Pardon

Pardon (pronounced pahr-dn)

(1) A kind indulgence, as in forgiveness of an offense or discourtesy or in tolerance of a distraction or inconvenience.

(2) In law, release from the penalty of an offense; a remission of penalty, as by a governor, monarch or viceroy.

(3) Forgiveness of a serious offense or offender.

(4) In Roman Catholic canon law, a technical term for a papal indulgence (obsolete).

(5) To make a courteous allowance for or to excuse.

(6) When used with rising inflection, as an elliptical form, as when asking a speaker to repeat something not clearly heard or understood (non-U).

1250-1300: From the Middle English pardonen or pardoun (papal indulgence, forgiveness of sins or wrongdoing), from Old French pardon from pardoner (to grant; to forgive; remission, indulgence (which entered Modern French in the eleventh century as pardonner), from the Medieval Latin perdonum, from the Vulgar Latin perdōnāre (to remit, overlook (literally “to forgive”)), the construct being per- (for; through, thoroughly) + dōnāre (to give, donate) which emerged in Medieval Latin, though a translation from a Germanic source possibly a calque (if not vice-versa) of a Germanic word represented by the Frankish firgeban (to forgive, give up completely) which was akin to the Old High German fargeban & firgeban (to forgive) and the Old English forġiefan (to forgive).  The Latin per was from the primitive Indo-European root per- (forward (hence “through”)) and donare was from donum (gift), from the primitive Indo-European root donum (gift), from the root do- (to give).  The verb pardon was from pardounen, (to forgive for offense or sin).  The noun pardoner (a man licensed to sell papal pardons or indulgences) was a late fourteenth century form (it was noted earlier in the 1300s as a surname), the agent noun from the verb.  The adjective pardonable (forgivable, capable of being pardoned) was a mid-fifteenth century form from the twelfth century Old French pardonable, from pardoner.  Some sources insist pardonable was a back-formation from pardonable which is interesting.  The meaning “a passing over of an offense without punishment” was first noted around the turn of the fourteenth century (also in the strictly ecclesiastical sense) while as a “pardon for a civil or criminal offense; release from penalty or obligation”, use emerged in the late 1300s (mirroring the earlier Anglo-French).  The use in polite society to “request one be excused for some minor fault” was in use by at least the 1540s.

Pardon is one of those “cross-over words”, migrating from the technical use (an act by an official or a superior, remitting all or the remainder of the punishment that belongs to an offense (eg a sovereign or governor pardoning a convict before expiration of the sentence)) to become a synonym for “forgive” in the sense of feelings or social mores.  By convention, asking for another’s pardon re-establishes amicable relations between transgressor and the offended.  In idiomatic use, dating from the mid seventeenth century, the phrase “I beg your pardon” (the variations including “beg pardon”, “begging your pardon”, “pardon me” etc) is used (1) to apologise for something (typically a social faux pas), (2) to request clarification of something said if it is unexpected, odd or seen as rude without context and (3) to request something be repeated.  In the last case, Nancy Mitford (1904–1973) in Noblesse Oblige: An Enquiry Into the Identifiable Characteristics of the English Aristocracy (1956) insisted “pardon” was a non-U (lower & middle class) word and the “U” (upper class) form was “what?”.  The phrase “pardon my French” was an exclamation of apology for obscene language, noted since the late nineteenth century.  Pardon is a noun, verb & interjection, pardoning is a verb & noun, pardoned is a verb & adjective, pardonableness & pardoner are nouns, pardonable & pardonless are adjectives and pardonably is an adverb; the noun plural is pardons.

Pardons from the president: Without check or balance

Article Two of the United States Constitution describes the office of the President.  One of the powers granted is that he or she may grant reprieves and pardons except regarding congressional impeachment of himself or other federal officers.  A president cannot issue a pardon for future actions; he can't pardon someone in advance for something someone does next week.  The pardon power is reserved for past actions and the president can pardon an individual even if he or she has not yet been convicted or even charged.

An executive pardon can be invoked to help victims of injustice.

It's an interesting power and the only one in the US constitution not subject to "checks and balances", an inheritance of one of the entitlements enjoyed by absolute and later monarchs.  The power, in the form exercised by a US president, doesn't exist in the UK or elsewhere in the Commonwealth where, when a pardon is granted, it’s a decision of the executive (the prime-minister (or premier) & cabinet) which is done in the name of the sovereign or their representative; in other words, by the state.  It’s different from vesting the power as a personal prerogative of an individual; US presidents have granted pardons which would have no chance of success were they subject to confirmation by the Senate.

