Sepia

Sepia (pronounced see-pee-uh)

(1) A dark brown pigment obtained from the ink-like secretion of various cuttlefish, often used with brush or pen in drawing.

(2) A drawing made with this pigment.

(3) A photograph or digital image in the tone recognized as “sepia”.

(4) A specific range of shades of brown, which tend to a reddish tincture.

(5) In photography, a print or photograph rendered within this color range, associated especially with early types such as calotype.  Now easily replicated in software, when using physical film stock it can be produced by first bleaching a print (after fixing), then immersing it for a short time in a solution of sodium sulphide or of alkaline thiourea.

(6) Any of several cuttlefish of the genus Sepia, producing a dark fluid used naturally for defense and, by humans, in various mixes of ink (mostly archaic but still used in technical literature).

1821: From the Italian seppia (cuttlefish), from the Latin sēpia, from the Ancient Greek σηπία (sēpía) (cuttlefish (and its secretion)), the origin of which is uncertain, the orthodox explanation being it was from the Ancient Greek σήπειν (sḗpein) (to make rotten) but there are etymologists who suggest while that’s “semantically possible” (on the basis of the “rotten:” smelling ink), it’s may be from a pre-Greek source.  The Greek sḗpein was related to σήψ (sḗps) (a kind of lizard; also a serpent, the bite of which was alleged to cause putrefaction”).  The Greek sēpía was akin to sepsis.  Sepia & sepian are nouns & adjectives and sepialike (also as sepia-like) is an adjectives; the noun plural is sepias.

The use of the word to describe the brown pigment extracted from the secretions of cuttlefish dates from the 1820s and the “brownish” meaning as applied to drawings was first recorded in English in 1863 (originally as “sepia drawing”); it was extended later to photography and film and it remains a motif in “retro” art and verisimilitude in film & television.  Reflecting the influence of Classical & Medieval Latin in the formation of zoological taxonomy, sepia had been used of the cuttlefish as early as the late-fourteenth century but today such use is rare.  The Latin was also the source of words in a number of languages including the Bulgarian се́пия (sépija), the Catalan sèpia, the Esperanto sepio, the Finnish seepia, the French sépia, the Galician sepia, the German Sepia, the Hungarian szépia, the Japanese: セピア色 (sepiairo), the Portuguese sépia, the Romanian sepia, the Russian се́пия (sépija), the Spanish sepia, the Swedish sepia, the Tagalog sepia and the Turkish sepia.  

The noun sepiolite (in mineralogy, a hydrated magnesium silicate, clay mineral used for carving into decorative articles and smoking pipes (known also as meerschaum), from the same etymological origin as sepia, picked up the name because of the resemblance to cuttlebone.  The -lite suffix (when used formally) was a representation of the Ancient Greek λίθος (líthos) (stone) and was appended to form the names of rocks and minerals.  In informal use (in commerce or humorously (and in politics often disparagingly)) it's a phonetic version of “light” in the sense of “smaller, lesser, reduced in weight”; it's used often for cut-down (sometimes free) versions of software, diet drinks etc.

Montage of Lindsay Lohan red-carpet stills, rendered in vintage calotype sepia.

As an adjective sepian (the comparative more sepian, the superlative most sepian) began life meaning (1) of or pertaining to the sepia (in the sense of the cuttlefish or its dark pigment) and (2) of the color (not of necessity produced with the derived ink).  In the post-war Unites States, sepia was adopted to refer to some of those with darker pigmentation of the skin, specifically applied to black Americans or African Americans.  The emergence was because in many parts of the US, use of most offensive of the N-words had become socially less acceptable in many circles and as this disapprobation trickled down the social spectrum, new slurs were created, sepian presumably attractive because of the history as a description of colors of paint, fabrics etc.  It was thus separated from ethnic identity and could thus be defended as wholly neutral in use.  As a term, it was neither sufficiently widely adopted nor endured in use for long enough for any pejorative association to become attached so it never became part of the linguistic treadmill.

Bridget Bardot (b 1934) in sepia, on set in Viva Maria! (1965).

As an artistic device, sepia is sometimes used in film.  In The Wizard of Oz (1939), one of the most famous uses was to contrast the bleak, sepia-toned scenes in Kansas with the vibrant (techni-) color in the Land of Oz.  A different effect was achieved in The Shape of Water (2017) (which is either a fantasy or science fiction (SF) film depending on who is writing the review), the sepia-toned sequences depicting the protagonist's memories and dreams.  Presumably, directors find sepia a useful device because black & white (the other obvious alternative) has through use become vested with connotations, gained not only from of the association with film noir.

Sovereign

Sovereign (pronounced sov-rin (U), sov-er-in (non U) or suhv-rin)

(1) A monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.

(2) A person who has supreme power or authority.

(3) A group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority.

(4) A gold coin of the United Kingdom, the value set at 22s 6d in the fifteenth century and re-valued to £1 sterling; it was removed from circulation after 1914.  In UK slang, “sov” (“sovs” the more commonly used plural) endures among certain classes to describe £1 sterling.   

(5) Belonging to or characteristic of a sovereign or sovereign authority; royal.

(6) Supreme; preeminent; indisputable.

(7) In clinical pharmacology, of a medicine or remedy, extremely potent or effective (archaic).

(8) A former Australian gold coin, minted 1855–1931, with a face value of £1 Australian.

(9) A large champagne bottle with the capacity of about 25 liters, equivalent to 33⅓ standard bottles.

(10) Any butterfly of the tribe Nymphalini, or genus Basilarchia, as the ursula and the viceroy.

(11) In regional UK, slang, a large, garish ring.

