Proxy

Proxy (pronounced prok-see)

(1) The agency, function, or power of a person authorized to act as the deputy or substitute for another.

(2) The person so authorized; substitute; agent.

(3) An authorization, usually in writing, empowering another person to vote or act for the signer, as at a meeting of stockholders.

(4) An ally or confederate who can be relied upon to speak or act in one's behalf.

(5) In computing, short for proxy server.

(6) In computing, as proxy server, an interface for a service, especially for one that is remote, resource-intensive, or otherwise difficult to use directly; technically a proxy server is a piece of software but in casual use the term is often applied also to the hardware on which it’s run.

(7) In the administration of the courts of canon law, the written appointment of a proctor in suits in the ecclesiastical courts.

(8) In science, a measurement of one physical quantity that is used as an indicator of the value of another.

(9) In munitions, a slang term for a proximity device (a mine, torpedo, missile etc) which explodes when in proximity to the target, rather than having to make physical contact.

(10)In geopolitics, as proxy war, a conflict between two or more state or non-state actors conducted on behalf of or with extensive support from other parties not directly participating in the hostilities except as “advisors”

(11) In psychiatry, as Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP), a mental disorder in which a factitious disorder imposed on another for the purpose of gain the attention of medical professionals.  Now technically known as 

1400–1450: From the late Middle English prokesye, proccy & procusie (agency of one who acts instead of another, office or authority of a substitute; letter of power of attorney), a contraction of the Anglo-French procuracie and the Anglo-Norman procuracy & procuration, from the Medieval Latin procuratia, from the Latin prōcūrō (I manage, administer) & prōcūrātiō (a caring for, management) from procurare (manage).  The present participle was proxying, the simple past and past participle proxied and the noun plural proxies.

The meaning "person who is deputed to represent or act for another" is from 1610s whereas of things, "that which takes the place of something else" dates from the 1630s.  The practice of proxy voting has a long history but the term appears first to have been used Rhode Island in 1664 although then it described voters sending written ballots rather than attending the election, as opposed to would now be thought a “true” proxy system, as had be used in the assembly elections of 1647.  Proxy wars date from antiquity but the term seems first to have been used in 1955, during the high Cold War.

In computing, following the proxy server, there exists a whole ecosystem of related products & protocols including caching proxy, closed proxy, complexity-hiding proxy, dynamic proxy, firewall proxy, forward proxy, open proxy, protection proxy, remote proxy, smart-reference proxy, surrogate proxy, synchronization proxy etc.  In just about any field, there seem to be proxy somethings, including proxy statement, proxy indicator, proxy measurement, proxy abuse, proxy battle, proxy bullying, proxy card, proxy marriage, proxy murder, proxy pattern, proxy voting etc.

Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP)

Although the American Psychiatric Association (APA) insist the condition has been re-named factitious disorder in another (FDIA), most still prefer the more poetic Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP).  It also once was called factitious disorder imposed on another FDOA) or factitious disorder by proxy (FDP) but most agree MSbP is best.  Its primary characteristic is the production or feigning of physical or psychological symptoms in another person (usually a young child or sometimes but the proxy subject can be an adult or even an animal) under the care of the person with the disorder. The symptoms are problems which are inexplicable, persistent or resistant to interventions that, based on clinical experience, would have worked, after adequate evaluation and treatment attempts.  MSbP is a variation of Munchausen syndrome (which the APA list as factitious disorder (FD)), a mental disorder in which those affected feign (or sometimes even induce) disease, illness, injury, abuse, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves.  The name is from the fictional character Baron Munchausen from the 1785 novel Baron Munchausen's Narrative of his Marvellous Travels and Campaigns in Russia, by German author Rudolf Erich Raspe (1736-1794), a collection of extraordinary stories, based (loosely) on the tales told by the real-life Baron Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen (1720-1797).  The real baron was prone to quite some exaggeration in the tales of his travels but never went as far as Herr Raspe who included in his volume the eighteenth century baron flying to the moon.

Factitious disorder (FD) is an umbrella category including a range of mental disturbances in which patients intentionally act physically or mentally ill without obvious benefits.  The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR (2000)) distinguished FD from malingering, which was defined as faking illness when the individual has a clear motive (typically to avoid work, benefit financially or evade legal difficulties).  FD used to be known as "hospital addiction", "pathomimia" or "polysurgical addiction" and variant names for individuals with FD included "hospital vagrants", "hospital hoboes", "peregrinating patients", "problem patients" and "professional patients".

The syndrome has a long tradition.  The English physician Hector Gavin (1815-1855) in 1843 published On Feigned and Factitious Diseases in which he documented, drawing mostly from the records of soldiers and seamen, the means used to simulate or produce symptoms and the best techniques a clinician could use to of uncover impostors.  Two thousand-odd years earlier, the noted Roma physician Aelius Galenus (Galen, 129-216 AD) wrote of six cases in his journals and from then to the present, the medical literature is littered with examples but modern, systematic study didn’t really begin until 1961 when British endocrinologist and haematologist Richard Asher (1912-1969) published a paper.  It had been Dr Asher who, in 1951, had coined the term Munchausen syndrome to describe a chronic subtype of FD and his work is worth reading even by the medically untrained and otherwise uninterested, such is the vivid quality of the writing and the seductive use of language.  It was in these years that the condition began more fully to be understood as distinct from malingering and the term Munchausen syndrome most appropriately refers to the subset of patients who have a chronic variant of FD with predominantly physical signs and symptoms.  In practice, however, many still use the term Munchausen syndrome interchangeably with FD.  The American Psychiatric Association first classified Munchausen syndrome in the third edition of the DSM (DSM-III 1980) so, historically, the condition was under-diagnosed and the current view is these patients feign illness or injury not to achieve a clear benefit, such as financial gain, but rather to gain the sympathy and special attention often given to people who are truly ill.  There is often a willingness to undergo painful or even risky tests and operations in order to obtain this attention.  Munchausen syndrome is considered a mental illness but can just as helpfully be thought a symptom because it is associated with severe emotional difficulties.

