Asunder

Asunder (pronounced uh-suhn-der)

(1) To separate into parts; in or into pieces.

(2) Things apart or widely separated:

Pre-1000: From the Old English sundrian & syndrian (to sunder, separate, divide), from sundor (separately, apart), from the Proto-Germanic sundraz & sunder (source also of the Old Norse sundr, the Old Frisian sunder, the Old High German suntar (aside, apart) and the German sondern (to separate), from the primitive Indo-European root sen- & sene- (apart, separated (source also of the Sanskrit sanutar (away, aside), the Avestan hanare (without), the Greek ater (without), the Latin sine (without), the Old Church Slavonic svene (without) and the Old Irish sain (different)).  It was cognate with the Danish sønder, the Swedish sönder, the Dutch zonder, the German sonder, the Icelandic sundur, the Faroese sundur and the Norwegian sunder & sønder (akin to the Gothic sundrō).  The adverb asunder (into a position apart, separate, into separate parts) was a mid-twelfth century contraction of the Old English on sundran, the construct being on (preposition) + sundran (separate position) and in Middle English was used in the sense of "distinguish, tell apart".  The related forms are sundered & sundering. 

Marriage and divorce

Although it appears also in Mark 10:9, the phrase “what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” is best known from Matthew 19:6 and it became part of the Christian wedding ritual, for long preceded at some point by the injunction “should anyone present know of any reason why this couple should not be joined in holy matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace”.

The formalization of the ritual during the middle ages reflected the medieval church’s regulation of rules within which people could marry.  By the twelfth century, the “consent theory” of marriage had emerged by which a couple married by exchanging certain words, regardless of whether witnesses or a priest was present.  If they exchanged vows without witnesses, the marriage was said to be “clandestine” and while legal (a valid, binding sacrament) it was not licit (allowed), a binary distinction that would appear in the development of the law of both contract and equity. 

Thus the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) forbid clandestine marriages and began the codification of the forms and processes of formal marriage, requiring an announcement of the impending marriage to be “…read or published on three successive Sundays prior…” to the actual ceremony to ensure that impediments to be raised, thus preventing invalid marriages.  Including this in the ceremony was a final chance to object before the marriage was declared, after which it could not be torn asunder.

Torn asunder.  The 2016 Brexit (British exit from membership of the European Union (EU)) referendum was narrowly won by the "leave" campaign.  It was a very bad outcome and one intended to serve the interests of a tiny elite, the members of which stoked the hatreds, fears and prejudices of those less socially sophisticated, inducing them to vote against their own interests.  No good will come of this.

Deuterogamy & Putative

Deuterogamy (pronounced doo-tuh-rog-uh-mee or dyoo- tuh-rog-uh-mee)

A second marriage, (as distinct from bigamy, as defined in law and canon law), historically after the death of the first husband or wife but now applied also in other circumstances.

1650–1660: From the Ancient Greek deuterogamía (a second marriage), the construct being deuteron, from the Ancient Greek δεύτερος (deúteros) (second (of two)) +‎ -gamy (the suffix from the Ancient Greek γάμος (gámos) used to form nouns describing forms of marriage (and in biology to form nouns describing forms of fertilization).  The related forms are deuterocanonical, deuteromycete, deuteromycetes, deuteron, deuterogamist, deuteronomic and deuteronomis.

The permitted second marriage

Deuterogamy is a lesser-known companion word of bigamy and polygamy.  Bigamy is the act of marrying one person while in a stare of marriage with another; it can be committed unknowingly (in rare cases even by both parties) but it committed knowingly is a criminal offence in most jurisdictions.  Polygamy is the generic term for multiple marriages and encompasses bigamy, the word used mostly by anthropologists to describe both polygyny (having several wives) and polyandry (the predictably less common practice of enjoying several husbands).  There’s also the synonym digamy but it’s so easily confused with the almost homophonic bigamy it should be avoided and rendered obsolete (which it may already be).

