Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Skulduggery. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Skulduggery. Sort by date Show all posts

Saturday, December 17, 2022

Skullduggery

Skullduggery (pronounced skuhl-duhg-uh-ree)

(1) Dishonorable proceedings; mean dishonesty or trickery.

(2) An instance of dishonest or deceitful behavior; trickery.

(3) Underhand dealing.

(4) As sculdudrie or sculduddery, illicit fornication or something obscene respectively (archaic Scots dialectial forms).

1856: A creation in US English, it was a variant of earlier Scots sculdudrie or sculduddery (both of obscure origin) which had been in use in colonial America.  In Scotland, sculdudrie originally meant “adultery” or “illicit fornication” and, with the unexplained spelling variation sculduddery, by 1821 the meaning had extended to a general sense of “bawdry, an obscenity".  By from the late nineteenth century, as skullduggery, in most of the English-speaking world, it came to refer to dishonest or deceitful behaviour.  Skulduggery is a noun; the noun plural is skulduggeries or skullduggeries.

Skulduggery is general underhanded behaviour or trickery, usually secret or devious. The noun plural is skulduggeries or skullduggeries, though both are rarely used in this form because the reference tends almost always to be to behaviour in a general sense to begin with.  Everybody except Tony Blair seems to understand the profession of politics is a venal business of lies and squalid skullduggery.  By the time of his valedictory address to the House of Commons, he’d managed to forget noble causes like New Labour’s “ethical foreign policy” which lasted only until it was explained to him that the UK’s armaments manufacturers realized great profits by selling weapons to regimes with appalling human rights records:   

"Some may belittle politics but we who are engaged in it know that it is where people stand tall.  Although I know that it has many harsh contentions, it is still the arena that sets the heart beating a little faster. If it is, on occasions, the place of low skullduggery, it is more often the place for the pursuit of noble causes. I wish everyone, friend or foe, well. That is that... the end."

Hansard: Tony Blair’s last official words as prime-minister.  Prime Minister's Questions, 27 June 2007.

Tony Blair, Gordon Blair & Peter Mandelson (left).  In the early 1990s, detesting the Major government, the press were fawning in their admiration and dubbed the trio "the three musketeers" but they're now usually thought of as "the good, the bad and the ugly, a collective moniker which may be generous to at least one of them.  There is no truth in the rumor the three politicians provided the template for the personalities of the "plastics" in Mean Girls (2004, right) although the idea is tempting, reading left to right (works for either photograph): Karen Smith (sincere, well meaning, a bit simple); Gretchen Wieners (insecure, desperately wanting to be liked) and Regina George (evil and manipulative).  

There was plenty of low skulduggery during the New Labour government, led first by Tony Blair (b 1953; UK prime-minister 1997-2007) and later by Gordon Brown (b 1951; UK prime-minister 2007-2010) but to get a good flavour of it it’s necessary to read the memoirs by them both, then the diaries of Alastair Campbell (b 1957; Labour Party apparatchik) and finally Peter Mandelson’s (b 1953; sometime member of the New Labour governments) The Third Man.  The books are best read in that order because it makes easiest the reading between the lines to work out why each included certain things and left out other stuff (or spun it in some strange and inevitably self-serving way.  It’s quite a fun process and actually necessary because while Campbell’s diaries are lively, the other three would otherwise be a hard slog.  It’s now sometimes forgotten that in the distant past of the post-Thatcher, early 1990s, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson were seen as modernizing reformers and in the early years of government actually behaved in a way which suggested that was true.  It didn’t last however and Brown soon became consumed with jealously and eventually hatred for Blair who was denying him the premiership to which he thought himself entitled.  Mandelson meanwhile became resentful at being twice dismissed from office by Blair one grounds he thought unreasonable.  From this ensued what was pretty dirty business.

A practical manual of low skulduggery in four volumes:

Tony Blair, A Journey (2010), Random House, pp 624, ISBN 978-0-09-192555-0

Gordon Brown, My Life, Our Times (2017), The Bodley Head, pp 512, ISBN 978-2-78-739526-6

Alastair Campbell, The Blair Years (2007), Random House, pp 816, ISBN 0-09-179629-6

Peter Mandelson, The Third Man (2010), Harper Press, pp 584, ISBN 978-0-00-739528-6

Friday, July 28, 2023

Traduce

Traduce (pronounced truh-doos or truh-dyoos)

(1) To malign a person or entity by making malicious and/or false or defamatory statements; slander; libel; defame.

(2) To pass on (to one's children, future generations etc.); to transmit (archaic).

(3) To pass into another form of expression; to rephrase, to translate (archaic).

