Sonder

Sonder (pronounced sonn-duh)

The realization that each random passerby is living a life as vivid and complex as one’s own. 

2012: Coined by John Koenig and thus entered English.  From the Middle French sonder, from the Old French sonder (to plumb), from sonde (sounding line), from the Old English sund ((sounding), as in sundġierd (sounding-rod)), sundlīne (sounding-line, lead) & sundrāp (sounding-rope, lead), from sund (ocean, sea), from the Proto-Germanic sundą (a swim, body of water, sound), from the primitive Indo-European swem (to be unsteady, swim) and cognate with the Old Norse sund (swimming; strait, sound).  The words which most obviously capture the meaning are probably the modern German sonder (special) and the modern French sonder (to probe).

The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows

The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows (Simon & Schuster (2021) pp 288, ISBN13: 9781501153648) is a multi-media project by John Koenig, encompassing a website, YouTube channel and, since 2021, a printed book.  Koenig’s purpose is to coin and define neologisms for emotions which, in English, do not have a single encapsulating word or brief phrase, the entries listed on the website and the companion volume with paragraph-length descriptions while the YouTube channel includes illustrative clips.  Koenig does not use free-form construction; not arbitrary, his words are crafted in a way not dissimilar to the manner in which English has for more than a thousand years created or absorbed words as they proved useful, his research exploring etymologies, prefixes, suffixes, and word roots.  Some may endure and some not, just how English has always evolved; for better or worse, not all tongues enjoy such linguistic promiscuity.

#freckles Opia: Looking into the eyes of Lindsay Lohan.

So there’s nothing unusual about the creation of words although in English, they’ve tended to be invented to describe new things (eg motherboard), fantastical imaginings (eg Lewis Carroll’s (1835—1898) Jabberwocky (1871)) or for literary purposes such as the whole lexicon created by Anthony Burgess (1917–1993) for A Clockwork Orange (1962).  It differs too from English’s traditional borrowing of foreign words if they do a more elegant job than that which in English demands a phrase and thus borrowed are zeitgeist (spirit of the age), schadenfreude (pleasure in the suffering of others) and fuselage (main body of an airframe).  Koenig decided to create the dictionary because, as a poet, he found the words needed to suit the rhythm of his verse simply didn’t exist.  In engineering or many other fields his approach would be uncontroversial but there may be poets (there certainly will be critics) who disapprove and suggest it’s cheating for one to create new words just because one can’t think a way to use one of the hundreds of thousands English already has.  In a similar vein, JRR Tolkien (1892–1973) criticized CS Lewis’ (1898–1963) The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, the first of the seven volumes of The Chronicles of Narnia (1950–1956).  On more substantive grounds he’d issued a critique of the heavy-handed way Lewis interpolated Christian themes but his letters also reveal he rather looked down of what he thought was cheating or at least literary laziness: Tolkien took years to construct his geography; Lewis just said there was a door in the back of a wardrobe.

Fragments from The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows

Adronitis: The frustration induced by the time it takes to get to know another.

Ambedo: A moment so mesmerizing, so enchanting, that one is compelled to experience it for its own sake.

Anecdoche: A conversation in which all are talking and none are listening.

Anemoia: A nostalgic longing for a time one has never known.

Chrysalism: The feeling of an amniotic envelopment if safe and warm inside while outside a thunderstorm rages.

Ellipsism: The sadness of knowing one will never know how history unfolds.

Énouement: The bitter-sweetness of having arrived in the future and knowing how things turned out but not being able to warn one's younger self.

Exulansis: The tendency to give up speaking of certain things because others never understand.

Jouska: A hypothetical conversation conduced wholly in one's own mind.

Kenopsia: The eerie, forlorn atmosphere of a place usually bustling but now deserted and silent.

Koinophobia: The fear of living an ordinary life.

Kuebiko: A state of exhaustion induced by acts of senseless violence.

Lachesism: A desire to be struck by disaster.

Liberosis: The desire to care less.

Lutalica: The realization one doesn’t need a label to belong.

Mauerbauertraurigkeit: The inexplicable to push away all, even those usually close to one.

Monachopsis: A subtle but persistent feeling of being out of place.

Nodus Tollens: The realization the track of one's life no longer makes sense.

Occhiolism: The awareness of the smallness of one in the universe.