The most interesting recent speculation about the presidential pardon is whether as president can pardon themselves.  This was something Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) probably pondered with especial interest during the diggings of special counsel Robert Mueller's (b 1944; Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2001-2013) into certain matters relating to the 2016 presidential election.  Mr Trump did tweet suggesting he could pardon himself even though there's no precedent, no president has ever done so (though at least one was surely tempted) and all that is certain is that the chief magistrate has the power to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."  That means he couldn't have pardoned himself from impeachment, nor anyone facing charges under state laws, and when asked, most constitutional law experts suggested he couldn't have pardoned himself for anything else either.  However, even if a presidential self-pardon were to be held to be constitutional, politically, it would be a challenge to manage so an extra-constitutional check on the power is political; the court of public opinion as it were.

When there was mush speculation about a possible prosecution of Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) for matters associated with the Watergate scandal, the Justice Department did issue an opinion saying a president could not pardon himself because, under long-established legal principle, no person can be the judge in their own case.  So, the legal status of a self-pardon has never been tested because, at the federal level, it’s never been done and nothing is definitive until ruled upon by the US Supreme Court.  There are records of state governors self-pardoning but one instance appears to have been technical, one a clerical error and one so murky it not clear what happened.  The state of US politics is now both so poisonous and so fluid that a second term for Mr Trump is no longer unthinkable if the Democrat Party insists on nominating Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) it become more likely still.  Mr Biden may or may not be senile but he certainly seems senile.  In his first term, Mr Trump proved remarkably uninterested in pursuing any of the vendettas he'd mentioned during the 2016 campaign; when asked if he would be pursuing the threatened legal action against the Clintons, he brushed off the question with a quick "...they're good people" and moved on.  In a second term, given the events of the last few years, he may not be so indulgent towards those who have slighted or pursued him so there's the intriguing prospect of an elected president attempting to pardon himself so he can move into the Oval Office and begin his revenge.  Interestingly, constitutional experts have all said that even if a self-pardon is declared unconstitutional, there is nothing to prevent a convicted felon being elected president from his jail cell, a place which would certainly focus one's mind on revenge.           

Pardons from God (via the pope)

In late medieval Christianity, the noun pardonmonger was a derogatory term directed at those who sold papal indulgences; the noun plural pardonmongers should also be noted because there were a lot of them about.  The indulgences had become big business in the medieval church and their abuse was one of the emblematic issues which triggered the Protestant Reformation.  The system worked by permitting a (sinful) individual to purchase from the church an indulgence which would reduce the length and severity of punishment that heaven would require as payment for their transgressions.  Indulgences were in a sense transferable because one could buy one for another and according to legend, those on their death bed would implore relations to buy them one so they would avoid an eternal damnation in Hell.

Historically, the indulgence system was able to evolve because the doctrine of the medieval western Christian church (the Eastern Orthodox would follow a different path) was: (1) Folk knew that after they died they were going to be punished for the sins they accumulated in life, something ameliorated only partially by good works (pilgrimage, prayers, charitable work etc) and earthly absolution; the more sin, the greater the punishment and (2) There was the concept of purgatory, a product of the theological imagination which meant that rather than being damned to hell, the sinful soul would be sent to purgatory where they would endure whatever punishment deemed appropriate, the suffering continuing until the stain was washed from them and they could be set free.  This was obviously not an attractive prospect and seeing a way to cement in society the world-view that church, God & sin were central, popes granted bishops the authority to reduce punishments while they were still alive.  It proved a highly useful tool in making unshakable the worldview in which the church, God and sin were central.

Quite when papal indulgences were first introduced isn’t known but the system was formalized by Pope Urban II (circa 1035–1099; pope 1088-1099) during the Council of Clermont in 1095.  The protocols reflected the diligent order which characterized church bureaucracy: Were one to perform sufficient good deeds to earn a full (Plenary) indulgence from the pope or a bishop, all sins would be expunged (and thus no punishment).  Partial indulgences would erase fewer evil deeds and an intricate system of layers came to be used; essentially an algorithm with which a cleric could calculate (to the day!) how much sin a person had wiped from their record.  Indulgences rapidly developed into a significant structural aspect of church administration and during the Crusades (Urban II’s other great contribution to history), many participated on the basis that in exchange for fighting to regain the Holy Land, they would be granted an indulgence, cancelling all sin.

This system of reducing sin and punishment worked well and having people perform good deeds (whatever the motivation) presumably made for a more harmonious society.  However, in something with a modern echo, rich people began to wonder why, instead of the time consuming, boring or sometimes distasteful business of actually doing good deeds, might it not be easier just to purchase an indulgence, the church thereby able to use the funds for good deeds.  The early example of outsourcing began in the thirteenth century and proved so popular (and profitable) for both governments and the church that it became an important revenue source, the catchment soon extended to allow the rich to buy indulgences for their ancestors, relatives, and friends already dead. 