The term Munchausen syndrome by proxy was in 1977 coined by British pediatrician Roy Meadow.  Meadow became famous also for the rule he published in his 1977 book The ABC of Child Abuse, which stated that in a single family, "one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder, until proved otherwise", this coming to be known as "Meadow's Law" and influential among UK social workers and child protection agencies.  His framing of the rule reflected his dogmatism and his reputation suffered as a consequence of his being struck from the British Medical Register by the General Medical Council (GMC) because of the erroneous and misleading evidence he provided in several trials which resulted in wrongful convictions although GMC’s ruling was overturned on appeal, on what might be described as public policy grounds.  Dr Meadow subsequently voluntarily relinquished his registration, thereby ensuring he could not be compelled to appear before the GMC regarding any previous professional conduct.

MSbP however survived the controversy.  Those with FD tend to be women aged 20-40 years and employed in medical fields such as nursing or other discipline where those employed enjoy familiarity with medical technology while those with chronic FD (Munchausen syndrome) are predominately unmarried, white, middle-aged men estranged from their families.  Perpetrators of Munchausen syndrome by proxy are typically mothers who induce illness in their young children although the conduct by fathers or others is not unknown.  The causes of FD, whether physical or psychiatric, are difficult to determine because affected patients are often lost to follow-up when they leave the hospital.  Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been used and abnormalities in the brain structure of some patients with chronic FD have been detected but this does no more than suggest the possibility there may be some biological or genetic factors in the disorder shouldn’t be excluded.  The results of EEG (electroencephalography) studies are usually reported as non-specific and the suggestions for the causes of these disorders cast a wide net including (1) traumatic events and numerous hospitalizations during childhood, (2) FD allows patients to feel in control as they never did in childhood, (3) a coping mechanism, learned and reinforced in childhood and, intriguingly, (4). The “care-eliciting behaviors” theory, a process of unconscious identification with an important person, who genuinely has the pathology the patient is feigning.

Many authors have also underscored the co-occurrence of some pathological personality traits or disorders such as (5) identity disturbance, (6) unstable interpersonal relationships and (7), recurrent suicidal or self-mutilating behaviors which are similar to those encountered in borderline personality disorder.  Also noted have been instances of deceitfulness, lack of remorse, reckless disregard for safety of self, repeated failure to sustain constant work behavior and the failure to conform to social norms but these are common features not only of FD but of many antisocial personality disorders.  There is little agreement or evidence as to what causes Munchausen syndrome or Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Some theories suggest that the patient (or caregiver) may have experienced just about any of the conditions or experiences suffered by those with a variety of mental disorders and there seems to be no one thing or subset either exclusive or predictive.

In the DSM-5 (2013), the FD conditions were placed in the category Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders and the most precise definitional clauses were added, FD assigned to individuals who falsify illness in themselves or in another person, without any obvious gain  This combination of intentional falsification and lack of any obvious gain sets factitious disorder apart from similar conditions, such as somatic symptom disorder (where someone seeks excessive attention for genuine concerns) and malingering (where an individual falsifies symptoms for personal gain).  The condition is noted as both to diagnose and treat and, being rare (1% of individuals in hospital present with criteria matching the disorder), but the prevalence of factitious disorder throughout the general population is unknown.  Diagnosis of factitious disorder often requires a number of investigatory steps in order to accurately identify the condition without wrongful accusation, and treatment options can be both limited and difficult to administer if the individual refuses to admit the deception.  There are four primary criteria for diagnosing factitious disorder:

(1) Intentional induction or falsification of physical or psychological signs or symptoms.

(2) The individual presents themselves as ill, impaired or injured to others.

(3) The deceptive behavior persists even in the absence of external incentives or rewards.

(4) Another mental disorder does not better explain the behavior.

Factitious disorder may be diagnosed as either a single episode or as recurrent episodes (two or more instances of illness falsification and/or induction of injury) and Factitious disorder in another (formerly known as previously called Munchausen syndrome by proxy) may be broadly diagnosed using essentially the same four criteria as:

(1) Intentional induction or falsification of physical or psychological signs or symptoms in another person.

(2) The individual presents another individual (the victim) as ill, impaired or injured to others.

(3) The deceptive behavior persists even in the absence of external incentives or rewards.

(4) Another mental disorder does not better explain the behavior.

As with factitious disorder, factitious disorder in another may be diagnosed as either a single episode or as recurrent episodes (two or more instances of illness falsification and/or induction of injury). With factitious disorder in another, the victim may be assigned an abuse diagnosis as a result of the perpetrator’s behavior or actions.

Succedaneum

Succedaneum (pronounced suhk-si-dey-nee-uhm)

(1) Something used as a substitute, especially any medical drug or agent that may be taken or prescribed in place of another (obsolete).

(2) One who takes the place of another.

1635–1645: From the New Latin succēdāneum, a noun use of the neuter singular of the Classical Latin succēdāneus (succeeding, following after; acting as substitute), the construct being suc(cēdō) (succeed, follow) +‎ -āneus (the composite adjectival suffix).  The notion of a succedaneum exists in many contexts and there are descriptions which are exactly synonymous and some which are merely similar or functionally overlap to some extent surrogate, backup, understudy, replacement, stand-in, locum, alternate, deputy, expediency, proxy, stopgap, body-double, sub, makeshift, fill-in, delegate, temporary, assistant, nominee, replica, successor and substitute.  Succedaneum is a noun and succedaneous is an adjective, the noun plural is succedanea.

Lindsay Lohan body-doubles: The Parent Trap (1998) (left) and Irish Wish (2023 (right).