Olēka: The awareness of how few days are truly memorable.

Onism: The awareness of how little of the world one will experience.

Opia: Of the ambiguity of brief, intense eye contact and our reaction to it happening.

Rubatosis: The unsettling awareness of the beat of one's own heart.

Rűckkehrunruhe: Realizing a recent, intense, immersive experience is rapidly fading from memory.

Socha: The hidden vulnerabilities in those around you.

Sonder: The realization that each random passer-by is living a life as vivid and complex as one’s own.

Vellichor: The gentle charm of shops which sell old books.

Vemődalen: The frustration felt when having composed an extraordinary photograph, one discovers a myriad of similar images already exist.

Yù Yī: A desire to again experience intensely.

Soupçon

Soupçon (pronounced soop-sawn)

(1) A slight trace, dash, hint, modicum or vestige, as of a certain taste or flavour; a very small amount; a hint; a trace, slight idea; an inkling.

(2) A suspicion; a suggestion (dated; now rare).

1766: From the Middle French soupçon (suspicion), from the twelfth century Old French sospeçon (suspicion, worry, anxiety) derived from the Medieval Latin suspectiōnem & suspectiōn (stem of suspectiō), from the Classical Latin suspīciō (suspicion) and a doublet of the now obsolete suspection.  In Late Latin, the word seems to have evolved as suspectionem although there no consensus among etymologists.  It is not a doublet of suspicion although such use has been seen.

In English, use of soupçon spiked after the French Revolution (1789), something owed less to literature than to political pamphleteers and technical writers such as the authors of cookbooks.  It tended to decline in the twentieth century and beyond as the fashion for the interpolation of obviously foreign words faded, especially when English offered so many well-known and serviceable synonyms (although more than a soupcon of those enjoyed a recent foreign past): crumb, drop, pinch, scintilla, shred, bit, smidgen, trace, whiff, dab, dash, hint, iota, particle, speck, suggestion, tinge, whisper, modicum & vestige.  Although there will always be those inclined to “drop it in” wherever possible, it’s probably most natural in English if writing of something French, a recipe, a style, a cut, an era et al although not all approve of “Gallicisms”.  In his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), Henry Fowler (1858–1933) noted the evolution of English had for centuries depended on the absorption of “…words and phrases that were once Gallicisms but, having prospered, are no longer recognizable as such; and of the number now on trial, some will doubtless prosper in like manner” and commended “...the conversational usage of educated people in general, not… predilections or a literary fashion of the moment.”

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

Shampoo

Shampoo (pronounced sham-poo)

(1) To wash the head or hair, especially with a cleaning preparation that does not leave a soap film.

(2) To clean rugs, upholstery, or the like with a special preparation.

(3) To massage (archaic); originally a traditional Indian and Persian body massage given after pouring warm water over the body and rubbing it with extracts from herbs.

(4) A (usually liquid or cream) preparation used for shampooing, especially one that does not leave a soap film.

1762: From the Hindi चाँपो (cā̃po), imperative form of चाँपना (cā̃pnā) (to press, knead), from the Sanskrit root चपयति (capayati) (to pound, knead or smooth).  Under the Raj, the original anglicized form was champo (later champoo) from the Hindi chāmpo (to massage), an inflected form of chāmpnā (to knead; literally “to press”) itself derived from the Sanskrit root चपति (chapati or capayati), which meant “to press, knead, or soothe”.  Under the Raj, the word the word initially referred to any type of pressing, kneading, or soothing with the definition extended to mean “wash the hair” by 1860.  Although people had for centuries been using a variety of soapy preparations, it was in 1954 that the first packaged products (initially for domestic rather than commercial use) called “carpet shampoo” appeared.  Shampoo is a verb or a noun, shampooer is a noun and the other verbs (used with object) are shampooed & shampooing; the accepted adjective is shampooed but the inventive shampooish has been noted.

Ferret Shampoo and Ferret Sheen (a sort of har conditioner for ferrets) are both available as packaged products.  There may be some opportunistic marketing in this because ferret fur is nor considered unusual but the manufacturers claim the product is optimized for the little beasts (notably the oily nature of the fur) and designed to reduce their "inherently musky smell".