1250-1300: From the Middle English soverain (alteration by influence of reign) & sovereyn, from the Old French soverain (sovereign, lord, ruler (noun use of the adjective meaning "highest, supreme, chief")) (which exists in modern French as souverain), from the Vulgar Latin superānus (chief, principal (and source also of the Italian soprano & sovrano and the Spanish soberano)) from the classical Latin super (over; above) from the primitive Indo-European uper (over).  The spelling was influenced by folk-etymology association with reign and Milton spelled it sovran, perhaps a nod to the Italian sovrano and scholars caution that though widely accepted, the link to the Vulgar Latin superānus is unattested.  The now obsolete medical sense of “remedies or medicines potent in a high degree" was from the fourteenth century.

In law, there are strands of meaning:  In a constitutional monarchy, a king or queen can be known as the sovereign while the state itself is sovereign and sovereignty is said often to reside in some elected assembly which, being representative of the people, can be said to derive it from them.  The noun sovereignty emerged in the late fourteenth century to designate "pre-eminence".  It was from the Anglo-French sovereynete, from the Old French souverainete, from soverain and referenced "authority, rule, supremacy of power or rank".  The modern meaning as “sovereign state” which is defined literally as "existence as an independent state" is from 1715 and remains an exact meaning, the state of statehood a binary in that a state is either independent (and thus sovereign) or not.  Attempts therefore by sub-state entities like defined regions of federal states to asset sovereignty under the guise of state’s rights are usually doomed to fail either because, like the Australian states, they were non-sovereign colonies prior to federation or have always been part of a larger whole.  That is not to say that powers and authority cannot be shared and some heads of it may exclusively be vested in a sub-national construct but that is a constitutional arrangement within a sovereign state; sovereignty is indivisible.  The concept of “personal sovereignty” invoked by those resisting such thing as COVID-19 related face-mask or vaccine mandates is drawn from the theories of natural law but has no basis in positive law.

Lindsay Lohan, Vanity Fair photo shoot, Marina del Rey, California, October 2010.  The location was the Sovereign, a motor yacht built in 1961 for the film star Judy Garland (1922-1969).

The noun suzerain (sovereign, ruler) dating from 1807, was from French suzerain, from the fourteenth century Old French suzerain (noun use of the adjective meaning "sovereign but not supreme") from the adverb sus (up, above) on analogy of soverain.  The Old French sus is from the Vulgar Latin susum, from the Classical Latin sursum (upward, above), a contraction of subversum, from subvertere.  It was the French suzerain which vested the English sovereign it’s meaning in the political sense.  In international it came to mean a “dominant nation or state that has control over the international affairs of a subservient state which otherwise has domestic autonomy”, a sense similar but different from “client state” or relationships such as those of Moscow to the states of the former Warsaw Pact.  Historically the suzerain was the feudal landowner to whom vassals were forced to pledge allegiance.

In May 1910, European royalty gathered in London for the funeral of Edward VII and among the mourners were nine reigning kings.  This is believed the only photograph ever taken of nine sovereign kings and would be the last gathering of the old European order before the Great War.  The photograph circulated widely in both monochrome and sepia tones and recently has been colorized.  Notable absentees include Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (overthrown in 1917), Victor Emmanuel III of Italy and Emperor Franz Joseph (died in 1916, the dual monarchy abolished and the empire dissolved in 1918) of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Standing, left to right: King Haakon VII of Norway, Tsar Ferdinand of the Bulgarians, King Manuel II of Portugal and the Algarve, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and Prussia, King George I of the Hellenes and King Albert I of the Belgians.

Seated, left to right: King Alfonso XIII of Spain, King George V of the United Kingdom and King Frederick VIII of Denmark.

Norway – Monarchy still going.

Bulgaria – Monarchy overthrown in 1946.

Portugal – Monarchy overthrown in 1910.

Germany – Monarchy extinct since the act of abdication in 1918.

Greece – Monarchy overthrown in 1924, restored in 1935, overthrown in 1973.

Belgium – Monarchy still going and notably more predictable than the local parliamentary politics in that while it’s often not possible for the politicians to agree on who should be prime-minister, the line of succession to the throne is not disputed.

Spain – Monarchy overthrown in 1931, re-established in 1975 and still going (with the odd scandal).  One quirk of Spanish constitutional history and one about which not all lawyers agree (political scientists and historians finding the arguments either tiresome or amusing) is that despite the proclamation of a republic in 1931, between then and 1975 when the monarchy was said to have been restored, Spain may anyway have continued to be a monarchy because, whatever the outcome on the streets or later Franco's battlefields, there may never have been executed the necessary legal mechanism of dissolution.

When the king (Alfonso XIII 1886–1941; King of Spain 1886-1931) went (with a fair chunk of his nation's exchequer) into exile in 1931, he departed the soil but did not abdicate which most regard of no constitutional significance, the subsequent declaration of the Second Spanish Republic thought sufficient and most agree this abolished both monarchy and kingdom, sovereignty residing with the republican state which General Franco (1892-1975; Caudillo of Spain 1939-1975) took over in 1939.  In curious twist however, in 1947 Franco re-established Spain as a Kingdom which he ruled as head of state of the Kingdom of Spain through the Law of Succession.  A sovereign kingdom thus but without a king on the throne on which, figuratively at least, Franco sat until peacefully he died in 1975.  A king then returned to the kingdom because, again amending the Law of Succession, Franco appointed Alfonso XIII's grandson, Juan Carlos I de Borbón (b 1938; King of Spain 1975-2014, styled Rey Emérito (King Emeritus) since) as his successor and he assumed the throne in 1975, the nature of the new, constitutional monarchy, promulgated in 1978 after a referendum.  Despite the fine technical points raised, most agree Spain was a republic 1931-1947, the kingdom was restored in 1947 and monarchical rule has existed since 1975, its constitutional form assumed in 1978.  Sovereignty was probably vested successively in the republic (1931-1939), Franco personally (1939-1975), Juan Carlos personally 1975-1978 and the Spanish state since.    