The understudy is a term from the performing arts (theatre, ballet, opera et al) and describes someone who rehearses a part and is available to perform if the designated character becomes unavailable (illness, injury, tantrum, death etc).  In some cases an understudy may become a replacement if a temporary substitution becomes permanent.  A backup is essentially the same concept as an understudy but is used more generally.  Locum was a seventeenth century adoption of the Medieval Latin locum tenens (literally “one holding a place”) and has evolved as a class-based description of “a temporary replacement”, being by convention restricted to the professions (doctors, dentists, lawyers, vets etc (and for historic reasons the clergy)) whereas a replacement plumber is simply a replacement.  A body-double is used in film & television production to take the place of an actor for a variety of reasons (dangerous stunt work, scheduling conflicts, nudity scenes etc).  Alternates are usually those appointed to some sort of deliberative body, typically a judge appointed to some sort of enquiry or tribunal expected to last a long time, the idea being that in the case the primary judge becomes unavailable (illness, injury, tantrum, death etc), the matter may proceed without interruption.  In this context a nominee is someone nominated to fulfill some role which is for whatever reason (ex-officio, inheritance etc) in the gift of the nominator.  A proxy is particular example of a nominee who is authorized to exercise some right (usually a vote or votes) on behalf of the nominator.  A stopgap or makeshift is a description of something or someone temporarily substituted until a permanent arrangement is made. A delegate is an appointment made to exercise authority held by another but also carries the special value in that the extent of the delegation can be split.  In granting authority to a delegate, the delegated authority can be restricted to a single instance with all other matters reserved for the delegator.  In many cases a deputy or assistant will be able to exercise all or some of the authority held by the higher office but there are no set rules and things will vary from place to place.  As successor is simply a replacement and such situations the word substitute usually isn’t applied.

The issue of the appropriateness of the notion of succedaneum in legal proceedings was explored in the hearings of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) during the first trial of the leading Nazis at Nuremberg (1945-1946).  The first matter considered was whether others could be substituted if a preferred defendant wasn’t available for trial (ie they were dead or missing).  Because of the teleological nature of the trial insisted on by the Americans (who were providing the bulk of the resources and paying most of the bills) which was best served by a thematic approach to the choice of defendants, at least one representative of each defined area of interest was needed.  In the case of the army and navy that was simple because senior officers were to hand and the matter of the air force was fudged by indicting Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945 and Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) although his role as notional head of the Luftwaffe’s and indeed its role in the war received very little attention during the trial; given the Allies carpet bombing campaign had laid waste to German cities which indisputably were treated as civilian targets, it wasn’t something on which the prosecution wished to dwell although the opening address did include the admission the Germans not alone in reducing European cities to rubble and that “… the ruin that lies from the Rhine to the Danube shows that we have not been dull pupils”.  Despite that prosecutorial gesture however, it was make clear to counsel the defense of tu quoque (best translated as “you did it too” (literally “and you also”)) would not be permitted.

The defendants in the dock listening to Kaltenbrunner’s cross-examination, Nuremberg, 1946.

Dead or missing however were three of the most notorious figures from the security apparatus: Heinrich ("Gestapo") Müller (1900-1945 (presumed); head of the Gestapo 1939-1945), Reinhard Heydrich (1904–1942; head of the Reich Security Main Office 1939-1942) and Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945; Reichsführer SS 1929-1945).  However it was unthinkable a trial of the Nazis could be conducted without the Gestapo and the SS being represented so Ernst Kaltenbrunner (1903–1946; head of the Reich Security Main Office 1943-1945) was substituted and it proved a wise choice because of all the defendants, he was the one with absolutely no defense, his guilt established beyond any doubt by the wealth of documents signed in his own hand (his cross-examination a remarkably brief 2½ days).  He was a trained lawyer and simply denied everything although given the evidence his protests didn’t convince even the others in the dock.  He also wasn’t happy about the use of succedaneum, saying more than once he was not prepared “…to be an ersatz for Himmler” although that did him no good and he was condemned to hang.

Dead too was Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) but the trial was not simply about the armed conflict which was fought between 1939-1945; the Americans in particular wanted the trial to be a platform to explore the role of propaganda in totalitarian societies and the way it was exploited by the Nazis in the 1930s.  Goebbels however had been a dominant figure in propaganda and the only official from the ministry of any status who could be found was Hans Fritzsche (1900–1953) who while not exactly “the newsreader” some claimed, was not someone ever concerned with matters of high-policy and he was available for the trial only because, in the haphazard ways things happened at the end of the war, he’d fallen into the hands of the Russians.  Certainly, his voice was well-known to Germans but nobody on the British or US prosecution teams had heard of him and, perhaps more tellingly, neither had some of his fellow defendants.  Despite this unpromising background however, a case was prepared but compared with the mass-murderers and plunderers which whom he shared the dock, the tribunal wasn’t convinced he could be convicted of war crimes or crimes against humanity and ordered his acquittal.  Unlike the substituted Kaltenbrunner who was guilty as sin of horrific crimes, Fritzsche seemed little more than a clerk, guilty of something but not war crimes.  Arrested shortly afterwards by the German authorities, he was convicted as a “major offender” by a denazification court and sentenced to nine years imprisonment.  In the early Cold War however, attitudes were shifting and like many others, he was soon released.

Courtroom during the Krupp trial, Nuremberg, 1947.

By far the most troubling act of (attempted) succedaneum was that of Alfried Krupp (1907–1967).  Krupp was an industrialist and had been head of the Krupp concern (steel works and related production) which was a major supplier of weapons and other materiel to the Nazi war machine, much of it produced using slave labor under appalling conditions.  It was important to ensure a representative of industry be included in the trial and no operation was more dominant in the Nazi economy than Krupps.  In one of those curious mistakes which just can’t be fixed, although it had been intended to indict Alfried Krupp, at some point in the process, a filing error or something happened and instead his father Gustav Krupp (1870–1950) was listed.  The father had actually been “retired” to the titular position of Chairman because of physical and mental incapacity and the error wasn’t noticed until it was too late and the indictment had been issued.  Were it in any other context, an apology could have been made and the paperwork amended but “substitution” in criminal law is a special case and no civilized legal system permits it.  The court had already been made aware that the elder Krupp was physically and mentally not fit to attend a trial which prompted the suggestion he might be tried in absentia but this the tribunal declined.  The prosecution’s alternative plan was therefore to “add” the name of the son to the indictment but this appalled the tribunal even more because it was so obviously as substitution.  By now it was too late to run the argument that the “addition” was simply to correct the earlier filing error and the trial proceeded without either Krupp.

At things turned out, the mistake merely delayed things.  At the time, it wasn’t certain there would be subsequent trials but the success of the main trial encouraged the prosecutors and twelve hearings (referred to usually as the "Subsequent Nuremberg Trials") were conducted including three concerned with the crimes committed in the course of industrial production (Krupp, Flick & IG Farben).  After the trial (1947-1948), Alfried Krupp received a twelve year sentence and the forfeiture of property although he served only a few years before the sentence was commuted.