1525–1535: From the Latin trādūcō (lead as a spectacle, dishonor), from trādūcere (to lead over, transmit, disgrace), a variant of trānsdūcere (to transfer, display, expose), the construct being tra- (from the preposition trāns (through, across, beyond)) + dūcere (to lead).  Synonyms include vilify, decry & disparage.  The Latin trādūcere was from the Proto-Italic tranzdoukō and cognates included the Italian tradurre and the French traduire.  The noun transduction (act of leading or carrying over) is from the 1650s, from the Latin transductionem & traducionem (nominative transductio) (a removal, transfer), noun of action from the past-participle stem of transducere & traducere (change over, convert) which also picked up the meaning "lead in parade, make a show of, dishonor, disgrace".  Traduce, traduction, traduced & traducing are verbs, traducement & traducer are nouns, traducingly is an adverb and traducible is an adjective; the most common noun plural is traducements.

To be traduced in speech or in writing (historically treated in English (and related) legal systems respectively as libel and slander but some systems have reformed their rules and now treat all as just the single concept of defamation) can allow the victim to seek redress through legal process, the available remedies including retractions, apologies and damages by way of financial compensation.  Also available is the injunction to prevent publication and what has become popular in some jurisdictions in the (secret) secret injunction, a device whereby (1) publication is denied, (2) all details of the matter (names of the parties or even an allusion to the nature of the proscribed material) and (3) the very fact any injunction has been granted is kept secret.

Mostly a thing of civil law, in some jurisdictions there’s still the offence of criminal defamation but its very existence is now less common and use seldom.  Criminal defamation exists when someone publishes defamatory material knowing it is, or not caring if it is, false with the intention to, or not having regard to whether it will, cause serious harm to the victim or any other person is guilty of a crime.  In most cases, the same defenses available in a civil action can be used in a criminal matter; a criminal charge does not preclude civil action being taken for the same publication.  The matter of truth is interesting.  In the United States, truth is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.  As many have found out, that doesn’t mean there aren’t in the US consequences for publishing something defamatory but the action taken will not be on grounds of libel or slander.  Although it seems strange to many, truth isn’t an absolute defense in many jurisdictions but it can be a matter raised in mitigation so that even if a judgment is delivered against a defendant, the damages awarded may be nominal.

Publish and be damned

Although there’s always been a suspicion a ghost writer may have helped a bit in matters of style, the content of Harriette Wilson’s (1786–1845) book The Memoirs of Harriette Wilson: Written by Herself was all her own.  First published in 1825, it was a best seller and thought topical enough to deserve a re-print a century later, it’s notable still for having one of the finest opening lines of any auto-biography ever published:

"I shall not say how and why I became, at the age of fifteen, the mistress of the Earl of Craven."

The cover of some of the French editions were more alluring than those sold in England.

However much the tales of Regency’s most revealing courtesan may have delighted readers, there was one not so happy.  In the mail one morning in December 1824, Arthur Wellesley (1st Duke of Wellington; 1769–1852, UK prime-minister 1828-1830) the famous soldier who led the coalition of armies which defeated Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; leader of the French Republic 1799-1804 & Emperor of the French from 1804-1814 & 1815) at Waterloo in 1815, found a letter from the publisher John Joseph Stockdale (circa 1775-1847) which can’t have been pleasant reading.  Stockdale was attempting blackmail, advising the duke he was about to publish Miss Wilson’s revelations which contained “various anecdotes” of Wellington which “it would be most desirable to withhold” and that could be arranged were payment to be made.

Duke of Wellington (1816) by Sir Thomas Lawrence (1769-1830).

The duke's response was the famous “Publish and be damned!” reputedly scrawled across Stockdale’s letter and sent to him by return mail.  Publish Stockdale did, the book, a romp through the beds of the aristocracy appearing by installments before appearing in bookshops where it scandalized and thrilled London society although it would have been more salacious still had more of Stockdale’s blackmail victims had the fortitude of the iron duke and refused to pay.  An instant best-seller, the book went through thirty-one printings in a year and pirated copies were on-sale all over the continent but even without revenue from overseas sales the book was lucrative although the Stockdale was soon ruined by libel suits from those whose reputations had been traduced and Miss Wilson would eventually die in obscurity.

Riveting reading it may have been but so many of the libel actions against Stockdale were able to succeed in English courts because of the many errors of detail and chronology but historians nevertheless agree the narrative is substantially a reliable track of Miss Wilson’s adventures even if the sequence of events is sometimes misleading; to be fair, she had so many affairs it would be churlish not to allow for a little vagueness of recollection, one man presumably much the same as another after a while.  Whether “Publish and be damned!” in the duke’s own hand was ever written across the letter and sent back has never been confirmed because the original apparently hasn’t survived but there’s enough evidence from contemporaries to leave no doubt he certainly spoke the words but whatever she wrote of her time with Wellington, it must have been sufficiently truthful to convince the duke not to issue a writ for libel, despite at the time having threatened to sue “...if such rubbish is published”.

His marriage was already unhappy and the disclosures probably little surprised the duchess and the union endured until her death while the book clearly did no lasting harm to the duke's public reputation, the hero of Waterloo afforded some latitude in pre-Victorian England.  Within a decade of publication he would be prime minister and when he died in 1852, he was again a national hero and granted a state funeral, a rare distinction in England, unlike Australia where they’re given to reasonably successful football coaches and television personalities.  The phrase Publish and be damned!” entered the language and was in 1953 used as the title of a book detailing the history of the Daily Mirror newspaper, a tabloid which once had its own interesting history.