United Kingdom – Monarchy still going though not without the odd squabble at the margins.  Although having undergone the occasional change in dynastic management, it has since the ninth century existed continuously except for the uncharacteristic republican interregnum (1649-1660).  Territorially, it has been a shifting jigsaw, comprised of various permutations of all or part of England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales, the odd temporary European augmentation and of course the colonies, territories and Dominions linked to the old British Empire and the still extant Commonwealth.  The relationship between the monarchy and the Commonwealth varies from state to state and even in those independent states where the UK monarch remains the head of state, sovereignty in almost all cases resides wholly somewhere in the local political construct.

Dating from 21 April 1926, a two-part prediction was made by Henry "Chips" Channon (1897-1958), a US born resident of the UK who became a member of parliament (1935-1958) and in his last years, a knight of the realm (although the peerage he coveted eluded him.  In the way of such things, in many ways he became more English than many Englishmen.  On the day of the birth of the future Queen Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK 1952-2022) he noted in his diary that he expected the child to become "Queen of England and perhaps the last sovereign".  Channon thought the Prince of Wales (Prince Edward 1894–1972; briefly (in 1936) King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom & Emperor of India), whom he knew, to be so temperamentally unsuitable for the role of king he would either renounce his claim to the throne or abandon it once crowned.  His first part of the prediction proved accurate although he was diffident about the second and the monarchy has thus fare endured.  Channon's diaries, published in the 1960s (in heavily redacted form) were amusing enough but the (mostly) unexpurgated editions (in three volumes 2021-2022) are as juicy as any published in the past century.

Denmark – Monarchy still going.

That early in the twenty-first century a dozen European nations (Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom & Vatican City (the pope the only absolute sovereign and the city-state a theocracy)) remain monarchies would have surprised some.  In 1948, the already embattled (and soon to be overthrown) King Farouk (1920–1965; King of Egypt 1936-1952) gloomily predicted that soon only five kings would remain: "The King of England and the kings of hearts, clubs, diamonds and spades".  While prescient about his own fate, he was wrong in that but while there are certainly fewer than there were, the institution, while on paper a pretty silly basis on which to depend for a head of state, has proved durable in those cases where royal families have been sufficiently adaptable to evolve into reliable ciphers and become frequent, if sometimes unscripted, content providers for pop culture platforms.

End of the Jaguar 3.8 era.  Jim Clark and Jack Sears in the Ford Galaxie 427s ahead of Graham Hill and Roy Salvadori in Jaguar 3.8s, Guards Trophy Race, Brands Hatch, 1963.

A blend of the ancient and modern which characterized much of what Jaguar produced until well into the twenty-first century, the Daimler Sovereign was the final evolution of the Jaguar 2.4, introduced in 1955 as the “small” car of the range and known retrospectively as the Mark 1 after 1959 when a revised model was released as the Mark 2.  The bigger-engined versions of the Mark 2 were the outstanding sports saloons of their day and dominated production car racing until the new generation of fast Fords, the Lotus Cortina, the Mustang and, somewhat improbably, the big Galaxies began to prevail but, as road cars, the power delivered by the 3.8 litre XK-Six was probably close to the limit of the platform’s capability.  This was addressed in 1963 when a version of the more capable independent rear suspension introduced in 1961 on the Mark X and E-Type (XK-E) was grafted to a slightly enlarged structure and released as the S-Type.  The new sophistication was appreciated but the unusual combination of styling techniques was less admired, the front and rear generally felt discordant and tellingly, the Mark 2 was not discontinued and continued to sell well.

1963 Jaguar S-Type 3.8.

The aesthetic objections were noted and in 1966, a new nose, reminiscent of that on the Mark X, was grafted on to the S-Type and the result, while clearly not modernist in the manner of a contemporary like the NSU Ro80, was generally acknowledged to be more harmonious.  The new model, acknowledging the fitment for the first time in the platform of the 4.2 litre XK-Six, was called the 420 and, in a (brief) attempt to create a naming convention with some familial relationship, the big Mark X was re-named 420G and the Mark 2 became the 240 or 340 depending on engine capacity, the 3.8 litre version discontinued although a few were built to special order (albeit still badged as 340s).  Strange as it seems, for a number of reasons, the 240, 340, S-Type and 420 all remained available until all were replaced by the XJ6, introduced in 1968.  Only the 420G received a stay of execution, the flagship lingering until 1970 by which time production had slowed to a trickle.

1968 Daimler Sovereign.

Launched simultaneously in 1966 with the 420 and around 7% more expensive was the Daimler Sovereign.  The Sovereign was essentially the 420 with all the Jaguar’s optional extras fitted as standard, a higher grade of timber and leather for the interior fittings and the traditional details distinguishing the marquee, most notably the elegant fluting atop the grill and the rear number plate valance.  Unfortunately, unlike the earlier Daimler version of the Mark 2 (later named 250 to align with the 240 & 340) which was powered by Daimler’s fine 2.5 litre V8, the Sovereign was mechanically identical to the 420, the opportunity to create something special by using the 4.6 litre version of the V8 not taken, the same mistake which may have doomed the Mark X and 420G to their indifferent sales performance; although excessively large for many markets, a V8 Mark X would have been ideal in the US.  Nonetheless, although nothing more than a fancy Jaguar, it was a success and despite the higher price, Sovereign sales totaled more than six-thousand, the 420 managing only four-thousand odd more.

