Especial

Especial (pronounced ih-spesh-uhl)

(1) Special; exceptional; outstanding.

(2) Of a particular kind, or peculiar to a particular one; particular.

1350-1375: From the Middle English especial, from the Old and Middle French especial (pre-eminent, important) from the Latin speciālis (pertaining to a particular kind or species) from species (appearance, form, beauty), from specere (to look).  In French, the forms differed: Latin words with initial sp-, st- and sc- usually acquired an e- when borrowed by Old French whereas Modern French has restored the word to spécial.  The adverb especially emerged in the late fourteenth century, shortly after the adjective.  Especial is an adjective and (in commerce with an initial capital) a proper noun, the rare especialness is a noun and especially is an adverb; the proper noun plural is Especials.

Meanings of special and especial are essentially the same yet usage differs.  Special is common, especial rare, specially is rare, especially common.  Most dictionaries however maintain especial and especially should have a more limited use than special and specially.  Special is always used in preference to especial when the sense is one of being out of the ordinary.  Special is also used when something is referred to as being for a particular purpose.  Where an idea of pre-eminence or individuality is involved, either especial or special may be used,  In informal English however, special is usually preferred in all contexts but especially tends to prevail, probably because it’s a sound which more easily rolls of the tongue.  Special is by far more common than especial; the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) claims special is used some six-hundred times for every time especial is used.  It’s more economical too for unlike especial, special does not demand to be followed by a noun.  However, all of this applies to English and in Spanish the adjective especial is common.  To purists, use of especial should be rare and use confined to particular contexts where it collocates with particular nouns and especially where it avoids conflicts with other specific meanings: An especial interest or an especial value meaning something different than a special interest or special value.  In A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), Henry Fowler (1858–1933) observed the characteristic sense of especial & especially was "pre-eminence of the particular as opposed to the ordinary" whereas special & specially were used to convey the idea of the "particular as opposed to the general".  However, he proceeded to acknowledge modern practice which tended to use such special for all such purposes, leaving it for the recipient to pick up the meaning from the context, something he seemed to concede was "possible" if not "preferable" and he noted the continuing popularity of especially, lamenting only that it appeared to encourage tautology, constructions like "more especially" condemned.      

Special relativity: Being especially special

Holden, the General Motors (GM) Australian subsidiary, for over a decade had it pretty easy, enjoying a fifty-percent market share despite by the early 1960s its products being, whatever their other virtues, outdated and underpowered.  GM would later respond but in the short-term, resorted to a bit of tarting-up.  Holden had for ten years used the Special designation for their up-market offering but in 1962 added a new top of the range model called the Premier, meaning the Special was no longer so special.  Despite this, the name endured another six years before becoming the Kingswood which was no more special, the new name meaning nothing in particular.  Confusing things still further, for most of the years it existed, the Special was actually the best-selling Holden, the other models, the Standard and the shorter-lived Business, enjoyed lower sales so in that sense, the Special was the standard model rather than the Standard.

So, by 1968, GM had in Australia ceased to call anything Special though much of their advertising continued to suggest everything they sold was special in some way.  In the US, GM's use of the Special badge started sooner and lasted longer, Buick using it first in 1936, curiously for their lowest-priced model, a placement similar to that seen sometimes in education where it was applied to classes or schools for those with learning difficulties (although that use has ceased, falling foul of the linguistic treadmill).  Buick of course no more wanted their customers to make a connection with "special education" any more than with Albert Einstein's (1879-1955) theory of special relativity which explains how space and time are linked for objects moving at a consistent speed in a straight line.  Buick's interest in relativity was probably limited to that between the models in its line-up and Special really meant nothing other than being a word thought to have generally positive associations.  Additionally, Buick buyers didn’t like change then any more than now.

The 1969 Buick GS Sport Wagon was much more special than that year’s rather mundane Special Deluxe.  Like the similar model from Oldsmobile, the Sport Wagon was notable for the roof-mounted skylights.

After a brief hiatus, the Buick Special returned in 1938, its run in cars of various sizes almost uninterrupted until 1970.  In 1968 however, Buick must have had a moment of doubt that the Special may no longer be special enough and the range was renamed Special Deluxe, a change that lasted but two years.  In the 1970s and 1990s, there would be two half-decade long revivals but in 1996, the Special finally went extinct, not even Buick's entry into the Chinese market enough to encourage a revival.

1966 Ferrari 365 P Berlinetta Speciale.  Probably everything sounds better in Italian than English.  To the ears of English-speakers, a reading in Italian from a lawn-mower repair-manual sounds like the words of a lyric poet.

The Ferrari 365 P Berlinetta Speciale was a design by Pininfarina shown in 1966 and was both a test bed for a racing project and an exploration of the possibility of a mid-engined V12 road car, the styling taking cues from the designer’s smaller Dino 206 Berlinetta Speciale, built in 1965.  Reflecting the origin of its race-car chassis, the 365 Speciale was configured with three-abreast seating and a central driving position, a layout seat McLaren would later adopt for their F1 (1992-1998).  In a nod to the seating, the car is sometimes referred to as the 365 Berlinetta Tre-posti (three seater).  Ferrari still use speciale as a name.