Etymologically, deuterogamy describes merely the act of a second marriage but in canon law it was the definitional term for a permissible second marriage, one celebrated after the death of a first wife or husband.  Under canon law, marrying another when one’s original partner remained alive, even if a divorce had been granted by a civil court, was bigamy.  The only circumstances in which the church would countenance a deuteronomis marriage when the previous partner remained alive was if a bishop was prepared to issue a certificate of annulment which created not the legal fiction that the marriage never existed but that it was ab initio (void at its inception) because the essential sacramental component was always missing

As an example, noted Roman Catholic, father of six and amateur moral theologian Barnaby Joyce (b 1967; deputy prime-minister of Australia thrice variously since 2016):

(1) Is an adulterer because he enjoyed intimacy with a woman while married to another.  He’s guilty merely of single-adultery because the other woman with whom he cavorted was unmarried; had his mistress been married, double adultery would have been the offence.  Surely worse.

(2) Cannot, under canon law, undertake a deuteronomis marriage unless he can find grounds on which a bishop might be persuaded to annul his first marriage. 

All things considered, one might have thought this difficult but in 2015, Pope Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) issued two possibly revolutionary motu proprio (literally “on his own impulse”; essentially the law-making mechanism available to absolute monarchs as the royal decree): Mitis iudex dominus Iesus (Reform to the Canons of the Code of Canon that pertain to the marriage nullity cases) and Mitis et misericors Iesus (Reform of the canons of the Code of Canons of Eastern Churches pertaining to cases regarding the nullity of marriage) which changed canon law, simplifying the annulment process.  It was a demonstration of what’s possible in an absolute theocracy and must have induced a little envy in people like prime-ministers dealing with bolshie cross-benchers or recalcitrant senators.

Better to help sinners consider their position, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio (b 1938; then president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts), issued a clarification, noting the Church “…does not decree the annulment of a legally valid marriage, but rather declares the nullity of a legally invalid marriage”.  While a piece of sophistry a bit different from what usually crosses the National Party mind and not obviously a great deal of help, it might have been enough to give Mr Joyce hope.

"A second marriage is a triumph of hope over experience."  Samuel Johnson (1709–1784).

On Monday 17 January, it was announced Mr Joyce had proposed to his new partner and that she'd accepted.  In a nice touch, he presented his fiancée a parti sapphire engagement ring.  Parti sapphires are unique in the extraordinary way their several distinct colors simultaneously display in any light, unlike other polychromic stones which need light to fall in different ways for the range to show.  The other distinction of the parti is that their value lies not in perfection but in their flaws; it's the inclusions in the parti which create the dazzling iridescence.  Like Mr Joyce, the parti sapphire is loved and venerated for its flaws.

Redemption does seem much on Mr Joyce's mind.  After the National Party caucus, having decided to allow hope to triumph over experience and (for the third time) elect him leader (and thus deputy prime-minister), he was gracious in victory, saying  “I acknowledge my faults and I resigned as I should have and I did. I’ve spent three years on the backbench and, you know, I hope I come back a better person.”  The self-identification as the prodigal son seems to draw a long theological bow and is anyway not relevant to the matters a bishop is compelled to consider when reviewing an application to annul a marriage.  The reforms imposed by Francis are really about time and money, reducing how long it takes and how much it costs to secure an annulment; the legal basis on which one may be granted remains unchanged, Church teaching being not that the marriage in question failed, but that the sacramental component was always missing.  Still, a wind of change is blowing through the Vatican and Mitis iudex dominus Iesus, like other recent reforms, did make clear these were matters for the local bishop, the man closest to his flock.

Putative (pronounced pyoo-tuh-tiv)

Commonly believed or deemed to be the case; reputed; accepted by supposition rather than as a result of proof.

1432: From the late Middle English, from the Middle French putatif, from the Late Latin putātīvus (reputed) the construct being putāt(us), past participle of putāre (to think, consider, reckon (originally “to clean, prune”)) + -īvus (-ive).  The ultimate root was the primitive Indo-European pau- (to cut, strike, stamp), the most familiar Latin variants being putātus (thought) and putō (I think, I consider, I reckon).  The -īvus  suffix was from the primitive Indo-European -ihwós, an extended form of –wós; it was cognate with the Ancient Greek -εῖος (-eîos) (from which Latin picked up also -ēus) and was added to the perfect passive participial stem of verbs, forming a deverbal adjective meaning “doing” or “related to doing”.  Putative is an adjective, putatively an adverb.