The nature of this business soon became scandalous, notably during the reign of the Medici Pope Leo X (1475–1521; pope 1513-1521) and indulgences were among the issues the monk Martin Luther (1483–1546) listed in his 95 Theses (1517), a j’accuse directed at what he believed to be an institutionalized corruption and in saying that, Luther had a point, the pope having commissioned a Dominican friar to sell indulgences for the sole purpose of the construction of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.  Luther’s attack led to fragmentation within the church, many new sects abandoning the idea of indulgences and while the papacy banned the sale of indulgences in 1567, they didn’t entirely vanish and this wasn’t enough to prevent the subsequent schism within Western Christianity.  So, in the modern Roman Catholic Church, indulgences still exist but they no longer work in the medieval way when they could be something like a presidential pardon.  According to the Vatican: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints”.  The salient points of the system are:

(1) A person cannot buy their way out of hell with indulgences.  Because indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell, no amount of indulgences will ever change that and the only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive; after death, one’s eternal fate is set.

(2) One cannot buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.  Historically, the church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed although it’s clear some were sold on that basis prior to the Protestant Reformation.  The position now is that: “An indulgence is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power.”  Theologically that may sound dubious because presumably God could grant exactly that but, as any pope will tell you, God never would.

(3) An indulgence does not “buy forgiveness” because, by definition, the issue of an indulgence presupposes forgiveness has already taken place: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven.”  Indulgences therefore do not forgive sins and deal only with the punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

(4) It is not true an indulgence will shorten one’s time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.  While it’s true that prior to the Reformation such calculations did appear in documents, the church maintains these were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth and the Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less any specific.

(5) Indulgences may not be purchased.  The Council of Trent (1545-1563) instituted many reforms in the practice of granting indulgences and, because of prior abuses, “...in 1567 Pope Pius V (1504–1572; pope 1566-1572) cancelled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.”  To this day the Roman Catholic Church maintains indulgences were “never sold”, an interpretation of history still used by politicians and political parties when explain why donations (sometimes in the millions) are really “not buying anything”.

Mugwump

Mugwump (pronounced muhg-wuhmp)

(1) A member or supporter of the Republican Party who declined to support the party's nominee James Blaine (1830–1893) during the 1884 US presidential election, (claiming he was corrupt) lending their support to the Democratic Party's candidate Grover Cleveland (1837–1908).

(2) A person who is unable to make up their mind on an issue, especially in politics (mostly US & Australia).

(3) Someone who remains neutral on a controversial issue; a person who purports to stay aloof from party politics (mostly US & Australia).  In a derogatory sense it’s used to suggest someone is a “fence sitter” or maintains an aloof and often self-important demeanor.

(4) One who switches from supporting one political party to another, especially for personal benefit (also used in this sense in Australia).

(5) Used informally (usually humorously), a (male) leader; an important (male) person (sometimes as “big mugwump”).

(6) A foolish person (a now rare Australian slang term which emerged apparently because it was conflated with “mug”).

1832: An Americanism and an artificial, nineteenth century revival of the Massachusett (English spelling) mugquomp & mummugquomp (war leader), a syncopated form of muggumquomp (war leader), the construct being the (unattested) Proto-Algonquian memekw- (assumed to mean “swift”) + -a·pe·w (man).  The alternative etymology was the Algonquian (Natick) mogki (great) + a·pe·w (thus something like “great chief).  It was folk etymology which re-interpreted the word, the re-purposed meaning referring to a person who sat on the fence, deconstructed as “their mug (face) on one side and wump (rump) on the other”.  This graphical description produced a slew of political cartoons in this vein during the 1884 US presidential election.  The original Americanism emerged in 1832 in the New England region and was a jocular word for “a great man, boss; very important person”.  By 1840 it was in satirical use as “one who thinks himself important” but faded from used before being revived for the 1884 presidential contest, originally as a term of abuse but the independents embraced it and from that it picked up the specific sense “one who holds themselves aloof from party politics."  Mugwump is a noun & verb, mugwumpery & mugwumpism are nouns, mugwumpian, mugwumping & mugwumped are verbs and mugwumpian, mugwumpesque & mugwumpish are adjectives; the noun plural is mugwumps.

Originally, the Mugwumps were those Republican Party members (or supporters) who claimed to be appalled by the corruption they said was associated with James Blaine (1830–1893), declining to support his candidacy in the 1884 US presidential election.  Unlike some of the dissident movements in US politics (the Tea Party, the Know Nothings, the Progressives et al) the Mugwumps never formed any sort of organizational structure or even self-identified as a faction.  They gained the name because they “switched sides”, supporting the Democratic Party’s Grover Cleveland (1837-1908) although in their public statements, some Mugwumps would say they were “still Republicans”, hence the association with “fence-sitting”, the term adapted for the purpose because they were sitting with “their mug (face) on one side and wump (rump) on the other”, a theme cartoonists and caricaturists took to with gusto.

