Kyiv

Kyiv (pronounced kee-yiv (Ukrainian) or kee-yev (Russian))

(1) Capital of Ukraine, in the north-central region of the country on the Dnieper River.

(2) An oblast (a region or province in Slavic or Slavic-influenced countries (plural oblasts or oblasti)) of Ukraine, the medieval principality centreed on Kiev (the Kievan state (Kievan Rus)).

(3) In culinary slang, a shortened for the dish Chicken Kiev (a breast of chicken stuffed with butter, garlic and parsley, rolled, breaded and fried). 

Pre 1000: From the Ukrainian Kýjiv or Kyyiv (Ки́їв), from the Russian Kíjev (Ки́ев), perhaps from the name Кий (Kij or Kyi), one of the city’s four legendary founders, from the Proto-Slavic kyjь (stick, club) although some historians regard this as a folk etymology and instead link it to an evolution of something from the local language.  The alternative forms are Kyïv, Kyjiv & Kyyiv, the earlier forms Kiou, Kiow, Kiovia, Kiowia, Kiew, Kief, Kieff & Kief all obsolete.  Historically, in Western use, an inhabitant of Kiev was a Kievan and in the West, until recent events, the default spelling was Kiev.  The Ukrainian government's official roman-alphabet name for the city is Kyiv, according to the national standard for romanization of Ukrainian Київ (Kyjiv), and has been adopted by geographic naming databases, international organizations, and by many other reference sources.  In the West, many style guides have been updated to reflect the government’s recommendation the preferred spelling should be Kyiv (although a few historians insist it should be Ki'iv), pronounced kee-yiv and a transliteration of the Ukrainian Київ.

The Russian form was a transliteration from the Russian Cyrillic Киев and, along with the associated pronunciation, was the internationally accepted name during the Soviet era, something that lasted well into the twenty-first century and many who couldn’t have found the place on a map would have been familiar with both because of the eponymous chicken dish introduced to popular Western cuisine in the 1960s.  The post-Soviet reaction to the Russification of Ukraine encouraged the Ukrainian authorities to adopt the local spelling, the cultural sensitivities heightened by Russia’s military incursions into Ukrainian territory since 2014.  The changing of locality names is nothing new in Europe, various parts of the continent having changed hands over thousands of years and names of localities have often been altered better to suit the needs of conquerors, sometimes as a form of triumphalism and sometimes just to ease the linguistic difficulties.  The area in which sits Kyiv has at times over the last millennium fallen under Mongol, Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, Soviet and now Ukrainian rule and while Russian and Ukrainian are both east Slavonic languages (as opposed to west Slavonic languages such as Polish, and south Slavonic ones like Bulgarian) and from the one original root they have, like just about all languages, diverged in forks which sometimes evolved and sometimes went extinct.

In the early modern period, Ukrainian absorbed some Polish influences and a number of vowels came to be pronounced differently from their Russian counterparts, the kind of regional difference quite familiar to those in England, Germany or the United States.  That would be variation enough to account for many differences but in its evolution, several letters of the alphabet became unique to Ukrainian (such as the ї in Київ) and the variations can make it difficult for native Russian speakers to understand some words or expressions when spoken by Ukrainians.  Still, there must be acknowledgement that name changes imposed from Moscow (whether Russian, Tsarist or Soviet) have so often reflected an astute understanding of propaganda and the implications of language.  When in the 1660s the Ukraine was taken from the Kingdom of Poland, the Russians promptly renamed the territory "Little Russia" although despite the assertions of some that here began the Kremlin's manufactured fiction that Russians & Ukranians are the one people with the one language, the root of that lie earlier.  The legend shared by three Slavic peoples is of three brothers, Czech, Lech & Rus who set off in three directions from the family and later settled in different places, the three fathering the Czechs, the Poles and the Rus (which begat both the Russians and Ukranians).     

Sometimes the changes effected by governments happen instantly upon occupation such as much as what was done in Nazi-occupied Europe but sometimes, the rectification or correction waits for centuries.  Although the Byzantine capital Constantinople fell to the Ottomans in 1453, it wasn’t until the Turkification movement, which began in the 1920s after the formation of the modern Turkish state, that the government began to encourage other countries to use Turkish names for Turkish cities, instead of the transliterations to Latin script which had been used during the Ottoman era.  In 1930, the Government gazetted the official change of name from Constantinople to Istanbul.  Ankara’s interest in linguistic hygiene was recently revived, the Turkish authorities issuing a communiqué advising the country’s name would change from the internationally recognized name from "Turkey" to “Türkiye”.  The concern is said to be the association of Turkey with other meanings in English (not the birds but rather “a person who does something thoughtless or annoying; an event or product which fails badly or is totally ineffectual”).  Around the word, those in chancelleries dutifully adjusted their directory entries while cynics wondered if the Turkish president might be looking for something to distract people from their problems.

The Chicken Kiev speech

What came to be known as the “Chicken Kiev speech” was delivered by President Bush (George HW Bush, George XLI; 1924–2018; US president 1989-1993) to a session of the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine in Kyiv on 1 August 1991.  The tone of his words came to be much criticized by the right of the Republican Party, still infused with the spirit of Ronal Reagan and heady from breathing in the dust which rose as the Berlin Wall fell.  Three weeks after the speech, the Ukrainian Declaration of Independence would be presented and a few months after that, over 90% of Ukrainians would vote to secede from the Soviet Union which would collapse before the year was out, an event at least hastened by Ukrainian independence.  Bush’s speech came directly after his meetings with Mikhail Gorbachev (b 1931; leader of the USSR 1985-1991), the last Soviet leader, who seems to have impressed the US president with both his sincerity and ability to pursue economic and political reform. 