Early use of the word was almost exclusively in Church Latin as putative marriage, one which, though legally invalid due to an impediment, was contracted in good faith by at least one party.  Putative is almost always used in front of a noun, the modified noun being that which is assumed or supposed to be. The putative cause of a disease is whatever is generally thought to be the cause, even if unproven.  As a point of usage, it’s not correct to say "the cause was putative."

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s marriage to Roman Catholic Carrie Symonds, mother of the two youngest of his seven children, was celebrated in London's Westminster Cathedral on 29 June 2021, the edifice briefly closed for the occasion.  Unannounced, as Mr Johnson’s third putative marriage, it attracted particular interest because it was a Roman Catholic ceremony.  Although probably most of the British public years ago lost any interest in theology, still widely known is the church’s doctrinal insistence that marriage is a permanent, lifelong union between a man and a woman, those who divorce unable to enter a second marriage recognized by the Church.

The prime-minister’s union is however within church rules.  A baptized Catholic, what he described as his school-boy conversion to Anglicanism was not something recognized by canon law, Mr Johnson joining the Church of England by a process the Vatican would view as not much more than him deciding one day he was Anglican.  Not good enough.  For any soul to depart the faith, what canon law requires is a “defection from the Catholic Church by a formal act”, a specifically defined legal process, undertaken in dialogue with the Church hierarchy and nothing like that was ever done.  Conversion cannot be effected simply by conduct or press-release and, although what was done might have made Mr Johnson an Anglican in the eyes of Lambeth, to the Holy See he was and remained one of them.

Marriage has a long history, the idea of a lifelong partnership between one man and one woman drawn from of natural law and something recognized and acknowledged by the Church by virtue of the conduct and acquiescence of the parties even before the medieval church regularized the practice in the Code of Canon Law.  The code contains also ecclesiastical laws governing how and when Catholics can enter marriage, among which is the requirements to conform with “canonical form” including the ceremony being performed in the parish church of the parties, the permission of their bishop to marry outside of the Church and the need to seek special dispensation, sometimes from Rome, to marry non-Christians.

The construction of the framework really began at the fourth Lateran Council (1215) which banned informal or secret marriages, beginning the codification of the forms and processes of formal marriage with rules ensuring marriages would be widely known within the community so (1) any impediment might be raised prior to or before the conclusion of the ceremony and (2), once done, neither party could deny the union.  This really was social engineering, addressing the not uncommon event of a man inducing consent from a woman or girl with assurance he regarded them as betrothed, only later, usually when he learned she was with child, to renounce the “marriage”.  All of this had a good scriptural basis, the notion of “what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” appearing both in Mark 10:9 and Matthew 19:6.  Further to strengthen the framework, after the Council of Trent (Concilium Tridentinum, 1545-1563, nineteenth ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, Trent (Trento), Italy), the marriage sacrament came under jurisdiction of the Church, ceremonies performed and records maintained by priests.  Unless a marriage conformed to canonical form, it couldn’t be a valid marriage and, in the eyes of canon lawyers, never happened.  That was the legal abstraction.  On the ground, parish priests and presumptive fathers-in-law, knowing what had happened, dealt with miscreant “husbands”.  

Thus the prime minister is a baptized Catholic subject to the demands of canonical form and one whose previous marriages lacked canonical form.  Any Church tribunal would be compelled to hold the two unions invalid; they didn’t exist so he could marry Ms Symonds in a Catholic ceremony in a Catholic Church as his first valid marriage.  Helpfully, nor are sins of the father visited upon the children, the law recognizing the children born of putative marriages later declared null or invalid to be as legitimate as those born of valid marriages.  The origin of this lies in the Medieval habit of kings seeking (and gaining, sometimes on grounds more tenuous than those applying to Mr Johnson) an annulment.  Then it was the delicate business of handling the sunder without messing with long-settled issues of succession.

