Reich

Reich (pronounced rahyk or rahykh (German))

(1) With reference to Germany or other Germanic agglomerations, empire; realm; nation.

(2) The German state, especially (as Third Reich) during the Nazi period.

1871: From the German Reich (kingdom, realm, state), from the Middle High German rīche, from the Old High German rīhhi (rich, mighty; realm), from the Proto-West Germanic rīkī, from the Proto-Germanic rīkijaz & rikja (rule), a derivative of rīks (king, ruler), from the Proto-Celtic rīxs and thus related to the Irish rí.  The influences were (1) the primitive Indo-European hereǵ- (to rule), from which is derived also the Latin rēx and (2) the primitive Indo-European root reg (move in a straight line) with derivatives meaning "to direct in a straight line", thus "to lead, rule".  Cognates include the Old Norse riki, the Danish rige & rig, the Dutch rike & rijk, the Old English rice & rich, the Old Frisian rike, the Icelandic ríkur, the Swedish rik, the Gothic reiki, the Don Ringe and the Plautdietsch rikj.

Reich was first used in English circa 1871 to describe the essentially Prussian creation that was the German Empire which was the first unification of the central European Germanic entities.  It was then described simply as “the Reich” with no suggestion of any sense of succession with the Holy Roman Empire.  “Third Reich” was an invention of Nazi propaganda to “invent” the idea of Hitler as the inheritor of the mantle of Charlemagne and Bismarck.  The word soon captured the imagination of the British Foreign Office, German “Reichism” coming to be viewed as much a threat as anything French had ever been.

The term Fourth Reich was popularized by Edwin Hartrich’s (1913-1995) book The Fourth and Richest Reich (MacMillan 1980), a critique both of the modern German state and its influence on the EEC / EC which would become the EU.  The term is still sometimes used by those criticizing the German state, the not so subtle implication being Berlin gradually achieving by other means the domination of Europe which the Third Reich attempted by military conquest.  Fourth Reich is also sometimes used, erroneously to describe the two-dozen day “administration” of Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz (1891–1980; German head of state 30 April-23 May 1945) who in Hitler’s will was appointed Reich President (and therefore head of state); the so-called “Flensburg Government”.  That’s wrong and the only difference of opinion between constitutional theorists is whether it was either the mere coda to the Third Reich or mostly a charade, the German state ceasing to exist by virtue of events on the ground, a situation the finalization of the surrender arrangements on 8 May merely documented.  The latter view, although reflecting reality, has never been widely supported, the formal existence of a German state actually required to ensure the validity of the surrender and other administrative acts.

The word "Reich" does sometimes confuse non-specialists who equate it with the German state, probably because the Third Reich does cast such a long shadow.  Murdoch journalist Samantha Maiden (b 1972) in a piece discussing references made to the Nazis (rarely a good idea except between experts) by a candidate in the 2022 Australian general election wrote:

The history of the nation-state known as the German Reich is commonly divided into three periods: German Empire (1871–1918) Weimar Republic (1918–1933) Nazi Germany (1933–1945).

It's an understandable mistake and the history of the German Reich is commonly divided into three periods but that doesn't include the Weimar Republic.  The point about what the British Foreign Office labelled "Reichism" was exactly what the Weimar Republic (1918-1933), as a "normal" democratic state, was not.  The Reich's three epochs (and there's some retrospectivity in both nomenclature and history) were the Holy Roman Empire (1800-1806), Bismarck's (essentially Prussian) German Empire (1871-1918) & the Nazi Third Reich (1933-1945).  

Sketch of the orgone accumulator.

Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) was a US-based Austrian psychoanalyst with a difficult past who believed sexual repression was the root cause of many social problems.  Some of his many books were widely read within the profession but there was criticism of his tendency towards monocausality in his analysis, an opinion shared by Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) in his comments about Reich’s 1927 book Die Funktion des Orgasmus (The Function of the Orgasm), a work the author had dedicated to his fellow Austrian.  Freud sent a note of thanks for the personally dedicated copy he’d been sent as a birthday present but, brief and not as effusive in praise Reich as had expected, it was not well-received.  Reich died in prison while serving a sentence imposed for violating an injunction issued to prevent the distribution of a machine he’d invented: the orgone accumulator.

The Space Ritual Alive in Liverpool and London (United Artists UAD 60037/8; referred to usually as Space Ritual) (1973).

The orgone accumulator was an apparently phoney device but one which inspired members of the SF-flavored band Hawkwind to write the song Orgone Accumulator which, unusually, was first released on a live recording, Space Ritual, a 1973 double album containing material from their concerts in 1972.  Something of a niche player in the world of 1970s popular music Hawkwind, perhaps improbably, proved more enduring than many, their combination of styles attracting a cult following which endures to this day.  

The First Reich, the Holy Roman Empire

Holy Roman Empire in the sixteenth century.

The Holy Roman Empire was a multi-ethnic complex of territories in central Europe that developed during the early Middle Ages, the popular identification with Germany because the empire’s largest territory after 962 was the Kingdom of Germany.  On 25 December 800, Pope Leo III (circa 760-816; pope 795-816) crowned Charlemagne (747–814; King of the Franks from 768, King of the Lombards from 774, and Emperor of the Romans (and thus retrospectively Holy Roman Emperor) from 800) as Emperor, reviving the title more than three centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.  Despite the way much history has been written, it wasn’t until the fifteenth century that “Holy Roman Empire” became a commonly used phrase.