Defenestration

Defenestration (pronounced dee-fen-uh-strey-shuhn)

(1) The act of throwing a person out of a window.

(2) In casual, often humorous use, to throw anything out of a window.

(3) A sardonic term in the business of politics which refers to an act which deposes a leader).

(4) In nerd humor, the act of removing the Microsoft Windows operating system from a computer in order to install an alternative.

1618: From New Latin dēfenestrātiō, the construct being dē (from; out) + fenestra (window) + -atio (the suffix indicating an action or process).  It was borrowed also by the Middle French défenestrer (which persists in Modern French) & défenestration.  The German form is Fenstersturz; the verb defenestrate formed later.  The related forms are defenestrate (1915) & defenestrated (1620).  Derived terms (which seem only ever used sardonically) include autodefenestration (the act of hurling oneself from a window), dedefenestration (the act of hurling someone back through the window from which recently they were defenestrationed and redefenestration (hurling someone from a window for a second time, possibly just after their dedefenestration).  Use of these coinings is obviously limited.

The de- prefix was from the Latin dē-, from the preposition dē (of; from)  It was used in the sense of “reversal, undoing, removing”; the similar prefix in Old English was æf-.  The –ation suffix is from the Middle English –acioun & -acion, from the Old French acion & -ation, from the Latin -ātiō, an alternative form of -tiō (from which Modern English gained -tion).  It was used variously to create the forms describing (1) an action or process, (2) the result of an action or process or (3) a state or quality.  Fenestra is of unknown origin.  Some etymologists link fenestra with the Greek verb phainein (to show) while others suggest an Etruscan borrowing, based on the suffix -(s)tra, as in the Latin loan-words aplustre (the carved stern of a ship with its ornaments), genista (the plant broom) or lanista (trainer of gladiators).  Fenestration dates from 1870 in the anatomical sense, a noun of action from the Latin fenestrare, from fenestra (window, opening for light).  The now rare but once familiar meaning "arrangement of windows" dates from 1846 and described a certain design element in architecture.  The related form is fenestrated.

Second Defenestration of Prague (circa 1618), woodcut by Matthäus Merian der Ältere (1593–1650).

Although it was already known in the Middle French, defenestrate entered English to lament (or celebrate, depending on one’s view of such things) the Defenestration of Prague in 1618, when Two Roman Catholic regents of Ferdinand II, representing the Holy Roman Emperor in the Bohemian national assembly, were tossed from a third floor window of Hradshin Castle by Protestant radicals who accused them of suppressing their rights.  All three survived, landing either in a moat or rubbish heap defending on one’s choice of history book and thus began the Thirty Years’ War.  The artist called his painting the "Second Defenestration" because he was one of the school which attaches no significance to the 1438 event most historians now regard as the second of three.

The defenestration of 1618 that triggered the Thirty Years’ War wasn’t the first, indeed it was at the time said it had been done in "…good Bohemian style" by those who recalled earlier defenestrations, although, in fairness, the practice wasn’t exclusively Bohemian, noted in the Bible and not uncommon in Medieval and early modern times, lynching and mob violence a cross-cultural political language for centuries.  The first governmental defenestration occurred in 1419, second in 1483 and the third in 1618, although the term "Defenestration of Prague" is applied exclusively to the last.  The first and last are remembered because they trigged long wars of religion in Bohemia and beyond, the Hussite Wars (1419-1435) associated with the first and the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) with the Third.  The neglected second ushered in the religious peace of Kutná Hora which lasted decades, clearly not something to remember.  The 1618 event is the third defenestration of Prague).

The word has become popular as a vivid descriptor of political back-stabbing and is best understood sequentially, the churn-rate of recent Australian prime-ministers a good example: (1) Julia Gillard (b 1961) defenestrated Kevin Rudd (b 1957), (2) Kevin Rudd defenestrated Julia Gillard, (3) Malcolm Turnbull (b 1954) defenestrated Tony Abbott (b 1957), (4) Peter Dutton (b 1970) defenestrated Malcolm Turnbull (although that didn’t work out quite as planned, Mr Dutton turning out to be the hapless proxy for Scott Morrison (b 1968)).  Given the recent history it's surprising no one has bother to coin the adjective defenestrative to describe Australian politics although given it's likely there are more defenestrations will be to come, that may yet happen.

Some great moments in defenestration

King John of England (1166-1216) killed his nephew, Arthur of Brittany (1187-1203), by defenestration from the castle at Rouen, France, in 1203 (the method contested though not the death).

In 1378, the crafts and their leader Wouter van der Leyden occupied the Leuven city hall and seized the Leuven government.  In an attempt to regain absolute control, they had Wouter van der Leyden assassinated in Brussels. Seeking revenge, the crafts handed over the patrician to a furious crowd. The crowd stormed the city hall and threw the patricians out of the window. At least 15 patricians were killed during this defenestration of Leuven.

In 1383, Bishop Dom Martinho (1485-1547) was defenestrated by the citizens of Lisbon, having been suspected of conspiring with the enemy when Lisbon was besieged by the Castilians.

In 1419 Hussite mob defenestrates a judge, the burgomaster, and some thirteen members of the town council of New Town of Prague. (First defenestration of Prague).

Death of Jezebel (1866) by Gustave Doré (1832–1883).

In the Bible, Jezebel was defenestrated at Jezreel by her own servants at the urging of Jehu. (2 Kings 9:33).  Jezabel is used today to as one of the many ways to heap opprobrium upon women although it now suggests loose virtue, rather than the heresy or doctrinal sloppiness mentioned in the Bible.

Jezebel encouraged the worship of Baal and Asherah, as well as purging the prophets of Yahweh from Israel.  This so damaged the house of Omride that the dynasty fell.  Ever since, the Jews have damned Jezabel as power-hungry, violent and whorish.  However, she was one of the few women of power in the Bible and there is something of a scriptural dislike of powerful women, an influence which seems still to linger among the secular.

In the Book of Revelation (2:20-23), Jezebel's name is linked with false prophets:

20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.

22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.

23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

Lorenzo de' Medici (circa 1534) by Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574).