Cultures since antiquity have made shampoo using mixtures of herbs and extracts from vegetation, the mix dictated by what was available for harvest in the local area or through trade and in India, a favorite formula was that concocted by boiling an extract of the fruit of the Sapindus, mixed with fragrant herbs.  Sapindus is a tree which grows across the Indian sub-continent and under the Raj came to be known as the soapberry or soapnut, the extract of which when mixed with water created a soap-like lather know as phenaka.  Widely used to wash the hair and mixed with a variety of herbs which lent both fragrance and color, it was this which traders and colonial officials brought back to Europe where the idea evolved into packaged  "champoo" although prior to that, "shampooing" centres were opened although these focused on shampoo in the sense of "massage", conducted in conjunction with "vapor baths", based on the idea popular at the time that breathing in certain preparations was most efficacious in the treatment of many ailments.  The word "champoo" didn't long endure and by the early twentieth century, "shampoo" was the accepted spelling, the early shampoos little more than mild, liquid detergents but by the 1930s, synthetic surfactants had begun to replace the soap component.  Many claims are made for modern shampoos and conditioners but there are hairdressers who claim nothing is as good for achieving shiny, bouncy hair than pure aloe vera gel, squeezed straight from a freshly-cut leaf; some use it as a substitute for conditioner while others mix it with a mild liquid soap.

Lustre-Creme shampoo “Pink is for Girls” advertising posters, 1960s.

Lustre-Crème was emphatic “pink is just for girls” which was at the time hardly controversial for most although the claim they produced the “only pink shampoo” might have been ambitious.  It might also have seem a bit adventurous to suggest there exists a “pink fragrance” but it’s not unknown to have the sense of the senses shifted (in Opera it’s common to speak of a soprano’s voice “darkening” as she matures) and Lustre-Crème did note that “…should a certain someone get too close, he'll notice that we have a delightful ‘pink’ fragrance too.”  Covering the market, for the practical young lady mention was made of the “…unbreakable plastic squeeze bottle with the new Flip 'n Tip Spout (no more cap-twisting).”  A "Flip 'n Tip Spout" is one of those small innovations which made life more civilized.  

The "pink is just for girls" equation is however of recent origin.  In the West, until the late nineteenth century, infants tended universally to be dressed in white because doing the laundry was a more tiresome (and certainly labor-intensive) task than today, thus the attraction of white fabric which could be bleached.  Until the early twentieth century, pink tended to be thought a “strong, masculine” color, (apparently on the basis of being a variant of red) while blue was seen as more delicate and so suitable for girls; as well as being considered “dainty”, blue had a strong historic association with the Virgin Mary because of the manner in which she’d been depicted by generations of artists.  As late as 1927, department stores like Marshall Field routinely suggest pink for boys but within a decade the shift clearly had begun because by the late 1930s the Nazis had (eventually) settled on pink as the color of the identifying triangle worn by prisoners incarcerated under Paragraph 175 of the German penal code (which criminalized homosexual activity between men).  It was in the US in the post-war era of plenty that the “blue for boys, pink for girls” thing was established and it was a product of marketing, the attraction being that with a clear gender divide, parents would have to buy more clothes.  From there, the idea infected just about every industry, even tool manufacturers producing lines of pink tool kits for men to buy as gifts.

Wikihow have published a guide for those seeking to achieve the classic Lindsay Lohan look, including the hair.  Those who want the look might be tempted to try GHD’s Oracle which uses as U-shaped clamp, with one cooling plate on top and ceramic heater plates on each arm to maintain the temperature at 365˚f (185˚c), the design innovation meaning the heated hair is cooled before leaving the styler; GHD say it helps set curls in place.  Stylists note the advantage but say that because of the way it interacts with the moisture left in the hair after washing, the extent to which the hair is dried should vary according to hair type and users may need to experiment to determine what works best.

Step 1: Wash with shampoo and conditioner.  As a general principle it's best to shampoo in two sessions, the first removing the layer of oil & dirt which inevitably attaches to the strands, the second to allow the cleansing of the whole scalp and take advantage of any properties the shampoo may offer.  Some manufacturers describe the properties as "nourishing" and this needs to be read-down (hair being dead tissue), but the health of the scalp and hair roots can be improved.  The need for the double-shampoo technique does vary with the environment, it being less beneficial for those who wash their hair every day but valuable for those who spend their days in areas with high levels of atmospheric pollution.  Either way, when shampooing, focus on the roots, massaging with the finger-tips; this will result in the cleanest hair.  When finished, take time to ensure all shampoo is rinsed from the hair and when conditioning, use a generous amount to ensure there's enough to swamp all the hair, gently massaging as it's applied.  For the length of time the conditioner is left on the hair, manufacturers do vary in their recommendations and it best to follow their instructions but there's probably little benefit in conditioning for more than a couple of minutes.