Bush started well enough, telling his audience “…today you explore the frontiers and contours of liberty…”, adding “For years, people in this nation felt powerless, overshadowed by a vast government apparatus, cramped by forces that attempted to control every aspect of their lives.”  That encouraging anti-Moscow direction must have raised expectations but they were soon dashed, Bush continuing “President Gorbachev has achieved astonishing things, and his policies of glasnost, perestroika, and democratization point toward the goals of freedom, democracy, and economic liberty.”  Just to make sure there was no hint that Washington might be encouraging in Ukrainian minds any thoughts of independence, Bush provided clarification, telling his by now perhaps disappointed audience that “…freedom is not the same as independence.  Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred."

The speech had been written by Condoleezza Rice (b 1954; US secretary of state 2005-2009), then on the eastern Europe desk at the National Security Council and a special assistant to the president for national security affairs although the "suicidal nationalism" flourish was inserted by Bush himself.  Commenting later, Dr Rice and Mr Bush would acknowledge the speech did not capture the moment, the winds of change which had been blowing since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, but both in their (sort of) apologias made the point that August of 1991 was a very different time and place from December and nobody had predicted the imminent demise of the Soviet Union.

Whatever the reaction of the Ukrainians, it was no more severe than that unleashed at home by the aggregations of anti-communists, American exceptionalists and right-wing fanatics, New York Times columnist William Safire (1929-2009) calling it the "Chicken Kiev speech" and a "colossal mis-judgment".  Later presidents, all of course who served in a post-Soviet environment, seemed to agree and changed direction, pushing for an aggressive expansion of NATO to embrace all the former Soviet bloc.  NATO would, at the now famous Bucharest summit in 2008, go further still, pledging that Ukraine and Georgia would one day be invited to join the alliance. Perhaps wishing to atone for the sins of the father, another President Bush (George W Bush, George XLIII; b 1946; US president 2001-2009) then wanted immediately to offer both nations membership roadmaps but even then, Berlin and Paris were cautious about antagonizing Russia and put both the former Soviet republics on the back-burner.  There they’ve stayed.

Chicken Kiev (côtelette de volaille in Russian & Ukrainian cuisine)

Chicken Kiev variations.

Ingredients

4 rashers of smoked streaky bacon
Olive oil
4 x 150 g skinless chicken breasts
3 tablespoons of plain flour
2 large free-range eggs
150 g fresh breadcrumbs
Sunflower oil
2 large handfuls of baby spinach or rocket
2 lemons
Butter
4 cloves of garlic
½ a bunch (15g) of fresh flat-leaf parsley
4 knobs of butter (at room temperature)
1 pinch of cayenne pepper
800 g Piper potatoes
1 head of broccoli
1 knob of unsalted butter

Instructions

Fry bacon in a pan at medium heat with no more than a drizzle of olive oil, until golden and crisp, then remove.

For the butter, peel garlic, then finely chop with the parsley leaves and mix into the softened butter with the cayenne.  Refrigerate.

Stuff the chicken breasts.  Pull back the loose fillet on the back of the breast and use a knife to slice a long pocket.

Cut the chilled butter into four and insert into the pocket, then crumble in a rasher of crispy bacon.  Fold and seal back the chicken, completely covering the butter so it becomes a wrapped parcel.

Preheat oven to 350°F (180°C).

Place flour in a shallow bowl, whisk the eggs in another and put breadcrumbs and a pinch of seasoning into a third.  Evenly coat each chicken breast in flour, then beaten egg, letting any excess drip off, and finally, turn them in the breadcrumbs, repeating until all four are evenly coated.

Shallow-fry in ¾ inch (20 mm) of sunflower oil on a medium to high heat until lightly golden (should take no more than 2-3 minutes), then transfer to a tray and bake in the oven until cooked through (typically around 10-12 minutes).  The alternative method is to bake them completely in the oven and skip the frying process; this requires drizzling them with olive oil and baking for about 20 minutes; taste will be the same but they won’t have the golden surface texture.

While cooking, peel and roughly chop the potatoes and cook in a large pan of boiling salted water until tender (typically 12-15 minutes).

Chop up broccoli and add it to the potatoes for the last 8-odd minutes of cooking.  Drain and leave to steam dry, then return to the pan and mash with a knob of butter and a pinch of salt and pepper.

Dollop the mash on the serving plates, placing a Kiev atop each. Lightly dress the spinach leaves or rocket in a little oil and lemon juice, then sprinkle over the top as garnish. Serve with a wedge of lemon.

Chimera

Chimera (pronounced ki-meer-uh or kahy-meer-uh)

(1) In Greek mythology, monster of Lycia commonly represented with a lion's head, a goat's body, and the tail of a dragon or serpent (often with initial capital).  In some tales, the monster breathes fire; it was killed by killed by the hero Bellerophon.

(2) In mythology and art, any similarly grotesque monster having disparate parts.

(3) In architecture, a subset of the decorative grotesques (like a gargoyle, but without a spout for rainwater) distinguished from other grotesques by being a blending of two or more creatures.

(4) Figuratively, a horrible or unreal creature of the imagination and used as a synonym of bogeyman: any terrifying thing, especially as an unreal, imagined threat.

(5) Figuratively, a foolish, incongruous, or vain thought or product of the imagination; an idle fancy.

(6) Figuratively, anything composed of disparate parts.

(7) In biology, an organism (especially a cultivated plant) composed of two or more genetically distinct tissues, as an organism that is partly male and partly female, or an artificially produced individual having tissues of several species.

(8) In genetics, an organism with genetically distinct cells originating from two or more zygotes.

(9) In applied genetics, a slang term used by scientists describing one who has received a transplant of genetically and immunologically different tissue.

(9) In medicine, twins with two immunologically different types of red blood cells.

