Chancery, my dear. Kenge and Carboy will have something to say about it; Master Somebody—a sort of ridiculous sexton, digging graves for the merits of causes in a back room at the end of Quality Court, Chancery Lane—will have something to say about it; counsel will have something to say about it; the Chancellor will have something to say about it; the satellites will have something to say about it; they will all have to be handsomely feed, all round, about it; the whole thing will be vastly ceremonious, wordy, unsatisfactory, and expensive, and I call it, in general, wiglomeration. How mankind ever came to be afflicted with wiglomeration, or for whose sins these young people ever fell into a pit of it, I don’t know; so it is.”

Lindsay Lohan in blonde bob wig, appearing on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, New York, November 2012.

The word does not of necessity imply complex or intricate legal reasoning or argument although that can be part of things.  In the jargon, the trick to successful wiglomeration is to use the court’s processes to prolong proceedings (barristers are usually paid for each day’s appearance), either by causing delays or requiring the other side to respond to matters raised which may be so arcane as to be irrelevant, even if that’s not immediately obvious.  Obviously, the more time consuming (and thus more lucrative) these maneuvers prove the better and even if cases don’t literally become interminable, to some they must seem so.  There is also the possibility wiglomeration can fulfill a strategic purpose: if one party has access to effectively unlimited legal resources (ie money) while the other party is financially constrained, sufficient wiglomeration (which manifest as another day’s fees to be paid) can compel the poorer party either to end proceedings or settle on terms less favorable than might have been achieved had the case been brought to judgment.  The most egregious examples of the practice can be classified as an “abuse of process” but judges are sometimes reluctant to intervene because (1) the tactics being used are usually technically correct and (2) it might be seen as denying a party their rights.  The problem is the system but a wholly equitable solution is not immediately obvious.

Central criminal court Old Bailey 1840.

The tradition of barristers wearing wigs in English courts began in the seventeenth century when powdered wigs were a fashionable upper class accessory.  Culturally, lawyers tend to identify upwards so the adoption would not have been seen as “aping their betters” but just a natural alignment of style.  The courtroom style persisted even after wigs had elsewhere fallen from fashion and are still worn in many jurisdictions with traditions inherited from England.  The rationale offered is (1) the wig & gown have by virtue of long use become a symbol of formality and professionalism which lends dignity to proceedings and (2) the garb helps create a sense of anonymity and impartiality, presenting the officers of the court as representatives of the law rather than individuals with personal biases or prejudices, once a matter of some significance at a time when, for historic and structural reasons, there were perceptions of a lack of impartiality in the legal system.  They’re now not always a feature of proceedings but in most systems where they’ve been retained, barristers seem still to want to cling to the tradition although in recent years there’s been a tendency for judges to avoid them where possible and some more recently convened courts have reserved them only for ceremonial occasions and the odd photo opportunity.  Some courts (notably the UK’s recently established Supreme Court has made it possible for cases to be conducted without anybody be-wigged or gowned although, in a sign of the times, vegan wigs are now available as an alternative to the traditional horsehair.

The opinion the younger Dickens formed of the ways of lawyers has been shared by many.  Adolf Hitler’s (1889-1945; German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) movement in its early days had much need of the services of lawyers and their efforts saved many Nazis from the consequences of their actions but Hitler showed little gratitude to the profession, declaring more than once “I will not give up until every German realizes that it is shameful to be a lawyer.”  Hitler’s own lawyer was Hans Frank (1900–1946) who in 1939 was appointed Governor General of occupied Poland where his rule was corrupt and brutal by even the Nazi's standards of awfulness and few have ever doubted he deserved the death sentence handed down by the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg (1945-1946).  Even in 1946 Frank was still describing Hitler as “…that great man” and regretted his one “…conspicuous failing…” was his mistrust of both the law and lawyers.  What Frank wanted was an authoritarian state but one under the rule of law; he was appalled not by the mass murder which would come to be called genocide but by it not being authorized by a duly appointed judge.  In Nuremberg he claimed to have undergone a number of religious experiences and was received into the Roman Catholic Church, apparently anxious either to atone for his sins or avoid an eternity of torture in Hell.  Of his death sentence he remarked “I deserved it and I expected it.” and of Hitler’s “thousand year Reich” he observed “…a thousand years will pass and still this guilt of Germany will not have been erased.”

There’s a popular view William Shakespeare (1564–1616) shared the general disapprobation of the profession because one of his most quoted phrases is “The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers.”  However, the context is rarely discussed and quite what the bard was intending to convey is open to interpretation.  The words were given to a character Dick the Butcher and spoken in Act IV, Scene II of Henry VI, Part II (1596-1599).

JACK CADE: I am able to endure much.

DICK [aside]: No question of that; for I have seen him whipp’d three market-days together.

JACK CADE: I fear neither sword nor fire.

SMITH [aside]: He need not fear the sword; for his coat is of proof.

DICK [aside]: But methinks he should stand in fear of fire, being burnt i’ th’ hand for stealing of sheep.

JACK CADE: Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven half-penny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hoop’d pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king,– as king I will be,–

ALL. God save your majesty!

JACK CADE: I thank you, good people:– there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

DICK: The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.

Dick is a villain and the henchman of Jack Cade, who is leading a rebellion against King Henry and their view is that if they kill all who can read and write and burn all books then they’ll find a population easier to rule.  Knowing that, the more generous interpretation is that civilization depends for its fairness and tranquillity on the protection afforded by law and administered by lawyers, Shakespeare representing the rule of law as society’s most fundamental defense against those hungry for power at any price.  Lawyers of course support this version of Shakespeare’s intent, Justice John Paul Stevens (1920–2019; associate justice of the US Supreme Court 1975-2010) even discussing it in a dissenting opinion (Professional Real Estate Investors Inc vs Columbia Pictures Industries Inc (1993)) when he noted “As a careful reading of that text will reveal, Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.”  However, as many a neo-Marxist would point out “He would say that, wouldn’t he.”  If one’s world view is a construct in which the law and lawyers are agents acting in the interests only of the ruling class (the 1% in the popular imagination), then Dick the Butcher and Cade the labourer in seeking to overthrow an unfair, oppressive system are victims whose only hope of escaping their roles as slaves of the nobility is to revolt, a part of which will be the killing of the lawyers because, as the profession offers their skills only to those who can pay, those with no money have no choice.