Step 2: Gently towel-dry the hair; a fluffy cotton towel is best and it's necessary to dry it only to the point where the water stops dripping.  Then blow-dry, using the coolest setting on the dryer and dry only partially, the hair left moist to the touch.

Step 3: Apply some root-pump, working the hair through the fingers and using the finger-tips to push at the roots.  Despite what some say about this "increasing volume", it has no such effect and is simply a form of scalp massage, said to increase blood flow to the roots which may well be beneficial.

Step 4: Once the hair is completely dry, use a styling iron (sometimes called a curling or straightening iron).  Section the hair into 3-6 parts depending on volume and when parting, gather the hair and put each in an elastic band.

Step 5: Start curling the hair just below the elastic.  The placement of the elastic band determines the outcome of the curls so it should be tied higher or lower depending on desired effect.  For the Lindsay Lohan look, the curls need to be very loose.

Step 6: Product: The classic Lohanic look is achieved with a surprisingly small dose of hairspray, the hair gently teased with a wide-toothed comb. the operative word gently; less is more.  It's a specific look, quite long-lasting and easy to maintain, the volume maintained with little more than a running of the fingers through to the top of the hair, re-separating the curls.

Blondes have more shampoo.  John Frieda blonde shampoo range.

Aggression

Aggression (pronounced uh-gresh-uhn)

(1) The action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like.

(2) Any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment.

(3) The practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.

(4) In clinical psychiatry, overt or suppressed hostility, either innate or resulting from continued frustration and directed outward or against oneself.

(5) In the study of animal behavior and zoology, behavior intended to intimidate or injure an animal of the same species or of a competing species but is not predatory.  Aggression may be displayed during mating rituals or to defend territory, as by the erection of fins by fish and feathers by birds.

1605–1615: English borrowed the word directly from the French aggression, derived from the Latin aggressionem (nominative aggressio (a going to, an attack)), a noun of action from past participle stem of aggredi (to approach; attack) a construct of ad (to) + gradi (past participle gressus (to step)) from gradus (a step).  The Classical Latin aggressiōn (stem of aggressiō), was equivalent to aggress(us) + iōn derived from aggrēdi (to attack).  Psychological sense of "hostile or destructive behavior" had its origin in early psychiatry, first noted in English in 1912 in a translation of Freud.  Related forms are antiaggression (adjective), counteraggression and preaggression (nouns); most frequently used derived form is aggressor (noun).

Aggression and International Jurisprudence, Locarno, Kellogg–Briand and the Nuremberg Trial

For centuries, philosophers, moral theologians and other peripheral players had written of the ways and means of outlawing wars of aggression but in the twentieth century, in the aftermath of the carnage of World War I (1914-1918), serious attempts were made to achieve exactly that, the first of which was the Locarno Pact.

Gustav Stresemann, Austen Chamberlain & Aristide Briand, Locarno, 1926.

Although usually referred to as the Locarno Pact, technically the pact consisted of seven treaties, the name derived from the Swiss city of Locarno at which the agreements negotiated between 5-16 October, 1925 although the documents were formally signed in London on 1 December.  Cynically, it can be said the Locarno Pact was a device by the western European powers to ensure they’d not again be the victims of German aggression which, if and when if were to happen, would be directed against those countries on its eastern border.  Of the seven treaties, it was the first which mattered most, a guarantee of the existing frontiers of Belgium, France, and Germany, underwritten by the UK and Italy.  Of the other agreements, two were intended to reassure the recently created Czechoslovakia and the recreated Poland, both of which, presciently as it turned out, felt some threat from Germany.

Whatever the implications, the intent was clear and about as pure as anything in politics can be: an attempt to ensure European states would never again need to resort to war.  Although the structural imbalances appear, in retrospect, obvious, at the time there were expectations of continued peaceful settlements and there arose, for a while, what was called the "spirit of Locarno": Germany was admitted to the League of Nations in September 1926, with a permanent seat on its council and Nobel Peace Prizes were awarded to the lead negotiators of the treaty, Sir Austen Chamberlain (1863-1937; UK foreign secretary 1924-1929), Aristide Briand (1862-1932; French foreign minister 1926-1932) and Gustav Stresemann (1878-1929; German foreign minister 1923-1929).