(10) In zoology, an alternative form of chimaera, a cartilaginous marine fish in the subclass Holocephali and especially the order Chimaeriformes, with a blunt snout, long tail, and a spine before the first dorsal fin.

(11) In the geography of Ancient Greece, a fire-spewing mountain in Lycia or Cilicia, presumed to be an ancient name for the Yanartaş region of Turkey's Antalya province.

(12) In historic geography, (1) the former name of Himara, a port town in southern Albania and (2) the former name of Ceraunian Mountains, the Albanian mountain range near Himara.

1350-1400: From the Middle English chimera, from the Old French chimere, from the Medieval Latin chimera, from the Classical Latin chimaera, from the Ancient Greek Χίμαιρα (Khímaira or Chímaira) (she-goat).  Chimaera translates literally a “year-old she-goat”, the masculine form being khimaros from kheima (winter season) from the primitive Indo-European gheim (winter) and related to the Latin hiems (winter), the Ancient Greek cheimṓn (winter), the Old Norse gymbr and the English gimmer (ewe-lamb of one year (ie one winter) old).  The alternative spelling chimaera is used always of the fish and sometimes of the mythological beast.  Chimera & chimerism are nouns, chimerical & chimeric are adjective and chimerically is an adverb; the noun plural is chimeras.  In scientific use, the derived forms include macrochimerism, microchimerism, allochimeric, antichimeric, nonchimeric and xenochimeric.

Bellerophon Riding Pegasus Fighting the Chimaera (1635) by Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640).

The Chimera, a mythical fire-breathing creature depicted often with a lion's head, a goat's body and the tail of a dragon or serpent, was one of the many fantastical offspring of Typhon and Echidna and a sibling of such monsters as Cerberus and the Lernaean Hydra.  In all of antiquity, sighting the Chimera was an omen of storms, shipwrecks, and natural disasters (particularly volcanoes) and was depicted usually by (almost always male) writers as female.  The awful beast was slain by Bellerophon (who led a bloodthirsty life before being killed by Zeus, after which he was venerated as a hero) on the command of King Iobates of Lycia who had begun to find tiresome the Chimira’s raids on his kingdom tiresome.  There arose the tradition that the Chimera was supposedly an ancient personification of snow or winter, but the connection to winter might be no more than the ancient habit of reckoning years as "winters" or maybe just another of the many quasi-mythological imaginings of Medieval writers.  It was in antiquity held to represent a volcano so perhaps the idea of a link to a symbol of "winter storms" (another sense of Greek kheima) and generally of destructive natural forces held some appeal. The word was used generically for “any grotesque monster formed from parts of other animals”, creatures which in the pre-modern world were frequently conjured up for any number of reasons.  The now extinct alternative spelling was Chimeraor and the practice of using an initial capital (known from Latin) when describing the mythical monster is common (on the basis of it being counted as a proper noun) although for this there’s no basis in the rules of English.  The most common modern use, the figurative meaning “wild fantasy” was known in thirteen century French and first recorded in English in the 1580s.

A gargoyle on Cologne Cathedral (left) and a gargoyle on Marble Church, Bodelwyddan, Clwyd, Wales (centre).  The drainage function means the Welsh figure is defined as a gargoyle although its hybrid form is clearly that of a chimera.  The Lindsay Lohan sculpture (digitally altered image, right) is a pure grotesque (single species form, no water spout). 

Grotesques and chimeras

A chimera of Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris, contemplating the city, photographed by Noemiseh91.

In architecture, gargoyles are a specialized class of grotesques that include the functional feature of a waterspout and even if a building is renovated with a modern water management system added which means a gargoyle’s spout now longer is connected to the flow, it does not become reclassified as a grotesque; it remains a gargoyle, albeit a “dry” one.  While the difference between a gargoyle and grotesque is a matter of whether the design incorporates the handling of fluid, the distinction between a chimera and a grotesque is at the margins fluid in the metaphorical sense, both being ornamental sculptures most associated with Gothic architecture but critics have created criteria, however loose the parameters may seem.  Classically, a chimera was a fantastical, mythical creature, often a hybrid of multiple animals or a mix of human and animal features and for the architectural feature to be classified thus, it has to conform to this model.  In that chimeras differ from any grotesque which is a representation, however bizarre, of a creature from a single species.  What that means is that while all chimeras are grotesques, not all grotesques are chimeras.

Horodecki House (House with Chimaeras), Ukraine, Kyiv.  This is the aspect which faces Ivan Franko Square.

One of the most celebrated buildings said (erroneously) to be adorned with chimeras is Horodecki House in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, a structure better known on Instagram as “House with Chimaeras” which received much attention when Volodymyr Zelensky (b 1978, president of Ukraine since 2019) in February 2022 stood in front of it to deliver his “Our weapon is truth” address following the Russian “special military operation” (invasion of Ukraine).  Classified as being in the Art Nouveau style, the building was designed by Polish architect Władysław Horodecki (1863–1930) and despite all the intricate detailing and other complexities, it was completed in little more than two years, opened in 1903.  One thing which made the speed of construction possible was the core technique of using concrete piles as the underpinning, something necessitated by the land being steeply sloped, resulting in an asymmetric building with six floors on Ivan Franko Square while three face Bankova Street.  Another novelty was the use of cement as the finishing material, something at the time not unknown but still rare.  Despite the popular moniker “House with Chimaeras”, the many sculptures which lend Horodecki House its distinctiveness are technically grotesques because all, bipeds & quadrupeds, are representations of real animals, not figures from mythology or fantastical hybrids and it’s believed it picked up the romantic nickname because it imparts such a wonderful air of gloominess and recalls the Gothic style.  The grotesques, rendered in cement, were the work of the Italian sculptor Emilio Sala (1864-1920) who spent most of his working life in St Petersburg and Kyiv.