To keep track of one's traductions, it's recommended a burn book be maintained.  Introduced to the world in Mean Girls (2004), "burn" in this context was used in the sense of "an insult, a disparaging statement" and, depending on one's motives, a burn book can either focus exclusively on one individual worthy of being burned (eg crooked Hillary Clinton) or be devoted to a villainous group (eg the Republican Party).  One of the attractions of a burn book is that nothing, however scurrilous, need be verified and heresy evidence is admissible (indeed it's probably obligatory).  Thus, accusations against someone of stuff like voting Tory, belonging to the Freemasons, enjoying sexual relations with certain vegetables & fruits (all three perhaps not unrelated), substance abuse or hoarding all belong in a burn book and, if selectively and anonymously leaked, reputations will be traduced.  The other utility a burn book offers is that nothing gets forgotten however great the volume, an important point for any traducer who likely will find someone like crooked Hillary will attract hundreds of entries.  Surely, Harriette Wilson kept a burn book.

Politicians do maintain burn books although few are much discussed.  Richard Nixon's (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) "enemies list" became famous in 1973 when it emerged during congressional hearings enquiring into the Watergate break-in and that such a list existed surprised few although some did expect it to contain more names than the twenty included; it was common knowledge Nixon had many more enemies than that.  That view was vindicated when later lists were revealed (some containing hundreds of names) though had the net been cast a little wider, it could well have run to thousands.  At least one Eurocrat has also admitted to keeping a burn book although Jean-Claude Juncker (b 1954; president of the European Commission 2014-2019) calls his "little black book" Le Petit Maurice (little Maurice), the name apparently a reference to a contemporary from his school days who grew taller than the youthful Jean-Claude and seldom neglected to mention it.  Although maintained for some thirty years (including the eighteen spent as prime-minister of Luxembourg) to record the identities of those who crossed him, Mr Junker noted with some satisfaction it wasn't all that full because people “rarely betray me”, adding “I am not vengeful, but I have a good memory.”   It seems his warning “Be careful.  Little Maurice is waiting for you” was sufficient to ward of the betrayal and low skulduggery for which the corridors of EU institutions are renowned.

Sunday, June 4, 2023

Font

Font (pronounced font)

(1) In Christianity, a receptacle, usually of stone, as in a baptistery or church, containing the holy water used in baptism (now usually as "fount").

(2) A receptacle for holy water; a stoup (now usually as "fount") .

(3) A productive source (often in the form “a fount of wisdom”).

(4) The reservoir for the oil in a lamp, ink for a pen etc (now usually as "fount").

(5) Figuratively, a spring or fountain; a wellspring (archaic but still appears in poetic & literary use as both "font" & "fount").

(6) In the slang of television production, to overlay text onto the picture.

(7) In typography, a set of glyphs of unified design, belonging to one typeface, style & weight and usually representing the letters of an alphabet, supplementary characters, punctuation marks and the ten standard numerals.

(8) In phototypesetting, a set of patterns forming glyphs of any size, or the film they are stored on.

(9) In digital typesetting, a set of glyphs in a single style, representing one or more alphabets or writing systems, or the computer code representing it.

(10) In computing, a file containing the code used to draw and compose the glyphs of one or more typographic fonts on a display or printer.

Pre 1000: From the Middle English font, from the Old English font & fant, from the Latin font-, the stem of the Church Latin fons baptismalis (baptismal font, spring, fountain) from the Classical Latin fōns (genitive fontis) (fountain).  The use in printing to describe typefaces dates from the 1570s and was from the Old & Middle French fonte (a founding, casting), the feminine past participle of the verb fondre (to melt), from the unattested Vulgar Latin funditus (a pouring, molding, casting), a verbal noun from the Latin fundere (past participle fusus) (to pour a melted substance) from a nasalized form of the primitive Indo-European root gheu- (to pour).  The meaning was acquired because all the characters in a set were cast at the same time.  Most people use the words font and typeface as synonyms but industry professionals maintain a distinction: the typeface is the set of characters of the same design; the font is the physical means of producing them; that difference was maintained even as printing moved from physical wood & metal to electronics.  The modern practice is for the spelling “font” to apply to use in printing while “fount” is use for receptacles containing liquids.  That must seem strange to those learning the language but it’s how things evolved.  Font is a noun & verb, fonted is a verb & adjective, fonting is a verb and fontal is an adjective; the noun plural is fonts.

The politics of fonts

Great moments in fonts: Always select your font with care.

Dr Stephen Banham (b 1968) is a senior lecturer in typography at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia who has published widely on the subject.  He recently discussed the politics of fonts and offered a number of examples of how fonts have played some significant role in recent history.  He noted the way in which some developments in typefaces have been technologically deterministic, something related not only to the changes in the mechanical devices used in printing (such as the shift from wooden to metal type) but also the speed at which people travelled while reading.  When the development of railways meant people began regularly to travel at speeds beyond that which teams of horses could attain, it meant there was signage which had to be legible to those passing on the train and this was not always simply a matter of scaling-up the existing styles; sometimes new designs were needed with different aspect ratios.