Leo III, involved in sometimes violent disputes with Romans who much preferred his predecessor and the Byzantine Empress in Constantinople, had his own reasons for wishing to crown Charlemagne as Emperor although it was a choice which would have consequences for hundreds of years.  According to legend, Leo ambushed Charlemagne at Mass on Christmas day, 800 by placing the crown on his head as he knelt at the altar to pray, declaring him Imperator Romanorum (Emperor of the Romans), in one stroke claiming staking the papal right to choose emperors, guaranteeing his personal protection and rejecting any assertion of imperial authority by anyone in Constantinople.  Charlemagne may or may not have been aware of what was to happen but much scholarship suggests he was well aware he was there for a coronation but that he intended to take the crown in his own hands and place it on his head himself.  The implications of the pope’s “trick” he immediately understood but, what’s done is done and can’t be undone and the lesson passed down the years, Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) not repeating the error at his coronation as French Emperor in 1804.

Some historians prefer to date the empire from 962 when Otto I was crowned because continuous existence there began but, scholars generally concur, it’s possible to trace from Charlemagne an evolution of the institutions and principles constituting the empire, describing a gradual assumption of the imperial title and role.  Not all were, at the time, impressed. Voltaire sardonically recorded one of his memorable bon mots, noting the “…agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."  The last Holy Roman Emperor, Francis II (1768–1835; Holy Roman Emperor 1792-1806) dissolved the empire on 6 August 1806, after Napoleon's creation of the Confederation of the Rhine.

The Second Reich, the Prussian Hohenzollern dynasty, 1871-1919.

German Empire, 1914.

The German Empire existed from the unification of Germany in 1871 until the abdication of Wilhelm II (1859–1941; German Kaiser (Emperor) & King of Prussia 1888-1918) in 1918, when Germany became a federal republic, remembered as the Weimar Republic (1919-1933).  The German Empire consisted of 26 constituent territories, most ruled by royal families.  Although Prussia became one of several kingdoms in the new realm, it contained most of its population and territory and certainly the greatest military power and the one which exercised great influence within the state; a joke at the time was that most countries had an army whereas the Prussian Army had a country.

To a great extent, the Second Reich was the creation of Prince Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898; chancellor of the North German Confederation 1867-1871 and of the German Empire 1871-1890), the politician who dominated European politics in the late nineteenth although his time in office does need to be viewed through sources other than his own memoirs.  When Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck, the Empire embarked on a bellicose new course that ultimately led to World War I and Germany’s defeat.  Following the Kaiser’s abdication, the Empire collapsed in the November 1918 revolution and the Weimar Republic which followed, though not the axiomatically doomed thing many seem now to assume, was for much of its existence beset by political and economic turmoil.  

The Third Reich, the Nazi dictatorship 1933-1945

Nazi occupied Europe, 1942.

“Nazi Germany” is in English the common name for the period of Nazi rule, 1933-1945.  The first known use of the term “Third Reich” was by German cultural historian Moeller van den Bruck (1876-1925) in his 1923 book Das Dritte Reich (The Third Reich).  Van den Bruck, a devotee of Nietzsche and a pan-German nationalist, wrote not of a defined geographical entity or precise constitutional arrangement, his work instead exploring a conceptualized (if imprecisely described) and idealized state of existence for Germans everywhere, one that would (eventually) fully realize what the First Reich might have evolved into had not mistakes been made, the Second Reich a cul-de-sac rendered impure by the same democratic and liberal ideologies which had doomed the Weimar Republic.  Both these, van den Bruck dismissed as stepping stones.

In the difficult conditions which prevailed in Germany at the time of the book’s publication, it didn’t reach a wide audience, the inaccessibility of his text not suitable for a general readership but, calling for a synthesis of the particularly Prussian traditions of socialism and nationalism and the leadership of a Übermensch (a idea from Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883) which describes a kind of idealized man who probably can come into existence only of society is worthy of him), his work had obvious appeal to the Nazis.  It was said to have been influential in the embryonic Nazi Party but there’s little to suggest it contributed much beyond an appeal to the purity of race and the idea of “leader” principle, notions already well established in German nationalist traditions.  The style alone might have accounted for this, Das Dritte Reich not an easy read, a trait shared by the dreary and repetitive stuff written by the party “philosopher” Alfred Rosenberg (1893-1946).

A book channeling Nietzsche wasn’t much help for practical politicians needing manifestos, pamphlets and appealing slogans and the only living politician who attracted some approbation from van den Bruck was Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce & prime minister of Italy 1922-1943).  The admiration certainly didn’t extend to Adolf Hitler (1889-1945); unimpressed by his staging of the Munich Beer Hall Putsch (8–9 November 1923), van den Bruck dismissed the future Führer with a unusually brief deconstruction, the sentiment of which was later better expressed by another disillusioned follower: “that ridiculous corporal”.

The name “Third Reich did however briefly enter the Nazi’s propaganda lexicon.  The official name of the state was Deutsches Reich (German Empire) between 1933-1943 and Großdeutsches Reich (Greater German Empire) between 1943 to 1945 but so much of what was fascism was fake and the Nazis were attracted to the notion of claiming to be the successor of a German Empire with a thousand year history, their own vision of the Nazi state being millennialist .  After they seized power, the term “Third Reich” would occasionally be invoked and, more curiously, the Nazis for a while even referred to the Weimar Republic as the Zwischenreich (Interim Reich) but as the 1930s unfolded as an almost unbroken series of triumphs for Hitler, emphasis soon switched to the present and the future, the pre Beer-Hall Putsch history no longer needed.  It was only after 1945 that the use of “Third Reich” became almost universal although the earlier empires still are almost never spoken of in that way.