Interior detailing, Horodecki House Ukraine, Kyiv.

The motif was the theme also for the interior detailing with stuccos, high reliefs and sculptures decorating the ceilings, walls and stairs and of particular interest is that while what’s depicted on the exterior uses only living creatures as a model, inside, everything is dead and often dismembered; Horodetskyi was an avid hunter.  Despite the pervasive feeling of gloom as one approaches the thing, it’s different inside because (the many carcases notwithstanding) the rooms are bright and airy with the floral ornaments typical of early Modernism although it’s of regret all the original furniture and many of the frescos fell victims during World War II (1939-1945) to marauding Red Army soldiers and other looters.  Although in recent years substantially restored, no attempt was made to re-create the frescos, the space not taken by paintings.

Woman with Catfish, Horodecki House Ukraine, Kyiv, photographed by Константинъ. Although there are two creatures in this sculpture, it's still a grotesque because they're separate beings; had the depiction been part fish and part human, it would have been as chimaera.  Although large, certain catfish reach 3 metres in length so the sculptor was rendering still still in the realist tradition.

Following restoration, in 2004 the building was designated a museum but since 2005 it has enjoyed official status as the “Small Residence of the President of Ukraine”, curious term meaning it’s used for meetings with foreign dignitaries and in that there are many advantages, it’s location meaning it’s easy for the security forces to secure the site, the larger rooms are spacious and an make a most attractive backdrop for photo opportunities.  Daily Art Magazine has a feature with a fine collection of images.

Gargoyle & Grotesque

Gargoyle (pronounced gahr-goil)

(1) A grotesquely carved figure of a human or animal crafted as an ornament or projection, especially in Gothic and neo-Gothic architecture.

(2) In architecture, a spout, terminating in a grotesque representation of a human, animal or supernatural figure with open mouth, projecting from the gutter of a building for throwing rain water clear of a building.

(3) Archaic slang for person with a grotesque appearance, especially if small and shrivelled.

(4) Fictional monsters; pop-culture creations inspired by the decorative and/or functional projections in Gothic and neo-Gothic architecture.

1250–1300: From the Middle English gargoile & gargurl (grotesque carved waterspout) from the Old French gargouille & gargoule (throat) and it’s from here modern English gets gargle.  Even in the Gothic period, not all gargoyles were conduits for draining rainwater; many were purely decorative and were therefore grotesques.

Grotesque (pronounced groh-tesk)

(1) In architecture, a thing odd, unnatural or fantastic in the shaping and combination of forms, as in the sixteenth-century decorative style (in any material) combining incongruous human, animal or supernatural figures with scrolls, foliage etc.

(2) Distorted, deformed, weird, antic, wild.

(3) In the classification of art, of or characteristic of the grotesque.

(4) In typography, the family of 19th-century sans serif display types

1555:1565: From the Middle French grotesque from the Italian grottesco (of a cave), derived from grotta from the Vulgar Latin grupta.  Ultimate root is the Classical Latin crypta from which English picked up crypt.  Grotta entered French from the Italian pittura (grottesca) (cave-painting) and it was via French English picked up grotto.  Connection with the decorative forms attached to gothic architecture is the fantastical nature of some cave-paintings.  Spreading from Italian to the other European languages, the term was long used interchangeably with arabesque and moresque for decorative patterns using curving foliage elements.

The Gargoyle and Water Management

Gargoyle: Bern Minster, Switzerland.

Often used interchangeably, the technical difference between gargoyles and grotesques is that gargoyles contain a water sprout, carved usually through the mouth, whereas grotesques do not.  A gargoyle thus has a function in engineering whereas a grotesque’s purpose is essentially decorative although it is nominally functional in that they were believed to provide protection from evil, harmful, or unwanted spirits.  The application of more modern techniques of rainwater management has had the effect of turning many gargoyles into grotesques although architectural historians maintain the original designations.  As long ago as the sixteenth century, drainpipes were installed in the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris so the gargoyles became merely ornamental, although, they did of course continue to ward off evil.

Gargoyle: Cologne Cathedral, Germany.

The number of gargoyles attached to a building and their size and shape was a product of climate and fluid dynamics.  Architects used multiple gargoyles to divide the flow of rainwater off the roof to minimize the potential damage of a rainstorm and that number was influenced by the rainfall prevalent in the area where the structure sat.  The architect needed to consider not the annual rainfall but the heaviest prolonged rain-events expected; they thus had to cater for peak demand and the gargoyles needed to be sufficient in total capacity to evacuate the volume of water expected during the heaviest falls.  To achieve this, a trough was cut in the back of the gargoyle, rainwater typically exiting through the open mouth.  Gargoyles usually assumed their elongated fantastical animal forms because the length of the gargoyle determines how far water was thrown from the wall, the shape thus determined by fluid dynamics.  Prior to the extensive use of pipes reaching to the ground, the gargoyles were sometimes augmented by other techniques; when Gothic flying buttresses were used, aqueducts were sometimes cut into the buttress to divert water over the aisle walls.  Typically cut from stone, Non-ferrous metals and alloys such as aluminium, copper, brass and bronze have been used.

Grotesque: Saint Mary’s Cathedral, Edinburgh.  Technically, this is a pair of chimeras (a subset of the grotesque).