1965 Dino 206 Berlinetta Speciale.

The Dino Speciale would influence the later Dino 206 & 246 road cars, produced by Ferrari between 1967-1974.  The relationship with the 365 is obvious but, being scaled up to accommodate the big V12, the lines aren’t as harmonious as the dainty V6 Dino, reflecting the difficulties stylists had applying the layout when using bulky engines.  Still, the 365 P Speciale provided the factory with valuable experience in the then novel concept and traces of the shape are evident in what did in 1971 emerge as the 365 GT/4 Berlinetta Boxer, the prototype which would become Ferrari’s first mid-engined twelve-cylinder car to reach production.  The Boxer's svelte shape was however made possible by flattening the vee to 180^o, something which proved a more satisfactory solution to the problem than the transverse location of the 60^o V12 Lamborghini used in 1966 for the Miura.  Achingly beautiful though the Miura was, its behaviour at speed could be tricky, exactly the reason Ferrari chose not to make the Stradale.       

1965 Ferrari 250 LM Stradale.

The 365 Speciale was actually the second mid-engined V12 road car Ferrari built; in 1965, the 250 LM Stradale (road) had been displayed at the Geneva Motor Show.  Based on the Le Mans winning 250 LM, it was a prototype for what was planned to be a small batch of road cars but Enzo Ferrari (1898-1988), then anyway dubious about the very idea of mid-engined V12s with all-independent suspension falling into the hands of amateurs, vetoed the project, the Stradale still just too much a racing car to let the unskilled rich unleash one on the streets.

Mean Girls Special Collector's Edition (2004) on DVD, Paramount Pictures (part number D341604D).

There’s no defined standard for what is included in “special” editions of commercially released films but unlike “director’s cut” versions which to some extent change the actual content of the original releases (cinema, optical, TV or streaming), “special editions” tend to be the original plus a bundle of “extras”.  Assembled usually as “featurettes”, typically, the additional content will consist of interviews with the cast, director or writers, out-takes, bloopers, deleted scenes, advertising and other promotional material and sometimes commentaries from critics or commentators with expertise in some issue of interest.  For nerds, there’s sometimes even content about technical aspects of production, an addition most often seen with product made with much use of special effects but discussions about matters such as fashion or history might also appear.

The Mean Girls Special Collector's Edition included (1) discussions about casting, (2) an interview with Rosalind Wiseman (b 1969), author of Queen Bees and Wannabes (2002) on which the Mean Girls screenplay was based, (3) commentary by the writers and producers, (4) “Word Vomit” (the Blooper Reel), (5) deleted scenes with commentary, (6) “Plastic Fashion” (a discussion about costume design and the use of clothing as a metaphor for character development), (7) interstitials (advertising material created with original material not used in the final cut) and (8) promotional trailers for other Paramount films.

Pontiff

Pontiff (pronounced pon-tif)

(1) In historic pagan use, any pontifex, high or chief priest.

(2) In historic ecclesiastical use, a bishop.

(3) In modern use, the Roman Catholic Pope, the Bishop of Rome.

1600–1610: From the Middle French pontife, from the Latin pontifex.  The form "pontiff" which emerged in the early 1600s preserved the earlier (pagan) meaning "high priest", from the French pontif, also ultimately from the Latin pontifex (a title used by a Roman high priest).  It was used to refer to the office of bishop in Church Latin but appears not to have been recorded in that sense in English until the 1670s and then, only specifically to "the Bishop of Rome" (ie the Roman Catholic Pope), the Roman Catholic Pope. Pontifical was however used in that sense from the mid fifteenth century but it's now exclusively an alternative name for a pope.  Not any pope however; it’s never used with reference to the Coptic Pope.  The Latin pontifex meant literally “bridge builder”, the construct being pōns (bridge) +‎ fex (suffix representing a maker or producer).  It was used as a title for some of the more senior pagan priests of Ancient Rome, the consensus being it was adopted as a metaphorical device to suggest “one who negotiates between gods and men” although at least one scholar of antiquity suggested the relationship was close to literal in that the social class which supplied the priests was more or less identical with engineers responsible for building bridges.  That may seem more a sociological than theological point but for structural functionalists and other realists, such distinctions seem a bit naff.

Pontifical promotion: Lindsay Lohan in 2019 flirted with an eternity in Hell by purloining a picture of Pope Francis to promote her song Xanax.  The image was taken in 2013, during a visit to the National Shrine of Our Lady Aparecida in Brazil while he was conducting communion.  Captioned “Blessed be the Fruit”, the meme has a digitally altered image of Francis holding up a copy of her debut album Speak (2005) and in the language of the MBAs would probably be classified as a kind of “ambush marketing”.  The prospect of damnation must have been considered but when one has a dropped tune to promote, risks must be taken.