Fonts in transition: Nazi Party poster advertising a “Freedoms Rally” (the irony not apparent at the time), Schneidemuhl, Germany, (now Pila, Poland) in 1931 (left), Edict issued by Martin Bormann (1900–1945) banning the future use of Judenlettern (Jewish fonts) like Fraktur (the irony of the letterhead being in the now banned typeface presumably didn’t disturb the author) (centre) and (in modern Roman script), an announcement in occupied that 100 Polish hostages had been executed as a reprisal for death of two Germans in Warsaw, 1944 (right).

Sometimes too, the message was the typeface itself; it imparted values that were separate from the specific meaning in the text.  The Nazi regime (1933-1945) in Germany was always conscious of spectacle and although in matters of such as architecture customs there was a surprising tolerance of regional difference, in some things it demanded uniformity and one of those was the appearance of official documents.  Early in his rule their rule, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader), German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) decreed that “German Black Letter” should be used for all official purposes (and it was used in the cover art of most early editions of Mein Kampf); Hitler, who to the end thought himself an “artist”, liked the heavy, angular form for its encapsulation of the Germanic.  Fraktur is probably the best known of these although it’s but one of a number of variations of the typeface and such was the extend of the state support for the font that the party was critical of newspapers, publishers & magazines which used more modern (and easier to read) forms (and they were used by the German military and civil service when legibility was important), a frequent criticism being the “Roman characters” somehow represented a “Jewish influence”.  In one of the ironies of history however, when it became apparent that when used in letters and notices distributed to enforce rule in the occupied territories the use of the font was counter-productive because it was so hard to read, the Nazis suddenly declared that Fraktur had become contaminated wand was thus proscribed as Judenlettern (Jewish letters), official documents thereafter rendered in modern Roman type.  Martin Bormann's edict was issued thus:

I announce the following, by order of the Führer:

It is false to regard the so-called Gothic typeface as a German typeface. In reality, the so-called Gothic typeface consists of Schwabacher-Jewish letters. Just as they later came to own the newspapers, the Jews living in Germany also owned the printing presses… and thus came about the common use in Germany of Schwabacher-Jewish letters.

Today the Führer… decided that Antiqua type is to be regarded as the standard typeface. Over time, all printed matter should be converted to this standard typeface. This will occur as soon as possible in regard to school textbooks, only the standard script will be taught in village and primary schools. The use of Schwabacher-Jewish letters by authorities will in future cease. Certificates of appointment for officials, street signs and the like will in future only be produced in standard lettering…

In the post war years, fonts (the word had come by them to be used generically of typefaces except by printers) reflected the mood of the times and in the unexpectedly buoyant years of the 1950s there emerged in West Germany (the FRG) “Optima”, (1958) intended to convey the optimism engendered by the Wirtschaftswunder (the economic miracle) while in France, “Univers” (1957), the product of a Swiss designer, was in a similar vein and intended to be suitable for all purposes in all languages.  Doubtlessly though, no font compares with the Swiss "Helvetica" (1957) which, by virtue of its elegance, simplicity & adaptability, quickly enjoyed a popularity which endures to this day and it remains the only font which has been the subject of a full-length feature film.  It spawned a number of imitators, especially after it was included in Adobe’s PostScript set, the best known of which is probably the ubiquitous Arial (1982).  The optimism of the 1950s is long gone although Optima remains available and names still reflect something of the concerns of their era: “Exocet” (1981), “Stealth” (1983) and “Patriot” (1986) all part of the late Cold War Zeitgeist.  Fonts can also reflect environment concerns and there are now some which no longer use solid forms, instead being made of lines, thereby reducing the consumption of ink or toner by up to 12%.  The trick isn’t detectable by the naked eye and is actually not new, “outline” typefaces long available although in those the technique was designed to be apparent and there were limitations in their application; below a certain size they tended to fragment.

More great moments in fonts.

During the Covid-19 pandemic when we were all spend much time in a form of house arrest, the font download sites all noted a spike in demand for script-like fonts, especially those which most resembled handwriting (and it is possible to have one’s own handwriting rendered as a font), the demand presumed to be induced by a longing for a way to express feelings in a more “human” way than the default serif and san serif sets which ship with email and messenger services.  That over arching binary (serif & san serif) has also attracted criticism because humanity’s most obvious binary (male & female) in now under siege as a form of oppression so binaries in general seem no longer fashionable.  With fonts, the most obvious micro-aggression is the way fonts are often categorized as “masculine” (Arial; Verdana etc) and “feminine” (Brush Script; Comic Sans (maybe in fuchsia) etc) and though the relevant characteristics can’t exactly be defined (except for the fuchsia), the differences probably can be recognized although that of course is a product of the prejudices and suppositions of the observer.  Presumably, if offered a third category (gender-neutral), a sample group would put some fonts in there but even that would seem based on the prejudices and suppositions constructed by the original binary.  The mechanics (as opposed to the content) of typology is one of the less expected theatres of the culture wars.