The term originates from the French gargouille (throat; gullet) from the Latin gurgulio, gula & gargula (gullet; throat) and similar words derived from the root gar (to swallow) which represented the gurgling sound of water (such as the Spanish garganta (throat) & g‡rgola (gargoyle)).  It was connected also to the French verb gargariser (to gargle).  Most helpful are the languages where the translation is architecturally precise.  The Italian word for gargoyle is doccione o gronda sporgente (protruding gutter), the German is Wasserspeier (water spewer) and the Dutch is waterspuwer (water spitter or (even better) water vomiter).  A building with gargoyles is said to be "gargoyled" but, during the Middle Ages, babewyn was slang used to describe gargoyles and grotesques, a word derived from the Italian babuino (baboon), an indication of what the things resembled, especially when viewed from a distance.  The size and shape of a gargoyle was thus dictated by function but the detail was left to the imagination of the designer.  Those creating grotesques had few limitations.  Because of the need to scare off and protect from evil or harmful spirits, the carvings often had the quality of chimeras, creatures a mix of different types of animal body parts creating a new animal, some notable chimeras being griffins, centaurs, harpies, and mermaids, these eerie figures serving as a warning to those folk who might underestimate the devil.

Grotesque: National Cathedral, Washington DC.  Although there's an open mouth, this plays no part in water management and is purely decorative.

In water management, the gargoyle has a long history.  In the architecture of Ancient Egypt, there was little variation, the spouts typically in the form of a lion's head carved into the marble or terracotta cymatium of the cornice.  The Temple of Zeus had originally 102 of these but, being rendered from marble, they were heavy and many have broken off or been stolen and only 39 remain.  Nor have they always been chimeric, some instead depicting monks, or combinations of real animals and people, many of which were humorous but as urbanisation increased, building codes were imposed which rendered the gargoyles, expect for their spiritual purpose, obsolete.  Typical was London’s 1724 Building Act which mandated the use of downpipes compulsory on all new constructions.

Gargoyle: Marble Church, Bodelwyddan, Clwyd, Wales.  Note the protruding spout: because the water flow will over time erode the passage, many gargoyles have internal piping (some now even plastic) which is replaceable.  The function means this Welsh figure is defined as a gargoyle although its hybrid nature is clearly that of a chimera.  

Within the Church however, the spiritual function wasn’t without controversy.  Gargoyles were thought to keep evil outside a church but existed also to convey messages to a people who usually were illiterate, scaring them into attending church, a reminder that the end of days was near.  However, there were some medieval clergy who viewed gargoyles as a form of idolatry and Burgundian abbot, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), was famous for his frequent denunciations, his objections theological, aesthetic and fiscal:

"What are these fantastic monsters doing in the cloisters before the eyes of the brothers as they read?  What is the meaning of these unclean monkeys, these strange savage lions, and monsters?  To what purpose are here placed these creatures, half beast, half man, or these spotted tigers?  I see several bodies with one head and several heads with one body.  Here is a quadruped with a serpent's head, there a fish with a quadruped's head, then again an animal half horse, half goat.  Surely if we do not blush for such absurdities, we should at least regret what we have spent on them."

Grotesque: Crooked Hillary Clinton (digitally altered image).

Even after drainpipes took over responsibilities for drainage, the tradition was maintained by the grotesque, sometimes emulating the earlier elongated lines, sometimes more upright.  Grotesques were popular as decoration on nineteenth and early twentieth century skyscrapers and cathedrals in cities such as New York Minneapolis, and Chicago, the stainless steel gargoyles on New York’s Chrysler Building especially celebrated by students of the art.  The twentieth century collegiate form of the Gothic Revival produced many modern gargoyles, notably at Princeton University, Washington University in Saint Louis, Duke University, and the University of Chicago.  One extensive collection of modern gargoyles is on the National Cathedral in Washington DC.  Beginning in 1908 the cathedral was first encrusted with limestone demons but, over the years, many have been added including Star Wars character Darth Vader, a crooked politician, robots and other modern takes on the ancient tradition.  In England, Saint Albans Cathedral has a grotesque of former Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Robert Runcie and one of an astronaut adorns the Cathedral of Salamanca in Spain.

Grotesques modernes, left to right: Star Wars' Darth Vader (from the Star Wars film franchies), National Cathedral, Washington DC; Astronaut or cosmonaut, Cathedral of Salamanca, Spain; Lindsay Lohan, Notre Dame Cathedral of Reims, Marne France (digitally altered image); Dr Robert Runcie (Baron Runcie, 1921–2000; Archbishop of Canterbury 1980-1991) (centre), St Albans Cathedral, England.

Grotesques and chimeras

A chimera of Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris, contemplating the city, photographed by Noemiseh91.

So, in architecture, gargoyles are a specialized class of grotesques that include the functional feature of a waterspout and even if a building is renovated with a modern water management system added which means a gargoyle’s spout now longer is connected to the flow, it does not become reclassified as a grotesque; it remains a gargoyle, albeit a “dry” one.  While the difference between a gargoyle and grotesque is a matter of whether the design incorporates the handling of fluid, the distinction between a chimera and a grotesque is at the margins fluid in the metaphorical sense, both being ornamental sculptures most associated with Gothic architecture but critics have created criteria, however loose the parameters may seem.  Classically, a chimera was a fantastical, mythical creature, often a hybrid of multiple animals or a mix of human and animal features and for the architectural feature to be classified thus, it has to conform to this model.  In that chimeras differ from any grotesque which is a representation, however bizarre, of a creature from a single species.  What that means is that while all chimeras are grotesques, not all grotesques are chimeras.

Horodecki House (House with Chimaeras), Ukraine, Kyiv.