1967 Daimler Sovereign.

The 420-based Sovereign continued to be offered well into 1969 because the high demand for the XJ6 meant there was not immediately the capacity to produce a Daimler version of the new car.  It was finally retired in 1969 (the last survivor of the platform introduced in 1955) when an XJ6-based Sovereign was released in 2.8 and 4.2 litre versions, notionally replacing the Mark 2-based 250 and the previous Sovereign respectively.  Jaguar continued to use the Sovereign name on the six-cylinder Daimlers until 1983 when they were re-badged simply as “Daimler” although the name would for years be applied to various up-market XJs, especially in overseas markets where others held the trademark to the Daimler name.  When equipped with the Jaguar's 5.3-litre V12, the Sovereign was named Double Six, a revival of a name Daimler used between 1926-1938 for an earlier twelve cylinder model.  The Sovereign name was the choice of the Jaguar board; although the chairman had suggested “Royal” it seemed he was persuaded Sovereign was a better fit.

1976 Daimler Sovereign two door.

Most memorable of the Sovereigns were the elegant coupés offered between 1975-1977; the factory insisting they were a “two door” and not a coupé.  The vinyl-roof, one of the many unfortunate aspects of style which so afflicted the 1970s, attracted criticism even at the time of release, the suspicion being it might have been glued on to hide some rather obviously hasty welding used to create the lovely roofline, a expedient Plymouth adopted in 1970 for the Superbird and Ford Australia repeated on the Landau three years later.  However, it transpired the necessity was not the finish of the sheet metal but the inability of the paints of the era to accommodate the slight flexing of the roof caused by using the same gauge of steel on the pillar-less coupé as the saloon which was a little more rigid.  With the availability of modern paints, many have since taken the opportunity to ditch the vinyl and allow the lovely lines to appear unspoiled.  Being produced under the ownership of British Leyland, predictability, roof-flex wasn’t the only flaw.  The sealing of the frameless windows was never perfected so wind noise is more intrusive than the saloon and, over time, the heavy doors will sag, Jaguar using the same hinges as those which supported the saloon’s smaller, lighter pressings.  

Picture of the sovereign on a 1963 mock-up of the proposed Australian Royal.

Royal as a name seemed not to be popular in other places (although Chrysler did use it for a while and it's applied to a few alcoholic beverages), earlier rejected in the antipodes as the name for a new legal tender.  In early 1963, Robert Menzies (1894–1978; Prime-Minister of Australia 1939-1941 & 1949-1966) had said Australia would adopt a decimal currency and later in the year it was announced its name would be “the royal”.  Said to be the preferred choice of the prime-minister himself, cabinet had been persuaded, presumably because the other suggestions including "kwid", "champ", "deci-mate", "austral" and "emu", were thought worse.  Proving that social media isn’t necessary for public opinion to become quickly known, within days the derision expressed was enough to convince the government to change.  The cabinet documents (released in 1993 under the (then) thirty-year rule) recorded the treasurer telling the cabinet “…royal had been a terrible mistake” and in September, it was announced the pound would be replaced by the Australian dollar; it was introduced on Valentine’s Day 1966.

Currency matters had troubled Menzies before.  He’d been much criticized in 1952 when, upon Elizabeth II’s accession, the inscription FD abruptly was omitted from Australian coins.  FD (Defender of the Faith (the Latin Fidei Defensor (feminine Fidei Defensatrix)), had been in use since 1507 when the title "Protector and Defender of the Christian Faith" was granted by Pope Julius II (1443–1513; pope 1503-1513) to James IV of Scotland (James VI and I (1566–1625) King of Scotland as James VI (1567-1625) & King of England and Ireland as James I (1603-1625)) and had been inscribed on all English (and subsequently UK) coins minted since the Medici Pope Leo X (1475–1521; pope 1513-1521) in 1521 conferred it on Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England (and Ireland after 1541) 1509-1547).  A grateful Leo had been most impressed by Henry’s book Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (Defense of the Seven Sacraments), a powerful assertion of both the sacramental nature of marriage and the supremacy of the pope, his words at the time celebrated in Rome as the "Henrician Affirmation".  Although Henry would go on to interpret the marriage ritual, papal authority and the defense of the faith in his own way, FD nevertheless remains on the UK's to this day.  There, it is not without constitutional significance, the sovereign, Queen Elizabeth, being supreme governor (ie the titular head) of the Church of England, the nation's established (ie the official state) church.  

A year is a long time in politics: the 1953 & 1954 Australian florins.

In the Australia of 1952, then a country still marked by the sectarian divide between Catholic and Protestant, there was much outrage, Anglicans calling it an affront to Her Majesty and their church and nothing but a cynical ploy by a (Presbyterian) prime-minister to curry favor with Roman Catholics in search of their votes.  Surprisingly to some, prominent among the affronted was the former high court judge, Dr HV Evatt (1894–1965; leader of the opposition 1951-1960) who, although condemned by the right-wing fanatics of the day as the “arch defender of the godless atheistic communists” was a staunch Anglican who proved a doughty opponent of the change.  It at the time was quite a furore with questions in parliament, strident editorials, letters (of outrage) to the editor (the social media of the era) and ecclesiastical denouncements from a number of reverend and very reverend gentlemen.  Menzies relented and intervened personally to ensure the mint secured Fidei Defensor dies in time for a commemorative florin (the modern 20c coin, then often referred to as "two bob") to be struck for the 1954 royal visit.

Stubborn

Stubborn (pronounced stuhb-ern)

(1) Unreasonably obstinate; obstinately unmoving.

(2) Fixed or set in purpose or opinion; resolute; obstinately maintaining a course of action regardless of circumstances.

(3) Something difficult to manage or suppress.

(4) An object which is hard, tough, or stiff (stone, timber etc) or wood and thus difficult to shape or work; an object such (as a tightly fastened bolt) which is difficult to move; any problems which prove resistant to attempts to secure a solution.

(5) In the slang of the citrus industry, as stubbornness, a disease of citrus trees characterized by stunted growth and misshapen fruit, caused by Spiroplasma citri.

1350–1400: From the Middle English stiborn, stiborne, styborne, stuborn & stoborne, of obscure origin; the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) noting the earliest known form as stiborn.  Stubborn is an adjective, stubbornly an adverb and stubbornness a noun.