Van den Bruck had anyway been not optimistic and his gloominess proved prescient although his people did chose to walk the path he thought they may fear to tread.  In the introduction to Das Dritte Reich he wrote: “The thought of a Third Empire might well be the most fatal of all the illusions to which they have ever yielded; it would be thoroughly German if they contented themselves with day-dreaming about it. Germany might perish of her Third Empire dream.”  He didn’t live to see the rise and fall of the Third Reich, taking his own life in 1925, a fate not unknown among those who read Nietzsche at too impressionable an age and never quite recover.

Empire

Empire (pronounced em-pahyuhr (sometimes om-peer if affecting to speak of things historically French)).

(1) A group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

(2) As First Empire, the period of imperial rule in France under Napoleon Bonaparte, 1804-1815; as Second Empire, the period of Imperial rule under Napoleon III, 1852-1870 (a decadent period).

(3) A government under an emperor or empress.

(4) The historical period during which a nation is under such a government (often initial capital letter).

(5) Supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty.

(6) Supreme control; absolute sway.

(7) A powerful and important enterprise or holding of large scope, especially one controlled by a single person, family, or group of associates.

(8) In horticulture, a variety of apple somewhat resembling the McIntosh.

(9) In fashion, of the style that prevailed during the first French Empire, in clothing being characterized especially by décolletage and a high waistline, coming just below the bust, from which the skirt hangs straight and loose (usually initial capital letter).

(10) As Empire State, a term for New York since 1834.

(11) In architecture and design, noting or pertaining to the style of architecture, furnishings, and decoration prevailing in France, emulated variously in various other places circa 1800-1830; characterized by the use of delicate but elaborate ornamentation imitated from Greek and Roman examples or containing classical allusions, as animal forms for the legs of furniture, bas-reliefs of classical figures, motifs of wreaths, torches, caryatids, lyres, and urns and by the occasional use of military and Egyptian motifs and, under the Napoleonic Empire itself, of symbols alluding to Napoleon I, as bees or the letter N (often initial capital letter).

1250–1300: From the Middle English empire (territory subject to an emperor's rule (and, in general "realm, dominion"), from the Anglo-French & Old French empire & empere (rule, authority, kingdom, imperial rule; authority of an emperor, supreme power in governing; imperial power), from the Latin imperium & inperium (a rule, a command; authority, control, power; supreme power, sole dominion; military authority; a dominion, realm) from inperare & imperāre (to command) from parāre (to prepare; to make ready; order).  The construct of the Latin imperare was in- (in) (from the primitive Indo-European root en (in)) + parare (to order, prepare) (from the primitive Indo-European root pere- (to produce, procure).  A doublet of empery and imperium.

In English, the early understanding of the word was defined substantially by the knowledge (however imperfect) of the Persian and Roman (especially the latter) empires of Antiquity and though never etymologically restricted to "territory ruled by an emperor", for entirely logical reasons it did tend to be used that way.  The phrase "the Empire" (which in the UK and the British empire almost exclusively implied "the British Empire" (dating from 1772)) previously would have been supposed to be a reference to the Holy Roman Empire.  Officially, the British Empire devolved into "The Commonwealth" in 1931 because of the constitutional implications of the Statute of Westminster (and the changing world view) but opinion is divided on when it really ended, most dating it from Indian independence in 1947 (when George VI ceased to be George RI (Rex Imperator (king-emperor)) and became George R) while others claim (less plausibly) that in a sense it endured until Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997.  Nobody claims that still holding the Falkland Islands an empire makes.

Always a civilizing project, the Roman Empire stopped short of Ireland and Scotland.  One has to draw the line somewhere.

Despite the modern habit, etymologically, empire was never restricted to "territory ruled by an emperor" but has been used that way for so long a meaning-shift may have happened.  In political theory, an empire is an aggregate of conquered, colonized, or confederated states, each with its own government subordinate or tributary to that of the empire as a whole but history is replete with accidents and anomalies.  Japan’s head of state is an emperor although no empire exists and the most often quoted remark about the Holy Roman Empire has long been Voltaire’s bon mot that it was "...not holy, nor Roman, nor an empire".

Long pre-dating the era, the empire-line (sometimes called empire-silhouette) dress is most associated with the French First Empire (which lasted from 1804 when Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself Emperor, to his final defeat at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815) and although the look endured longer than the political construct, beginning in the 1820s, skirts widened and waistlines lowered to an extent most were no longer identifiable as the style.  The look became linked to the First Empire because it was Napoleon's first Empress, Joséphine de Beauharnais (1763–1814) who popularized it in Europe and there are fashionistas who when speaking of the style, will pronounce it as a quasi-French om-pire.  In England, Emma, Lady Hamilton's ((1765–1815); mistress of Lord Nelson (1758-1805) and muse of the artist George Romney (1734-1802)) adoption of the style was much imitated, the cross-channel exchanges of fashion continuing uninterrupted even when a state of war existed between London and Paris.  The English or American fashions of this time tend respectively to be termed "Regency" (referring to the Regency of the Prince of Wales, 1811-1820) and "Federal" (referring to the decades immediately following the American Revolution).

Gisele Bündchen in Dior empire-line dress, Academy Awards Ceremony, Los Angeles, February 2005.