Members of the Cabinet, Senate, and House are seen gathered in the East Room of the White House, after President Coolidge and Secretary of State Kellogg signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

The spirit of Locarno proved infectious and inspired the noble notion it might be possible for men to gather around tables and sign papers which for all time would outlaw war and the Kellogg–Briand Pact (known also as the Pact of Paris and technically the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy) was a product of this optimism.  Signed in 1928 and named after the two main authors, Briand and Frank Kellogg (1856-1937; US Secretary of State 1925-1929), it was soon ratified by dozens of countries, all the signatory states promising not to use war to resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them".  It gained Kellogg his Nobel Peace Prize but peace proved elusive and in little more than a decade, the world was at war.  Another point cynics note is that the real consequence of the pact was not the prevention of war but the unfashionability of declaring war; wars continuing with a thin veneer of legal high-gloss.  Anthony Eden (1897-1977; UK prime-minister 1955-1957) during the Suez Crisis (1956), noting no declaration had been made, distinguished between being “at war” and being in “a state of armed conflict” although those on the battlefield doubtless noticed no difference.  Because the pact was concluded outside the League of Nations, it remains afoot and the influence lingers; although hardly militarily inactive since 1945, the last declaration of war by the United States was in 1942.

Defendants at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), popularly known as the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.

Kellogg–Briand thus failed but was a vitally important twentieth century instrument.  It was from Kellogg-Briand the prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trial in 1945-1946 were able to find the concept of a crime against peace as pre-existing law that was of such importance in establishing the legal validity of the incitements, both there and at the subsequent Tokyo Tribunal.  Without that legal framework from the 1920s, the construction of the legal basis for the concept of crimes against peace (the first two of the four articles of indictment at Nuremberg), may not have been possible.

At Nuremburg, the indictments served by the International Military Tribunals were:

(1) Conspiracy to plan the waging of wars of aggression.

(2) Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression.

(3) War crimes.

(4) Crimes against humanity.

It’s always been the fourth which has attracted most attention because the crimes committed were of such enormity and on such as scale, the word genocide had to be invented.  However, the greater effect on international law was the creation of the notion that those who plan wars of aggression can be punished for that very act, punishments wholly unrelated to the mechanics or consequences of how the wars may be fought.  Form this point can be traced the end of the centuries-old legal doctrine of sovereign immunity for those waging wars of aggression.

So, after Nuremberg, the long tradition of the preemptive and preventative war as an instrument of political policy was no longer the convenient option it had for thousands of years been.  With section 4 of the United Nations (UN) Charter prohibiting all members from exercising "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state", there was obvious interest in the charter's phrase phrase of exculpation: "armed attack" which effectively limited the parameters of the circumstances in which the use of military force might be legitimate under international law.  Stretching things as far as even the most accommodating of impartial lawyers were prepared to reach, if no armed attack has been suffered, for an act of preemptive self-defense to be lawful, (1) a threat must be demonstratively real and not merely a perception of the possible and (2), the force applied in self-defense must be proportional to the harm threatened.  All this is why General Colin Powell's (1937–2021; US Secretary of State 2001-2005) statement of justification to the Security Council seeking authority to invade Iraq in 2003 took the tortured form it did.

Mr Putin.

The state of international law is why President Vladimir Putin (b 1952; prime-minister or president of Russia since 1999) has resorted to some unusual terminology and some impressive, if not entirely convincing, intellectual gymnastics in his explanations of geography and history.  While hardly the direct and unambiguous speech used by some of his predecessors in the Kremlin, it's certainly kept the Kremlinologists and their readers interested.  As early as December 2020, Mr Putin was already using the phrase "military-technical measures" should NATO (again) approach Russia's borders and the charm of that presumably was that having no precise meaning, it could at any time mean what Mr Putin wanted it to mean at that moment.  Mr Putin also claimed the government in the Ukraine is committing genocide against ethnic Russians within the territory and, in an echo of similar claims from the troubled 1930s "seemed to believe his own atrocity stories", later doubling-down, calling the Ukranian government a "Nazi regime" and said he was seeking a process of "de-Nazification" (an actual structured and large-scale programme run in post-war Germany by the occupying forces aimed at removing the worst elements of the Third Reich from public life).  

