Fecund & Fertile

Fecund (pronounced fuh-khunt, fee-kuhnd or fek-uhnd)

(1) Producing or capable of producing offspring, fruit, vegetation, etc in abundance; prolific; fruitful.

(2) Figuratively, highly productive or creative intellectually; innovative.

Circa 1525: From the mid-fifteenth century Middle English fecounde from the Middle French fecund, from the Old French fecund & fecont (fruitful), from the Latin fēcundus (fruitful, fertile, productive; rich, abundant (and related to the Latin fētus (offspring) and fēmina (“woman”)), from fe-kwondo-, an adjectival suffixed form of the primitive Indo-European root dhei or dhe- (to suck, suckle), other derivatives meaning also “produce” & “yield”.  Fē in this case wasn’t a prefix but a link to fetus whereas -cundus was the adjectival suffix.  It replaced the late Middle English fecounde.  The spelling fecund was one of the “Latinizing” revisions to spelling which was part of the framework of early Modern English, (more or less) standardizing use and replacing the Middle English forms fecond, fecound & fecounde.  The Latin root itself proved fecund; from it came also felare (to suck), femina (woman (literally “she who suckles”)); felix (happy, auspicious, fruitful), fetus (offspring, pregnancy); fenum (hay (which seems literally to have meant “produce”)) and probably filia (daughter) & filius (son), assimilated from felios (originally “a suckling”).  The noun fecundity emerged in the early fifteenth century and was from the Latin fecunditatem (nominative fecunditas) (fruitfulness, fertility), from fecundus (fruitful, fertile).  The old spelling fœcund is obsolete.  Fecund is an adjective and fecundity & fecundation are nouns; the noun plural is fecundities.

In his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), Henry Fowler (1858–1933) noted without comment the shift in popular pronunciation but took the opportunity to cite the phrase of a literary critic (not a breed of which he much approved) who compared the words of HG Wells (1866-1946) & Horace Walpole (1717–1797): “The fecund Walpole and the facund Wells”.  The critic, Henry Fowler noted: “fished up the archaic facund for the sake of the play on words”.  Never much impressed by flashy displays of what he called a “pride of knowledge”, his objection here was that there was nothing in the sentence to give readers any idea of the change in meaning caused by the substituted vowel.  Both were from Latin adjectives, fēcundus (prolific) and facundus (elegant).

Fertile (pronounced fur-tl or fur-tahyl (mostly UK RP))

(1) Of land, bearing, producing, or capable of producing vegetation, crops etc, abundantly; prolific.

(2) Of living creatures, bearing or capable of bearing offspring; Capable of growth or development.

(3) Abundantly productive.

(4) Conducive to productiveness.

(5) In biology, fertilized, as an egg or ovum; fecundated; capable of developing past the egg stage.

(6) In botany, capable of producing sexual reproductive structures; capable of causing fertilization, as an anther with fully developed pollen; having spore-bearing organs, as a frond.

(7) In physics (of a nuclide) capable of being transmuted into a fissile nuclide by irradiation with neutrons (Uranium 238 and thorium 232 are fertile nuclides); (a substance not itself fissile, but able to be converted into a fissile material by irradiation in a reactor).

(8) Figuratively, of the imagination, energy etc, active, productive, prolific.

1425–1475: From the Late Middle English fertil (bearing or producing abundantly), from the Old French fertile or the Latin fertilis (bearing in abundance, fruitful, productive), from ferō (I bear, carry) and .akin to ferre (to bear), from the primitive Indo-European root bher (to carry (also “to bear children”)).  The verb fertilize dates from the 1640s in the sense of “make fertile” although the use in biology meaning “unite with an egg cell” seems not to have been used until 1859 and use didn’t become widespread for another fifteen years.  The noun fertility emerged in the mid-fifteenth century, from the earlier fertilite, from the Old French fertilité, from the Latin fertilitatem (nominative fertilitas) (fruitfulness, fertility), from fertilis (fruitful, productive).  Dating from the 1660s, the noun fertilizer was initially specific to the technical literature associated with agriculture in the sense of “something that fertilizes (land)”, and was an agent noun from the verb fertilize.  In polite society, fertilizer was adopted as euphemism for “manure” (and certainly “shit”), use documented since 1846.  The noun fertilization is attested since 1857 and was a noun of action from fertilize; it was either a creation of the English-speaking world or a borrowing of the Modern French fertilisation.  The common antonyms are barren, infertile and sterile.  Fertile is an adjective, fertility, fertilisation & fertileness are nouns, fertilize fertilized & fertilizing are verbs.  Technical terms like sub-fertile, non-fertile etc are coined as required.