Theodosius I (347–395) was the last Roman Emperor (379-395) to rule both the eastern and western "halves" of the Roman Empire.  Once, on his travels he fell so ill that death seemed inevitable but, upon being baptised, he staged an astonishing recovery and reached Constantinople a devout Christian.  Immediately he set about removing the last vestiges of paganism from the Empire.  It wasn’t the first imperial intervention against paganism.  Earlier, the Emperor Gratian (359–383) had refused the traditional title Pontifex Maximus (chief priest of the state religion) because his bishop thought it unworthy for a Christian emperor to accept a pagan honour, even though it had been worn by emperors since Constantine (circa 272–337).  However, although the Church may have disapproved of pagan baubles for others, by 590, Pope Gregory I (circa 540–604) decided it was fine for him and granted it to himself, explaining a pope was the “…chief priest of Christianity” and that Constantine had claimed to be the “bishop of bishops”, a role long since assumed by popes.  It’s from here the word pontiff evolved into its modern form.

Pope Pius VIII (1761-1830) being carried in Saint Peter's on the Sedia Gestatoria (circa 1825), wearing the papal triple tiara (triple crown) by Emile Jean Horace Vernet (1789-1863).

The sedia gestatoria (gestatorial chair, literally translated from the Italian as "chair for carrying") was the ceremonial throne on which the Pope, pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, was carried on shoulders of courtiers.  An enlarged and elaborate version of the sedan chair, it was constructed with a silk-covered armchair attached to a suppedaneum, on each side of which were two gilded rings; through these passed the long rods with which twelve palafrenieri (footmen) carried the chair on their shoulders.  With origins in antiquity, the sedia gestatoria was for almost a millennium used to convey popes during the grandest of ceremonial occasions in the Basilica of St John Lateran & St Peter's Basilica and, beyond the Holy See, somewhat less grand sedia gestatoria were used by cardinals and others, given sometimes with the blessing of the pope as an expression of especial favor.  Used also by Byzantine emperors, the concept and much of the design was borrowed from the sedias of the Roman Empire although there, use was a little less exclusive, high officials as well as emperors enjoying the distinction and some fun was made of rich individuals (who held no public office) arranging their own.

Pope Benedict XVI in Popemobile passing 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (the White House), Washington DC, April 2008.  This Popemobile was based on a Mercedes-Benz ML 430 (W163), powered by a 4.3 litre (260 cubic inch) V8 (M113).

For their public appearances, popes have been driven a variety of vehicles ranging from a Leyland truck to a Ferrari Mondial Cabriolet (1982-1993), the latter believed to be the fastest of the Popemobiles.  Although most associated with the need to provide protection against assassination, the Popemobiles replaced the sedia gestatoria because, although trips such as Benedict's to White House would have been possible with the traditional chair carried by a dozen, attractive young palafrenieri, it would have been time-consuming.  Pope John Paul I (1912–1978; pope August-September 1978) was the last to use the sedia gestatoria and even he had resisted, preferring to walk, acceding only because without the elevated platform, his visibility to the crowd and the television cameras would be so limited.  Pope John Paul II (1920–2005; pope 1978-2005), the first non-Italian pontiff in over four-hundred years, vetoed the idea of being carried on shoulders and alternatives were created, evolving into the increasingly armored Popemobiles.  The sedia gestatoria thus joined the papal tiara (triple crown) on the shelf of the retired symbols of the church of a grander age.

The Triple Tiara

Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent (circa 1545), woodcut by an unknown Venetian artist.  Historians suspect the depiction of the splendid jewel-studded helmet was substantially accurate but the object may simply have been too heavy safely to wear for all but static, set-piece events, the risk of injury to the neck too great.

The papal triple tiara is a crown which has been worn by popes of the Roman Catholic Church since the eighth century.  Traditionally it was worn for their coronation but no pontiff has been so crowned since Saint Paul VI (1897-1978; pope 1963-1978) in 1963 and he abandoned its use after the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II, 1962-1965).  The name tiara refers to the entire headgear and it has used a three-tiered form since a third crown was added during the Avignon Papacy (1309–1378).  It's also referred to as the triregnum, triregno or Triple Crown.  In a piece of one- (or perhaps four-) upmanship, Suleiman I (Süleyman the Magnificent, 1494-1566, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire 1520-1566) commissioned from Venice a four tier helmet to show, in addition to the authority claimed by popes, he could add the symbol of his imperial power.  Often put on display as the centrepiece of Ottoman regalia to impress visitors, there's no documentary evidence the sultan ever wore the four layer tiara, crowns not part of the tradition and, fashioned from gold and gemstones, it would anyway have been extraordinarily heavy.

A representation of the triregnum combined with two crossed keys of Saint Peter continues to be used as a symbol of the papacy and appears on papal documents, buildings and insignia.  Remarkably, there’s no certainty about what the three crowns symbolize.  Some modern historians link it to the threefold authority of the pope, (1) universal pastor, (2) universal ecclesiastical jurisdiction and (3) temporal power.  Others, including many biblical scholars, interpret the three tiers as meaning (1) father of princes and kings, (2) ruler of the world and (3) vicar of Christ on Earth, a theory lent credence by the words once used when popes were crowned:  Accipe tiaram tribus coronis ornatam, et scias te esse patrem principum et regum, rectorem orbis in terra vicarium Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi, cui est honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum (Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art father of princes and kings, ruler of the world, vicar on earth of our Savior Jesus Christ, to whom is honor and glory for ever and ever).