Those who rat on political parties, shifting their allegiance to another risk a lifetime of suffering the enmity of their former colleagues, politics attracting haters like few other professions although Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) who ratted twice reckoned the trick was to do it with style.  Fence sitters seem to attract less opprobrium but there’s often a sense of exasperation; at least with the rats one knows where one stands.  Sir John Simon (1873–1954; First Viscount Simon, cabinet minister on several occasions 1913-1945, Lord Chancellor 1940-1945) picked up the nickname “slippery Sam” for a reason (actually many) and David Lloyd George (1863–1945; UK prime-minister 1916-1922) said of him: ”He has sat on the fence so long the iron has entered into his soul.”  That probably wasn’t quite what Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) had in mind when, as Foreign Secretary, he dismissed Jeremy Corbyn (b 1949; leader of the UK Labour Party 2015-2020) as a “mutton-headed old mugwump”, although with Mr Johnson, one can never quite be sure.

MAGAwump's high priest, Mitt Romney, mugwumping (David Horsey in the Seattle Times, September 18 2023).  Note the carpetbag.

The Mugwumps have been compared with the “Anyone but Trump” movement which was an attempt by what used to be called “mainstream Republicans” to block Donald Trump’s (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) path to the party’s nomination (and from there the White House).  The movement formed but failed though it’s not far-fetched to imagine if might have gained for traction if it had used a catchy name like MAGAwumps and interestingly, in the “Guilded Age” era of the Mugwumps, their critique of the state their nation sounds little dissimilar to those heard over the last three decades.  Charles Eliot Norton (1827–1908; Harvard professor of art) in 1895 contemplated things and confessed “the greatest apprehension… about a miserable end for this century”, the United States afflicted by the “worst spirit in our democracy, … a barbaric spirit of arrogance an unreasonable self assertion.  I fear that American is beginning a long course of errors and wrong and is likely to become more and more a power for disturbance and barbarism.”  Other agreed, the anyway gloomy historian Henry Adams (1838–1918) at the same time reviewing the closing century concluded it was “rotten and bankrupt”, sunk in “vulgarity commonness, imbecility and moral atrophy”.  It all sounds so modern.

One noted for her mugwumpery is Lindsay Lohan.  In 2008 she made clear her support for Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) yet by 2012 was tweeting she was inclined to vote for Mitt Romney (b 1947; governor of Massachusetts 2003-2007, junior US senator (Republican-Utah) since 2019) on the basis that “employment is really important right now”.  That feeling apparently didn’t last and she reaffirmed her support for Obama, latching onto #ProudOfObama although she did once refer to him as the country's “first colored president”, a black mark against anyone who hasn’t updated their list of politically correct descriptors.  Later, her mugwumpian tendencies continued.  In 2017 she tweeted of Donald Trump: “THIS IS our president. Stop #bullying him & start trusting him” later praising the entire Trump family, calling them “kind people” although during the 2016 election she had endorsed crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013), tweeting “I couldn’t understand you more”.  However, like Mr Johnson, while one can always read what Lindsay Lohan has written, what she means can be elusive.  It’s thought she endorsed crooked Hillary but “I couldn’t understand you more” is certainly cryptic.

Disheveled

Disheveled (pronounced dih-shev-uhld)

(1) Hanging loosely or in disorder; unkempt.

(2) Untidy in appearance; disarranged.

1375–1425: From the Late Middle English discheveled (without dressed hair), replacing the earlier form dishevely which ran in parallel with dischevele (bare-headed), from the Old French deschevelé (bare-headed, with shaven head), past -participle adjective from descheveler (to disarrange the hair), the construct being des- (apart (the prefix indicating negation of a verb)) + -cheveler (derivative of chevel (hair; a hair) (cheveu in Modern French)) from the Latin capillus (a diminutive form from the root of caput (head), thought perhaps cognate with the Persian کوپله‎ (kūple) (hair of the head).  The Modern French forms are déchevelé & échevelé.  As applied to the hair itself in the sense of “hanging loose and throw about in disorder, having a disordered or neglected appearance”, use dated from the mid-fifteenth century while the general sense of “with disordered dress” emerged around the turn of the seventeenth.  The verb dishevel is interesting in that it came centuries later; a back formation from disheveled, used to mean “to loosen and throw about in disorder, cause to have a disordered or neglected appearance” it applied first to the hair in the 1590s and later to clothing and other aspects of appearance.  Synonyms include messy, scraggly, tousled, unkempt, untidy, crumpled, slovenly and sloppy.  The alternative spelling is dishevelled.  Disheveled is a verb & adjective, dishevelment is a noun and dishevelledly is an adverb.