Most interestingly, Mr Putin said Ukraine wasn’t a real country, a significant point if true because it's only foreign countries which can be invaded.  If a government moves troops into parts of their own territory, it's not an invasion; it might be a police action, a counter-insurgency or a military exercise or any number of things but it can't be an invasion.  Technically of course, that applies also to renegade provinces.  It seemed an adventurous argument to run given Ukraine has for decades been a member of the UN and recognized by just about every country (including Russia) as a sovereign state.  To clarify, Mr Putin added the odd nuance, claiming Ukraine was "...not a real country..." and had "...never had its own authentic statehood."  "There has never been a sustainable statehood in Ukraine.”  The basis of that was his assertion that Ukraine was created by the Soviet Union's first leader, Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924; Leader of Soviet Russia 1917-1924 & the USSR 1922-1924) as either a sort of administrative zone or just as a mistake depending on interpretation.  Ignoring the wealth of historical material documenting the pre-Soviet history of the Ukraine, Mr Putin insisted it was part of Russia, an "...integral part of our own history, culture, spiritual space.”

Having established his case the Ukraine was no foreign country but just another piece of Russia, Mr Putin turned his thoughts to the nature of the threat the obviously renegade province posed.  Although after the collapse of the USSR, the Ukraine voluntarily (and gratefully) gave up the nuclear weapons in its territory in exchange for a security guarantees issued by the US, UK, and Russia, Mr Putin expressed concern the neo-Nazi regime there had both the knowledge and the desire to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems, adding: “If Ukraine acquires weapons of mass destruction, the situation in the world and in Europe will drastically change, especially for us, for Russia... we cannot but react to this real danger, all the more so since, let me repeat, Ukraine’s Western patrons may help it acquire these weapons to create yet another threat to our country.”

The internal logic of this was perfect to satisfy international law: (1) The territory which on maps is called Ukraine is not a country and just a part of Russia and (2), the illegal administration running the renegade province of Ukraine is plotting to acquire weapons of mass-destruction.  Under those conditions, military action by Moscow would be valid under international law but just to make sure, Mr Putin recognized Donetsk and Luhansk (two separatist regions in the Donbas), and deployed Russian troops as "peacekeepers".  Around the world, just about everybody except the usual suspects called it an invasion.

Many also discussed the legal position, perhaps not a great consolation to the citizens of Ukraine and the limitations of international law had anyway long been understood by those who were most hopeful of their civilizing power.  In his report to President Truman (1884–1972; US president 1945-1953) at the conclusion of the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946), Justice Robert Jackson (1892–1954; sometime justice of the US Supreme Court, US solicitor general & attorney general and chief US prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials), noted the judgment had "...for the first time made explicit and unambiguous what was theretofore, as the Tribunal has declared, implicit in International Law, namely, that to prepare, incite, or wage a war of aggression, or to conspire with others to do so, is a crime against international society, and that to persecute, oppress, or do violence to individuals or minorities on political, racial, or religious grounds in connection with such a war, or to exterminate, enslave, or deport civilian populations, is an international crime, and that for the commission of such crimes individuals are responsible. This agreement also won the adherence of nineteen additional nations and represents the combined judgments of the overwhelming majority of civilized people. It is a basic charter in the International Law of the future."  However, his idealism tempered by what he knew to be the nature of men, he conceded it would be "... extravagant to claim that agreements or trials of this character can make aggressive war or persecution of minorities impossible." although he did add that there was no doubt "they strengthen the bulwarks of peace and tolerance."  One of the US judges at Nuremburg had, whatever the theoretical legal position, reached an even more gloomy conclusion, Francis Biddle (1886–1968; US solicitor general 1940-1941 & attorney general 1941-1945 and primary US judge at the Nuremberg Trials) writing to the president that the judgements he'd helped deliver couldn't prevent war but might help men to "... learn a little better to detest it."  "Aggressive war was once romantic, now it is criminal."