Documents in the Vatican Archive suggest by 1130 the papal tiara had been modified to become a conventional (and temporal) symbol of sovereignty over the Papal States.  In 1301 during a dispute with Philip IV (Philip the Fair, 1268–1314, King of France 1285-1314), Pope Boniface VIII (circa 1230–1303; pope 1294-1303) added a second layer to represent a pope’s spiritual authority being superior to an earthly king’s civil domain.  It was Benedict XII (1285–1342; pope 1334-1342 (as the third Avignon pope)) who in 1342 who added the third, said to symbolize the pope’s moral authority over all civil monarchs, and to reaffirm Avignon’s possession.  A changing world and the loss of the Papal States deprived the triple crown of temporal meaning but the silver tiara with the three golden crowns remained to represent the three powers of the Supreme Pontiff: Sacred Order, Jurisdiction and Magisterium.

Pope Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958) in the papal triple tiara, at his coronation, 1939.

Not since 1963 has a pope worn the triple crown.  Then, the newly-elected Pope Saint Paul VI, at the end of his coronation, took the tiara from his head and, in what was said to be a display of humility, placed it on the altar.  In a practical expression of that humility, the tiara was auctioned; the money raised used for missionary work in Africa although, keeping things in house, the winning bidder was the Archdiocese of New York.  Popes Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) and Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) received tiaras as gifts but neither wore them.  Benedict’s, in a nice ecumenical touch, was made by Bulgarian craftsmen from the Orthodox Church in Sofia, a gesture in the name of Christian unity.  Benedict would have appreciated that, having always kept a candle burning in the window to tempt home the wandering daughter who ran off to Constantinople.

Lindsay Lohan, the wandering daughter who ran off to Dubai in Lynn Kiracofe tiara, W Magazine photo- shoot, April 2005.

Pardon

Pardon (pronounced pahr-dn)

(1) A kind indulgence, as in forgiveness of an offense or discourtesy or in tolerance of a distraction or inconvenience.

(2) In law, release from the penalty of an offense; a remission of penalty, as by a governor, monarch or viceroy.

(3) Forgiveness of a serious offense or offender.

(4) In Roman Catholic canon law, a technical term for a papal indulgence (obsolete).

(5) To make a courteous allowance for or to excuse.

(6) When used with rising inflection, as an elliptical form, as when asking a speaker to repeat something not clearly heard or understood (non-U).

1250-1300: From the Middle English pardonen or pardoun (papal indulgence, forgiveness of sins or wrongdoing), from Old French pardon from pardoner (to grant; to forgive; remission, indulgence (which entered Modern French in the eleventh century as pardonner), from the Medieval Latin perdonum, from the Vulgar Latin perdōnāre (to remit, overlook (literally “to forgive”)), the construct being per- (for; through, thoroughly) + dōnāre (to give, donate) which emerged in Medieval Latin, though a translation from a Germanic source possibly a calque (if not vice-versa) of a Germanic word represented by the Frankish firgeban (to forgive, give up completely) which was akin to the Old High German fargeban & firgeban (to forgive) and the Old English forġiefan (to forgive).  The Latin per was from the primitive Indo-European root per- (forward (hence “through”)) and donare was from donum (gift), from the primitive Indo-European root donum (gift), from the root do- (to give).  The verb pardon was from pardounen, (to forgive for offense or sin).  The noun pardoner (a man licensed to sell papal pardons or indulgences) was a late fourteenth century form (it was noted earlier in the 1300s as a surname), the agent noun from the verb.  The adjective pardonable (forgivable, capable of being pardoned) was a mid-fifteenth century form from the twelfth century Old French pardonable, from pardoner.  Some sources insist pardonable was a back-formation from pardonable which is interesting.  The meaning “a passing over of an offense without punishment” was first noted around the turn of the fourteenth century (also in the strictly ecclesiastical sense) while as a “pardon for a civil or criminal offense; release from penalty or obligation”, use emerged in the late 1300s (mirroring the earlier Anglo-French).  The use in polite society to “request one be excused for some minor fault” was in use by at least the 1540s.