On 26 April 1478, after the failure of the "Pazzi conspiracy" to murder the ruler of Florence, Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici (Lorenzo the Magnificent 1449–1492), Jacopo de' Pazzi (1423-1478) was defenestrated.  In 1483, Prague's Old-Town portreeve and the bodies of seven murdered New-Town aldermen were defenestrated.  (Second defenestration of Prague).  On 16 May 1562, Adham Khan (1531-1652), The Mughal emperor Akbar the Great’s (1542-1605) general and foster brother, was defenestrated (twice!) for murdering a rival general, Ataga Khan (d 1562).  Akbar was woken up in the tumult after the murder. He struck Adham Khan down personally with his fist and immediately ordered his defenestration by royal order. The first time, his legs were broken but he remained alive.  Akbar ordered his defenestration a second time, killing him. Adham Khan had wrongly counted on the influence of his mother and Akbar's wet nurse, Maham Anga (d 1562) to save him as she was almost an unofficial regent in the days of Akbar's youth.  Akbar personally informed Maham Anga of her son's death, to which, famously, she commented, “You have done well”.  After forty days and forty nights, she died of acute depression.  On the morning of 1 December 1640, in Lisbon, a group of supporters of the Duke of Braganza party found Miguel de Vasconcelos (1590-1640), the hated Portuguese Secretary of State of the Habsburg Philip III (1605-1665), hidden in a closet, killed and defenestrated him.  His corpse was left to the public outrage.  On 11 June 1903, a group of Serbian army officers murdered and defenestrated King Alexander (1876-1903) and Queen Draga (1866-1903).

Poster of Benito Mussolini (1883-1946, Duce of Italy, 1922-1943), Ethiopia, 1936.

In 1922, Italian politician and writer Gabriele d'Annunzio (1863-1938) was temporarily crippled after falling from a window, possibly pushed by a follower of Benito Mussolini.  The Duce might almost have been grateful had he suffered the illustrious fate of defenestration, the end of not a few kings and princes.   Instead, Italian communist partisans found him hiding in the back of a truck with his mistress Clara Petacci (1912-1945), attempting to flee to neutral Switzerland.  Taken to a village near Lake Como, on 28 April 1945, both were summarily executed by firing squad, their bodies hung upside down outside a petrol station where the corpses were abused by the mob.  When Hitler saw the photographs, he quickly summoned Otto Günsche (1917–2003), his personal SS adjutant, repeating his instruction that nothing must remain of him after his suicide.

On 10 March 10 1948, the Czechoslovakian minister of foreign affairs Jan Masaryk (1886-1948) was found dead, in his pajamas, in the courtyard of the Foreign Ministry below his bathroom window. The initial (KGB) investigation stated that he committed suicide by jumping out of the window.  A 2004 police investigation concluded that he was defenestrated by the KGB.  In 1968, the son of China's future paramount leader Deng Xiaoping (2004-1997), Deng Pufang (b 1944), was thrown from a window by Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution.  In 1977, as a result of political backlash against his album Zombie, musician Fela Kuti's (1938-1997) mother (Chief Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti, 1900-1978) was thrown from a window during a military raid on his compound.  In addition, the commanding officer defecated on her head, while the soldiers burned down the compound, destroying his musical equipment, studio and master tapes.  Adding insult to injury, they later jailed him for being a subversive.  On 2 March 2007, Russian investigative journalist Ivan Safronov (1956-2007), who was researching the Kremlin's covert arms deals, fell to his death from a fifth floor window.  There was an investigation and the death was ruled to be suicide, a cause of death which of late has become uncommonly common in Russia, people these days often falling from windows high above the ground.

Dominion Centre, Toronto.

On 9 July 1993, in a case of self-defenestration, Toronto attorney Garry Hoy (1955-1993) fell from a window after a playful attempt to prove to a group of new legal interns that the windows of Toronto’s Dominion Centre were unbreakable.  The glass sustained the manufacturer’s claim but, intact, popped out of the frame, the unfortunate lawyer plunging to his death.  Mr Hoy actually also held an engineering degree and is said to have many times performed the amusing stunt.  Unfortunately he didn’t live to explain to the interns how the accumulation of stresses from his many impacts may have contributed to the structural failure.

Lilo

Lilo (pronounced lahy-loh)

(1) The trademark for a type of inflatable plastic or rubber mattress, often used when in lakes, swimming pools etc.

(2) As a generic term, any inflatable mattress, especially those used recreationally in lakes, swimming pools etc).

(3) The portmanteau slang synonym for Li(ndsay) Lo(han); it was also applied as the name of a dance Ms Lohan performed ad-hoc on the Greek island of Mykonos in 2018.

(4) As LILO, the acronym for Li(nux) Lo(ader), an early (1991-2015) boot loader for the Linux operating system.

(5) As LILO, in computing, organizational management, accountancy and behavioral science, as the acronym for L(ast) I(n), L(ast) O(ut), a companion unit descriptor to FIFO (First In, First Out) & FILO (First in Last Out), all methods with which to organize the manipulation of data structures.  Under LILO, the last object in a queue is the last object to leave the queue.

1944: The trademark name Lilo (originally Li-Lo) registered by the company which made inflatable air-mattresses of rubberized canvas dates from the 1940s (1944 in the UK; 1947 in the US) and was a sensational spelling based on the phonetic “lie low”.  Lilo also exists in other languages: In the Philippines, in the Cebuano language a lilo is a swirling body of water or a large and violent whirlpool (a maelstrom) while in Tagalog it’s an adjective meaning disloyal; unfaithful; traitorous; treacherous (the synonyms being taksil, sukab, mapagkanulo & traydor).  In Hawaiian, Lilo is a feminine given name meaning “generous one” although in some traditions in the islands it can be translated as “lost” so the song He Mele No Lilo translates (loosely) as “Lullaby of the Lost”.  Lilo is a noun, the noun plural is lilos.

The Li-Lo Kayak, 1960.  The car depicted is a stylized rendition of an early version of one from the Rootes Group's "Audax" range (1956–1967).

The technology of the lilo was adaptable and able to assume various shapes, the LiLo company dabbling in a number of market niches including furniture, packaging and inflatable canoes.  The Kayak however was complex in construction so its production was thus labor intensive so it never sold in the numbers required to achieve the economies of scale which could have lowered the price and at Stg£25 (over Stg£500 in 2022 values) it was too expensive to succeed.  The idea has however been revived in the twenty-first century and "lilo & inflatable kayak" adventure tourism is now a thing.