Instances of dishevelment can be caused by (1) prevailing wind conditions, (2) a stylist preparing an actor or model or (3) other causes.  Lindsay Lohan in Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen (2004, left) illustrates the stylist's craft while the other states of disarray (centre & right) would have been induced by "other causes".  Stylists preparing models for static shoots sometimes use remarkably simple tricks and equipment, hair held in a wind-blown look using nothing more than strips of cardboard, bulldog clips and some strategically placed scotch tape.  It takes less time and produces a more natural result than post-production digital editing.     

Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) seems prone to dishevelment in conditions above 2 on the Beaufort scale.  For perfectionists, the comparative form is "more disheveled" and the superlative "most disheveled".

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, January 2012.

Hair apparent: Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) was known to have "weaponized" his hair as part of his image as (1) a toff who didn't care and (2) an English eccentric.  However just as Dolly Parton (b 1946) revealed that "it takes a lot of money to look this cheap", Mr Johnson's studied untidiness took a bit of work to maintain and credit must rightly be accorded to Ms Kelly Jo Dodge MBE.

Corruption is probably a permanent part of politics although it does ebb and flow and exists in different forms in different places.  In the UK, the honours system with its intricate hierarchy and consequent determination on one’s place in the pecking order on the Order of Precedence has real world consequences such as determining whether one sits at dinners with the eldest son of a duke or finds one’s self relegated to a table with the surviving wife of a deceased baronet.  Under some prime-ministers the system was famously corrupt and while things improved in the nineteenth century, under David Lloyd George (1863–1945; UK prime-minister 1916-1922) honours were effectively for sale in a truly scandalous way.  None of his successors were anywhere near as bad although Harold Wilson’s (1916–1995; UK prime minister 1964-1970 & 1974-1976) resignation honours list attracted much comment and did his reputation no good but in recent years it’s been relatively quiet on the honours front.  That was until the resignation list of Boris Johnson was published.  It included some names unknown to all but a handful of political insiders and many others which were controversial for their own reasons but at the bottom of the list was one entry which all agreed was well deserved: Ms Kelly Jo Dodge, for 27 years the parliamentary hairdresser, was created a Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (MBE).  In those decades, she can have faced few challenges more onerous than Boris Johnson’s hair yet never once failed to make it an extraordinary example in the (actually technically difficult) “not one hair in place” style.  The citation on her award read "for parliamentary service" but insiders all knew it really was for "services to dishevelment".

Fasces

Fasces (pronounced fas-eez)

(1) In ancient Rome, one or more bundles of rods (historically wooden sticks) containing an axe with its blade protruding, borne before Roman magistrates as an emblem of official power.

(2) In modern Italy, a bundle of rods containing an axe with the blade projecting, used as the symbol of Fascism (sometimes used imitatively in other places).

1590–1600: From the Latin fasces (bundle of rods containing an axe with the blade projecting), the plural of fascis (bundle or pack of wood), from the Proto-Italic faski- (bundle) possibly from the primitive Indo-European bhasko- (band, bundle), (the source also of the Middle Irish basc (neckband), the Welsh baich (load, burden) and possibly the Old English bæst (inner bark of the linden tree)).  In Ancient Rome, the bundle (the “fascio littorio”) was carried by a functionary before a lictor (a senior Roman magistrate) as a symbol of the judiciary’s power over life and limb (the sticks symbolized the use of corporal punishment (by whipping or thrashing with sticks) while the axe-head represented capital jurisdiction (execution by beheading)).  From this specific symbolism, in Latin the word came to be used figuratively of “high office, supreme power”.  Fasces is a noun (usually used with a singular verb); the noun plural is fascis but fasces is used as both a singular & plural.  For this reason, some in the field of structural linguistics suggest fascis remains Latin while (and thus a foreign word) fasces has been borrowed by English (and is thus assimilated).

The Italian term fascismo (a fascist dictatorship; fascism) was from fascio (bundle of sticks) and ultimately from the Latin fasces.  The name was picked up by the political organizations in Italy known as fasci (originally created along the lines of guilds or syndicates, the structures surviving for some time even as some evolved into “conventional” political parties).  Benito Mussolini’s (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943) recollections of events were not wholly reliable but there are contemporary documents which support his account that he co-founded Fasci d'Azione Rivoluzionaria (Fasces of Revolutionary Action), the organisation publishing the Fascio Rivoluzionario d'Azione Internazionalista (the Revolutionary Internationalist Action League) in October 1914.  As far as is known, the future Duce’s embryonic movement was the first use of the terminology the world would come to know as “fascism”, the organizational structure of the Partito Nazionale Fascista (National Fascist Party) first discussed in 1919 and codified in 1919 when the party was registered.