Empire-line dresses featured a waistline considerably raised above the natural level with skirts which vary from the slim and columnar to the swishy and conical.  In its pure form it was characterized by (1) a columnar silhouette without gathers in front, (2) some fullness over the hips, (3) a concentration of gathers aligned with a wide centre-back bodice panel and (4), a raised waistline which reached usually to just below the bust but (occasionally) as high as the armpits.  Mass-production of the design was possible only because the industrial revolution made available new fabrics and other materials at volume and an attainable cost.  Empire- line proved appealing to women without an ideal figure because, by adjusting the parameters of the various components, a seamstress could flatter a wide variety of body types, disguising and emphasizing as required, able to create also the illusion of greater height. 

The empire-line inherently needs a lot of fabric which offers designers the possibility of using bold patterns, especially florals, which can't be displayed to the same effect in styles with less surface area.

Traditionally, most clothing had relied on the shape of the human body but new forms of corsetry, including strong yet delicate shoulder straps to provide the necessary structural integrity, combined with materials such as mull, a  soft, sheer Indian white muslin, allowed designers to create wearable outfits in which the neoclassical influence was obvious, the silhouette imitating the Classical statutes of Antiquity.  Such constructions had before existed for the rich but they were heavy, hot, rigid, uncomfortable and very expensive.  Sadly, the relative freedom women enjoyed proved short lived, evolving by the 1820s into something less simple and notably more restrictive, the hourglass Victorian styles much more prevalent in high-fashion by the mid-nineteenth century, a trend which lasted until the First World War.  The ideas of empire-line were revived for the less-constricting clothing popular in the 1920s and, although coming and going, it’s never gone away and, being somewhat hippie in its look, gained a new following in the 1960s.

Empire-line wedding dresses (left to right) by Dana Harel, Savannah Miller, Two Birds & LoveShackFancy.  Although the design and structural details differ between these, all four can be reduced to the same mathematics.  The wedding dress business seems to be one part of the industry where blonde models seem not to enjoy their usual natural advantage, photographers preferring dark hair, better to contrast and define the edges of all that white fabric.  

Lindsay Lohan in empire-line dress, Paris, 2011.

Today, empire-line dresses are still often worn and the style gained a new audience from their used in the Mad Men television series, set in upper-middle class US society during the 1960s.  One place where they've long inhabited a stable niche has been the Western wedding dress where the technical aspects of the design, the fitted bodice, high waist, and loose-fitting skirt allow the creation of silhouette that’s flattering and forgiving for a wide range of body shapes, once a genuine selling feature for brides with child who, in less accepting times, wished to conceal the bump.  However, even though the empire- line is almost uniquely  ideal at shifting focus from the waistline, it can be cut in a way to complement the slender, delivering a cinched waist.  In either case, the same mathematics are at work, the goal being to elongate and define and by creating the visual effect of the narrowest point appearing just under the bust, it can either (1) trick viewers into seeing a longer torso, diverting attention from the midriff and hips or (2) emphasise the waistline of the truly slender, making it perfect also for the petite or short.

Elector

Elector (pronounced ih-lek-ter)

(1) A person who elects or may elect, especially a qualified voter (ie one correctly enrolled).

(2) A member an electoral college (chiefly US use but rarely used except in a technical context and often with initial capital letter).

(3) One of the (mostly) German princes entitled to elect the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (usually initial capital letter).

1425–1475: From the late Middle English elector & electour, from the Late Latin ēlēctor (chooser; selector) agent noun from past-participle stem of eligere (to pick out, choose), the construct being eleg- (variant stem of ēligere, second-person singular future passive indicative of ēligō (from ex- (out of, from) +‎ legō (choose, select, appoint)) + -tor (genitive -tōris), the Latin suffix used to form a masculine agent noun.  An earlier alternative form was electour but it was obsolete by the sixteenth century; the office in court documents was often described by the noun electorship and there were feminine forms, used with an initial capital letter when grammar demanded: electress, electress consort & princess-electress.  Elector & electorship are nouns; the noun plural is electors.

Elections in the First Reich

The Holy Roman Empire (Sacrum Imperium Romanum in Latin; Heiliges Römisches Reich in German) endured from the crowing of Charlemagne (747–814) on Christmas day 800 until it was dissolved in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars although, technically, the imperial connection existed only since Otto I (912-973) proclaimed himself emperor in 962 and it wasn’t until the thirteenth century the term "Holy Roman Empire" came into use.  Prior to that, the empire was known variously as universum regnum (the whole kingdom (as opposed to the many regional kingdoms in Europe), imperium christianum (Christian empire) or Romanum imperium (Roman empire), but the Emperor's mystique, if not his constitutional legitimacy, was always underpinned by the concept of translatio imperii (that his supreme power was an inheritance from the old emperors of Classical Rome).

The Bishop Consecration of the Elector Clemens August by Benedikt XIII (1727) (in the New Castle Schleißheim), oil on panel in Rococo style by by George Desmarées (1697-1776). 

Accession to the throne of Holy Roman Emperor was sometime dynastic and sometimes political but from the thirteenth century, it was formalised as elective, the electoral college comprised mostly of German prince-electors, the high-ranking aristocrats who would meet to choose of their peers a King of the Romans to be crowned emperor (until 1530 by the Pope himself).  From then on, emperors, keen to assert the idea their authority was independent of the papacy, gained their legitimacy solely from the vote of the electors.  The prince-electors were known in German as Kurfürst; the heir apparent to a secular prince-elector a Kurprinz (electoral prince).  The German element Kur- was based on the Middle High German irregular verb kiesen and was related to the English word "choose" (from the Old English ceosan, participle coren (having been chosen)) and the Gothic kiusan.  The modern German verb küren means "to choose" in a ceremonial sense.  Fürst is German for “prince” but while German distinguishes between the head of a principality (der Fürst) and the son of a monarch (der Prinz), English uses "prince" for both concepts.  Fürst is related to the English first and is thus the “foremost” person in his realm, “prince” being derived from the Latin princeps, which carried the same meaning.