Verzoening, Geffen, the Netherlands.

The simultaneously derided yet still popular font Comic Sans (1984) has been more controversial than most.  The design was intended to recall the sort of writing which appeared in the speech bubbles of cartoons and it first came to wide public attention in 1995 when it was used in Microsoft Bob, the software which was an attempt to use a cartoon-like interface to make navigating Windows 95 easier for neophytes.  Even less popular than Windows Me, Windows Vista or DOS 4.0, Bob was allowed quietly to die but Comic Sans survived and found a niche, much to the disgust of some in major corporations who banned its use, demanding the staff use only “dignified” or “serious” (presumably masculine) fonts rather than something from a comic book.  Unfortunately, this news appeared not to reach whoever it was in the Netherlands who in 2012 approved the use of Comic Sans on the World War II memorial Verzoening (Reconciliation) erected in the town of Geffen.  That attracted much criticism but not as much as the decision to have the names of Jewish, Allied and German military deaths all to be etched (in Comic Sans) on the same stone.  After it was pointed out that reconciliation with the SS was not a national sentiment, the offending names were removed although for the rest, Comic Sans remained, albeit modified by the stonemasons so the text was rendered thicker, the local authorities justifying the retention on the grounds the shape of the text was in accord with the stone (it’s difficult to see the connection) and easily legible at a distance (certainly true).  It may be the only monument in the world, dedicated to the dead, which uses Comic Sans.

Crooked Hillary Clinton updating her Burn Book which, during the primary campaign for the Democrat Party nomination for the 2016 presidential election, probably would have been referred to internally as her "Bern Book" because it would have been so filled with tactics designed to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders (b 1941; senior US senator (Independent, Vermont) since 2007) (digitally altered image).  In Mean Girls (2004), the Burn Book's cover used the "ransom note" technique which involved physically cutting letters from newspapers & magazines and pasting them onto a page, a trick of the pre-DNA analysis age which left no identifiable handwriting.  There are a number of "ransom" fonts which emulate the appearance in software.

Politicians do maintain burn books although few are much discussed.  Richard Nixon's (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) "enemies list" became famous in 1973 when it emerged during congressional hearings enquiring into the Watergate break-in and that such a list existed surprised few although some did expect it to contain more names than the twenty included; it was common knowledge Nixon had many more enemies than that.  That view was vindicated when later lists were revealed (some containing hundreds of names) though had the net been cast a little wider, it could well have run to thousands.

At least one Eurocrat has also admitted to keeping a burn book although Jean-Claude Juncker (b 1954; president of the European Commission 2014-2019) calls his "little black book" Le Petit Maurice (little Maurice), the name apparently a reference to a contemporary from his school days who grew taller than the youthful Jean-Claude and seldom neglected to mention it.  Although maintained for some thirty years (including the eighteen spent as prime-minister of Luxembourg) to record the identities of those who crossed him, Mr Junker noted with some satisfaction it wasn't all that full because people “rarely betray me”, adding “I am not vengeful, but I have a good memory.”   It seems his warning “Be careful.  Little Maurice is waiting for you” was sufficient to ward of the betrayal and low skulduggery for which the corridors of EU institutions are renowned.

Tuesday, August 29, 2023

Duplicity

Duplicity (pronounced doo-plis-i-tee or dyoo-plis-i-tee)

(1) Deceitfulness in speech or conduct, as by speaking or acting in two different ways to different people concerning the same matter; double-dealing.

(2) An act or instance of such deceitfulness.

(3) In law, the act or fact of including two or more offenses in one count, or charge, as part of an indictment, thus violating the requirement that each count contain only a single offense.

1400–1450: From the Late Middle English, from the Old French duplicite, from the Late Latin duplicitatem (nominative duplicitas (doubleness)).  Technically, the word wa borrowed from Latin duplicāre (double), present active infinitive of duplicō and the Medieval Latin duplicitās differed with ite replacing itās.  The notion is of being "double" in one's conduct ultimately is derived from the Ancient Greek diploos (treacherous, double-minded) which translates literally as "twofold, double".  Related in Medieval Latin was ambiguity, noun of quality from duplex, genitive (duplicis (two-fold)).

Duplicity good and bad

Because such conduct is inherent to human interaction, there are many words either similar in meaning or a synonym of duplicity.  Duplicity is the form of deceitfulness that leads one to give two impressions, either or both of which may be false.  Deceit is the quality that prompts intentional concealment or perversion of truth for the purpose of misleading.  The quality of guile leads to craftiness in the use of deceit; one uses guile and trickery to attain one's ends. Hypocrisy is the pretence of possessing virtuous qualities such as sincerity, goodness or devotion.  Fraud refers usually to the practice of subtle deceit or duplicity by which one may derive benefit at another's expense.  Trickery is the quality that leads to the use of tricks and habitual deception.  In modern English usage, the most common sense of duplicity is “deceitfulness.”  The roots of this meaning are in the initial dupl from the Latin duplex (twofold, or double).  We do seem a duplicitous lot.