The Bravissimo Lilo

The joke which buyers took seriously: the Bravissimo Lilo.

Bravissimo's Lilo appeared originally in 2018 as an April Fools' prank but such was the demand it was put into production and is now Bravissimo part-number SW571, available exclusively in hot pink.  Although there have since the 1940s been improvements in materials (lilos are made usually from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or textile-reinforced urethane plastic or rubber), the innovation on Bravissimo's is the first structural change in design in seventy-five years.  Integrating what the manufacturer calls “cup holders” the unique feature is a one-size-fits-all lacuna at the appropriate position so the breasts may comfortably rest un-squished when a woman is supine, lying face-down

Room to move: One size fits all.

Even Bravissimo, an underwear company which specializes in the niche of bigger boobs, admits they really should have thought of this before, given the discomfort suffered by lilo-using women tends to increase in direct proportion to cup-size.  It’s available in-store in some Bravissimo outlets and on-line at Stg£28 (US$45).

No longer one size fits all: Crash test dummies (CTD) now more inclusive.

Perhaps Bravissimo being nudged into making available a lilo which took account of women's unique anatomical differences inspired others because, some fifty years after they came into use, Swedish engineers have at last developed a crash-test dummy (CTD; "seat evaluation tool" the technical term) representative of the body of a typical woman.  Until now, almost all CTDs have been based on the build and weight of a typical adult male.  In most markets however, women however have long represented about half of all drivers and passengers yet the CTD manufacturers and regulators used in testing as a proxy for women was a scaled-down version of the male one, roughly the size of a typical girl of twelve and at 1.49m (4', 8") and weighing 48kg (106 lb), in accord with only the smallest 5% of women by the standards of the mid-1970s.  The new CTD is a more representative 1.62 m (5', 3") tall, weighing in at 62kg (137 lb).

The need for a range of CTD with characteristics covering most of the population was discussed in the 1960s when US regulators began to write the first standards for automotive safety but industry lobbyists did their work and ensured crash-testing would be done as cheaply as possible, hence the standard, one-size-fits-all male analogue.  Despite years of convincing research which confirmed women were disproportionately injured in crashes (height rather than weight apparently the critical variable in the interaction of their smaller frames with seat-belts and air-bags), it wasn't until 2011 that US federal regulators required manufacturers to use more petite CTDs in frontal automotive crash tests.  It's hoped the new, Swedish-developed CTD will improve outcomes and the data from physical testing will soon be available for use in the increasingly important computer emulations, a field in which artificial intelligence (AI) is proving useful.

Lindsay Lohan: Studies of Lilo lying low in three aspects.

Lindsay Lohan’s moniker LiLo is a blend, the construct being Li(ndsay) + Lo(han).  Being based on proper nouns, in linguistics this would by most be regarded a pure blend, although some would list it as a portmanteau which is a special type of blend in which parts of multiple words are combined into a new word (and some insist that in true portmanteaus there must be some relationship between the source words and the result).

War

War (pronounced wawr)

(1) A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air; in the singular, a specific conflict (eg Second Punic War).

(2) A state or period of armed hostility or active military operations.

(3) A contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns.

(4) By extension, a descriptor for various forms of non-armed conflict (war on poverty, trade war, war on drugs, war on cancer, war of words etc).

(5) A type of card game played with a 52 card pack.

(6) A battle (archaic).

(7) To conduct a conflict.

(8) In law, the standard abbreviation for warrant (and in England, the county Warwickshire.

Pre 1150: The noun was from the Middle English werre, from the late Old English were, were & wyrre (large-scale military conflict) (which displaced the native Old English ġewinn), from the Old Northern French were & werre (variant of Old French guerre (difficulty, dispute; hostility; fight, combat, war)), from the Medieval Latin werra, from the Frankish werru (confusion; quarrel), from the Old Norse verriworse and was cognate with the Old High German werra (confusion, strife, quarrel), the German verwirren (to confuse), the Old Saxon werran (to confuse, perplex), the Dutch war (confusion, disarray) and the West Frisian war (defense, self-defense, struggle (also confusion).  Root was the primitive Indo-European wers- (to mix up, confuse, beat, perplex) and the Cognates are thought to suggest the original sense was "to bring into a state of confusion”.  The verb was from the Middle English, from the late Old English verb transitive werrien (to make war upon) and was derivative of the noun.  The alternative English form warre was still in use as late as the seventeenth century.

Developments in other European languages including the Old French guerrer and the Old North French werreier.  The Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian guerra also are from the Germanic; why those speaking Romanic tongues turned to the Germanic for a word meaning "war" word is speculative but it may have been to avoid the Latin bellum (from which is derived bellicose) because its form tended to merge with bello- (beautiful).  Interestingly and belying the reputation later gained, there was no common Germanic word for "war" at the dawn of historical times.  Old English had many poetic words for "war" (wig, guð, heaðo, hild, all common in personal names), but the usual one to translate Latin bellum was gewin (struggle, strife (and related to “win”).

War-time appeared first in the late fourteenth century; the territorial conflicts against Native Americans added several forms including warpath (1775), war-whoop (1761), war-dance (1757), war-song (1757) & war-paint (1826) the last of which came often to be applied to war-mongering (qv) politicians (as in "putting on their war-paint"), a profession which does seem to attract blood-thirsty non-combatants.  War crimes, although widely discussed for generations, were first discussed in the sense of being a particular set of acts which might give rise to specific offences which could be codified in International Law: A Treatise (1906) by LFL Oppenheim (1858–1919).  The war chest dates from 1901 although even then it’s use was certainly almost always figurative; in the distant past there presumably had in treasuries been chests of treasure to pay for armies.  War games, long an essential part of military planning, came to English from the German Kriegspiel, the Prussians most advanced in such matters because the innovative structure of their general staff system.

In English, war is most productive as a modifier, adjective etc and examples include: Types of war: Cold War, holy war, just war, civil war, war of succession, war of attrition, war on terror etc; Actual wars: World War I, Punic Wars, First Gulf War, Korean War, Hundred Years' War, Thirty Years' War, Six-day War etc; Campaigns against various social problems: War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on cancer; The culture wars: War on Christmas, war on free speech; In commerce: Price wars, Cola Wars, turf war; In crime: turf war (also used in conventional commerce), gang war, Castellammarese War; In technology: Bus wars, operating system wars, browser wars; Various: pre-war, post-war, inter-war, man-o'-war, war cabinet, warhead, warhorse, warlord, war between the sexes, war bond, war reparations, war room.