In modern democratic systems, there’s quite a variety of electoral systems and a handful of states even make voting compulsory.  Although political operatives and theorists have constructed elaborate arguments in favor of one arrangement or another, it’s remarkable how, over a number of electoral cycles, the pattern of outcomes produces results which are strikingly similar.  One thing which tends to be common across different systems is that the actual dynamic of the electoral contest is the battle for the votes of a relative handful, the base support of the established parties, although there’s be a general tendency of decline, not falling below a certain critical mass.  So, all the clatter of election campaigns exists to convince a small part of the population to vote differently and these are the famous “swing” voters, those who can be persuaded to change.  Swing voters can bring joy or despair to political parties and in tight contests they’re a particular challenge because they can’t all be nudged to change by the same carrot or stick; some need to be offered hope, some need to be made fearful and some wish simply to be bribed.  The other problem with swing voters is they can swing back so they need again and again to be massaged.  Consider Lindsay Lohan who in 2008 endorsed Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) only to say in 2012 she was “as of now” backing Mitt Romney (b 1947; Republican candidate for president 2012).  Once, she referred to Sarah Palin (b 1964; Republican vice presidential nominee 2008) as a “narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe” yet, presumably using the same deductive process, found Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) was “good people”, a view expressed within a year of declaring herself anti-Brexit voice, a thing Trump supported.  There is of course no reason why people have to align themselves with everything a candidate supports and it seems unknown which way Lindsay Lohan has voted or even if she votes but her seasonal shifts are indicative of the difficulties the parties face and the reason they’re so attracted to the possibilities offered by mining big data so messaging can be scoped down to individual electors.  That's merely the latest refinement in advertising which has moved in less than a century from broadcasting to all, narrowcasting to groups to now messaging to each soul what they want to hear.

Relic & Relict

Relic (pronounced rel-ik)

(1) A surviving memorial of something past; something that has survived from the past, such as an object or custom.

(2) An object having interest by reason of its age or its association with the past; something kept in remembrance; souvenir; memento.

(3) A surviving trace of something.

(4) Remaining parts or fragments.

(5) In ecclesiastical use in Christendom, (especially in the Roman Catholic and Greek churches) the body, a bone or other body part, or some personal memorial of a saint, martyr, or other sacred person, preserved as worthy of veneration.

(6) In linguistics, a once widespread linguistic form that survives in a limited area but is otherwise obsolete.

(7) In informal use, an old or old-fashioned person or thing, a survivor from a bygone era.

(8) The remains of a dead person; a corpse (largely archaic and usually in the plural).

(9) In ecology a now less common term for relict.

1175–1225: From the Middle English relik (a body part or other object held in reverence or affection due to its connection with a holy person), from the Old French relique & relike (the eleventh century plural was reliques), from the Old English reliquias, the construct being reliqu(us) (remaining) + -iae the plural noun suffix), from the Late Latin reliquiæ (plural) (the remains of a martyr (although in Classical Latin it had meant “remains; remnants”)), noun use of the feminine plural of reliquus (remaining, that which remains), from relinquō (I leave behind, abandon, relinquish), the construct being from re- (back, backwards; again) the prefix added to various words to indicate an action being done again) + linquō (I leave, quit, forsake, depart from), and related to relinquere (perfective reliqui) (to leave behind, relinquish, forsake, abandon, give up), from the primitive Indo-European linkw-, a nasalized form of the root leikw- (to leave).  The Old English reliquias was a direct borrowing from Latin.  The noun reliquary (receptacle for keeping relics, often small enough to be carried on the person) dates from the 1650s, from the fourteenth century French reliquaire.  The noun plural was relics and the obsolete spellings were relick & relique.  The third-person singular simple present was relics, the present participle relicing or relicking and the simple past and past participle reliced or relicked).

The now familiar general sense of "remains, remnants, that which is left after the loss or ruin of the rest" dates from the early fourteenth century whereas the meaning "something kept as a souvenir, a memento" didn’t emerge until circa 1600.  By the 1590s, the word had, in conversational use, developed the weakened sense of "anything made interesting by its association with the distant past and ten years earlier had come also to describe "surviving trace of some practice, idea etc, a use which later (by 1809) influenced the specific use in history & anthropology: “relic of barbarism” the “survival of a (bad) old custom or condition."  Other words used in this context includes antique, antiquity, artifact, curio, evidence, fragment, keepsake, memento, monument, remains, remnant, souvenir, archaism, curiosity, heirloom, memorial, remembrance, reminder, residue & ruins.

Relict (pronounced rel-ikt)

(1) In biology & ecology, a species or community of animals or plants that exists as a remnant of a formerly widely distributed group in an environment different from that in which it originated (usually as a modifier (eg a relict fauna)).

(2) In geology, a mineral that remains unaltered after metamorphism of the rock in which it occurs.

(3) In geomorphology, a landform (a mountain, lake, glacier etc) formed by either erosive or constructive surficial processes that are no longer active as they were in the past.

(4) A remnant or survivor (rare).