Pardon is one of those “cross-over words”, migrating from the technical use (an act by an official or a superior, remitting all or the remainder of the punishment that belongs to an offense (eg a sovereign or governor pardoning a convict before expiration of the sentence)) to become a synonym for “forgive” in the sense of feelings or social mores.  By convention, asking for another’s pardon re-establishes amicable relations between transgressor and the offended.  In idiomatic use, dating from the mid seventeenth century, the phrase “I beg your pardon” (the variations including “beg pardon”, “begging your pardon”, “pardon me” etc) is used (1) to apologise for something (typically a social faux pas), (2) to request clarification of something said if it is unexpected, odd or seen as rude without context and (3) to request something be repeated.  In the last case, Nancy Mitford (1904–1973) in Noblesse Oblige: An Enquiry Into the Identifiable Characteristics of the English Aristocracy (1956) insisted “pardon” was a non-U (lower & middle class) word and the “U” (upper class) form was “what?”.  The phrase “pardon my French” was an exclamation of apology for obscene language, noted since the late nineteenth century.  Pardon is a noun, verb & interjection, pardoning is a verb & noun, pardoned is a verb & adjective, pardonableness & pardoner are nouns, pardonable & pardonless are adjectives and pardonably is an adverb; the noun plural is pardons.

Pardons from the president: Without check or balance

Article Two of the United States Constitution describes the office of the President.  One of the powers granted is that he or she may grant reprieves and pardons except regarding congressional impeachment of himself or other federal officers.  A president cannot issue a pardon for future actions; he can't pardon someone in advance for something someone does next week.  The pardon power is reserved for past actions and the president can pardon an individual even if he or she has not yet been convicted or even charged.

An executive pardon can be invoked to help victims of injustice.

It's an interesting power and the only one in the US constitution not subject to "checks and balances", an inheritance of one of the entitlements enjoyed by absolute and later monarchs.  The power, in the form exercised by a US president, doesn't exist in the UK or elsewhere in the Commonwealth where, when a pardon is granted, it’s a decision of the executive (the prime-minister (or premier) & cabinet) which is done in the name of the sovereign or their representative; in other words, by the state.  It’s different from vesting the power as a personal prerogative of an individual; US presidents have granted pardons which would have no chance of success were they subject to confirmation by the Senate.

The most interesting recent speculation about the presidential pardon is whether as president can pardon themselves.  This was something Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) probably pondered with especial interest during the diggings of special counsel Robert Mueller's (b 1944; Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2001-2013) into certain matters relating to the 2016 presidential election.  Mr Trump did tweet suggesting he could pardon himself even though there's no precedent, no president has ever done so (though at least one was surely tempted) and all that is certain is that the chief magistrate has the power to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."  That means he couldn't have pardoned himself from impeachment, nor anyone facing charges under state laws, and when asked, most constitutional law experts suggested he couldn't have pardoned himself for anything else either.  However, even if a presidential self-pardon were to be held to be constitutional, politically, it would be a challenge to manage so an extra-constitutional check on the power is political; the court of public opinion as it were.

When there was mush speculation about a possible prosecution of Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) for matters associated with the Watergate scandal, the Justice Department did issue an opinion saying a president could not pardon himself because, under long-established legal principle, no person can be the judge in their own case.  So, the legal status of a self-pardon has never been tested because, at the federal level, it’s never been done and nothing is definitive until ruled upon by the US Supreme Court.  There are records of state governors self-pardoning but one instance appears to have been technical, one a clerical error and one so murky it not clear what happened.  The state of US politics is now both so poisonous and so fluid that a second term for Mr Trump is no longer unthinkable if the Democrat Party insists on nominating Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) it become more likely still.  Mr Biden may or may not be senile but he certainly seems senile.  In his first term, Mr Trump proved remarkably uninterested in pursuing any of the vendettas he'd mentioned during the 2016 campaign; when asked if he would be pursuing the threatened legal action against the Clintons, he brushed off the question with a quick "...they're good people" and moved on.  In a second term, given the events of the last few years, he may not be so indulgent towards those who have slighted or pursued him so there's the intriguing prospect of an elected president attempting to pardon himself so he can move into the Oval Office and begin his revenge.  Interestingly, constitutional experts have all said that even if a self-pardon is declared unconstitutional, there is nothing to prevent a convicted felon being elected president from his jail cell, a place which would certainly focus one's mind on revenge.           

Pardons from God (via the pope)

In late medieval Christianity, the noun pardonmonger was a derogatory term directed at those who sold papal indulgences; the noun plural pardonmongers should also be noted because there were a lot of them about.  The indulgences had become big business in the medieval church and their abuse was one of the emblematic issues which triggered the Protestant Reformation.  The system worked by permitting a (sinful) individual to purchase from the church an indulgence which would reduce the length and severity of punishment that heaven would require as payment for their transgressions.  Indulgences were in a sense transferable because one could buy one for another and according to legend, those on their death bed would implore relations to buy them one so they would avoid an eternal damnation in Hell.

Historically, the indulgence system was able to evolve because the doctrine of the medieval western Christian church (the Eastern Orthodox would follow a different path) was: (1) Folk knew that after they died they were going to be punished for the sins they accumulated in life, something ameliorated only partially by good works (pilgrimage, prayers, charitable work etc) and earthly absolution; the more sin, the greater the punishment and (2) There was the concept of purgatory, a product of the theological imagination which meant that rather than being damned to hell, the sinful soul would be sent to purgatory where they would endure whatever punishment deemed appropriate, the suffering continuing until the stain was washed from them and they could be set free.  This was obviously not an attractive prospect and seeing a way to cement in society the world-view that church, God & sin were central, popes granted bishops the authority to reduce punishments while they were still alive.  It proved a highly useful tool in making unshakable the worldview in which the church, God and sin were central.