One of the most celebrated buildings said (erroneously) to be adorned with chimeras is Horodecki House in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, a structure better known on Instagram as “House with Chimaeras” which received much attention when Volodymyr Zelensky (b 1978, president of Ukraine since 2019) in February 2022 stood in front of it to deliver his “Our weapon is truth” address following the Russian “special military operation” (invasion of Ukraine).  Classified as being in the Art Nouveau style, the building was designed by Polish architect Władysław Horodecki (1863–1930) and despite all the intricate detailing and other complexities, it was completed in little more than two years, opened in 1903.  One thing which made the speed of construction possible was the core technique of using concrete piles as the underpinning, something necessitated by the land being steeply sloped, resulting in an asymmetric building with six floors on Ivan Franko Square while three face Bankova Street.  Another novelty was the use of cement as the finishing material, something at the time not unknown but still rare.  Despite the popular moniker “House with Chimaeras”, the many sculptures which lend Horodecki House its distinctiveness are technically grotesques because all, bipeds & quadrupeds, are representations of real animals, not figures from mythology or fantastical hybrids and it’s believed it picked up the romantic nickname because it imparts such a wonderful air of gloominess and recalls the Gothic style.  The grotesques, rendered in cement, were the work of the Italian sculptor Emilio Sala (1864-1920) who spent most of his working life in St Petersburg (Leningrad) and Kyiv (Kiev).

Interior detailing, Horodecki House Ukraine, Kyiv.

The motif was the theme also for the interior detailing with stuccos, high reliefs and sculptures decorating the ceilings, walls and stairs and of particular interest is that while what’s depicted on the exterior uses only living creatures as a model, inside, everything is dead and often dismembered; Horodetskyi was an avid hunter.  Despite the pervasive feeling of gloom as one approaches the thing, it’s different inside because (the many carcases notwithstanding) the rooms are bright and airy with the floral ornaments typical of early Modernism although it’s of regret all the original furniture and many of the frescos fell victim during World War II (1939-1945) to marauding Red Army soldiers and other looters.  Although in recent years substantially restored, no attempt was made to re-create the frescos, the space now taken by paintings.

Woman with Catfish, Horodecki House Ukraine, Kyiv, photographed by Константинъ. 

Although there are two creatures in this sculpture, it's still a grotesque because they're separate beings; had the depiction been part fish and part human, it would have been as chimaera.  Although large, certain catfish reach 3 metres in length so the sculptor was rendering still still in the realist tradition.

Following restoration, in 2004 the building was designated a museum but since 2005 it has enjoyed official status as the “Small Residence of the President of Ukraine”, curious term meaning it’s used for meetings with foreign dignitaries and in that there are many advantages, the location meaning it’s easy for security forces to secure the site while the larger rooms are spacious and make a most attractive backdrop for photo opportunities.  Daily Art Magazine has a feature with a fine collection of images.

Tomos

Tomos (pronounced tomm-oss)

In Orthodox Christianity, an ecclesiastical document, promulgated usually by a synod and used to communicate or announce important information.

1510-1520: From the French, from the Latin tomus, from the Ancient Greek τόμος (tomos) (section, slice, roll of paper or papyrus, volume), from τέμνω (témnō or témnein) (I cut, separate); a doublet of tome which persists in English and is used to refer to heavy, large, or learned books.  Tomos is a noun; the noun plural is tomoi.  In geology, the noun tomo describes a shaft formed in limestone rock dissolved by groundwater (use restricted almost wholly to technical use in New Zealand) and the noun plural is tomos.

The Ukraine and the Moscow–Constantinople Schism of 2018

Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople since 1991 (Dimitrios Arhondonis, b 1940) executes the Tomos; watching over his shoulder is Metropolitan Epiphaniusa I of Kyiv and All Ukraine since 2019 (Serhii Petrovych Dumenko, v 1979), Patriarchal Church of St. George, Istanbul (Constantinople), 5 January 2019.

In Istanbul (the old Constantinople), on Saturday 5 January 2019, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew signed a Tomos, an act formalizing his decision in October  2020 to create an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church, thus splitting it from the Russian church to which it has been tied since 1686.  Until the decree, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine that was a branch of the Russian Church was considered legitimate and two others were regarded as schismatic. The new church unites the two formerly schismatic bodies with what is now the official Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I (left) presents the Tomos sanctifying the Ukrainian church's independence to Metropolitan Epiphanius (right) at the conclusion of the ceremony.

The most immediate implication of the signing of the Tomos is that Ukrainian clerics are forced immediately to pick sides, needing to choose between the Moscow-backed and the newly independent Ukrainian churches, a choice that will have to be taken with fighting in eastern Ukraine between government forces and Russia-backed rebels as a backdrop.  Although there’s no formal link of establishment between church and state in Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko (b 1965; president of Ukraine 2014-2019) attended the signing ceremony and immediately declared “…the Tomos is one more act declaring the independence of Ukraine”.  In the aftermath it appeared some two-thirds of the Ukrainian churches have sundered their relationship with Moscow.

Tomos of autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, signed by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I on 5 January 2019.

Neither the Kremlin nor Kirill (or Cyril) Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus' and Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church since 2009 (Vladimir Mikhailovich Gundyayev, b 1946) were best pleased with Bartholomew granting the Ukrainian church autocephaly (independence) and the Russian church immediately severed ties with Constantinople, the centre of the Orthodox world.  A spokesman for the Russia-affiliated faction of the Church in Ukraine issued a statement saying the Tomos was “…anti-canonical” and will visit upon the Ukraine nothing but “…trouble, separation and sin”.  In this, Moscow concurred, one archbishop adding that “…instead of healing the schism, instead of uniting Orthodoxy, we got an even greater schism that exists solely for political reasons.”  Although Orthodoxy was itself born of a schism and this latest split, already described as the Moscow–Constantinople Schism of 2018 is but the latest, the political and military situation in which it exists doesn’t auger well for a peaceful resolution.  In the Kremlin, Mr Putin (Vladimir Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999) thinks much about “…trouble, separation and sin” and no good will come of this.