Alexander Haig (1924–2010; US Secretary of State 1981-1982) & Ronald Reagan (1911–2004; US President 1981-1989) (left) and Lord Carrington (1919–2018; UK Foreign Secretary 1979-1982) & Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013; UK Prime Minister 1979-1990) (right).

To accuse someone duplicity is usually to allege or suggest something negative, the idea that someone has acted in a manner perhaps not dishonest but certainly misleading or dishonorable.  However there are fields of endeavor where the successfully duplicitous are often admired and the most Machiavellian can be held in awe.  In international relations, it’s true in the upper reaches of diplomacy.

Duplicity, art and science: Haig and Carrington, the White House, 26 February 1981.

More than General Colin Powell (b 1937; US Secretary of State 2001-2005) and more even than General Dwight Eisenhower (1890–1969; US President 1953-1961), General Alexander Haig (1924-2010) was an exemplar of that uniquely Washington DC creature, the political soldier, whose career shuttled between the military, diplomacy and politics.  After a meeting in 1981, Haig was heard to remark the UK Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, was a "duplicitous bastard".  Beyond the beltway, that would be a disparaging comment, but, in the world of international diplomacy, it’s more an expression of admiration of professional skill.

Mean Girls (2004), a story of duplicity, low skulduggery, Machiavellian manipulation, lies & deceit.  As a morality tale, the message can be reduced to: “Women would rather hear brilliant lies than honest truths”.

Monday, April 17, 2023

Schism

Schism (pronounced siz-uhm or skiz-uhm)

(1) Division or disunion, especially into mutually opposed parties.

(2) Parties or groups so formed.

(3) In ecclesiastical matters, a formal division within, or separation from, a church or religious body over some doctrinal difference.

(4) The state of a sect or body formed by such division.

(5) The offense of causing or seeking to cause such a division.

1350-1400: From the Church Latin schisma, scisma (and in the Medieval Latin as cisma), from the Ancient Greek σχίσμα (skhísma) (genitive skhismatos), (division, cleft), from σχίζω (skhízō) (I split), the stem of skhizein (to split), from the primitive Indo-European root skei- (to cut, split).  The word replaced the French and Middle English cisme scisme & sisme (a dissension within the church producing two or more parties with rival authorities) all of which were from the Old French cisme or scisme (a cleft, a split), again ultimately from the Ancient Greek σχίσμα (skhísma).  By the late fourteenth century, scisme (dissention within the church) had emerged although in the New Testament, schism (or an equivalent from the stem of skhizein) was applied metaphorically to divisions in the Church (eg I Corinthians xii.25).  The classical spelling was actually restored in the sixteenth century but pronunciation may have remained unchanged and the general sense of “disunion, division, separation” became common in the early fifteenth century, and within a few years the adjective schismatic (the original spelling being scismatik) was coined in the sense of “pertaining to, of the nature of, or characterized by schism”, something which referred specifically to “an outward separation from an existing church or faith on difference of opinion:, on the model of the Old French scismatique & cismatique (which endures in Modern French as schismatique), from the Church Latin schismaticus, from the Ancient Greek skhismatikos.  The adjective was used also as a noun in both the Old French and Late Latin and had actually been used thus in English in the late fourteenth century in the sense of “one who participates in a schism”.  In both French & English, the modern spelling was adopted in the late sixteenth century.  Schism is a noun, schismatic & schismatical are nouns & adjectives and schismatically is an adverb; the noun plural is schisms.

The East-West Schism of 1054 is sometimes casually referred to as the “Great Schism” but this is best avoided because it can be confused with the Great Schism of 1378-1417 (which followed the “Avignon Papacy” (1309-1376)), known as the “Babylonian captivity of the Papacy”.  The Avignon era was a confused period, presided over by seven popes and five antipopes, something to be recalled by those who think today’s squabbles between the Vatican factions are disruptive.  The schism of 1054 was the break of communion between what are now the (Eastern) Orthodox and (Western) Roman Catholic churches.  There were a myriad of ecclesiastical and theological disputes between the Greek East and Latin West before 1054 covering issues such as whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist.  More serious perhaps were a cluster of arguments about power; the Pope’s claim to universal jurisdiction and the place of Constantinople in relation to Rome.

By 1053, there was open clerical warfare.  Greek churches in Italy were forced to close or to conform to Romish ways and, in retaliation, the eastern Patriarch closed the Latin churches in Constantinople; and harsh words were exchanged and by 1054 the hierarchies of both factions were busily excommunicating each other.  It’s a little misleading to cite 1054 as the date of the schism because the dispute actually dragged and technically, relationships wouldn’t fully be sundered for almost two centuries but historians accept that year as critical and in many ways, as a point on no return.  Now almost a thousand-years on, there seems no prospect of reconciliation.