Stubborn is one of a remarkably large number of words in English with an unknown origin and is thus self referential, itself unreasonably obstinate in an unwillingness to disclose its source.  Deconstruction (stub + born) is no help because the spelling seems to have evolved merely to respect the pronunciation (something which in English can’t always be relied upon) and however tempting might seem a link with “stub” (a short, projecting part or remaining piece) (from the Middle English stubbe (tree stump), from the Old English stybb, stobb & stubb (tree stump), from the Proto-West Germanic stubb, from the Proto-Germanic stunjaz& stubbaz and related to the Middle Dutch stubbe, the Old Norse stubbr and the Faroese stubbi (stub), from the primitive Indo-European steu (to push, stick, knock, beat) & stew- (sharp slope)), a thing often immovable and unyielding, there’s simply no evidence.

More correctly, there’s simply no verified evidence.  As modern English coalesced during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, lexicography became more industry than art and there was great interest (and competition) in the production of dictionaries, some of which included etymological detail in their entries.  At this time, it was thought the origin of stubborn was known, the accepted method of the time being to look for similar constructions in Hebrew, Latin and Greek on the basis it was supposedly from these ancient tongues that the words of modern languages were derived.  That supposition wasn’t entirely accurate but was true enough for many of the words in English at the time fully to be understood.  Because the Greek adjective στι-βαρóς (obstinate, stubborn) enjoyed such a similarity of sound with stubborn, that was thought conclusive, hence the entries in early dictionaries.  However, later scholarship proved the two words unrelated and no research has ever offered a plausible alternative.

According to the manufacturers of detergents, the most recalcitrant stains are "stubborn stains".

That stubbornness is a frequently encountered part of the human condition is perhaps indicated by the numbers of words and phrases (most famously “stubborn as a mule”) in English associated with the idea including adamant, determined, dogged, headstrong, inflexible, intractable, ornery, persistent, perverse, relentless, rigid, single-minded, steadfast, tenacious, tough, unshakable, willful, balky, bloody-minded, bullheaded, contrary, refractory, unyielding, obdurate, wayward, obstinate, disobedient, insubordinate, undisciplined & rebellious.

In the interview which accompanied her 2011 Playboy photo-shoot (and Playboy once commissioned research to prove people really did read the text), Lindsay Lohan admitted she “…should have listened to her advisers” and had she done so she would likely have avoided the “problems” so well documented by the tabloid press.  “My stubbornness at 18 and 19-years old got in the way” she added, acknowledging that “…ultimately we are responsible for ourselves and our own actions.”  She returned to the theme in a Vogue interview in 2022 discussing her roles in The Parent Trap (1998) revealing one consequence of her stubbornness complicated things for the production crew.  Her (clearly non-negotiable) demand was that she had to wear a certain nail polish while playing the part of one of the identical twins and that was “Hard Candy” in blue.  Ms Lohan said at the time it was “a big deal” and when it comes to fashion, pre-teen girls are an opinionated and uncompromising lot.  It was of course not a good idea because, with the one actor playing both twins, the distinctive enamel had to be removed with each switch of character.  “It was a nightmare for everyone” she admitted.

In use, stubborn, dogged, obstinate & persistent imply some fixity of purpose or condition and resistance to change, regardless of changing circumstances or compelling evidence.  There are however nuances, stubborn and obstinate both imply resistance to advice or force but stubborn is more suggestive of an innate quality and is used almost exclusively when referring to inanimate things; by convention, to be obstinate seems to demand there be some process of thought or at least character (mules presumably difficult in nature rather than in any way thoughtful).  One who is dogged might be both obstinate and stubborn but dogged can also imply tenacity, a pertinacity and grimness of purpose in doing something, especially in the face of difficulties which seem insurmountable and one who persists in seeking to solve an apparently insoluble problem can be lauded for their, dogged, stubborn determination.  Persistent implies having a resoluteness of purpose, one who perseveres despite setbacks and discouragement.  Some insist stubborn describes an extreme degree of passive obstinacy and while that tends to be true when the word is used of objects, among the sentient, stubbornness can manifest as anything but passive.

In the Bible there are passages which suggest stubbornness in the doing of God's work is a virtue but the trait was sometimes clearly a sin.  In the Book of Deuteronomy (21:18-21 as part of the Deuteronomic Code), the penalty of death by stoning is specified as a punishment for a stubborn and delinquent son.  The text is an interesting example of the usefulness of the Bible as a historic document, the inclusion in the Deuteronomic Code an attempt to reform the breakdown in family life characteristic of an era in which the absolute power parents had once exercised over their children had dissipated, hence the notion that the authority of a village's elders must be both invoked and exercised.  As a solution (though perhaps without the executions), it sounds like many modern suggestions to solve the problem of youth crime and juvenile delinquency.  

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (King James Version (KJV 1611))

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

The 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 (it's an myth spread by Gore Vidal (1925–2012) that the Kennedys drove only Buicks) driven by Senator Ted Kennedy (1932-2009) in which Mary Jo Kopechne (1940-1969) died.  The accident happened at close to midnight, the pair having left a party on Chappaquiddick Island, off the east coast of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. Kennedy survived, having left the scene of the crash in circumstances never satisfactorily explained.  The car in which he left the young lady to die belonged to his mother.  By the the time of the accident, Oldsmobile had ceased to use the Delmont name which was offered only in the 1967 & 1968 model years. 

As recent events and judicial decisions illustrate, in the United States there is a tension created by the dynamics which existed from the first days of white settlement, the competing lust to live free from oppression versus the undercurrent of a muscular, puritanical religiosity.  The Old Testament force of the latter in November 1646 prevailed upon the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, inspiring a law providing, inter alia, for the capital punishment of male children found disobedient to their parents.  Although the death penalty was later removed (though punishment for recalcitrant daughters was added in an early example of gender equality), the law was not repealed until 1973 although, as the troubled life of Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy might suggest, enforcement had by then long fallen into disuse.  Similar laws were enacted in Connecticut in 1650, Rhode Island in 1688, and New Hampshire in 1679.