Surviving art from Ancient Rome confirms the fascio littorio was represented both  with the head of the axe protruding from the centre of the bundled rods of the fasces and through a gape in the sides (left) but in Fascist Italy (1922-1943), the official images issued by the state used almost exclusively the latter arrangement (right).   

The Fascists choose the ancient Roman fascio littorio (a bundle of rods tied around an axe) because (1) the literal suggestion of strength through unity; while a single rod (an individual) is easily broken, a bundle (the collective) is more resilient and resistant to force and (2) the symbolic value which dated from Antiquity of the strong state with the power of life & death over its inhabitants.  The evocation of the memories of the glories of Rome was important to Mussolini who wished to re-fashion Italian national consciousness along the lines of his own self-image: virile, martial and superior.  When he first formed his political movement, Italy had been a unified nation less little more than fifty years and Mussolini, his envious eye long cast at Empire builders like the British and Prussians, despaired that Italians seemed more impressed by the culture of the decadent French for whom “dress-making and cooking have been elevated to the level of art”.  The use by the Nazis of the swastika symbol was a similar attempt at linkage although less convincing; at least the history of the fasces was well documented.  The Nazis claimed the swastika as a symbol of the “Aryan People” which they quite erroneously claimed was a definable racial identity rather than a technical term used by linguistic anthropologists studying the evolution of European languages.  Although there was much overlap in style, racist ideology, fascist movements in different countries tended to localize their symbols and Falange in Spain was one of the few to integrate the fasces although the yoke & arrows of the Falange flags were actually an adoption of a design which had long appeared on the standards of the Spanish royal house.

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945 was at least honest in private conversation when he admitted that of human beings that “scientifically, there is only one race” but the propaganda supporting his (ultimately genocidal) racist philosophy was concerned with effect, not facts.  Hitler too, had no wish to too deeply to dig into an inconvenient past.  It annoyed him that Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945; Reichsführer SS 1929-1945) went about commissioning archaeological excavations of prehistoric sites which could only “…call the whole world’s attention to the fact we have no past?  It isn’t enough that the Romans were erecting great buildings when our forefathers were still living in mud huts; now Himmler is starting to dig up those villages of mud huts and enthusing over every potsherd and stone axe he finds.  All we prove by that is that we were still throwing stone hatchets and crouching around open fires when Greece and Rome had already reached the highest stage of culture”.  Perhaps with the Duce in mind, he added “The present-day Romans must be having a laugh at these revelations”.

The fascist salute has become so associated with Hitler and Nazism that in recent years some jurisdictions have banned its use, emulating the prohibition which has existed in Germany (the sanction pre-dating unification in 1990) for decades.  Because the salute is the same gesture as that used for purposes ranging from waving to one's mother to hailing a taxi, prosecutions are expected to be initiated only in cases of blatant anti-Semitism or other offensive acts.  The "salute" is so widely used that photographs exist of just about every politician in the act and they're often published; usually it's just a cheap journalistic trick but if carefully juxtaposed with something, it can be effective.     

The Duce’s reverence for the Ancient Rome of popular imagination accounts at least in part also for the Fascist’s adoption of the Roman salute although Mussolini did also object to the shaking of hands on the basis it was “effete, un-Italian and un-hygienic” and as the reduced infection rates of just about everything during the “elbow-bumping” era of the COVID-19 social isolation illustrated, on that last point, he had a point.  Other fascist regimes and movements also adopted the salute, most infamously the Nazis although none were as devoted as Hitler who, quite plausibly, claimed to have spent hours a day for weeks using a spring-loaded “chest expander” he’d obtained by mail-order so he’d strengthen his shoulder muscles sufficiently to enable him to stand, sometimes for a hour or more with his right arm extended as parades of soldiers passed before him.

A much-published image of the Duce, raising his arm in the fascist salute next to the bronze statue of Nerva (Marcus Cocceius Nerva) (30–98; Roman emperor 96-98) in the Roman Forum.

However, historians maintain there’s simply no evidence anything like the fascist salute of the twentieth century was a part of the culture of Ancient Rome, either among the ruling class or any other part of the population.  Whether the adoption as a alleged emulation of Roman ways was an act of cynicism of self-delusion on the part of the Duce isn’t known although he may have been impressed by the presence of the gesture in neo-classical painting, something interesting because it wasn’t a motif in use prior to the eighteenth century.  This “manufacturing” of Antiquity wasn’t even then something new; the revival of interest in Greece and Rome during the Renaissance resulted in much of the material which in the last few hundred years has informed and defined in the popular imagination how the period looked and what life was like.  By the twentieth century, it was this art which was reflected in the props and sets used in the newly accessible medium of film and the salute, like the architecture, was part of the verisimilitude.  Mussolini enjoyed films and to be fair, there were in Italy a number of statutes from the epoch in which generals, emperors, senators and other worthies had a arm raised although historians can find no evidence which suggests the works were a representation of a cultural practice anything like a salute.  Indeed, an analysis of many statues revealed that rather than salutes, many of the raised arms were actually holding things and one of the best known was revealed to have been repaired after the spear once in the hand had been damaged.