The term “Fertile Crescent” was coined in 1914 was coined by US-born University of Chicago archaeologist James Breasted (1865-1935); it referred to the strip of fertile land (in the shape of an irregular crescent) described the stretching from present-day Iraq through eastern Turkey and down the Syrian and Israeli coasts.  The significance of the area in human history was it was here more than ten-thousand years ago that settlements began the practice of structured, seasonal agriculture.  The Middle English synonym childing is long obsolete but the more modern term “at risk” (of falling pregnant) survives for certain statistical purposes and was once part of the construct of a “legal fiction” in which the age at which women were presumed to be able to conceive was set as high as 65; advances in medical technology have affected this.

The difference

So often are “fecund” & “fertile” used interchangeably that there may be case to be made that in general use they are practically synonyms.  However, the use is slanted because fertile is a common word and fecund is rare; it’s the use of fertile when, strictly speaking, fecund is correct which is the frequent practice.  Technically, the two have distinct meanings although there is some overlap and agriculture is a fine case-study: Fertile specifically refers to soil rich in nutrients and able to support the growth of plants.  Fecund can refer to soil capable of supporting plant growth but it has the additional layer of describing something capable of producing an abundance of offspring or new growth.  This can refer to animals, humans, bacteria or (figuratively), ideas.  Used interchangeably, expect between specialists who need to differentiate, this linguistic swapping probably doesn’t cause many misunderstandings because the context of conversations will tend to make the meaning clear and for most of use, the distinction between a soil capable of growing plants and one doing so prolifically is tiresomely technical.  Still, as a rule of thumb, fertile can be thought of as meaning “able to support the growth of offspring or produce” while fecund implies “producing either in healthy volumes”.

Ultimate fecundity: Fast breeding

Although there are differences in meaning, fertile and fecund tend to be used interchangeably, especially in agriculture.  As adjectives, the difference is that fecund means highly fertile whereas fertile is the positive side of the fertile/infertile binary; capable of producing crops or offspring.  Fecundity may thus be thought a measure of the extent to which fertility is realised.  In nuclear physics, fertile material is that which, while not itself fissile (ie fissionable by thermal neutrons) is able to be converted into fissile material by irradiation in a reactor.  Three basic fertile materials exist: thorium-232, uranium-234 & uranium-238 and when these materials capture neutrons, respectively they are converted into uranium-233, uranium-235 & fissile plutonium-239.  Artificial isotopes formed in the reactor which can be converted into fissile material by one neutron capture include plutonium-238 and plutonium-240 which convert respectively into plutonium-239 & plutonium-241.

Obviously fertile and recently fecund.  In July 2023 Lindsay Lohan announced the birth of her first child.

Further along the scale are the actinides which demand more than one neutron capture before arriving at an isotope which is both fissile and long-lived enough to capture another neutron and reason fission instead of decaying.  These strings include (1) plutonium-242 to americium-243 to curium-244 to curium-245, (2) uranium-236 to neptunium-237 to plutonium-238 to plutonium-239 and (3) americium-241 to curium-242 to curium-243 (or, more likely, curium-242 decays to plutonium-238, which also requires one additional neutron to reach a fissile nuclide).  Since these require a total of three or four thermal neutrons eventually to fission, and a thermal neutron fission generates typically only two to three neutrons, these nuclides represent a net loss of neutrons although, in a fast reactor, they may require fewer neutrons to achieve fission, as well as producing more neutrons when they do.

Fast breeder (fusion) reactors have existed in labs for decades but, because of the need to contain sustainably very high temperatures, the challenge has always been to build something which (1) produces more energy than it consumes and (2) does so indefinitely.  On paper (and physicists admit the design is now so well understood a conceptual diagram can be sketched on a sheet in minutes) the science and engineering works so all that stands in the way is economics.  The lure of the fast breeder reactor is that, theoretically endlessly, one can produce more fissile material than it consumes (they're constructed using fertile material either wrapped around the core or encased in fuel rods).  Because plutonium-238, plutonium-240 and plutonium-242 are fertile, their accumulation is more manageable than that produced in conventional thermal reactors.  On planet Earth, the economics remain un-compelling, practical application of the technology having been thirty years off since the mid-1950s.  One proposal however transcends economics because it solves an otherwise insoluble problem.  If a facility for the manufacture of fissile material for spacecraft nuclear propulsion could be located on a space facility located at a point beyond the gravitational pull of Earth, it would be safe both to transport fertile materials to the facility and there manufacture fissile material which could provide the energy required for space exploration.

Wonder

Wonder (pronounced wuhn-der)

(1) To think or speculate curiously.

(2) To be filled with admiration, amazement, or awe; marvel (often followed by at).

(3) Something strange and surprising; a cause of surprise, astonishment, or admiration.

(4) The emotion excited by what is strange and surprising; a feeling of surprised or puzzled interest, sometimes tinged with admiration.

(5) A miraculous deed or event; remarkable phenomenon.

(6) As a modifier, exciting wonder by virtue of spectacular results achieved, feats performed etc; wonder drug; wonder horse; seven wonders of the ancient world et al.