Film set for the War Room in Dr Strangelove (1964).

Pre-war and post-war need obviously to be used in context; “pre-war” which in the inter-war years almost always meant pre-1914, came after the end of WWII to mean pre-1939 (even in US historiography).  “Post-war” tracked a similar path and now probably means the years immediately after WWII, the era generally thought to have ended (at the latest) in 1973 when the first oil shock ended the long boom.  Given the propensity over the centuries for wars between (tribes, cities, kings, states etc) to flare up from time to time, there have been many inter-war periods but the adjective inter-war didn’t come into wide use until the 1940s when it was used exclusively to describe the period (1918-1939) between the world wars.  The phrase “world war”, although tied to the big, multi-theatre conflicts of the twentieth century, had been used speculatively as early as 1898, then in the context of the US returning the Philippines (then a colonial possession) to Spain, trigging European war into which she might be drawn.  “Word War” (referring to the 1914-1918 conflict which is regarded as being “world-wide” since 1917 when the US entered as a belligerent) was used almost as soon as the war started but “Great War” continued to be the preferred form until 1939 when used of “world war” spiked; World War II came into use even before Russian, US & Japanese involvement in 1941.  For as long as there have been the war-like there’s presumably been the anti-war faction but the adjectival anti-war (also antiwar) came into general use only in 1812, an invention of American English, in reference to opposition to the War of 1812, the use extending by 1821 to describe a position of political pacifism which opposed all war.  War-monger (and warmonger) seems first to have appeared in Edmund Spenser’s (circa 1552-1599) Faerie Queene (1590) although it’s possible it may have prior currency.  The warhead was from 1989, used by engineers to describe the "explosive part of a torpedo", the use later transferred during the 1940s to missiles.  The warhorse, attested from the 1650s, was a "powerful horse ridden into war", one selected for strength and spirit and the figurative sense of "seasoned veteran" of anything dates from 1837.  The (quasi-offensive though vaguely admiring) reference to women perceived as tough was noted in 1921.

Man-of-war (a soldier and) is an old form while the meaning "armed ship, vessel equipped for warfare" is from the late fifteenth century and was one of the primary warships of early-modern navies, the sea creature known as the Portuguese man-of-war (1707) so called for its sail-like crest.  The more common form was “man o' War”.  The Cold War may have started as early as 1946 but certainly existed from some time in 1947-1948; it was a form of "non-hostile belligerency” (although the death–toll in proxy-wars fought for decades on its margins was considerable);  it seems first to have appeared in print in October 1945 in a piece by George Orwell (1903—1950).  The companion phrase “hot war” is actually just a synonym for “war” and makes sense only if used in conjunction with “cold war”.  The cold war was memorably defined by Lord Cherwell (Professor Frederick Lindemann, 1886–1957) as “two sides for years counting their missiles”.

The civil war (battles among fellow citizens or within a community (as opposed to between tribes, cities, nations etc)) for civil in a sense of "occurring among fellow citizens" is noted from the fourteenth century in batayle ciuile (civil battle), the exact phrase “civil war” attested from late fifteenth century (bella civicus in the Latin).  A word for the type of conflict in the Old English was ingewinn and in Ancient Greek it had been polemos epidemios.  The instances of what would now be called civil war pre-date antiquity but the early references typically were in reference to ancient Rome where the conflicts were, if not more frequent, certainly better documented.  The struggle in England between the parliament and Charles I (1600-1649) has always and correctly been known as the English Civil War (1642-1651) whereas there are scholars who insist the US Civil War (1861-1865) should rightly be called the “War of Secession”, the “war between the States" or the “Federal-Confederate War”.  None of the alternatives ever managed great traction and “US Civil War” has long been the accepted form although, when memories were still raw, if there was ever a disagreement about this, the parties seem inevitability to have settled on “the War”.  The phrases pre-war and post-war are never applied the US Civil War, the equivalents being the Latin forms ante-bellum (literally “before the war”) and post-bellum (literally “after the war”).

Colonel Nasser, president of Egypt, Republic Square, Cairo, 22 February 1958.

During the centuries when rules were rare, wars were not but there was little discussion about whether or not a war was happening.  There would be debates about the wisdom of going to war or the strategy adopted but whether or not it was a war was obvious to all.  That changed after the Second World War when the charter of the United Nations was agreed to attempt to ensure force would never again be used as a means of resolving disputes between nations.  That's obviously not been a success but the implications of the charter have certainly affected the language of conflict, much now hanging on whether an event is war or something else which merely looks like war.  An early example of the linguistic lengths to which those waging war (a thing of which they would have boasted) would go, in the post-charter world, to deny they were at war happened after British, French and Israeli forces in 1956 invaded Egypt in response to Colonel Gamal Nasser's (1918–1970; president of Egypt 1954-1970) nationalization of foreign-owned Suez Canal Company.  The invasion was a military success but it soon became apparent that Israel, France and Britain were, by any standards, waging an aggressive war and had conspired, ineptly, to make it appear something else.  The United States threatened sanctions against Britain & France and the invading forces withdrew.  There's always been the suspicion that in the wake of this split in the Western Alliance, the USSR seized the opportunity to intervene in Hungary which was threatening to become a renegade province.

Suez Canal, 1956.

In the House of Commons (Hansard: 1 November 1956 (vol 558 cc1631-7441631)), the prime minister (Anthony Eden, 1897–1977, UK prime-minister 1955-1957) was asked to justify how what appeared to be both an invasion and an act of aggressive war could be in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.  Just to jog the prime-minister's memory of the charter, the words he delivered at the UN's foundation conference in San Francisco in 1945 were read out: “At intervals in history mankind has sought by the creation of international machinery to solve disputes between nations by agreement and not by force.”  In reply, Mr Eden assured the house there had been "...no declaration of war by us.", a situation he noted prevailed for the whole of the Korean War and while there was in Egypt clearly "...a state of armed conflict...", just as in Korea, "...there was no declaration of war.  It was never admitted that there was a state of war, and Korea was never a war in any technical or legal sense, nor are we at war with Egypt now."