Quite when papal indulgences were first introduced isn’t known but the system was formalized by Pope Urban II (circa 1035–1099; pope 1088-1099) during the Council of Clermont in 1095.  The protocols reflected the diligent order which characterized church bureaucracy: Were one to perform sufficient good deeds to earn a full (Plenary) indulgence from the pope or a bishop, all sins would be expunged (and thus no punishment).  Partial indulgences would erase fewer evil deeds and an intricate system of layers came to be used; essentially an algorithm with which a cleric could calculate (to the day!) how much sin a person had wiped from their record.  Indulgences rapidly developed into a significant structural aspect of church administration and during the Crusades (Urban II’s other great contribution to history), many participated on the basis that in exchange for fighting to regain the Holy Land, they would be granted an indulgence, cancelling all sin.

This system of reducing sin and punishment worked well and having people perform good deeds (whatever the motivation) presumably made for a more harmonious society.  However, in something with a modern echo, rich people began to wonder why, instead of the time consuming, boring or sometimes distasteful business of actually doing good deeds, might it not be easier just to purchase an indulgence, the church thereby able to use the funds for good deeds.  The early example of outsourcing began in the thirteenth century and proved so popular (and profitable) for both governments and the church that it became an important revenue source, the catchment soon extended to allow the rich to buy indulgences for their ancestors, relatives, and friends already dead. 

The nature of this business soon became scandalous, notably during the reign of the Medici Pope Leo X (1475–1521; pope 1513-1521) and indulgences were among the issues the monk Martin Luther (1483–1546) listed in his 95 Theses (1517), a j’accuse directed at what he believed to be an institutionalized corruption and in saying that, Luther had a point, the pope having commissioned a Dominican friar to sell indulgences for the sole purpose of the construction of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.  Luther’s attack led to fragmentation within the church, many new sects abandoning the idea of indulgences and while the papacy banned the sale of indulgences in 1567, they didn’t entirely vanish and this wasn’t enough to prevent the subsequent schism within Western Christianity.  So, in the modern Roman Catholic Church, indulgences still exist but they no longer work in the medieval way when they could be something like a presidential pardon.  According to the Vatican: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints”.  The salient points of the system are:

(1) A person cannot buy their way out of hell with indulgences.  Because indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell, no amount of indulgences will ever change that and the only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive; after death, one’s eternal fate is set.

(2) One cannot buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.  Historically, the church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed although it’s clear some were sold on that basis prior to the Protestant Reformation.  The position now is that: “An indulgence is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power.”  Theologically that may sound dubious because presumably God could grant exactly that but, as any pope will tell you, God never would.

(3) An indulgence does not “buy forgiveness” because, by definition, the issue of an indulgence presupposes forgiveness has already taken place: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven.”  Indulgences therefore do not forgive sins and deal only with the punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

(4) It is not true an indulgence will shorten one’s time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.  While it’s true that prior to the Reformation such calculations did appear in documents, the church maintains these were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth and the Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less any specific.

(5) Indulgences may not be purchased.  The Council of Trent (1545-1563) instituted many reforms in the practice of granting indulgences and, because of prior abuses, “...in 1567 Pope Pius V (1504–1572; pope 1566-1572) cancelled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.”  To this day the Roman Catholic Church maintains indulgences were “never sold”, an interpretation of history still used by politicians and political parties when explain why donations (sometimes in the millions) are really “not buying anything”.

Urning & Urningin

Urning & Urningin (pronounced ern-ing & ern-ings)

A male homosexual person (obsolete, and when used should be in the historic context of the original meaning, a technically differentiated sense of homosexuals as a “third sex” rather than a variation of the spectrum within the (then) existing two).  The equivalent feminine form was urningin.

1864: From the German Urning (a male homosexual constructed as a third sex (Uranian), the related form being Urnigtum (homosexuality), referring Aphrodite (Ūrania), coined by the German writer Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825–1895) in 1864.  By the early twentieth century, except among some writers in German, the word in this sense had largely been supplanted by homosexual.  The link to Aphrodite lies in Plato’s Symposium (circa 385–370 BC), where the goddess Aphrodite, in her heavenly aspect (Ūrania), is described as inspiring a noble form of affection between older and younger men.  In Greek and Roman mythology, what’s described as “the heavenly aspect of Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of beauty and love, Ūrania (and her Roman counterpart Venus) is contrasted with the earthly aspect known as Aphrodite.  Ūrania is also the muse of astronomy.

Originally used by astrologers and astronomers, uranian is now rare, used only poetically.  It was from the Latin Ūrania (the muse of astronomy in Greek mythology) +‎ -an (the suffix forming agent nouns).  Ūrania was from the Ancient Greek Οὐρᾰνῐ́ᾱ (Ouraníā) (muse of astronomy), from οὐράνιος (ouránios) (of or relating to the sky, celestial, heavenly) (from οὐρανός (ouranós) (the sky; heaven, home of the gods; the universe) and probably ultimately from the primitive Indo-European hwers- (rain) + -ιος (-ios), the suffix forming adjectives meaning (pertaining to).  Uranical is equally rare.