Biddle was a realist who understood the forces which operated within legal systems and nation states.  Even the long-serving liberal judge William O Douglas (1898–1980; associate justice of the US Supreme Court 1939-1975) couldn’t bring himself to accept that the aggression which led to World War II (1939-1945) in which as many a sixty millions died was not reason enough to overcome his aversion to ex post facto law (the construct being the Latin ex (from) + post (after) + facto, ablative of factum (deed), (that which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of actions from what would have applied prior to the application of the law).  Douglas deplored the way the IMT had not only convicted but imposed capital sentences of those indicted for conduct which has at time been legal under metropolitan and international law:

“No matter how many books are written or briefs filed, no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under ex post facto law. Goering et al. deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle.”

Developments since in international law have seen progress.  The United Nations Charter, adopted in 1945, prohibits the use of force by one state against another, except in cases of self-defense or when authorized by the UN Security Council for the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter stating “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."  That works in conjunction with the Nuremberg Principles which declared the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of a war of aggression is a crime against peace and a violation of international law, a more concrete underpinning of customary international law than the Kellogg-Briand Pact which was in the same vein but always was of limited practical application because there existed no mechanism of enforcement or codification of penalties.  Despite that, the core concept of just what does constitute the crime of “aggressive war” has never been generally agreed and although the UN’s 1974 statement: “Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.” seems compelling, the debate continues.

Phalanx

Phalanx (pronounced fey-langks or fal-angks)

(1) In Hellenic Greece, a group of heavily armed infantry formed in ranks and files close and deep, with shields joined and long spears overlapping.

(2) A body of troops in close array.

(3) A compact or closely massed body of persons, animals or things, usually united or aligned for a common purpose.

(4) A radar-controlled 20mm Gatling-type gun deployed on US Navy ships as a last line of defense against cruise missiles.

(5) In Fourierism, a group of about 1800 persons, living together and holding their property in common.

(6) In anatomy and zoology, any of the bones of the fingers or toes (the related adjective phalangeal).

(7) In printing, to arrange the distribution of work in a production house as evenly as possible.

(8) In botany, a bundle of stamens, joined together by their stalks (filaments).

(9)A form of vegetative spread in which the advance is on a broad front, as in the common reed.

1550s: From the Latin phalanx from phalangis & phalangem (compact body of heavily armed men in battle array) derived from Greek phalanx (genitive phalangos) (line of battle, battle array).  The origin of the use as a descriptor of finger or toe bone (originally "round piece of wood, trunk, log”) is unknown, most often thought to be from the from Old English balca (balk), from the primitive Indo-European root bhelg (plank, beam).  In anatomy, a phalanx was originally the whole row of finger joints, which fit together like infantry in close order.  The rare adjectival forms were phalangeal & phalangic.  The figurative sense of "number of persons banded together in a common cause" is attested from 1600, the most recent adaptation probably the 1937 Spanish Falangist, (a member of the fascist organization founded in 1933), from the Spanish Falange (Española) (Spanish), from the Latin phalanx.

Phalanx terminology.

The Macedonian military formation known as a phalanx consisted in theory of fifty close files, sixteen ranks deep, the men clad in armor, bearing shields, armed with swords and spears between 21 - 24 feet (6.4-7.3 m) in length.  In array, the shields formed a continuous bulwark, the ranks placed at such intervals that five spears which were borne pointed forward and upward protected every man in the front rank.  Properly handled, on level ground and with its flanks and rear adequately protected, the phalanx was a formidable formation but was cumbrous and slow in movement, and if once broken could only with great difficulty be reformed.  It was thus dependent on high-quality leadership and highly-trained troops and was notably vulnerable when, as inevitably happens under battlefield conditions, it was assembled, sometimes hastily, with whatever resources were available.

Phalanx live fire test, USS Monterey, November 2008.

Designed essentially to meet any incoming missile with a “wall of metal”, the Phalanx CIWS began life as a close-in weapon system installed on naval warships as defense against anti-ship missiles. Developed and manufactured by the General Dynamics Corporation’s Pomona Division (now a part of Raytheon), it’s based around a radar-guided 20 mm (0.79 in) Vulcan cannon mounted on a swiveling base and is used by more than a dozen navies on every class of surface combat ship.  The reliability and flexibility attracted wider interest and a land based variant known as C-RAM has been developed, deployed in a short range missile defense role to counter incoming rockets and even artillery fire.  The early models were (hydraulic driven) with a fire rate of 3,000 rounds per minute (rpm) and the magazine drum had a capacity of 989 rounds while the later, pneumatically driven modes fire at a rate of 4,500 rpm from a 1,550-round magazine.  Each round costs about US$30 and typically between 100-200 are expended during each targeting.  A combination of the appearance of the distinctive, barrel-shaped, radar dome (radome) and the automated operation, meant the Phalanx CIWS units soon attracted the nicknamed "R2-D2", named after the droid from the film Star Wars (1977).