(5) The surviving member of a married couple after one or the other has died; a widow or widower (although in practice the word was only ever applied to widows and is now archaic).

(6) In linguistics, a surviving archaic word, language or other form (technically slightly different from a relic (qv) but in casual use both are often used interchangeably.

(7) In the law of real property, the gradual recession of water from its usual high-water mark so that the newly uncovered land becomes the property of the adjoining riparian property owner.

1525–1535: From the Middle English relicte, from the Medieval Latin relicta (widow), noun use of feminine of the Latin relictus, past participle of relinquere (to relinquish).  Relicte in the sense of a widow, etymologically is "one who is left, one who remains", from the Old French relict (feminine relicte) (person or thing left behind (especially a widow)) and directly from the Medieval Latin relicta (a widow), noun use of feminine of relictus (abandoned, left behind), past-participle adjective from the Latin relinquere (leave behind, forsake, abandon, give up),

Relict came so often to be confused with relic that by 1926, Henry Fowler (1858-1933) noted in his Dictionary of Modern English Usage it had become a word seldom used except in legal documents when referring to a widow (and only lawyers would find the word “widow” unsuitable) and was thus "more often seen than heard", its place as an adjective in Middle English and early modern English (originally "left undisturbed or untouched, allowed to remain" (although used in various senses) long supplanted by relic.  As a technical word in biology, zoology and geology, it remains useful; the noun plural was relicts.

Print of original Heiltumsblätter (woodcut; circa 1496) of the relics of the Holy Roman Empire by Hans Spoerer of Nuremberg, hand-colored, printer's ink on paper, donated to the British Museum in 1916.

In the great cities of the Holy Roman Empire, there were publishers which offered entire relic-books but, parchment and even paper being expensive, as an alternative, pilgrims could purchase Heiltumsblätter (woodcut) reproductions of relics associated with a particular church or shrine.  The single-leaf woodcut illustrating the relics of the relics of the Holy Roman Empire was first printed circa 1480 with a second run of hand-colored versions offered in 1496 and as well as being used for private devotion, being large-scale they could be displayed in public places like churches, where they performed a similar function to indulgence announcements.

The Heiltumsblatt illustrating the relics of the Holy Roman Empire included pieces of the True Cross, thorns from Christ's crown, along with the sword, robe and scepter of Charlemagne (747–814; first Holy Roman Emperor 800-814).  The imperial collection also featured the Holy Lance that tradition stated was used by Longinus to pierce Christ's side after his death; this was a highly prized possession, since it was one of the few contact relics associated with Christ who was said to have left behind no bodily relics.  In 1423, Sigismund of Luxembourg (1368–1437; Holy Roman Emperor 1433-1437) bequeathed the Lance to Nuremberg for safekeeping, where it became the centerpiece of the Heiltumsweisung (sanctuary).  The Holy Lance's size in the woodcut is one indication of its importance, although this was not a mere effect of representation, for its makers claimed that this was a "true copy" of the Lance, which measures 508 x 79 mm (20 x 3.1 inches).

Panglossian

Panglossian (pronounced pan-glos-ee-uhn or pan-glaws-ee-uhn)

(1) A naïve or unreasonably optimistic view (can be used negatively, neutrally, or positively).  

(2) Of or relating to the view that this is the best of all possible worlds (can be used negatively, neutrally, or positively).  

1758: From the character of the philosopher and tutor Dr Pangloss, in Voltaire's (the nom de plume of François-Marie Arouet (1694-1778)) satirical novella Candide (1759), the construct being Pangloss +‎ -ian.  Pan in this context is in the sense of “all”, the Modern English from the Middle English panne, from the Old English panne, from the Proto-West Germanic pannā, from the Proto-Germanic pannǭ.  It was cognate with the West Frisian panne, the Saterland Frisian Ponne, the Dutch pan, the German & Low German Panne & Pann, the German Pfanne, the Danish pande, the Swedish panna and the Icelandic panna.  Gloss is probably from a North Germanic language, the influence perhaps the Icelandic where the word was glossi (spark, flame) & glossa (to flame) or the from the dialectal Dutch gloos (a glow, flare), related to the West Frisian gloeze (a glow), from the Middle Low German glȫsen (to smolder, glow), ultimately from the Proto-Germanic glus- (to glow, shine), from Proto-Indo-European gael- (to flourish; be green or yellow); related to the modern glow.  The Greek glōssa translates literally as "tongue”.  The –ian suffix is from the Latin -iānus (the alternative forms were -ānus, -ēnus, -īnus & -ūnus); it was used to which form adjectives of belonging or origin from a noun.  Panglossian is an adjective and Panglossianism is a noun.

Voltaire's Dr Pangloss (an aptronym al la Mr Talkative & Mr Worldly Wiseman in John Bunyan’s (1628–1688) 1678 Christian allegory The Pilgrim’s Progress) was a construct of Pan in the sense of “all” and gloss in the figurative sense of something “superficially or deceptively attractive appearance”.  The comparative is more Panglossian, the superlative most Panglossian; the most commonly used synonym is Pollyannaish (from the eponymous character in the 1913 novel by US author Eleanor H Porter (1868-1920); the little girl who no matter what misfortune befalls her, manages always to find something about which to be glad).  Although a critique rather than anything hagiographic, Candide was very much a work of the Enlightenment, controversial and in some places, like the author, banned.  Voltaire created Pangloss as a parody of the German philosopher Gottfried von Leibniz (1646-1716) who claimed this is the best of all possible worlds (there are those who blame Leibniz for starting the tradition of German philosophers going mad (eg Nietzsche, Weber and (at least debatably) Hegel)).  Just to emphasize the point for English readers, some of the early translations subtitled: Candide: All for the Best (1759) & Candide: The Optimist (1762), the last re-used even in 1947.