When writing now of homosexuality, uranism should be described as a particular historical construct.  The suggestion in 1864 was that the Urning (male) and the Urningin (female) homosexuals should be regarded as a third sex, not on any spectrum within the then-accepted binary division of gender.  Despite that, it was an interesting anticipation of the later notion(s) of gender fluidity in that it it encompassed the idea of something feminine inherently within the male body and vice versa.

Psychopathia Sexualis

In English, urning seems to have become widely discussed in the medical profession after it appeared to be in Charles Chaddock's 1892 translation of the impressively titled Psychopathia Sexualis: eine Klinisch-Forensische Studie (Sexual Psychopathy: A Clinical-Forensic Study, also known as Psychopathia Sexualis, with Especial Reference to the Antipathetic Sexual Instinct: A Medico-forensic Study), published in 1886, a book by an Austro-German psychiatrist with a name of similarly imposing length, Richard Fridolin Joseph Freiherr Krafft von Festenberg auf Frohnberg, genannt von Ebing (1840–1902), work and author respectively cited usually as the more manageable Psychopathia Sexualis by Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing.

In his translation, US neurologist Charles Chaddock (1861–1936) set a couple of landmarks in English, one being apparently the first instance in print of the word “bisexual” being used in the sense of humans being sexually attracted to both women and men.  Prior to that "bisexual" was used either to refer to hermaphroditic plants (ie those with both male and female reproductive structures), or to mixed-sex schools (ie co-ed(ucational)) or other institutions, an instance of how meaning-shifts in language can make difficult the reading of historic texts.

Psychopathia Sexualis wasn’t the first publication to explore the topic but the scale and breadth of approach to sexual pathology makes it one of the seminal works in the field.  Although covering a wide range of paraphilias, it was notable for a then quite novel focus on male homosexuality (hence the "antipathetic instinct" in the subtitle).and introduced the newly coined terms "sadism and masochism".  Very much a book of its time, von Krafft-Ebing writings reflected the views of the medical mainstream, distilling Karl Ulrichs' Urning (1825–1895) theory with Bénédict Morel's (1809–1873) theory of degeneration (a handy model for frustrated psychiatrists, degeneration theory held there were psychological which were genetic and could not be cured by a psychiatrist; it could be used to explain any psychological condition).

Nor was there any unanimity of opinion within the profession but the book was influential in psychiatry for decades and it wasn’t until 1973, in preparation for the publication in 1974 of a seventh printing of the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II (1968)) that homosexuality ceased to be listed as a category of disorder although the revision was less than activists had hoped, the diagnosis instead becoming a "sexual orientation disturbance".  In the DSM-III (1980), it was again re-classified but it wasn’t until that volume was revised (DSM III-R) in 1987 that homosexuality ceased to be a treatable condition, a position which, in the West, would not everywhere for some years be reflected in legislation.

Aphrodite (1887), oil on canvas by Robert Fowler (1853–1926).

In Europe, one stream of the dissent against prevailing orthodoxy is traced to the mid-nineteenth century writings of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, a proto gay rights activist trained in law, theology, and history.  Using the nom-de-plume Numa Numantius, during the 1860s, he issued a number of political pamphlets asserting something with strands of the modern view: that some men were born with the spirit of a woman trapped in their bodies, these men constituting a third sex which, in 1864, he named urnings and that those we would now call a lesbians were urningin, a man’s spirit trapped in the body of a woman.  His theories gained little public support but he wasn’t entirely isolated.  In 1869, Hungarian journalist Károli Mária Kertbeny coined the terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality” in a political treatise against the Prussian penal code which criminalized the behavior among men, arguing the condition was inborn and unchangeable, one of many normal variations in the human condition.

Richard von Krafft-Ebing, reviewed the literature and synthesised.  Describing homosexuality as a “degenerative” disorder, he adopted Kertbeny’s terminology, but not his notion of the normal; in Psychopathia Sexualis he viewed unconventional sexual behaviors through the lens of nineteenth century Darwinian theory: non-procreative sexual behaviors, masturbation included, were forms of psychopathology and his most intriguing mix of ancient and modern was that in being born with a homosexual predisposition ("born like this" in the 21C vernacular), the victim was a victim of congenital disease.  His views of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder were influential but even those who disagreed cemented the linguistic legacy, term “homosexual” quickly adopted as the standard term in the medical lexicon.  After the publication of Psychopathia Sexualis, views on the mater coalesced but prevailing opinion shifted little.  In opposition von Krafft-Ebing, German psychiatrist Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935) emerged as a neo-Urlichian, publishing and lecturing in support of a normative view of homosexuality and underground movements existed in many cities, some tolerated. 