Pre 900: A Middle English nouns wonder & wunder from the Old English wundor (marvelous thing, miracle, object of astonishment), from the Proto-Germanic wundrą.  It was cognate with the Scots wunner (wonder), the West Frisian wonder & wûnder (wonder, miracle), the Dutch wonder (miracle, wonder), the Low German wunner & wunder (wonder), the German Wunder (miracle, wonder), the Danish, Norwegian & Swedish under (wonder, miracle), the Icelandic undur (wonder) and the Old Norse undr (wonder).  In Middle English, by the late thirteenth century, it came also to mean the emotion associated with such a sight.  The original wonder drug (1939) was Sulfanilamide, one of the first generation of sulfonamide antibiotics and best known as M&B (after the British manufacturer May & Baker); it was later largely superseded by penicillin and other sulfonamides.  The verb (derivative of the noun), was from the Middle English wondren & wonderen, from the Old English wundrian (be astonished; admire; make wonderful, magnify), from the Proto-Germanic wundrōną.  It was cognate with the Saterland Frisian wunnerje, the West Frisian wûnderje, the Dutch wonderen, the German Low German wunnern, the German wundern, the Old High German wuntaron and the Swedish & Icelandic undra.  The sense of "entertain some doubt or curiosity" dates from the late thirteenth century.

Exactly or vaguely synonymous are conjecture, meditate, ponder, question, marvel, surprise, amazement, bewilderment, awe, scepticism, reverence, fascination, confusion, shock, admiration, doubt, astonishment, curiosity, uncertainty, surprise, fear, phenomenon, oddity, miracle, spectacle & speculate.  The noun wonderment is a noun has been in use since the 1530s while wonderful was drawn from the late Old English wunderfoll and wondrous emerged circa 1500, derived (it would seem) from the Middle English adjective wonders which was first noted in the early fourteenth century, originally genitive of the noun wonder, the suffix altered by the influence of such as marvelous etc; it existed as an adverb from the 1550s, the evolution related to wondrously & wondrousness.  Wonder is a noun & verb, wonderer & wonderment are nouns, wonderless is an adjective, wondrous is an adjective & adverb, wonderful is an adjective & adverb (and a non-standard noun) and wondrously is an adverb; the noun plural is wonders. 

The Wonderbra

The “wonder” in the portmanteau word Wonderbra underwent a bit of a meaning shift, decades after the product was released.  Although best-known for the illusory enhancement the structural engineering made possible, “wonder” was originally an allusion to the comfort offered compared with the usually more uncompromising alternatives of the time.  Wonderbra, marketed with an emphasis on the practicality and comfort made possible by innovations in construction, was first trademarked in 1939 by the Canadian Lady Corset Company and was for some years available only in Canada.  Not trademarked in the US until 1955, it wasn’t until 1961 (with the model 1300) that the now familiar, gravity-defying, design was released.

Even then, although the 1300 became the brand’s most popular product, it was thirty years before worldwide success was realized; although it had been on sale in the UK since 1964, sales boomed only in 1992, a success repeated in Europe the next season.  The Wonderbra was launched in the US in 1994 and, assisted by a minimalist advertising campaign featuring Czech model Eva Herzigová (b 1973), became not only a best-seller but part of the cultural lexicon.  The engineering of the Wonderbra wasn’t difficult to emulate and other manufacturers released clones, each with a portmanteau at least as suggestive of “wonder” as it had come to be understood in this context, Gossard offering an Ultrabra and Victoria's Secret a Miracle Bra.  Wonderbra responded to the competition with a novel technical innovation, the Air Wonder, inflatable for "high altitude cleavage".  Included with the Air Wonder was a mini-pump, small enough to fit in a handbag and be thus available for adjustments as circumstances demanded.

Wonderment: Lindsay Lohan as an enhanced Hermione Granger (a fictional character in JK Rowling's (b 1965) Harry Potter series), Saturday Night Live (season 29 episode 18), 1 May 2004.

The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World

The pyramid today: it's the only of the seven wonders which still stands.

The Great Pyramid of Giza was built in 2570 BC and still stands, debate continuing about how it was built, how long the construction took and how many workers were required.  Built as a tomb for the fourth dynasty Egyptian pharaoh Khufu, it was part of a complex which included temples and many smaller pyramids.  Originally, the outermost stones were a highly polished white limestone, many of which were loosened by an earthquake some 600 years ago and over time, all were removed and used in the structures of cities and mosques.  As well as being of interest to architects, Egyptologists and archaeologists in general, the Great Pyramid has attracted cosmologists and mathematicians because of references to the Moon, the Orion constellation, continental gravity and other features of the heavens.  Each side of the pyramid is almost perfectly aligned with the four cardinal points of the compass while the dimensions convert to a ratio that equates to 2π with nearly perfect accuracy.

In the absence of evidence, artists can make of the gardens what they will.