The Massachusetts statute: "If a man have a stubborn or rebellious son, of sufficient years and understanding sixteen years of age, which will not obey the voice of his Father, or the voice of his Mother, and that when they have chastened him will not harken unto them: then shall his Father and Mother being his natural parents, lay hold on him, and bring him to the Magistrates assembled in Court and testify unto them, that their son is stubborn and rebellious and will not obey their voice and chastisement, but lives in sundry notorious crimes, such a son shall be put to death."

King Manuel II (standing, third from left) in May 1910, European royalty gathered in London for the funeral of Edward VII and among the mourners were nine reigning sovereigns, the image colorized from a sepia-toned original.  Dom Manuel II ("The Unfortunate" 1889–1932) reigned as the last King of Portugal and the Algarve 1908-1910, his brief tenure occasioned by the Lisbon regicide of 1908 in which his father and elder brother were murdered.

Counter-intuitively, considering the blood-soaked histories of Europe’s squabbling dynasties, of all the hundreds of cognomina (names appended before or after the person's name which are applied to identify their nature) attached to kings and princes, it seems only to have been Louis X of France (1289–1316; King of France 1314-1316 & King of Navarre (as Louis I) 1305-1316) who was informally styled "The Stubborn" (Louis le Hutin), although, just to stress the point, he was known also as "Louis the Quarrelsome" & "Louis the Headstrong".  Because in royalty names are so often recycled (John, Frederick, Louis, Charles etc), cognomina are genuinely helpful to historians and are for readers, probably more mnemonic that Roman numbering (Louis XI, XII, XIII etc).  While there has been much use of the usual suspects (the Brave, Great, Good, Bad, Cruel, Victorious etc) and some have been merely descriptive (the Fat, Bald, Tall, Hairy etc (although some of these were ironic)), some were evocative:

There was the Abandoned (John I of Aragon), the Accursed (Sviatopolk I of Kiev), the Affable (Charles VIII of France), the Alchemist (John, Margrave of Brandenburg-Kulmbach), the Apostate (Julian, Emperor of Rome, the Arab (Phillip I, Emperor of Rome), the Astrologer (Alfonso X of Castile), the Bad (applied to many but famously associated with Emund of Sweden), the Bastard (of which there have been many more than those to whom the sobriquet was attached, the best known being William I (better known as the Conqueror)), the Beer Jug (John George I, Elector of Saxony), the Bewitched (Charles II of Spain), the Bloodaxe (Eric I of Norway), the Bloodthirsty (doubtless a widely used adjective but the most cited seems Ismail of Morocco), Bloody (Mary I of England (and the well known Vodka cocktail)), the Cabbage (Ivaylo of Bulgaria), the Crosseyed (Vasili Kosoi, a Muscovian usurper), the Devil (Robert I, Duke of Normandy), the Indolent (Louis V of France (also the Sluggard which in this context imparts much the same meaning)), the Drunkard, (Michael III, Byzantine Emperor although one suspects he was one of many), the Dung-Named (Constantine V, Byzantine Emperor), the Executioner (Mehmed I of the Ottoman Empire, again one of many), the Fat (most associated with Charles III, Holy Roman Emperor), the Fowler (Henry I of Germany, a notable figure of the First Reich), the Hairy (Wilfred I of Urgel), the Impaler (the infamous Vlad III of Wallachia (Basarab Ţepeluş cel Tânăr of Wallachia was the Little Impaler)), the Impotent (Henry IV of Castile), the Mad (of which there should have been more than there are and associated (fairly or not) with Lorenzo de' Medici of the Florentine Republic), Minus-a-Quarter (Michael VII Dukas, Byzantine Emperor (and apparently the only regal sobriquet derived from monetary policy)), the Priest Hater (Eric II of Norway), the She-Wolf (Isabella of France), the Be-shitten (James II (of England and Ireland and James VII of Scotland)), the Stammerer (Louis II of France), the Terrible (a popular one but best remembered for Ivan IV of Russia), the Unfortunate (which could fairly be applied to many but seems linked only with Manuel II of Portugal and the Algarve (who was unfortunate (o Desaventurado) but it could have been worse (he survived to see out his years in Twickenham) and he was known also as the Patriot (o Patriota)).

Holy

Holy (pronounced hoh-lee)

(1) Specially recognized as or declared sacred by religious use or authority; consecrated.

(2) Dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion; godly, or virtuous; of, relating to, or associated with God or a deity; sacred.

(3) Saintly; godly; pious; devout; having a spiritually pure quality; endowed or invested with extreme purity or sublimity.

(4) Entitled to worship or veneration as or as if sacred.

(5) A place of worship; sacred place; sanctuary.

(6) Inspiring fear, awe, or grave distress (archaic).

Pre 900: From the Middle English holi & hali, from the Old English hālig, hāleġ & hǣlig, (holy, consecrated, sacred, venerated, godly, saintly, ecclesiastical, pacific, tame), a variant of the Old English hālig, hǣlig & hāleg, the construct being hāl (whole) + -eg (-y), from the Proto-West Germanic hailag, from Proto-Germanic hailaga & hailagaz (holy, bringing health).  It was cognate with the Old Saxon hēlag, the Gothic hailags the Dutch & German heilig, the Old Frisian helich and the Old Norse heilagr.  Ultimate root was the primitive Indo-European kóhzilus (healthy, whole).  It was adopted at conversion for the Latin sanctus although the Middle English form emerged as holi which remained a common spelling until the sixteenth century.  Holy is a nown & adjective. holiness (the spellings holinesse, holyness & holynesse all obsolete) is a noun and holier & holiest are adjectives; the noun plural is holies.  The noun holiosity is non-standard and is used in humor when referring to those for who religion has become an obsession and often one they think should be imposed on others.