Prevent & preempt or pre-empt

Prevent (pronounced pri-vent)

(1) To keep from occurring; avert; hinder, especially by the taking of some precautionary action.

(2) To hinder or stop from doing something.

(3) To act ahead of; to forestall (archaic).

(4) To precede or anticipate (archaic).

(5) To interpose a hindrance.

(6) To outdo or surpass (obsolete).

1375–1425: From the late Middle English preventen (anticipate), from the Latin praeventus, past participle of (1) praevenīre (to anticipate; come or go before, anticipate), the construct being prae- (pre; before) + ven- (stem of venīre (come)) + -tus (the past participle suffix) and (2) praeveniō (I anticipate), the construct being prae- (pre; before) + veniō (I come).  In Classical Latin the meaning was literal but in Late Latin, by the 1540s the sense of “to prevent” had emerged, the evolution explained by the idea of “anticipate to hinder; hinder from action by opposition of obstacles”.  That meaning seems not to have entered English until the 1630s.

The adjective preventable (that can be prevented or hindered) dates from the 1630s, the related preventability a decade-odd later.  The adjective preventative (serving to prevent or hinder) is noted from the 1650s and for centuries, dictionaries have listed it as an irregular formation though use seems still prevalent; preventive is better credentialed but now appears relegated to be merely an alternative form.  The adjective preventive (serving to prevent or hinder; guarding against or warding off) has the longer pedigree (used since the 1630s) and was from the Latin praevent-, past-participle stem of praevenīre (to anticipate; come or go before, anticipate).  It was used as a noun in the sense of "something taken or done beforehand” since the 1630s and had entered the jargon of medicine by the 1670s, and under the influence of the physicians came the noun preventiveness (the quality of being preventive).  The noun prevention came from the mid-fifteenth century prevencioun (action of stopping an event or practice), from the Medieval Latin preventionem (nominative preventio) (action of anticipating; a going before), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of the Classical Latin praevenīre.  The original sense in English has been obsolete since at least the late seventeenth century although it was used in a poetically thus well into the 1700s.  Prevent is a verb, preventable (or preventible), preventive & preventative are adjectives, preventability (or preventibility) is a noun and preventably (preventibly) is an adverb.  The archaic spelling is prævent.

Many words are associated with prevent including obstruct, obviate, prohibit, rule out, thwart, forbid, restrict, hamper, halt, forestall, avoid, restrain, hinder, avert, stop, impede, inhibit, bar, preclude, counter, limit & block.  Prevent, hamper, hinder & impede refer to so degree of stoppage of action or progress.  “To prevent” is to stop something by forestalling action and rendering it impossible.  “To hamper” or “to hinder” is to clog or entangle or put an embarrassing restraint upon; not necessarily preventing but certainly making more difficult and both refer to a process or act intended to prevent as opposed to the prevention.  “To impede” is to make difficult the movement or progress of anything by interfering with its proper functioning; it implies some physical or figurative impediment designed to prevent something.

Preempt or pre-empt (pronounced pree-empt)

(1) To occupy (usually public) land in order to establish a prior right to buy.

(2) To acquire or appropriate before someone else; take for oneself; arrogate.

(3) To take the place of because of priorities, reconsideration, rescheduling, etc; supplant.

(4) In bridge, to make a preemptive bid (a high opening bid, made often a bluff by a player holding a weak hand, in an attempt to shut out opposition bidding).

(5) To forestall or prevent (something anticipated) by acting first; preclude; head off.

(6) In computer operating systems, the class of actions used by the OS to determine how long a task should be executed before allowing another task to interact with OS services (as opposed to cooperative multitasking where the OS never initiates a context switch one running process to another.

(7) In the jargon of broadcasting, a euphemism for "cancel” (technical use only).

1830: An invention of US English, a back formation from preemption which was from the Medieval Latin praeēmptiō (previous purchase), from praeemō (buy before), the construct being prae- (pre; before) + emō (buy).  The creation related to the law or real property (land law), to preempt (or pre-empt) being “to occupy public land so as to establish a pre-emptive title to it".  In broadcasting, by 1965 it gained the technical meaning of "set aside a programme and replace it with another" which was actually a euphemism for "cancel”.  Preempt is a verb (and can be a noun in the jargon of broadcasting and computer coding), preemptor is a noun and preempted, preemptory, preemptive & preemptible are adjectives.  The alternative spelling is pre-empt and the (rare) noun plural preempts.

In law, broadcasting and computer operating system architecture, preempt has precise technical meanings but when used casually, it can either overlap or be synonymonous with words like claim, usurp, confiscate, acquire, expropriate, seize, assume, arrogate, anticipate, commandeer, appropriate, obtain, bump, sequester, take, usurp, annex & accroach.  The spelling in the forms præemption, præ-emption etc is archaic).

Preemptive and Preventive War

A preemptive war is a military action by one state against another which is begun with the intent of defeating what is perceived to be an imminent attack or at least gaining a strategic advantage in the impending (and allegedly unavoidable) war before that attack begins. The “preemptive war” is sometimes confused with the “preventive war”, the difference being that the latter is intended to destroy a potential rather than imminent threat; a preventative war may be staged in the absence of enemy aggression or even the suspicion of military planning.  In international law, preventive wars are now generally regarded as aggressive and therefore unlawful whereas a preemptive war can be lawful if authorized by the UN Security Council as an enforcement action.  Such authorizations are not easily gained because the initiation of armed conflict except in self-defense against “armed attack” is not permitted by the United Nations (UN) Charter and only the Security Council can endorse an action as a lawful “action of enforcement”.  Legal theorists suggest that if it can be established that preparations for a future attack have been confirmed, even if the attack has not be commenced, under international law the attack has actually “begun” but the UN has never upheld this opinion.  Militarily, the position does make sense, especially if the first two indictments of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) assembled at Nuremberg (1945-19465) to try the surviving Nazi leadership ((1) planning aggressive war & (2) waging aggressive war) are considered as a practical reality rather than in the abstract.