According to legend, the Walls and Hanging Gardens of Babylon were built in 600 BC and stood until destroyed by earthquake in 226 BC but among historians there has long been debate about (1) whether the gardens ever existed and (2) if they did could they possibly have been the form usually described.  None of that ever bothered medieval story-tellers or poets, some of whom embellished the legend as they went.  Most tales recount how they were by King Nebuchadrezzar II because his wife missed the lush, green gardens of her home and in the medieval imagination they were represented sometimes as a cascading series of rooftops and sometimes dangling from structures built into the walls of the royal palace.  A more recent theory, noting the difficulties which would have existed in creating an irrigation system speculate that the myth may be based on gardens planted not in Babylon but close to Sennacherib at the eastern bank of the river Tigris.

Zeus: Because of the well documented contemporary descriptions, the renditions since are at least conceptually accurate.

The Statue of Zeus at Olympia (Δίας μυθολογία) was built in 430 BC and was destroyed by fire in 426 AD. Carved from ivory, on a throne of cedarwood, the statue in its right hand held a life-size statue of Nike, the goddess of victory, and in its left a large sceptre topped with an eagle. Said to be some 12 metres (40 feet) tall, contemporary accounts say it occupied the whole width of one of the temple’s aisles, its head reaching to the ceiling.  Debate has long surrounded the fate of the statue, some saying the structure was lost in the fire while others had it moved to Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) where if remained for decades before being destroyed.  Evidence about its appearance is fragmentary and unreliable; although there’s no doubt many copies at various scales were created during the 800-odd years it stood, none are known to have survived.

Before the fire: The Temple of Artemis is a popular model for modern re-creations.

The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus (Ἀρτεμίσιον) was built in 550 BC and was destroyed by fire in 356 BC though as was the practice then, the structure was rebuilt several times over the centuries.  Unusually by the architectural conventions of the time, it was built substantially of marble and glittered with gold. The scale was impressive: from the high platform over a hundred sculptured columns supported the roof and being at least twice the size of the Parthenon, it was so breathtaking it was said to “rise to the clouds” which literally was rarely true but an example of how exaggeration in social media is nothing new.  The temple functioned also as an art gallery but the centrepiece was of course the statue of Artemis and if the legends are believed it was covered with gold and colourful stones, the legs adorned with carving of bees and animals with the top of the body adorned with breasts, symbolizing fertility.  It was destroyed in an act of arson by a malcontent called Herostratus who wished to secure a place in history by any means and the word herostatic (one who seeks fame at any cost) has endured.  Although made of marble, like the steel & glass Crystal Palace in London, the structure was packed with flammable materials and oils so it burned well.  There exists also a conspiracy theory that the act was a kind of inside job by the temple’s priests who had their own reasons for wanting a new building but neither that nor a reference to the writings of Aristotle which offers a lightning strike as the catalyst for the conflagration have much support among historians.

How to be remembered: The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus.

The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus (Μαυσωλεῖον Ἁλικαρνασσεύς), built as a tomb for Mausolus, a governor in the Persian Empire, was constructed in 352 BC and destroyed by earthquake in 1404 AD.  Said to be extravagant even by the standards of personal aggrandizement known throughout antiquity, the work included sculptural reliefs for each of the four sides of the building, commissioned from the leading Greek architects and artists; these soon became something of a tourist attraction.  Almost perfectly square and some 14 stories tall, the base covered some 10,000 square feet (900+ m²) while on each side of the tomb stood nine massive columns supporting a stepped pyramid on which stood by a four-horse marble chariot in which sat carvings of Mausolus and his Artemisia (who supervised the construction).  So famous was the tomb that Mausolus's name became the root for the word for large tombs in many languages.

Pleasing lines: The Lighthouse of Alexandria.

The Lighthouse of Alexandria (ὁ Φάρος τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας) was built in 280 BC and was destroyed by earthquake in 1323 AD.  It sat on the island of Pharos in the harbor of Alexandria and was the world’s first “famous lighthouse” although it was architecturally different to modern structures, built in three stages, all sloping inward.  Built with marble blocks suing lead as mortar, the lowest was square, the middle octagonal and the top cylindrical.  Within the lighthouse was a ramp and “dumb-waiter” used to transport the wood for the fire which burned during the night.  On the lantern floor, a large, curved mirror reflected the sunlight during the day and the fire at night and in clear weather it’s said seafarers could see the light even at a distance of 50 kilometres (30 miles).  The earth’s curvature makes this seem improbable but under certain atmospheric conditions (such as the light reflecting from clouds), it may have been possible.  Also plausible is the legend the light generated by the mirror was so bright and hot it could be used as a weapon of coastal defense to set fire to an enemy’s ships.  Under controlled conditions, because such ships were sometimes coated with flammable, tar-like substances (for water-proofing & timber preservation), it might have been possible but it would have been challenging to achieve this against a moving target.  Such was the power of the legend of the Pharos that the word remains the root for “lighthouse” in a number of languages.

Vaguely plausible rendering of how The Colossus of Rhodes may have appeared.