It was the founder of psychoanalysis, Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), who offered the theory which would capture the popular imagination.  Disagreeing with both Hirschfeld’s theories of normal variation and Krafft-Ebing’s of pathology, Freud believed all were born with bisexual tendencies and therefore manifestations of homosexuality could be a normal phase of heterosexual development and an innate bisexuality allowed no possibility of a separate “third sex” constructed by Hirschfeld.  Nor could the “degenerative condition” described by von Krafft-Ebing be maintained because, inter alia, it was “found in people whose efficiency is unimpaired, and who are indeed distinguished by specially high intellectual development and ethical culture”.  That may amuse some now but, within Freudian theory, the internal logic is perfect, manifestations of adult homosexual behavior being caused by “arrested” psychosexual development, a theory of immaturity.

Yet, despite the interest aroused, after Freud’s death in 1939, most psychoanalysts came to view homosexuality as pathological and, in the massively expanded universities of the post-war years, research in the field exploded and sexology evolved from a professional niche to a well-funded discipline, the academic work increasingly augmented by popular publications aimed at the general reader as well as the profession.  By the mid-twentieth century, the intellectual centre of psychiatry had shifted from Europe to the United States and it was there that published what would quickly become the most influential publication in the field, the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  When the first edition (DSM-I) was released in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a “sociopathic personality disturbance” and this was the orthodoxy until revised in the DSM-II in 1968 when the term changed to “sexual deviation”, a nuance probably better understood by the profession than the patients although "sexual deviant" became a popular phrase and one applied to many activities.

One implication of sexologists becoming more numerous and active was to change the very nature of research.  Whereas psychiatrists and other clinicians drew conclusions from a skewed sample of patients seeking treatment for homosexuality or other difficulties, sexologists undertook field studies for which were recruited large numbers of subjects in the general population, most of whom had never presented themselves for psychiatric treatment.  The most famous of the reports published both generated headlines and became best-sellers.  The Kinsey reports, with sample sizes in the thousands, found homosexuality to be more common in the general population than the psychiatrists had claimed although the often-quoted 10% “statistic” is now discredited and thought a significant over-estimate.  Ford and Beach, looking at both diverse cultures and animal behavior, confirmed Kinsey’s view that homosexuality was more common than psychiatry maintained and that it was found regularly in nature.  In a number of smaller surveys of which psychologist Evelyn Hooker’s was typical, no evidence was found to suggest gay men were any more prone to severe psychological disturbances than anyone else although some did concede the perception they were "highly strung" and "dramatic" was supported by observational studies but that may be influenced by depictions in popular culture and thus perhaps even "learned or imitative".

The wealth of research, coupled with an increasingly strident gay activism and generational changed within the APA induced change, the awareness now that the real psychological damage being done might be the stigma caused by the “homosexuality” diagnosis.  Nevertheless, in 1973 when the APA met to discuss the matter, planning both for a revised DSM II and the new DSM-III, it was pondered whether “homosexuality” should be included in the APA nomenclature.  Implicit in this was the very question of what could be said to constitute a mental disorder so it was a matter of importance beyond the immediate issue.  Not wishing fundamentally to change the parameters of diagnosis, the APA came up with a masterful fudge, issuing a statement saying they had “reviewed the characteristics of the various mental disorders and concluded that, with the exception of homosexuality and perhaps some of the other 'sexual deviations', they all regularly caused subjective distress or were associated with generalized impairment in social effectiveness of functioning”.  Happy with the loophole, the APA’s Board of Trustees (BoT) voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM.

Less happy were many clinicians who insisted on a vote of the whole membership.  The APA agreed and the decision to remove was upheld by a 58% majority of 10,000 voting members although technically, the question on which they voted was not whether homosexuality should remain a diagnosis but whether to support or oppose the BoT’s decision and, by extension, the scientific process created to make the determination.  It seemed a fine distinction and the BoT’s decision did anyway not immediately end psychiatry’s pathologizing of some presentations of homosexuality.  Instead, a revision to the DSM-II text contained a new diagnosis: "Sexual Orientation Disturbance" (SOD).  SOD (one does have to wonder if the condition was so-named as some sort of in-joke among the DSM's editors) defined homosexuality as an illness if an individual with same-sex attractions found them distressing and wanted to change, an important difference which changed the emphasis from condition to consequence.  That of course implied a future for what came to be known as sexual conversion therapy which has consequences of its own and, presumably, meant anyone unhappy with being heterosexual could seek treatment in an attempt to turn them gay.

SOD was replaced in DSM-III (1980) by a new category called “Ego Dystonic Homosexuality” (EDH) but it was increasingly obvious both SOD and EDH were political fudges to fix an immediate problem and it was not sustainable to maintain a diagnostic criteria under which any identity disturbance could be considered a psychiatric disorder.  The generational shift had happened and EDH was deleted from the revised DSM-III-R, in 1987.  Officially, the DSM now regarded homosexuality as a normal variant of the human condition, essentially what was thought in 1973 but couldn’t then be said.  It didn’t mean the end of debate but did mean those individuals and institutions determined still to discriminate could no longer cite a medical or scientific rationale.

Caudillo, Duce & Führer

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.