Candide was a young man who had led a sheltered, idyllic life being tutored with Leibnizian optimism by Dr Pangloss, “the greatest philosopher of the Holy Roman Empire”.  The theme being what happens when philosophy meets the real world, the work describes Candide's slow and mournful disillusionment as he witnesses and endures the vicissitudes of earthly existence, ending with the realization that while we certainly don’t live in Leibniz’s “best of all possible worlds”, it’s still a place in which “we must cultivate our garden" and make the best of what is which Candide expresses as “all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds”.  Panglossianism is thus a byword for excessive, even exuberant, optimism and authors have had fun with it ever since, the cheeky term "panglossian pessimism" describing the idea that because this is the best of all possible worlds, improvement is impossible, a theme Joseph Heller (1923-1999) explored in one of the memorable exchanges in Catch-22 (1961).  One of Voltaire’s many memorable lines is in Candide, his explanation of why the Royal Navy had one of their own admirals, John Byng (1704–1757) executed by firing squad his own quarterdeck: "...mais dans ce pays-ci il est bon de tuer de tems en tems un Amiral pour encourager les autres.” (...but in this country it is found good, from time to time, to kill one Admiral to encourage the others).  However, like Shakespeare and Churchill, some quotes are attributed to him on the basis merely that they sound Voltairesque.  He really did say the “…agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." but the story that when on his death bed a priest appeared to administer the last rites and asked: "Do you accept God, renouncing the Devil and all his works?", he answered: "This is hardly the time to be making enemies" is apocryphal.  Before it was first attributed to Voltaire in the 1970s, the joke had circulated for over a century, the dying man said variously to be Machiavelli (Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, 1469–1527), the US Author Wilson Mizner (1876–1933) and some unidentified Irishmen and Scotsmen.

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

While one of the seminal texts of the Enlightenment, Candide is also an irony-laden attack on the optimistic hopes and faith of Enlightenment thought. Voltaire’s criticism of Leibniz’s philosophy is directed mostly as his principle of sufficient reason, which maintains that nothing can be so without there being a reason why it is so, the consequence of which is the belief that the actual world must be the best one humanly possible.  Later, structural functionalists would start in much the same place and reach other conclusions.

Canossa

Canossa (pronounced kuh-nos-uh or kah-naws-sah (Italian))

(1) A province in Northern Italy (and a name used in other places and not to be confused with the proper noun Canosa).

(2) As Canossa Castle (now a ruin), near Reggio nell'Emili, the scene in 1077 of the penance of Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV of before Pope Gregory VII (the “Walk to Canossa”).

(3) In idiomatic use, for a person to humble themselves.

Circa 940: The castle was built around 940 by a princely family of Lombardy at the summit of a hill overlooking the region.  As well as the family’s seat, the castle incorporated a convent, a Benedictine monastery and the church of Sant'Apollonio.  Reflecting the practice of military architecture in the Middle Ages, the central structure was protested by there, progressively more fortified stone walls and, prior to the development of modern artillery, was close to impregnable under conventional assault, vulnerable only to a protracted siege.

Going to Canossa

The coronation of Christmas Day, 800 when Charlemagne (747-814, Emperor of the Carolingian Empire (and retrospectively regarded first Holy Roman Emperor)), was crowned Emperor was an event which turned out to be one of the most significant of the Middle Ages, the consequences unfolding in Europe over a thousand years, some of which are visible still today.  One aspect of the coronation at the Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome which Charlemagne almost immediately realized as a mistake was that the crown was placed on his head by Leo III (circa 750-816; pope 795-816, described by one historian as “one of the shiftiest” popes and one accused of perjury & adultery) with the words “To Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned by God, the great and peace-giving Emperor, life and victory.”  The squabble for primacy between the “vicar of Christ on earth” and the earthly rulers wasn’t new but this didn’t help their cause.  In 1804, at Notre Dame de Paris, snatching the crown from the hands of Pope Pius VII (1742–1823; pope 1800-1823), Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821, Emperor of the French 1804-1814 & 1815) did not repeat the error.

One famous round in that squabble was Henry IV’s Walk to Canossa (also called the Road to Canossa or the Humiliation of Canossa.  It describes the ritualistic submission in 1077 of the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV (1050–1106; King of Germany 1054-1105, Holy Roman Emperor 1084-1105) to Pope Gregory VII (circa 1015–1085; pope 1073-1085) at Canossa Castle, the climax of what came to be called the investiture controversy.  Popes and emperors had for generations argued about the precedence of ecclesiastical or secular authority but Gregory had attempted further to assert the authority of Rome by claiming an exclusivity of right to "invest" bishops, abbots and other clergy, a dispute with modern echoes.  Despite attempts at mediation, the conflict grew, pope and emperor both appointing bishops, not recognized by each-other and eventually, the battle evolved into each side gathering bishops and organizing the numbers to excommunicate the other.  Given the communications of the age it was something of a slow-motion war of words but eventually (though not without the odd close scrape), Gregory prevailed and the excommunicated Henry lost the numbers, clerical and secular.  To seek his throne, he would have to capitulate, apologize and beg forgiveness.

Heinrich IV barefoot in Canossa (1862), woodcut by Hermann Freihold Pluddemann (1809-1868).