The Colossus of Rhodes was a very big statue, erected somewhere near the port of the city of Rhodes, the biggest settlement on what is the one of the larger Greek islands of the same name which lies off what is now Turkey’s Aegean coast.  Taking a dozen years to complete, the statue, construction of which began in 292 BC, was erected to honor Elios, the God of the Sun, who brought the inhabitants victory over Demetrius Poliorcetes (Demetrius I of Macedon; “The Besieger" 337–283 BC) who laid siege to Rhodes in 305-304 BC.  It stood for only sixty-odd years, collapsing during a severe earthquake which struck in 226 BC, contemporary reports indicating the structure fractured at both knees before toppling.  Remarkably, the mostly bronze wreckage was left substantially undisturbed for some eight-hundred years, becoming something of a tourist attraction before, in 654, it was salvaged by Arab invaders under the Muslim caliph Mu'awiya I (معاوية بن أبي سفيان‎, Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān; circa 600–680) who sold it to someone described as “a Jewish merchant from Damascus” who is said to have carted it off on a camel train of almost “a thousand beasts”.

Demetrios the Besieger had a scandalous private life but had a flair for military matters, noted too for innovations in engineering such as the machines and devices built by his armies as siege engines.  However, even the forces he was able at deploy in 305-304 BC weren’t sufficient to defeat the fortifications of Rhodes and eventually, Demetrios was compelled to retreat, abandoning the siege machinery on the island.  To give thanks to the Sun God, the Rhodians granted the commission to build a triumphal statue to Helios to the sculptor Chares of Lindos (Χάρης ὁ Λίνδιος, circa 330 BC-circa 280 BC), a pupil of Lysippos (Λύσιππος; fourth century BC) and, in the dozen years between 304-292 BC, he supervised the construction.

Logo of Lindsay Lohan's Beach House at Rhodes.

Structurally, the build was executed along the well-understood engineering principles of the age, the base of white marble first installed to which were affixed the feet and ankles, an iron and stone framework gradually formed as scaffolding and structure proceeded in unison upwards.  To permit the workers to reach the highest levels, an earth ramp was built because the heights involved meant a free-standing system of scaffolding would lack the needed stability; when the work was complete, the earth ramp was demolished and the soil carted off.  While the superstructure was built, workers cast the outer skin in bronze using plates, the metal formed with copper melted in large ovens, to which iron, making 10-20% of the mix, was added.  Then the mouton metal mixture was moved in large ladles to be distributed in clay molds, flat structures used to form sheets varying in thickness according to need. Once cast, the rough edges were ground away and the plates polished before they were transported to the building site where they were hammered to the desired shape to be attached to the iron structure,  The thickest and heaviest plates were those rendered for the feet and ankles, complex in the shape of their curves and needing more mass to afford greater stability.  Thus for a dozen years, the thin bronze skin was added to the growing body of stone, each plate fixed to the iron frame and then to the neighboring plate.  Once finished, it was polished to reflect the rays of the Sun so it would shine as intensely as possible, better to honor Helios. 

How engineers would today build a 122 m (400 feet) high Colossus using modern techniques of structural engineering.  An interesting exercise although the Greek exchequer may have other fiscal priorities.

From the laying of the first stone to its toppling, building its destruction lies a time span of but sixty-seven years but the Colossus ranks as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world with Great Pyramid of Giza which still stands after almost five-thousand.  Such was the scale of the Colossus that the ruins still impressed, “…even lying on the ground, it is a marvel" wrote Pliny the Elder (24-79) who noted few men could wrap their arms around the fallen thumb and each finger alone would have stood taller than most other statues.  The earthquake which so damaged the city 226 BC broke the Colossus at its narrowest and thus weakest points, the knees, and given the mass which existed above, there was no chance it could survive.  Although it would be centuries before the list of the seven wonders would exist as the codified canon now familiar, the stature was already famous and the an offer to the pay the cost of restoration was extended by Ptolemy III Euergetes (Πτολεμαῖος Εὐεργέτης, Ptolemy the Benefactor; circa 280–222 BC) of Egypt.  However, an oracle was consulted and their judgement forbade any re-construction so the offer was declined.  Details of the oracle’s pronouncement are lost but it’s speculated the conclusion may have been the earthquake was the act of a wrathful Helios and the ruins should be left where they fell, lest anger again be aroused.  There is no otherwise compelling explanation to account for why so much valuable bronze wouldn’t for centuries be recycled.

A (fanciful) engraving of the Colossus of Rhodes (circa 1540) by Martin Heemskerck (1498-1574).