Lindsay Lohan bringing holiness, Machete (2010).  The weapon is a Smith & Wesson .50 Magnum revolver with 8" barrel (S&W500: SKU 163501).

The primary (pre-Christian) meaning is not possible to determine; documentary evidence simply doesn’t exist but most think it probably meant something like “that must be preserved whole or intact, that cannot be transgressed or violated” and was connected with the Old English hal (health) and the Old High German heil (health, happiness, good luck (source of the German salutation Heil which became so well-known in the 1930s)).  Holy water was in Old English and holy has been used as an intensifying word from 1837 and used in expletives since the 1880s; a “holy terror” generally meaning “a difficult or frightening person” but which in Irish informal use means a man thought a habitual gambler, womanizer etc.  The adjectival forms are holier (comparative) & holiest (superlative) while the noun plural is holies but “the holy” functions as a plural when referring to persons or things (eh holy relics) invested with holiness.  When used in a religious context, it’s common to use an initial capital and probably obligatory when referencing the Christian God, or Christ.  The old alternative spellings holi, hali, holie & hooly are all obsolete.  Words that depending on context may be synonymous or merely related include divine, hallowed, humble, pure, revered, righteous, spiritual, sublime, believing, clean, devotional, faithful, good, innocent, moral, perfect, upright, angelic, blessed & chaste.

The Old Testament's Book of Leviticus is regarded by many as a long list of proscriptions, noted especially for the things declared an abomination to the Lord and within the text (Leviticus 17-26) that surprisingly succinct list is known as the “Holiness code” (often referred to in biblical scholarship as the “H texts”), "Holy" in this context understood as “set apart”.  The Holiness code exists explicitly as the set of fundamental rules which the ancient Israelites were required to follow believed they had to follow in order to be close to God and in that sense are the foundational basis for all the moral imperatives in scripture.  What makes them especially interesting historically is the suggestion by a number of scholars that additional laws, written in a style discordant with the rest of the Holiness Code yet in accord with the remainder of Leviticus, were interpolated into the code by a later priest or priests, notably some concerning matters of ritual and procedure hardly in keeping with high moral tone of the apparently original entries.  The contested passages include:

The prohibition against an anointed high priest uncovering his head or rending his clothes (21:10).

The prohibition against offerings by Aaronic priests who are blemished (21:21–22).

The order to keep the sabbath, passover, and feast of unleavened bread (23:1–10a).

The order to keep Yom Kippur, and Sukkot (23:23–44).

The order for continual bread and oil (24:1–9).

Case law concerning a blasphemer (24:10–15a and 24:23).

The order for a trumpet sounding on Yom Kippur (25:9b).

Rules concerning redeeming property (25:23 and 25:26–34).

Order to release Israelite slaves at the year of jubilee (25:40, 25:42, 25:44–46).

Rules concerning redeeming people (25:48–52, and 25:54).

The Holy Alliance

The Holy Alliance (styled in some contemporary documents as “The Grand Alliance”) was something not quite a treaty yet more than a modus vivendi (memorandum of agreement).  Executed soon after the conclusion of the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), it linked three of the monarchist great states of Europe (Austria, Prussia, and Russia) and existed very much at the behest of Tsar Alexander I (1777–1825; Emperor of Russia from 1801-1825) who had observed the French Revolution (1789) and the convulsions which spread across the continent in its wake and, having little taste for the idea of the mob leading kings to their execution by the guillotine, sought an alliance which would hold in check the forces of secular liberalism.  It was a moment something like that noted by George VI (1895–1952; King of the United Kingdom 1936-1952) who, traveling through the Surrey countryside, pointed at Runnymede (where in 1215 the Magna Carta was forced on a reluctant King John (1166–1216; King of England 1199-1216), saying to his companion: "That's where the trouble started."  

The origin of the Holy Alliance, 1815.

The Tsar envisaged the UK being part of the Holy Alliance but Lord Castlereagh (1769–1822; UK foreign secretary 1812-1822) belonged to the long tradition of trying not become involved in European affairs unless necessary and called it “sublime mysticism and nonsense.”  The troubled Castlereagh committed suicide and in his papers there's no indication of the sense in which he used the word "sublime" but in late fourteenth century it was used as a verb meaning "alchemy".

So inconsequential did Castle think the treaty that he anyway recommended it be joined by the UK, a course of action the Cabinet declined to pursue and the supportive gesture of George IV (1762–1830; prince regent of the UK 1911-1820, king 1820-1830) adding his signature as King of Hanover had the most negligible political or military significance.  Despite London’s reserve, Austria, Prussia, Russia, & the UK did later in 1815 formalize the Quadruple Alliance which had for some time existed in effect to counter the military and revolutionary threat presented by the expansion of the First French Empire under Napoleon I (Napoleon Bonaparte, 1769–1821; First Consul of the French Republic 1799-1804 & Emperor of the French from 1804-1814 & 1815).  Although Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo wrote finis to that venture, the four powers thought the Quadruple Alliance a means by which the framework created by the Congress of Vienna might best be maintained as a stabilizing device so the state of European affairs might indefinitely be maintained, it’s last resort being the military apparatus which could be deployed to ensure something like the French Revolution couldn’t again happen.  Events seemed to move in the direction of the Holy Alliance when, in 1818, the Bourbon monarchy was restored to France under Louis XVIII (1755–1824; king of France 1814-1824 (but for the unfortunate hundred days in 1815 when he fled the advance of Napoleon)) and the Quadruple Alliance became the Quintuple.  However, the British, even then among the most constitutional of monarchies, never had much enthusiasm for the alliance's more illiberal actions but the four continental powers did impose their will, the Austrians in Italy in 1821 and the French two years later in Spain.  Despite those encouraging successes however, although not fully appreciated at the time, both the arrangement and the Holy Alliance became effectively defunct with the death of Alexander in 1825, the events in France in 1830 the final nail in the coffin.