There are other quirks in Canon law.  While the Church does hold only a marriage between two baptized Christians can be a sacrament, it also recognizes that any marriage which conforms to its essential properties is valid, regardless of whether it involves those of other faiths or indeed atheists.  The exception is Catholics, on whom is imposed the more onerous demands of canonical form.

Constitution

Constitution (pronounced kon-sti-too-shun)

(1) The formal or informal system of primary principles and rules regulating a government or other institution.

(2) In law, a legal document describing such a formal system.

(3) In Roman Catholicism, a document issued by a religious authority serving to promulgate some particular church laws or doctrines.

(4) A person's physical makeup or temperament, especially in respect of robustness; the general health of a person (now less common except in technical use).

1350-1400: From the Middle English constitucioun & constitucion (edict, law, ordinance, regulation, rule, statute; body of laws or rules, or customs; body of fundamental principles; principle or rule (of science); creation), from the twelfth century Old French constitucion (constitution, establishment) (which persists the in modern French constitution), a learned borrowing from the Latin cōnstitūtiō & cōnstitūtiōnem (character, constitution, disposition, nature; definition; point in dispute; order, regulation; arrangement, system), from cōnstituō (to establish, set up; to confirm; to decide, resolve).  A common use of cōnstitūtiōnem was as a noun of state from past-participle stem of constituere (to cause to stand, set up, fix, place, establish, set in order; form something new; resolve),  The construct was constitute +‎ -ion.  Constitute was from the Middle English constituten, from the Latin cōnstitūtum (neuter of cōnstitūtus, past participle of cōnstituō (to put in place, set up, establish).  The –ion suffix was from the Middle English -ioun, from the Old French -ion, from the Latin -iō (genitive -iōnis).  It was appended to a perfect passive participle to form a noun of action or process, or the result of an action or process.  Constitution & constitutionality are nouns, constitutionally is an adverb, constitutional is an adjective; the noun plural is constitutions.

The meaning “action of establishing; creating" dates from circa 1400 while that of "way in which a thing is constituted" was from circa 1600.  The once common sense of "physical health, strength and vigor of the body" was from the 1550s, extended some thirty year later to "temperament & character", both now rare though not yet archaic.  The sense of "mode of organization of a state" emerged around the turn of the seventeenth century, evolving gradually to by the 1730s conveying the idea of a "system of principles by which a community is governed", finally by the late eighteenth century being understood as “document of basic or foundational laws”, something which reflected the influence of the US and French constitutions.  Although rare, constitutions of nations can be described as “unwritten” which is a little misleading because probably every aspect of an “unwritten” constitution in a modern state does exist somewhere in writing (statute, legal judgments etc) so a better expression is probably “un-codified”.  The best known example of the “unwritten constitution” is that of England where it’s understood as the collective name for the fundamental principles established by the political development of the English people embodied variously in common law, statute and in long-accepted precedents.  Liking the flexibility afforded, no British government has ever seriously contemplated a written constitution.

The adjective constitutional dates from the 1680s in the sense of "pertaining to a person's (physical or mental) constitution" and came to be used to mean "beneficial to bodily constitution" in the mid-eighteenth century and came later to be applied adjectivally to heath remedies as varied as morning walks and the odd medicinal brandy.  The meaning in legal judgements "authorized or allowed by the political constitution" was first used in 1765 while the “constitutional monarchy” (a monarchy constrained by law and democratic institutions) was first described (in France and apparently without irony) in 1801.  From constitutional as a legal concept came the inevitable adverb constitutionally, recorded first in 1767 although the noun constitutionality (quality of being in accord with a constitution) seems not to have left the judicial pen until 1787.

The substantive moments in Australian constitutional development

1770: Captain James Cook, on a voyage under the auspices of the Admiralty, claims eastern coastline of Australian continent for the British Crown.

1788: Government of the UK conducts successful invasion on 26 February.  Colony of NSW established and occupation of the continent begins as a colonial project, initial as a penal settlement.