The exact location remains uncertain but the notion the Colossus straddled the entrance to Rhodes harbor with ships passing between its legs was a figment of medieval imagination, a thing famously vivid.  Given its method of construction, such a thing would have collapsed under its own weight even before it was complete and, had it stood over the water, not only would construction have been challenging but when it fell, it would have blocked the entrance to the Mandraki harbor.  Despite that, in the early 1980s when a large piece of rubble was discovered in the water, there were still romantics who hoped this might vindicate the medieval theory.  There’s little doubt the story of a 60m (200 feet) tall Colossus straddling the entrance to the harbor was the work of opportunist poets and artists, the engineers and architects of the time sufficiently acquainted with physics and metallurgy to have assured all of the impossibility of their vision yet it seems long to have captured the medieval imagination.  Despite all that, it still influenced many even at the dawn of modernity, being one of the inspirations for the Statue of Liberty but that was designed in a way to ensure greater strength and stability, the weight distribution and the dimensions of the base entirely different.  There’s no doubt the statue stood somewhere in the proximity of Rhodes harbor but archaeological excavations have thus far revealed nothing, not unsurprising given the footprint of a vertical structure is much less than a temple or other building, and the urbanization of Rhodes over two millennia mean the site may long ago have been built-over.  The Colossus though would have shared one noted characteristic with the Statue of Liberty: When copper rubs on iron, it creates electricity, especially in a costal environment with salty air.  Like Liberty, the Colossus of Rhodes made its own electricity.

Chaste

Chaste (pronounced cheyst)

(1) Refraining from sexual intercourse, either by choice or to conform to some imposed system of morality or religion; to be virtuous.

(2) Not engaging in sexual relations; the state of voluntary celibacy.

(3) A virgin.

(4) In conduct, literature etc, free from obscenity; decent.

(5) By extension, anything define as pure (white snow, certain grades of stainless steel, architecture simple in style and not needlessly embellished or excessively ornamented etc).

(6) An unmarried female (obsolete).

1175–1225: From the Middle English chaste (virtuous, pure from unlawful sexual intercourse (as defined by the Church)), from the Old French chaste (morally pure), from the Latin castus (clean, pure, morally pure), the verbal adjective from the same root as careō (I lack), possibly from the primitive Indo-European ḱes- (to cut).  The most common modern use (one who refrains from sexual intercourse) is the transferred sense of "sexually pure" which had emerged by the fifteenth century (although chaste as a noun meaning (a virgin person) had been in use from the early fourteenth century).  The meaning was by the 1620s extended to conduct or language “free from obscenity”, and in general to artistic or literary styles which were “simple and unadorned” by the 1750s.  “Chaste architecture” (that with pure lines and without needless embellishments) became an (admiring) term describing the built environment in the early nineteenth century but should not be confused with the later schools of functionalism and brutalism.  The adjective unchaste first appeared in the late fourteenth century.  Depending on context, the synonyms can include continent, clean, decorous, proper, unsullied, celibate, virginal and virtuous or unaffected, unadorned & neat.  The antonyms can include immoral, promiscuous, coarse, rococo or ornate.  The verbs chasten, chastening & chastened do have an archaic sense related sexual purity but are most often used as forms of chastise (to punish, scold, censure or castigate).  Chaste, chaster & chastest are adjectives, chasten, chastening & chastened are verbs chastely is an adverb and chastity, chasteness & chastenedness are nouns; the most common (though rare) noun plural is chastities.  Chasity is also a (rare) proper noun when used as a female given name.  When Chastity Bono (b 1969; the only child of 1960s pop-music husband & wife duo Sonny (b 1935) & Cher (b 1946) Bono) transitioned to become a trans-man, he chose the name Chaz.

The Chastity Belt

Lindsay Lohan announcing (the resumption of) her chasteness, 2018.

There must be few medieval accessories which have been as well documented and displayed as the chastity belt which, according to legend, was a device men would have their wives wear during those weeks, months or even years while they were off somewhere performing military service.  The term “belt” is a little misleading because the “belt” component was there merely to ensure the vital components remained in place and couldn’t be removed or otherwise penetrated, a key-lock system included; they key of course held by the travelling husband.  The vital components were fashioned usually in metal (there are some accounts of those made using a thick leather) and were designed to make sexual intercourse anatomically impossible.

However, like much that in the centuries after the Renaissance came to be regarded as historical “fact”, the tale that the origins of the chastity belt was as an anti-temptation device during the Crusades has been discredited and there is no credible evidence the things even existed prior to the fifteenth century and that although they were certainly documented in the 1500s, they appears to have been much discussed but little used although there are references in medical texts to women fashioning such things (though perhaps not of metal) for their own protection against rape.  Intriguingly too, there are records of one being found on the skeleton of a young woman in her grave, fitted presumably to protect her virtue on her path to heaven or wherever else she was headed.  The great flourishing in chastity belt production actually happened in the nineteenth century when there was demand from museums and travelling exhibitions for such things and, because real relics were rare to the point of non-existence, fakes were needed.  Just as many of the gruesome and supposedly “Medieval” torture devices were products of the Victorian imagination, the chastity belts were equally bogus, although as curators of such things have noted, many were a tribute to the skills of the craftspeople (and women really were involved in artisan work) who not only managed to make convincing “artefacts” but rendered the patina of centuries.