Adolf Hitler showing the "long arm" & "short arm" variants of the fascist salute (left) and examples of the long arm & short arm penalty being awarded in rugby union (right).

In fascist use, what evolved was the “long-arm” salute used on formal occasions or for photo opportunities and a “short-arm” variation which was a gesture which referenced the formal salute which was little more than a bending of the elbow and involved the hand rising at a 45^o angle only to the level of the shoulder; in that the relationship of the short to the long can be thought symbiotic.  Amusingly and wholly unrelated to fascism, the concept was re-appropriated in the refereeing of rugby union where a “short-arm” penalty (officially a “free-kick”) is a penalty awarded for a minor infringement of the games many rules.  Whereas a “full-arm” penalty offers the team the choice of kicking for goal, kicking for touch or taking a tap to resume play, a “short-arm” penalty allows a kick at goal, a kick for touch or the option of setting a scrum instead of a lineout.  The referee signals a “short-arm” penalty by raising their arm at an angle of 45^o.

Sometimes, a wave is just a wave.

Lachrymose

Lachrymose (pronounced lak-ruh-mohs)

(1) Suggestive of or tending to cause tears; mournful.

(2) Given to shedding tears readily; tearful; weepy.

(3) The natural state of the emo.

1655-1665: From the Latin lacrimōsus, from lacrima (a tear).  The construct was lacrima (tear) + the suffix -osus (-ful”).  It was a dialect-altered borrowing of Greek dakryma (tear) from dakryein (to shed tears, weep, lament with tears), from the Old Latin dacrima, from the primitive Indo-European dakru-; cognate with the English tear.  The meaning "given to tears, tearful" dates from 1727; that of “a mournful character" is from 1822.  Lacrymose is the now rare alternative spelling.  Lachrymose & lachrymal are adjectives, lachrymosely an adverb and lachrymation & lachrymosity are nouns; the only noun plural to register on trends of use charts is lachrymations.  

T-shirts of a lacrymal Lindsay Lohan are available.

The -d- to -l- alteration in Latin is the so-called "Sabine -L-" (as in the Latin olere (smell), from the root of odor, and Ulixes, the Latin form of Greek Odysseus.  The practice in Medieval Latin of writing -ch- for -c- before -r- also altered anchor, pulchritude and sepulchre. The -y- is pedantic, from the former belief, widespread during the Middle Ages, that the word was pure Greek.  Earlier in the same sense was lachrymental, known from the 1620s and in mid-fifteenth century Middle English there was lacrymable in the sense of "tearful".  A lacrymatory or lachrymatory (from the Latin lacrima (tear)) was a small vessel of terracotta or, more frequently, of glass, found in Roman and late Greek tombs, and supposed to have been bottles into which mourners dropped their tears. Lachrymator is a substance that irritates the eyes and causes tears to flow.  Lacryma Christi (known also as the Lachryma Christi of Vesuvius (literally "tears of Christ")), is a Neapolitan type of wine produced on the slopes of Mount Vesuvius in Campania, Italy.  Analysis of the microscopic residue left on the taps of the casks revealed it to be the nearest equivalent to wine drunk in Ancient Rome.

Women have long understood the power of the tear and there’s suspicion some can turn it on and off like a tap if the situation calls; it’s just another technique of rhetoric.  Men generally probably are less capable of summoning lachrymosity on demand but in politics there have been a few tearful types, some occasionally, some habitually.  Winston Churchill (1875-1965; Prime Minister of the UK 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) could be as brutal and blood-thirsty as any but was sentimental about animals, the sufferings of colleagues and even opponents, unashamedly crying when moved by the moment, sometimes even in the House of Commons.  Harold Macmillan (1894–1986; Prime Minister of the UK 1957-1963), his successor but one, was in public of the “stiff upper lip school” but even he, as he noted in his diary, “burst into tears” after signing the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty although he did it alone, behind closed doors but then much of the old Etonian’s secret life was lived thus.  US house speaker John Boehner (b 1949; Speaker of the US House of Representatives 2011-2015) was famously tearful during his time in the chair but given the difficulties he faced, it’s a wonder he didn’t cry more.  He gained the speakership essentially because the Republican’s Tea Party faction gained enough seats to deliver him the numbers but once installed he found their bloody minded intransigence made his job close to impossible and while the story may be apocryphal, it’s said he cried even when playing golf with Barack Obama (b 1961; President of the US 2009-2017).  Folk probably cry during a round with Donald Trump (b 1946; President of the US 2017-2021) but for other reasons.