1825: Limited self-government granted by the Colonial Office which (with variations in detail) is between 1825-1890 introduced for the colonies of NSW, Tasmania, New Zealand, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia.

1901: The six Australian colonies federate as the Commonwealth of Australia.  The Australian Constitution, an act of the Imperial Parliament, becomes basic law on 1 January 1901 creating the Parliament of Australia which subsequently also passes the act of constitution, thus creating the nation state in its original form.

1903: High Court of Australia constituted.

1927: Division of the Imperial Crown which, in effect, creates the Kingdom of Australia although this will not be formalised until 1973.  This was the mechanism which began the process of the relationship with the monarch being one increasingly disconnected from the UK government.

1931: Statute of Westminster granted (almost complete) legislative independence to the Dominions (including Australia) although it would be some time before the Australian government sought to formalize the implications of this.

1949: Australian citizenship created.

1969: The removal of rights of appeal from federal courts to the Judicial Appeal Committee (the board) of the Privy Council.  This had the effect of making rulings of the High Court final in all matters of Commonwealth law while appeals to London from state and territory courts remained possible.

1986: The Australia Acts (simultaneous acts of the UK and Australian parliaments) sunder last remaining legal connections between the two parliaments and legal systems (section 74 of the constitution notwithstanding).

The passage of the Australia Acts meant Australia retained two remote constitutional connections of which, strictly speaking, only one was with the United Kingdom.  The first is through the monarch, not as the King of England but of Australia and of each of the states and the relationship between the monarch (as head of state) and the Commonwealth is purely personal and wholly unconnected with the UK.  Were the UK to become a republic this would have no constitutional effect in Australia and the head of state would remain whomever is the relevant living successor in the line of succession from Queen Victoria (1819-1901; Queen 1837-1901).  The argument that more correctly the line of succession should begin from a later monarch because of the change in constitutional relationship is an interesting one for legal theorists but because of the biological continuity, there’s no difference in consequence.

King William IV sits before a pie containing two dozen blackbirds, served to him by Lord Melbourne (1836), colored lithograph by HB (John Doyle (1797-1836).  Lord Melbourne (1779–1848; UK prime-minister 1834 & 1835–1841) was the last prime minister dismissed by the monarch, William IV (1765–1837; King of the United Kingdom & King of Hanover 1830-1837) determining his commission in 1834.

The relationship is of interest because in legal theory, everything done by the governments (state and federal) is lawful because of powers which can be traced back to those of the monarch.  These powers are a construct of conventions, codified law, legal fictions and precedent and can be understood when deconstructed rather than observed in operation.  For example, the King, being the Lord Paramount in Australia technically owns all the land and other traditional forms of ownership (leasehold & freehold) are actually grants from the crown which may be revoked.  This is of course best thought of as a legal fiction and more of a trustee relationship but does illustrate the way that all power exercised by governments is ultimately derived from those held by the monarch.

A saltwater crocodile.

The powers of the monarch of course exist but can’t in most cases be exercised by the monarch.  Of great interest to Australians is the right of the monarch to dismiss a prime-minister and this power still exists in the UK (those who suggest otherwise have no basis on which to base the assertion) but because in Australia the powers have been delegated to a governor-general, the monarch does not usually retain this personal authority.  However, although it’s not certain, it’s probable that a monarch does re-assume the power if standing on Australian soil but its exercise is politically unthinkable so were the need to arise to sack an Australian prime-minister while a Monarch was visiting, they would immediately be taken for a day’s deep-sea fishing, it being necessary only to be 12 miles (20 km) off the coast to be in international waters, thus allowing a governor-general do their dirty work.  If the need was to dismiss a state premier or territory chief minister, then the monarch would need only to go for a swim because once beyond the low-water line off the coast, they would be splashing around in commonwealth waters and the governor would be free to swing the axe.  That sound tactic would be fine except in the Northern Territory because up there, anyone stepping foot in the ocean will probably be eaten by a saltwater crocodile (known up there, almost affectionately, as "salties") so a wise monarch will make a sudden dash for the Queensland, South Australian or Western Australian border, presumably choosing whichever is the closer.  Even though the Northern Territory government has (most unfortunately) done away with the de-restricted (ie no speed limits) roads in the outback, the monarch is exempt from such tiresome rules so it’d be a quick trip.