Lindsay Lohan's fractured Phalanx

During an Aegean cruise in October 2016, Lindsay Lohan suffered a finger injury.  In this dreadful nautical incident, the tip of one digit was severed by the boat's anchor chain but details of the circumstances are sketchy although there was speculation that upon hearing the captain give the command “weigh anchor”, she decided to help but, lacking any background in admiralty jargon, misunderstood the instruction.

Detached chunk of a distal digit was salvaged from the deck and expertly re-attached by a micro-surgeon ashore, digit and the rest of the patient said to have both made full recoveries.  Despite the injury, Ms Lohan still managed to find a husband so all's well that ends well.

Quire

Quire (pronounced kwahyuhr)

(1) A set of twenty-four (24) uniform sheets of paper (in commerce, sometimes sold as twenty-five (25) sheets, analogous with baker’s dozen); a twentieth of a ream.

(2) In bookbinding, a section of printed leaves in proper sequence after folding; gathering; usually four sheets of paper folded once to form a section of 16 pages.

(3) An alternative spelling of choir (archaic except in church architecture).

(4) A book, poem, or pamphlet (archaic).

(5) In church architecture, one quarter of a cruciform church, the area of a church or cathedral that provides seating for the clergy and singer of the choir (choir & quire used interchangeably until the mid-nineteenth century when the former began to prevail, providing a useful distinction between the singers and the place they stood).

1175–1225: From the Middle English quayer, from the Anglo-Norman quaier (a short book) & quier, from the Old French quaier & caier (sheet of paper folded in four (which evolved into the Modern French cahier)) & quaer, from the Medieval Latin quaternum (set of four sheets of parchment or paper, from the Vulgar Latin quaternus, from the Classical Latin quarternī (four each)).  The root of the Latin quater (four times) was the primitive Indo-European kwetwer (four).  The meaning “a standard unit for selling paper" was first recorded in the late fourteenth century and the phrase “in quires” is attested from the late fifteenth, meaning "unbound."  The meaning "a standard unit for selling paper" (which became typically 24 (two dozen) or 25 (one twentieth of a ream)) sheets is recorded from the late fourteenth century and by the mid fifteenth-century, quires had come to mean also "unbound" in the sense of loose-leaf.  Quire was also an early form and later variant spelling of the Middle English choir from the Old French quer & queor, variants of cuer and the related word was the Medieval Latin quorus, a variant of chorus.  The word is a homophone of choir and doublet of cahier.  Quire is a noun and quired & quiring are verbs; the noun plural is quires.

The quire, Westminster Abbey, London.

Otiose

Otiose (pronounced oh-shee-ohs or oh-tee-ohs)

(1) Being at leisure; idle; indolent (rare).

(2) Ineffective or futile.

(3) Having no reason for being (raison d’être); having no point, superfluous or useless, having no reason or purpose.

(4) Done in a careless or perfunctory manner (rare).

1794: From the Latin ōtiōsus (having leisure or ease, unoccupied, idle, not busy, undisturbed), the construct being ōti(um) (leisure, spare time, freedom from business) + -ōsus (the adjectival suffix); source of the French oiseux, the Spanish ocioso and the Italian otioso, from ōtium (leisure, free time, freedom from business) of unknown origin.  The meaning "at leisure, idle" dates from 1850, often quoted in the literature of the time in the Latin phrase otium cum dignitate (leisure with dignity).  The earlier adjective in English was otious (at ease) from the 1610s and Middle English had the late fifteenth century noun otiosity.  The -ōsus suffix was from the Old Latin -ōsos, from -ōnt-to-s, from the Proto-Italic -owonssos, from -o-wont-to-s, the last being a combination of two primitive Indo-European suffixes: -went- (& -wont-) and –to.

Otium cum dignitate: Lindsay Lohan enjoying a dignified rest, Los Angeles, 2014.