Amusing Australian schisms

The Australian Rugby League (ARL), 1995-1997: Australia is well-known for schisms in sport.  The game of rugby league was the product of a schism in the rugby unions ranks, the essence of which was the disagreement about player payments and the amateur status of the game.  That schism happened in England in 1895 but exactly a hundred year later, in Australia, the professional rugby league competition endured its own when News Corp, seeing the game as the perfect content provider for the then novel platform of pay-TV, staged a raid and attempted to entice the clubs to join their breakaway competition, offering the traditional inducement of lots of money.  The established competition responded, backed with money from its broadcaster and a two-year war ensued until corporate realities prevailed and a merged entity divided the spoils between the media organizations.  The dispute and its resolution followed essentially the same path as the schism in Australian cricket a generation earlier.

The Australian Labor Party, 1955: By the mid-1950s, the strongly anti-Communist faction in the Australian Labor Party (ALP) was actively engaged in a campaign to counter communist infiltration of both the political (the ALP) and industrial (the unions) arms of the labour movement.  Had the ALP enjoyed more capable leadership, things might have turned out differently but, handled as it was, the ALP split, the schism most serious in NSW and Queensland but no state was wholly unaffected.  What emerged as a predominately Catholic splinter-party was the Democratic Labor Party (DLP), the existence of which adversely affected the ALP vote for a generation.  Thought exterminated in 1974, the DLP still shows up at the odd election and has won seats before succumbing to its own schisms.

Department of Law, Macquarie University, 1980s: More traditional (black-letter) academic lawyers at Macquarie became concerned at the teachings of others whom they called legal sociologists.  Styling themselves substantive lawyers, they didn’t especially object to the content of their opponents; they just though it had no place in a law school.  A pre-social media schism, the dispute manifested mostly in letters to the editor and bitchy comments in legal journals.  Eventually, the dispute faded as the factions either called a truce or simply ignored each other.

Department of Philosophy, University of Sydney, 1972: John Anderson (1893–1962) was a Scottish philosopher who held the Challis Chair of Philosophy at the University of Sydney from 1927 until retirement in 1958.  His influence continued even after his death and by the early 1970s, faculty were engaged in a quite bitter dispute about subject matter, educational techniques and the very nature and purpose of philosophical study.  The differences proved irreconcilable and in 1974 the department split into two separate units, the Department of Traditional and Modern Philosophy and the Department of General Philosophy.  The latter thought the former little more than a polite discussion group re-hashing the thoughts of last two and a half-thousand years while the former considered the latter politically radical but philosophically barren.  The department eventually reunited some thirty years later.

Mean Girls (2004) is a tale of schism, back-stabbing and low skulduggery. That has attracted those in "media studies" departments and other such places who, drawing perhaps a long bow, have constructed textual analyses aligning the script with William Shakespeare's (1564–1616) The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (1603)The Tragedy of Macbeth (1623) and The Tragedy of Julius Caesar (1599).

Monday, September 18, 2023

Unrequited

Unrequited (pronounced uhn-ri-kwahy-tid)

(1) Of love, not returned or reciprocated.

(2) Not avenged or retaliated.

(3) Not repaid or satisfied.

1535–1545: The construct was un- + the past participle of requit (ie +-ed).  The un- prefix was from the Middle English un-, from the Old English un-, from the Proto-West Germanic un-, from the Proto-Germanic un-, from the primitive Indo-European n̥-.  It was cognate with the Scots un- & on-, the North Frisian ün-, the Saterland Frisian uun-, the West Frisian ûn- &  on-, the Dutch on-, the Low German un- & on-, the German un-, the Danish u-, the Swedish o-, the Norwegian u- and the Icelandic ó-.  It was (distantly) related to the Latin in- and the Ancient Greek - (a-), source of the English a-, the Modern Greek α- (a-) and the Sanskrit - (a-).  The verb requite dates from circa 1400 in the sense of "repay" (for good or ill), the construct being re- (back) + the Middle English quite (clear, pay up), an early variant of the verb quit preserved in this word.  The –ed suffix was from the Middle English –ede & -eden, from the Old English –ode & -odon (weak past ending), from the Proto-Germanic -ōd- & -ōdēdun.  It was cognate with the Saterland Frisian -ede (-ed) (first person singular past indicative ending), the Swedish -ade (-ed) and the Icelandic -aði.  The suffix was used to form past tenses of (regular) verbs. In linguistics, it remains used for the base form of any past form.  Unrequited is an adjective.  In English, from the 1540s, the earliest reference of the Middle English requiten (to repay), from Old French requiter, is to love affairs.

Probably few were as suited to the calling of suffering as Sylvia Plath (1932-1963) so in taking Ted Hughes (1930–1998; Poet Laureate 1984-2008) as a husband, she made a good career move.

When you give someone your whole heart and he doesn't want it, you cannot take it back. It's gone forever.  Sylvia Plath, The Bell Jar (1963).

Path's only novel, The Bell Jar was first published in the UK under the pen-name "Victoria Lucas" and is usually described as "semi-autobiographical", names of people & places changed to protect the innocent and the guilty, a literary genre known as a Roman à clef (from the French and literally "novel with a key"), the notion of the "key" being that certain knowledge allows a reader to "unlock" the truth, a instance of "reading between the lines" and the technique has widely been used for reasons both personal and legal.  Within a month of publication, Plath would take her own life and it wasn't until 1967 The Bell Jar was re-released under her name.  Dr Heather Clark's (b 1974) recent biography of Plath (Red Comet (2021)) was outstanding.