Nevertheless, the Holy Alliance remains an interesting cul-de-sac in European history and one noted for (by diplomatic standards) the brevity of its three articles: (1) That all members are brethren, beholden when necessary to assist one another to protect religion, peace, and justice, (2) That the members are Christian nations who owe the treasure of their existence to God, and recommend to their subjects to enjoy God’s gifts, and exercise his principles and (3) That members agree this alliance shall utilize the principles of God and Christianity to shape the destinies of mankind over which they have influence.  One suspects Metternich (Prince Klemens von Metternich, 1773–1859, Austrian foreign minister 1809-1848, chancellor 1821-1848) and others might have shared Castlereagh’s opinion of the spiritual flavor of the Tsar’s wording but it was recognized by even the most cynical of pragmatists as at least potentially useful and was eventually signed by all European rulers except (1) the Prince Regent of the UK because of the cabinet’s opposition, (2) the Ottoman sultan who could hardly countenance such a Christian document and (3), the Pope in Rome, the papal councilors and bishops approving not at all of something which, for the sake of unanimity, embraced schism, heresy, and orthodoxy alike.  To the Holy See, these were the papers of politicians and thus the work of the Devil.

Whatever it wasn’t, the Holy Alliance was a symbol of the old social order and liberals viewed it with disdain, revolutionaries with hatred.  Although effectively it was in 1825 buried in the tomb of the dead Tsar, its spirit endured until the revolutions of 1848 and in a sense it continued to influence the actions of statesmen until the Crimean War (1853-1856).  That crafter of alliances, Prince Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898; Chancellor of the German Empire, 1871-1890), attracted to something so over-arching yet meaning so little, sort of resurrected it after the unification of Germany in 1871 but the withered idea of a unifying Christendom proved by the 1880s not strong enough to prevail over Austrian and Russian self-interest in the squabbles in the Balkans as the edges of the Ottoman Empire began to fray.

Of unholy alliances

As a footnote, the Holy Alliance left a linguistic legacy: the phrase “unholy alliance”.  Unholy alliance is used to describe a coalition formed between improbable and usually antagonistic parties, such arrangements often ad hoc and the product of circumstance rather than choice.  There need not be any religious or anti-religious element for it to be applied and it’s a companion term to “strange bedfellows” or “uneasy bedfellows”. 

There have been many instances of use and it appeared in the platform of the Progressive Party, formed by Theodore Roosevelt (TR, 1858–1919; US president 1901-1909) to contest the 1912 US presidential election: “To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”  A classic statement of the rationale came from Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) in 1941 when, after Germany invaded the Soviet Union (a unilateral repudiation of an earlier unholy alliance (the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939) which was one of history’s more cynical arrangements between adversaries, both parties knowing it was being pursued for mutual advantage as a prelude to an eventual conflict between them), the UK suddenly had gained a wartime ally albeit one with which relations had been hardly friendly and often strained since the revolutions of 1917.  In a radio broadcast that evening Churchill announced: “No one has been a more consistent opponent of communism for the last twenty-five years. I will unsay no word I have spoken about it. But all this fades away before the spectacle which is now unfolding. The past, with its crimes, its follies, its tragedies, flashes away.… The Russian danger is therefore our danger, and the danger of the United States, just as the cause of any Russian fighting for hearth and house is the cause of free men and free peoples in every quarter of the globe.”  When one of his colleagues noted the queerness of him being the one to announce such an alliance, he remarked: “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”

Portrait of Clare Sheridan (then Ms Frewen) (1907), oil on canvas by Emil Fuchs (1866-1929) (left) and a sepia print of the younger Leon Trotsky (circa 1908) (right).  

Churchill didn’t approve of communism, his attitude hardened by the new regime in Moscow having murdered the last Tsar and his family.  Very much a monarchist (his wife once described him as “the last man in Europe who believes in the divine right of kings”), Churchill thus took a dim view of the Bolsheviks and while serving as Secretary of State for War and Air (1919–1921) was involved in the allied intervention supporting anti-Communist White forces in the Russian Civil War (1917-1922), his mood not improved when he learned his favorite cousin, the sculptor Clare Sheridan (1885–1970), had enjoyed a brief affair with comrade Leon Trotsky (1879-1940; founder of the Fourth International).  Whether he ever called Trotsky “the hairiest Bolshevik baboon of all” remains uncertain but it’s at least plausible and he would later tell his cousin “we shall never speak of this unpleasantness again”.  Her memories of the tryst remained fonder, recalling the time her lover had whispered: “a woman like you should be the whole world to a man.”  At least one “Bolshevik baboon” could be poetic.

By 1941, however bad he thought were the communists in Moscow, the Nazis in Berlin were worse so an alliance with the Soviet Union, unholy though it would have felt, Churchill welcomed with barely a qualm.  He was also more perceptive in his assessment of Russian resistance to the invasion than most military & political figures in London, Washington DC or Berlin, the consensus in those circles being the Red Army would be defeated within a few months.  Given the bloody purges comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) had committed against his military leadership and the poor performance of the Russian army against the Finns in 1940, the grim expectations weren’t unreasonable but Churchill offered good odds to anyone willing to take his bet: “I will bet you a Monkey to a Mousetrap that the Russians are still fighting, and fighting victoriously, two years from now.”  That was slang from the turf, a “Monkey” being a £500 wager and a “Mousetrap” a gold sovereign with a nominal value of £1 (ie odds of 500-1).  Unholy the alliance may have been and there were tensions throughout between Moscow, Washington & London but the need to defeat Nazism meant it survived long enough to fulfil its purpose before the Cold War became the world’s new primary political dynamic.