I looked this up to see if there was any connectoipn to diplomacy, lolDIPSOMANIA (from Gr. &~a, thirst, and saP(a, madness), a term formerly applied to the attacks of delirium (q.v.) caused by alcoholic poisoning. It is now sometimes loosely used as equivalent to the condition of incurable inebriates, but strictly should be confined to the pathological and insatiable desire for alcohol, sometimes occurring in paroxysms.
All definitions from http://38.1911encyclopedia.org/D/DI/DIPLOMACY.htmDIPLOMACY (Fr. diplomatie), the art of conducting inter-~ ational negotiations. The word, borrowed from the French, has he same derivation as Diplomatic (q.v.), and, according to the Tew English Dictionary, was first used in England so late as 5796 y Burke. Yet there is no other word in the English language hat could supply its exact sense. The need for such a term ras indeed not felt; for what we know as diplomacy was long egarded, partly as falling under the Jus gentium or international tw, partly as a kind of activity morally somewhat suspect and acapable of being brought under any system. Moreover, though a a certain sense it is as old as history, diplomacy as a uniform ystem, based upon generally recognized rules and directed by diplomatic hierarchy having a fixed international status, is of uite modern growth even in Europe. It was finally established nly at the congresses of Vienna (1815) and Aix-la- Chapelle (1818), rhile its effective extension to the great monarchies of the East, eyond the bounds of European civilization, was comparatively Ii affair of yesterday. So late as 1876 it was possible for the writer on this subject in the oth edition of the Encyclopaedia to say that it would be an historical absurdity to suppose diplomatic relations connecting together China, Burma and Japan, as they connect the great European powers.
Principles.Though diplomacy has been usually treated under the head of international law, it would perhaps be more consonant with the facts to place international law under diplomacy. The principles and rules governing the intercourse of states, defined by a long succession of international lawyers, have no sanction save the consensus of the powers, established and maintained by diplomacy (see BALANCE OP POWER); in so far as they have become, by international agreement, more than mere pious opinions of theorists, they are working rules established for mutual convenience, which it is the function of diplomacy to safeguard or to use for its own ends. In any case they by no means cover the whole field of diplomatic activity; and, were they swept away, the art of diplomacy, developed through long ages of experience, would survive.(sic)
Katy