The nineteenth century also saw the beginnings of psychiatry as it would now be understood and one of the orthodoxies of the age was that masturbation was harmful.  Psychiatrists (mostly) didn’t claim masturbation made people go blind but they assembled plenty of other reasons the practice was so undesirable it should be avoided and as in many things, suggestions of abstinence were doubtlessly understood to be ineffective so physical devices were often recommended.  Interestingly, many were aimed at the parents of female adolescents and latter-day feminist criticism has suggested this emphasis was because it was feared if girls learned about the pleasures of sex it might lead them to promiscuity, the implication that self-administration was likely to be a more pleasant experience than sex with most men.  In the medical literature, it wasn’t until the late 1920s that the general disapprobation of masturbation was relaxed and only in the post-war years did the idea fade from mainstream psychiatry (although the churches often continued to believe the old ways were best).  Chastity belts haven’t entirely gone away and every now and then, in the parts of the internet where bizarre and salacious stories are the best click-bait, there will be reports of them being worn (often unwillingly); many of these tales seem to come from east of Suez.  In the world of consensual depravity that is the BDSM (bondage and discipline, domination and submission, sadism and masochism), chastity belts are a niche device; the purposes of use presumably vary.

Congress of Berlin (1881), oil on canvas by Anton von Werner (1843–1915).  Lord Salisbury is the tall, bearded figure, third from the right.

The Congress of Berlin (13 June-13 July 1878) was held to re-organize the arrangement of states in the Balkans after the Russo-Turkish War of (1877–1878).  It was convened in Berlin because (1) the Russians would have been unwilling to attend elsewhere (especially London) and (2) because Otto von Bismarck (1815-1989; Chancellor of the German Empire 1871-1890) did not want anything to be agreed which might lead to war or anything else which might disrupt his intricate system of interlocking treaties and alliances which maintained a general peace in Europe.  The language of diplomacy was then still French so Bismarck insisted on all discussions being conducted in French (even though) the French representatives were there as little more than observers.  The UK's prime-minister, Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881, UK prime-minister Feb-Dec 1868 & 1874-1880) didn’t speak French so the transaction of the substantive matters fell to the foreign secretary, Lord Salisbury (1830–1903; UK Prime Minister for thirteen years variously 1885-1902 ("prime-minister since God knows when" in Churchill's words)).  Under Bismarck’s strict chairmanship, the congress proceeded with a rare efficiency, concluding in a month, securing peace for a generation and gaining the crumbling Ottoman Empire a final four decades of existence.  Salisbury regarded the outcome of the conference as most satisfactory but what gave him the greatest amusement was when, at the final ceremony, the Sultan of Turkey presented Lady Salisbury with “The Order of Chastity, Third Class” which the marchioness accepted gracefully.  Lord Salisbury was later told by the protocol staff that only the wives of crowned monarchs received The Order of Chastity, First Class while other royal ladies received the Second Class and the wives of diplomats the Third Class.

Occidental & Oriental

Occidental (pronounced ok-si-den-tl)

(1) Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Occident or its natives and inhabitants (usually initial capital letter).

(2) A literary or formal word for Western.

(3) A native or inhabitant of the Occident (usually initial capital letter).

(4) An artificial language, created by Baltic German mathematician Edgar de Wahl (1867-1948), later renamed Interlingue shortly before the publication of Interlingua (1949) (always initial capital).

1350–1400: A Middle English borrowing from the Old French occidental from the Latin occidentālis (western), the construct being occident- + -ālis.  The Latin occidentalis was from occidēns (west), the present active participle of occidō (I fall down; pass away).  Occidental is a noun & adjective, occidentalism, occident & occidentalist are nouns and occidentally is an adverb; the noun plural is occidentals.

Oriental (pronounced awr-ee-en-tl or ohr‐ee-en-tl)

(1) Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Orient, or East; Eastern (usually initial capital letter).

(2) Of the orient, or the eastern region of the world.

(3) In geography, belonging to a geographical division comprising southern Asia and the Malay Archipelago as far as and including the Philippines, Borneo, and Java (initial capital letter).  (In pre-modern geography, pertaining to the regions east of the Mediterranean, beyond the Roman Empire or the early Christian world).  Oriental is a noun & adjective, orientalism, orient & orientalist are nouns and orientally is an adverb; the noun plural is orientals (often correctly used with initial capital).

(4) In jewelry, designating various gems that are varieties of corundum: Oriental aquamarine; Oriental ruby (usually initial capital letter).

(5) Designating certain natural saltwater pearls found especially in Asia.

(6) Of a pearl or other precious stone: having a superior lustre.

(7) A breed of slender muscular cat with large ears, long legs, and a long tail.

(8) A native or inhabitant of the Orient (usually initial capital letter).

(9) In astronomy and astrology), pertaining to the eastern part of the sky; happening before sunrise.

(10) Designating various types of aromatic tobacco grown in Turkey and the Balkans (post-nineteenth century use).

(11) A lily cultivar of a widely varied group, with strong scent.

(12) In any context, eastern or of the eastern part (obsolete except as a literary or poetic device).