Accordingly, in what was said to be the coldest winter in almost forty years, Henry and his party made the trek to Canossa where the pope was staying, a journey made longer, more difficult and colder still by having to “go the long way round” because passage through the more convenient (and safer) alpine passes, controlled by forces aligned with the pope, was denied.  The journey took more than three months, the party reaching Canossa Castle on 25 January 1077.  There, the pope ordered he be refused entry, the suspicion of historians being that some message was passed to the visitors suggesting the gates might be opened were the emperor for three days to display “sufficient penance”.  According to legend, Henry (and perhaps some of his entourage including his wife) for the three days donned the simple robe of a monk, fasted and walked barefoot in the snow.

Fist bump: Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV before Pope Gregory VII (1875), woodcut after a drawing by Friedrich Hottenroth (1840-1917).

On 28 January, the pope ordered the castle gates opened and it’s said Henry supplicated himself on his knees before the pope and begged forgiveness.  Clearly impressed (or at least satisfied), Gregory granted absolution and revoked the act of excommunication, that evening offering the emperor communion in the chapel of Sant'Apollonio.  All’s well that ends well then, the pope lingering for a few months before returning to Rome with his authority confirmed and Henry headed home, soon to extract what vengeance he could.  Almost immediately the alpine pilgrimage was regarded as a humiliation for Henry but even some medieval scholars would soon create a revisionist history, arguing the emperor’s strategy was a masterstroke, gaining much which was important and sacrificing little.  Modern historians tend not to be convinced by the “stoops to conquer” school, regarding it a humiliation still and the phrase "going to Canossa" endures as a reference to an act of penance or submission.

Whether Canossa was much on the mind of President Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) as he flew to Saudi Arabia hasn’t been revealed but at least Air Force One is comfortable and he certainly didn’t need to go the “long way round”, his 747 granted a direct flight path from Tel Aviv to Jeddah, a presidential first and something long thought unimaginable.  Interestingly, according to the president, as recently as June 2022, also unimaginable was him meeting with Saudi Arabia’s de-facto leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud (b 1985 and referred to colloquially as MBS).  “I’m not going to meet with MBS” Mr Biden had last month assured the press.  “I’m going to an international meeting, and he’s going to be part of it.”  That might seem a fine distinction but in the language of diplomacy, a not unreasonable one.

President Biden meets King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (b 1935; King of Saudi Arabia since 2015) Jeddah, July 2022.

However, the world has changed since the 2020 presidential campaign in which Mr Biden vowed to make the Saudi government “pay the price and make them in fact the pariah that they are”, his stridency a reaction to the murder and dismemberment in Saudi’s Istanbul consulate of Washington Post journalist (and Saudi citizen) Jamal Khashoggi (1958-2018) by agents of the Saudi state.  On advice from the US intelligence community, Mr Biden in 2020 made clear he held MBS personally responsible for Khashoggi’s death although doubts have by some been expressed, their thinking that MBS may well have authorized “an extraction” but not “an execution” and the unfortunate consequences were a product either of misunderstandings as the message proceeded down the line or the allocation of a specialized task to specialists in another field.  MBS has always denied ordering the killing of Mr Khashoggi, answering with an emphatic “Absolutely not” when asked directly by the US press.  “This was a heinous crime” he said in an interview, adding that he took “…full responsibility as a leader in Saudi Arabia, especially since it was committed by individuals working for the Saudi government.”  The taking of responsibility for acts committed by others, including those of which one has no knowledge, is the essence of the Westminster system of ministerial responsibility although a more nuanced expression of the concept which extended to a “collective responsibility” was later developed by Albert Speer (1905-1980) during the first Nuremberg trial (1945-1946).  The Saudi government had initially denied any involvement in the matter although later it would admit the death was an accident which happened when an intelligence team was attempting to extradite (in Turkish law presumably a kidnapping) the journalist, against his will, to Saudi Arabia.

Fist bump: President Biden meets Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, Jeddah, July 2022.

But the world has changed and to mark that, Mr Biden and MBS met, a friendly fist bump a photo opportunity for the gathered press pack, the entrance to the Al Salman Palace a good backdrop.  According to Mr Biden, MBS “…basically said that he was not personally responsible” for the killing of Khashoggi and “I indicated that I thought he was.”  What’s done is done and can’t be undone so, the discussion of human rights complete, the president and crown prince then got down to the substantive matter of oil and how helpful it would be if the kingdom could pump more of it from their fields, the unchallenging idea being that if supply could be made to exceed demand (which is already the case so presumably what Mr Biden would prefer is a glut), then the price would fall, this eventually being reflected in the cost of a gallon of gas in the US, hopefully in good time for the US mid-term congressional elections in November.

Just like the old days.

Industry analysts have cast doubt on whether the Saudis have the additional extractive and distributional capacity greatly to affect the price of oil which has anyway recently declined in response to concerns about a global economic slowdown although jitters remain, the oil futures market reacting hourly to news of COVID lockdowns and hints about monetary policy from those central banks which matter.  It’s thought MBS is unlikely to have done more than agree to act in unison with whatever increase in supply the Organization of Oil Producing Countries (OPEC) may undertake to implement when it (actually the expanded OPEC+) meets in August.  Still, August is a couple of months before the mid-terms so there’s that but these are troubled times, few anxious to predict what the economy or geopolitics will look like by then, any more than there's a model precisely to measure the effects of what the US Treasury still insist will be the next round of sanctions on Russian oil & gas.  Like the OPEC+ meeting, these are due in August.