Emily Brontë (1818–1848) receives insufficient credit for inventing the modern emo and there are more strands of her in them than there are of the brooding German romantics who tend to be more acknowledged.  Were they here today, Cathy and Heathcliff would be in their darkened bedrooms, on their phones, friending and un-friending each other.

You loved me-then what right had you to leave me? What right-answer me-for the poor fancy you felt for Linton?  Because misery and degradation, and death, and nothing that God or Satan could inflict would have parted us, you, of your own will, did it. I have not broken your heart - you have broken it; and in breaking it, you have broken mine.  Emily Brontë, Wuthering Heights (1847).

Her only novel, Wuthering Heights was first published under the ambiguous pen name "Ellis Bell", a hint at the attitudes of many in the literary establishment (and not a few publishers) towards women writers.  Tellingly, critics at the time were often not kind and while the power of the text was noted, for most it seems to have been too raw to be thought "respectable" fiction and it's latter day reputation as one of the classics of English literature evolved only in the twentieth century under the influence of modernist writing and proto-feminism.  Wuthering Heights is one of those books best read when young because if too long delayed, the historic moment may have passed.  That said, there have probably been some young ladies who read it while at their most impressionable and never quite recovered.

There are many portraits of William Shakespeare (1564–1616) but all are of at least dubious provenance and although there is a contemporary reference to a painting or drawing existing during his lifetime, it's thought all known images were probably created after his death.

If asked to distil from Shakespeare’s works the two most frequent themes, one might suggest "low skulduggery" and "unrequited love" though that’s something which might be said of many literary traditions.  In unrequited love Shakespeare saw comedic potential as well as tragedy because it’s as present in Much Ado About Nothing (1598) & All’s Well that Ends Well (1602) as it is in Romeo & Juliet (1594) where youthful agonies are laid bare.  Sometimes there’s overlap between the tragic and the comic: Malvolio’s desire for the affections Olivia in Twelfth Night (1602) are played for laughs although there’s something cruel about the way things end.  In Cymbeline (1609), it’s a tangle with a flavour of a modern TV talk show, Cloten besotted with Imogen, his mother’s husband’s daughter (ie his step-sister).  Queen Katharine (Catherine of Aragon) in Henry VIII (1613) was the first of the king’s many wives and was both abandoned and bewildered why her love was unrequited but Henry had his own agenda and was in some was perhaps closer to Falstaff in The Merry Wives of Windsor (1597) where it’s really an unrequited lust.  Low skulduggery and unrequited love are both explored in Othello (1603), Roderigo’s longing for Desdemona rendering him vulnerable to manipulation by the evil Iago who harbours his own desires.  In Measure for Measure (1603) there’s a reward for Mariana enduring “five years” of unrequited love for “thou cruel Angelo” who cancelled their engagement because he dowery wasn’t enough: “Her promised proportions / Came short of composition”.  Angelo however is outwitted and Mariana gets her man.  In that case, for her at least, all was well that ends well.  So in Shakespeare there is plenty of unrequited love but he seems to have found the Norse and other Germanic myths emotionally over-wrought and was more pragmatic:

Why then, O brawling love! O loving hate!
O any thing, of nothing first create!
O heavy lightness, serious vanity,
Misshapen chaos of well-seeming forms,
Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health,
Still-waking sleep, that is not what it is!
This love feel I, that feel no love in this.
William Shakespeare,
 Romeo and Juliet (1594)


The Roman Poet Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso; 43 BC–17 AD) in the 814 line Remedia Amoris ("Love's Remedy", circa 2 AD) offered a cure for pining youth suffering the pangs of unrequited love.  His solutions included travel, teetotalism, gardening and, without any apparent sense of irony, the avoidance of love poets.

Lindsay Lohan, Something That I Never Had from Speak (2004).

Do you see me?
Do you feel me like I feel you?
Call your number
I cannot get through
You don't hear me
And I don't understand
When I reach out
Well, I don't find your hand
 
Were they wasted words?
And did they mean a thing
And all that precious time
But I still feel so in-between
 
Someday, I just keep pretending
That you'll stay
Dreaming of a different ending
I wanna hold on
But it hurts so bad
And I can't keep something that I never had
 
Well, I keep tellin' myself
Things can turn around with time
And if I wait it out
You could always change your mind
Like a fairytale
Where it works out in the end
Can I close my eyes?
Have you lying here again

Lindsay Lohan's Something That I Never Had was a tale of the agony of unrequited love.  She should have read from Part XIII of Ovid's Remedia Amoris:

Remembering reopens love, the wound’s newly re-opened:
trifling errors damage the weak-minded.
Consider how, if you touch ashes that are almost dead
with sulphur, they revive, and a tall flame comes from nothing.
So, if you don’t avoid whatever reawakens love,
the flames will light again that once were quenched.