Quite how the comparison with Korea, a police action under the auspices of the UN and authorized by the Security Council (the USSR was boycotting the place at the time) was relevant escaped many of the prime-minister's critics.  The UK had issued an ultimatum to Egypt regarding the canal which contained conditions as to time and other things; the time expired and the conditions were not accepted.  It was then clear in international law that in those circumstances the country which delivers the ultimatum is not entitled to carry on hostilities without a declaration of war so the question was what legal justification was there for an invasion?  The distinction between a “state of war" and a "state of armed conflict", whatever its relevance to certain technical matters, seemed not to matter in the fundamental question of the lawfulness of the invasion under international law.  Mr Eden continued to provide many answers but none to that question.

The aversion to declaring war continues to this day, the United States, hardly militarily inactive during the last eight-odd decades, last declared war in 1942 and that was against Italy.  There is it seems, even an aversion to the word, the UK not having had a secretary of state (minister) for war since 1964 and the US becoming (nominally) pacifist even earlier, the last secretary of war serving in 1947; the more UN-friendly “defense” the preferred word on both sides of the Atlantic.  In the Kremlin, Mr Putin (b 1952; prime-minister or president of Russia since 1999) seems also have come not to like the word.  While apparently sanguine at organizing “states of armed conflict”, he’s as reluctant as Mr Eden to hear his “special military operations” described as “invasions” or “wars” and in a recent legal flourish, arranged the passage of a law which made “mentioning the war” unlawful.

Not mentioning the peacekeeping operation: Mr Putin.

The bill which the Duma (lower house of parliament) & Federation Council (upper house) passed, and the president rapidly signed into law, provided for fines or imprisonment for up to fifteen years in the Gulag for intentionally spreading “fake news” or “discrediting the armed forces”, something which includes labelling the “special military operation” in Ukraine as a “war” or “invasion”.  Presumably, given the circumstances, the action could be described as a “state of armed conflict” and even Mr Putin seems to have stopped calling it a “peacekeeping operation”; he may have thought the irony too subtle for the audience.  Those who post or publish anything on the matter will be choosing their words with great care so as not to mention the war.

However, although Mr Putin may not like using the word “war”, there’s much to suggest he’s a devotee of the to the most famous (he coined a few) aphorism of Prussian general & military theorist Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831): “War is the continuation of policy with other means.”  The view has many adherents and while some acknowledge its cynical potency with a weary regret, for others it has been a word view to purse with relish.  In the prison diary assembled from the huge volume of fragments he had smuggled out of Spandau prison while serving the twenty year sentence he was lucky to receive for war crimes & crimes against humanity (Spandauer Tagebücher (Spandau, the Secret Diaries), pp 451 William Collins Inc, 1976), Albert Speer (1905–1981; Nazi court architect 1934-1942; Nazi minister of armaments and war production 1942-1945) recounted one of Adolf Hitler’s (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) not infrequent monologues and the enthusiastic concurrence by the sycophantic Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Nazi foreign minister 1938-1945):

"In the summer of 1939, On the terrace of the Berghof [Hitler’s alpine retreat], Hitler was pacing back and forth with one of his military adjutants. The other guests respectfully withdrew to the glassed-in veranda.  But in the midst of an animated lecture he was giving to the adjutant, Hitler called to us to join him on the terrace. “They should have listened to Moltke and struck at once” he said, resuming the thread of his thought, “as soon as France recovered her strength after the defeat in 1871.  Or else in 1898 and 1899.  America was at war with Spain, the French were fighting the English at Fashoda and were at odds with them over the Sudan, and England was having her problems with the Boers in South Africa, so that she would soon have to send her army in there.  And what a constellation there was in 1905 also, when Russia was beaten by Japan.   The rear in the East no threat, France and England on good terms, it is true, but without Russia no match for the Reich militarily. It’s an old principle: He who seizes the initiative in war has won more than a battle.  And after all, there was a war on!”  Seeing our stunned expressions, Hitler threw in almost irritably: “There is always a war on. The Kaiser [Wilhelm II (1859–1941; German Emperor & King of Prussia 1888-1918)] hesitated too long."

Such epigrams usually transported Ribbentrop into a state of high excitement.  At these moments it was easy to see that he alone among us thought he was tracking down, along with Hitler, the innermost secrets of political action.  This time, too, he expressed his agreement with Hitler with that characteristic compound of subservience and the hauteur of an experienced traveller whose knowledge of foreign ways still made an impression on Hitler.  Ribbentrop’s guilt, that is, did not consist in his having made a policy of war on his own. Rather, he was to blame for using his authority as a supposed cosmopolite to corroborate Hider’s provincial ideas. The war itself was first and last Hitler’s idea and work.  “That is exactly what neither the Kaiser nor the Kaiser’s politicians ever really understood,” Ribbentrop was loudly explaining to everyone.  “There’s always a war on. The difference is only whether the guns are firing or not.  There’s war in peacetime too. Anyone who has not realized that cannot make foreign policy.”

Hider threw his foreign minister a look of something close to gratitude.  “Yes, Ribbentrop,” he said, “yes!"  He was visibly moved by having someone in this group who really understood him. “When the time comes that I am no longer here, people must keep that in mind.  Absolutely.”  And then, as though carried away by his insight into the nature of the historical process, he went on: “Whoever succeeds me must be sure to have an opening for a new war.  We never want a static situation where that sort of thing hangs in doubt In future peace treaties we must therefore always leave open a few questions that will provide a pretext.  Think of Rome and Carthage, for instance. A new war was always built right into every peace treaty. That's Rome for you! That's statesmanship.”

Pleased with himself, Hitler twisted from side to side, looking challengingly around the attentive, respectful circle.  He was obviously enjoying the vision of himself beside the statesmen of ancient Rome.  When he occasionally compared Ribbentrop with Bismarck—a comparison I myself sometimes heard him make—he was implying that he himself soared high above the level of bourgeois nationalistic policy.  He saw himself in the dimensions of world history. And so did we.  We went to the veranda. Abruptly, as was his way, he began talking about something altogether banal."