In the pink, taking a morning constitutional: Lindsay Lohan out walking, Los Angeles, 2010.

The other connection has long been thought a historic relic.  Section 74 of the constitution provides for an appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council if the court issues a certificate that it is appropriate for the Privy Council to determine an inter se (a case concerning constitutional relations between the Commonwealth and one or more states or between states) matter.  The only such certificate was issued in 1912 and in 1985, the High Court judges (unanimously) observed that the power to grant such a certificate “…has long since been spent… and is obsolete".  However, it’s there with full legal force so, in the strict constitutional sense, an appeal from the High Court, however unlikely, remains possible.

Balaclava

Balaclava (pronounced bal-uh-klah-vuh)

(1) A close-fitting, knitted cap that covers the head, neck, and tops of the shoulders, worn especially by mountain climbers, soldiers, skiers and others who operate in cold climates.

(2) A fire-resistant had covering in the style of the traditional balaclava but made of treated material.

1880-1885; named after Balaklava, a village near Sebastopol, Russia, site of a battle on 25 October 1854, during the Crimean War (1853-1856).  However, the term describing the headwear does not appear before 1881 and seems to have come into widespread use only during the Boer War, some half a century after the battle.  The name Balaklava often is thought to be of Turkish origin, but is perhaps folk-etymologized from the Greek original, Palakion.  Balaclava is a noun and balaclavaed is an adjective; the noun plural is balaclavas.  What came to be called the “full-face” crash helmet was briefly advertised during the late 1960s as the “balaclava helmet” (also now used occasionally of what most call a “balaclava”) but the use never caught on.  In engineering, the non-standard verb balaclavaing is used as slang term meaning “the encasing of something with a cover, leaving only a small aperture to permit access for some purpose”.

The Charge of the Light Brigade

The Charge of the Light Brigade was a classic, knee-to-knee cavalry charge by the British Army against Russian forces during the Battle of Balaclava on 25 October 1854, during the Crimean War.  The battle, of which the charge is remembered as the great set-piece event, was a component of the Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855), maintained in an attempt to capture the port and fortress of Sevastopol, Russia's main naval base on the Black Sea.  Sevastopol was (and remains) the largest city in the Crimean Peninsula which today is recognized internationally as part of Ukraine (except by Moscow which in 2014 annexed the peninsula). The strategic purpose of the charge was to prevent the Russian army removing captured guns from overrun Turkish positions but, because of failures in communications, the Light Brigade was instead sent on a frontal assault against a different artillery battery, one well-prepared and enjoying a textbook field of defensive fire.  Despite coming under heavy fire, the charge did reach the battery and scattered some of the gunners but the brigade was badly mauled and compelled almost immediately to retreat.  Causalities were heavy, some 300 of the 650-odd strong formation including 118 killed.  It prompted the famous comment from the French Marshal Pierre Bosquet (1810-1861): C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.  C'est de la folie (It is magnificent, but it is not war.  It is madness.)

In many courses in organizational management, the events which led to the charge being ordered are used as a case-study in the breakdown of communications systems and how such processes should be designed to include failsafes.  Long regarded as a military failure, in recent decades, there’s been a body of literature by military historians suggesting the charge was a key incident in helping Britain to secure ultimate victory in the Crimea.  It's not a universally accepted view but it's certainly true many battles in the world wars of the twentieth century achieved less at greater cost.

The Charge of the Light Brigade (1854) by Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809-1892)

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward, 
All in the valley of Death 
Rode the six hundred. 
“Forward, the Light Brigade! 
Charge for the guns!” he said: 
Into the valley of Death 
Rode the six hundred. 
 
“Forward, the Light Brigade!” 
Was there a man dismay’d?   
Not tho’ the soldier knew 
Some one had blunder’d: 
Theirs not to make reply, 
Theirs not to reason why, 
Theirs but to do and die:    
Into the valley of Death 
Rode the six hundred. 
 