Legal (as opposed to moral or ethical) objections to preemptive or preventive wars were not unknown but until the nineteenth century, lawyers and statesmen gave wide latitude to the “right of self-defense” which really was a notion from natural law writ large and a matter determined ultimately on the battlefield, victory proof of the ends justifying the means.  Certainly, there was a general recognition of the right forcibly to forestall an attack and the first legal precedent of note wasn’t codified until 1842 in the matter of the Caroline affair (1837).  Then, some Canadian citizens sailed from Canada to the US in the Caroline as part of a planned offensive against the British in Canada.  The British crossed the border and attached, killing both Canadians and a US citizen which led to a diplomatic crisis and several years of low-level clashes.  Ultimately however, the incident led to the formulation of the legal principle of the "Caroline test" which demands that for self-defense to be invoked, an incident must be "…instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation".  Really, that’s an expression little different in meaning to the criteria used in many jurisdictions which must exist for the claim of defense to succeed in criminal assault cases (including murder).  The "Caroline test" remains an accepted part of international law today, although obviously one which must be read in conjunction with an understanding of the events for the last 250-odd years.

The "Caroline test" however was a legal principle and such things need to be enforced and that requires both political will and a military mechanism.  In the aftermath of the Great War (1914-1918), that was the primary purpose of the League of Nations (LON), an international organization (the predecessor of the UN) of states, all of which agreed to desist from the initiation of all wars, (preemptive or otherwise).  Despite the reputation the LON now has as an entirely ineffectual talking shop, in the 1920s it did enjoy some success in settling international disputes and was perceived as effective.  It was an optimistic age, the Locarno Treaties (1925) and the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) appeared to outlaw war but the LON (or more correctly its member states) proved incapable of halting the aggression in Europe, Asia and Africa which so marked the 1930s.  Japan and Italy had been little punished for their invasions and Nazi Germany, noting Japan’s construction of China as a “technical aggressor” claimed its 1939 invasion of Poland was a “defensive war” and it had no option but to preemptively invade Poland, thereby halting the alleged Polish plans to invade Germany.  Berlin's claims were wholly fabricated.  The design of the UN was undertaken during the war and structurally was different; an attempt to create something which could prevent aggression.

There have been no lack of examples since 1939.  Both the British and Germans staged preemptive invasions of Norway in 1940 though the IMT at Nuremberg was no more anxious to discuss this Allied transgression than they were war crimes or crimes against humanity by anyone except the Nazis.  The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941 proceeded without undue difficulty but that couldn’t be said of the Suez Crisis of 1956 when the British, French and Israelis staged an war of aggression which not even London was hypocritical enough to claim was pre-emption or preventive; they called it a peace-keeping operation, a claim again wholly fabricated.  The Six-Day War (1967) which began when Israel attached Egypt is regarded by most in the West as preemptive rather than preventive because of the wealth of evidence suggesting Egypt was preparing to attack although the term “interceptive self-defense” has also be coined although, except as admirable sophistry, it’s not clear if this is either descriptive or helpful.  However, whatever the view, Israel’s actions in 1967 would seem not to satisfy the Caroline test but whether “…leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”, written in the age of sail and musketry, could reasonably be held in 1967 to convey quite the same meaning was obviously questionable.

Interest in the doctrine of preemption was renewed following the US invasion of Iraq (2003).  The US claimed the action was a necessity to intervene to prevent Iraq from deploying weapons of mass destruction (WMD) prior to launching an armed attack.  Subsequently, it was found no WMDs existed but the more interesting legal point is whether the US invasion would have been lawful had WMDs been found.  Presumably, Iraq’s resistance to the attack was lawful regardless of the status of the US attack.  The relevant sections (Article 2, Section 4) of the UN Charter are considered jus cogens (literally "compelling law" (ie “international law”)).  They prohibit all UN members from exercising "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state".  However, this apparently absolute prohibition must be read in conjunction with the phrase "armed attack occurs" (Article 51, Section 37) which differentiates between legitimate and illegitimate military force.  It states that if no armed attack has occurred, no automatic justification for preemptive self-defense has yet been made lawful under the Charter and in order to be justified, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) that the state must have believed that the threat is real and not a mere perception and (2) that the force used must be proportional to the harm threatened.  As history has illustrated, those words permit much scope for those sufficiently imaginative.

Mr Putin (Vladimir Putin (b 1952; prime-minister or president of Russia since 1999)), although avoiding distasteful words like "aggression" “war” or “invasion”, did use the language associated with preemptive and preventive wars in his formal justification for Russia’s “special military operation” against Ukraine.  Firstly he claimed, Russia is using force in self-defence, pursuant to Article 51 of the Charter, to protect itself from a threat emanating from Ukraine.  This threat, if real, could justify preemptive self-defence because, even if an attack was not “imminent”, there was still an existential threat so grave that it was necessary immediately to act (essentially the same argument the US used in 2003).  This view met with little support, most holding any such theory of preemption is incompatible with Article 51 which really is restricted to permitting anticipatory self-defence in response to imminent attacks. Secondly he cited the right of collective self-defence of the Donetsk and Luhansk “republics” although neither are states and even if one accepts they’ve been subject to a Ukranian attack, the extent of Russia’s military intervention and the goal of regime change in Kyiv appear far to exceed the customary criteria of necessity and proportionality.  Finally, the Kremlin claimed the special military action was undertaken as a humanitarian intervention, the need to stop or prevent a genocide of Russians in Eastern Ukraine.  Few commented on this last point.