1350–1400: Middle English from the Middle French $ Anglo-Latin oriental from the Latin orientālis (eastern), from oriēns (rising (of the sun)), present active participle of orior (I rise), the construct being orient- (east, the east) –ālis.  The suffix –ālis was added to a noun or numeral to form an adjective of relationship; it was from the primitive Indo-European -li-, which later dissimilated into an early version of –aris, perhaps connected to hzel- (to grow).  The neuter form was –āle.

Edward Said

Controversial even in the post-colonial milieu of the time, Edward Said’s (1935-2003) Orientalism (1979) was a critique of a particular construct of the historic Western treatment of things eastern.  It dealt with not only academic orientalists but also seminal figures of western social science such as Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Max Weber (1864-1920) whose writings emphasized fundamental differences between East and West.  It’s regarded still, by some, as a dangerous book, blamed for the schism in the field of modern Middle Eastern studies which coalesced into the polarized factions of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) and its newer rival, the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA).  The stylistic patchwork Said adopted perhaps made criticism inevitable.  Within a scholarly framework, the author laid bare his outage at the reductionist objectification of the Western tradition in its treatment of the other, his words construed as political and polemic.

Even the book's covers attracted comment and varied according to the market in which it was sold although, unlike some controversial titles, it was apparently never necessary anywhere to offer it in a plain, brown wrapper. 

Detractors and admirers alike all were aware of the significance of Orientalism and it’s regarded still as “one of the most influential scholarly books published in English in the last half-century”, even by some who documented its flaws.  The book was one of those rare texts in historiography which stirred up a stormy debate in and beyond academia, the idea of authors in the West having a skewed and condescending view towards the East finding a sympathetic audience.  So incendiary was the reaction that not only was the book controversial but so was the nature of the reaction although, despite the claims of some, the pattern of the responses appeared not to align with the ethnicity or religious orientation of the scholars and intellectuals but with their attitude to history and the modern and post-modern philosophical ideas (deconstruction, truth as illusion, intellectual hegemony et al).

In a sense, it was Said himself who created the structure for the criticism which would follow because he defined Orientalism in three ways: (1) the academic profession, (2) the world view and (3) a mode of hegemony.  The first was the most readily understood, an academic Orientalist was anyone who teaches, writes about, or researches the Orient, whether they be an anthropologist, sociologist, historian, philologist or literary critic.  That did not imply the world view of Orientalists was monolithic but Said did contend that their views were almost invariably dictated by a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between the “the Orient” and “the Occident” (ie between Eastern & Western culture) and this applied also to poets, novelists, philosophers, political theorists and economists, their position a direct inheritance from the ideas spread by European imperial administrators, travellers and explorers; whether in simple or elaborate form, the theorists, novelists and poets all worked within the same framework of “difference”.  Finally, Said defined Orientalism by the actual political and colonial relations constructed in “the West” epistemologically, based on the earlier definitions; it was this construct with which the West conducted itself with the Orient.  Perhaps predictably, the academics appeared more upset at what they perceived as Said’s attack on the accuracy of their research and their intellectual impartiality than what was done with what he claim they created, even if unknowingly. 

One concept he introduced was the notion of “the distinction between the latent and manifest orientalism”, the latent being a general unconscious certainty the Orient was the way it has been described by the practitioners while the manifest was the supremacy of American imperialism as practiced since in the post-war years they assumed the hegemony in things east of Suez from the British and French: “The distinction I am making is really between an almost unconscious (and certainly an untouchable) positivity, which I shall call latent Orientalism, and the various stated views about Oriental society, languages, literatures, history, sociology, and so forth, which I shall call manifest Orientalism”.  The idea of the latent and manifest wasn’t wholly new but was one which later would be picked up and developed in critical race theory (CRT).

An occidental in the orient: Long-time resident Lindsay Lohan creating a photo opportunity with the Dubai Police, thanking them and the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for their ongoing support during the Covid-19 pandemic, Dubai, April 2020.

That the critics found faults in both Said’s historiography and theoretical inconsistencies in his framework clearly pleased them but appeared to do little to affect the impact of Orientalism, something probably at least partly attributable to his deconstruction of the Western filter through which things eastern were viewed being built with the tools provided by some of the cult favourites in late twentieth century Western philosophy: Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) (representation and the thing-in-itself), Michel Foucault (1926–1984) (discourse, power, knowledge, episteme and truth regimes), Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) (cultural hegemony) and Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) (deconstruction).  Said was a subtle thinker but to try to synthesize something from applying the thoughts of that lot would of necessity need some intellectual brutishness just to make it fit and it’s not surprising there were those who faulted him for occupying “…theoretical positions which are mutually contradictory”.  Still, if anything the effect of that was stimulative and Orientalism was one of those books which people read and found it confirmed their own views about the West or the West’s critics.  It’s doubtful Orientalism changed many minds and there were flaws which the critics were right to identify but regardless of how ultimately it will be remembered as an academic text, it remains a literary classic.

Caudillo, Duce & Führer

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.