Cannon to right of them, 
Cannon to left of them, 
Cannon in front of them   
Volley’d and thunder’d; 
Storm’d at with shot and shell, 
Boldly they rode and well, 
Into the jaws of Death, 
Into the mouth of Hell   
Rode the six hundred. 
 
Flash’d all their sabres bare, 
Flash’d as they turn’d in air 
Sabring the gunners there, 
Charging an army, while  
All the world wonder’d: 
Plunged in the battery-smoke 
Right thro’ the line they broke; 
Cossack and Russian 
Reel’d from the sabre-stroke    
Shatter’d and sunder’d. 
Then they rode back, but not 
Not the six hundred. 
 
Cannon to right of them, 
Cannon to left of them,     
Cannon behind them 
Volley’d and thunder’d; 
Storm’d at with shot and shell, 
While horse and hero fell, 
They that had fought so well   
Came thro’ the jaws of Death, 
Back from the mouth of Hell, 
All that was left of them, 
Left of six hundred. 
 
When can their glory fade?    
O the wild charge they made! 
All the world wonder’d. 
Honor the charge they made! 
Honor the Light Brigade, 
Noble six hundred!

Usually, balaclavas are worn for warmth.

Balaclavas (some lightweight versions of which are usually called ski masks) are a type of (often knitted) cloth headgear which expose only part of the face, usually the eyes, mouth and sometimes the nostrils, thus protecting most of the skin’s surface area.  The more elaborate versions are adjustable and some can be rolled to become a hat or worn around the neck.  Although associated with use during the Crimean War, such garments had long existed and it was only contemporary publicity which led to the name being linked.  The war in Crimea coincided with the advent of convenient, portable cameras and large volumes of photographs produced, making it the first large-scale conflict thus documented.  The military at the time didn't appreciate the implications of journalists and photographers being able freely to report from battle zones and not for some time was it realized just how much intelligence the Russians were able to obtain simply be reading the London newspapers.  It was in some of these early images that the headwear first attracted attention although it wasn’t until the 1880s that "balaclava" (and “balaclava helmet”) came into use and it became a common term only early in the twentieth century, the popularity thought to have been encouraged by the widely published photographs of the polar expeditions to which were a feature of late Victorian explorations.

Camila Cabello (b 1997) in Vetements balaclava in black, Paris Fashion Week, September 2024.

For warmth, British troops wore knitted woolen versions of the headwear, which, early in the war were all handmade, knitted either on the spot (a kind of on-board cottage industry emerging on Royal Navy ships anchored nearby, knitting a commonly held skill of sailors) or sent from home in response to sketches sent in letters.  Later, knitwear companies would enter the market but the need existed only because poor planning and an under-estimation of the duration of the conflict meant most cold weather supplies never reached the troops.  The Crimean War was a shock to the British Army which, organizationally, was little changed from the Battle of Waterloo (1815), two generations earlier and the findings of subsequent boards of inquiry resulted in worthwhile, if still inadequate, reforms.  It was a not uncommon aspect of many colonial wars and exactly the same situation which confronted the Wehrmacht (the German armed forces, 1935-1945) in late 1941 when the harsh Russian winter arrived with the German advance still in open country, far from its objectives.  Balaclava are most associated with protecting the face from the cold but relatively thin, lightweight versions versions made with fibres chemically treated to be fire-resistant are used in motor-racing (FIA 8856-2018 standard) and other fields where exposure to flame is an occupational hazard.  They’re used also by both sides of the crime business to conceal identity; by criminals in an attempt to avoid detection and by those in law enforcement to protect themselves and their families from retribution.

Not all that appears on the catwalk catches on.  Knitted balaclavas were a thing in some collections at fashion shows in 2018 but, not unexpectedly, a high-street trend didn’t follow.

PopSugar's distribution of Lindsay Lohan's "Masked Shoot" for Marc Ecko's (b 1972) Fall 2010 campaign, undertaken during blonde phase and including balaclavas, August 2010.