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

There have been a few Australian prime-ministers known to have made others cry but some did it themselves.  Bob Hawke’s (1929–2019; Prime Minister of Australia 1983-1991) tears flowed in response to a journalist’s question about a drug-related matter and only later did he reveal his daughter suffered a heroin addiction.  The loss of the prime-ministership brought tears from both Malcolm Fraser (1930-2015; Prime Minister of Australia 1975-1983) and Kevin Rudd (b 1957; Prime Minister of Australia 2007-2010 & 2013), Rudd at the time apologizing for having “blubbed on live TV” but the most famously lachrymose at the point of dismissal was Lord Goderich (1782-1859; Prime Minister of the UK 1827-1828) whose brief, unhappy premiership ended when he was sacked by George IV (1762–1830; King of the United Kingdom 1820-1830) who kindly loaned him the royal handkerchief.  The weeping would have come as no surprise to his contemporaries and even the official biography on the Downing Street website gleefully mentions the nickname they gave the tearful Goderich: “the Blubberer”.

Mug

Mug (pronounced muhg)

(1) A drinking cup, usually cylindrical in shape, having a handle, and often of a heavy substance, as earthenware; the quantity it holds.

(2) In slang, the face; an exaggerated facial expression; grimace, as in acting; the mouth (mostly archaic).

(3) A thug, ruffian or other criminal (archaic).

(4) To assault or menace, especially with the intention of robbery.

(5) In slang (especially in law enforcement & correctional services), to photograph (a person), especially in compliance with an official or legal requirement.

(6) A stupid, gullible or incompetent person.

(7) In slang (Britain, Australia, Singapore), to learn or review a subject as much as possible in a short time (largely archaic, replaced by cram).

1560–1570: Mug was originally Scots and northern English, denoting an earthenware pot or jug.  In the sense of the small, usually cylindrical drinking vessel, origin was probably Scandinavian; there was the Swedish mugg (earthen cup, jug) and the Norwegian & Danish mugge (pitcher; open can for warm drinks; drinking cup), the sense “face” apparently transferred from the cups because they tended often to be adorned with grotesque faces and from the same source presumably was the Low German mokke & mukke, the German Low German Muck and the Dutch mok.  The relationship to the Old Norse múgr (mass, heap (of corn)) and the Old English muga (stack) is speculative.  The derisive term “mug-hunter”, attested from 1883) was applied to those entering sporting contests solely to win prizes (because they were often in the form of engraved cups).  Mug is a noun, verb & adjective; the noun plural is mugs.

The use to describe a person's mouth or face dates from 1708, thought an extended sense of mug based on the old drinking mugs shaped like grotesque faces, popular in England from the seventeenth century.  The sense of a "portrait or photograph in police records" spread universally with the growth in photography, the first known reference in the Annual Report of the [Boston Massachusetts] Chief of Police for 1873, when it was noted a notorious criminal who had for years been plying his trade all over the country attributed his arrest to “that ‘mug’ of mine that sticks in your gallery”.  Despite that, mug-shot seems to have been used only since 1950.  The meaning "stupid or incompetent person, dupe, fool, sucker" was part of underworld slang by 1851 and was commonly used to describe a criminal in the late nineteenth century, the phrase “mug's game” to describe some foolish, thankless or unprofitable activity emerged around the same time.  The use since 1846 to describe an assault was influenced probably by it meaning "to beat up" (originally "to strike the face) in pugilism since 1818 and this seems to have led to the modern meaning of “mugging” as an attack upon the person of another with intent to rob; that’s noted from 1964.  Some on-line dictionaries list mug in the African-American vernacular as a euphemism for motherfucker (usually in similes, eg "like a mug" or "as a mug").  In Australia, those for whom their only connection with horse racing is to once a year place a bet on the Melbourne Cup are known as "mug punters" but there has been research which suggests choosing a horse on the basis of the horse's name, the color of the jockey's silks (or some other apparently unrelated criterion) can be successful in up to 20% of cases.

Lindsay Lohan mug-shot merchandise is available in a variety of forms.  There are mouse mats, socks, coasters, throw pillows, T-shirts, coffee mugs, face-masks, A-line dresses, hoodies and throw blankets.

Socks are US$19 a pair or US$17 for two / US$15 for three.  The throw blanket is available in three sizes: Small, 40x56 inches (1010x760mm) @ US$28; Medium, 112x94 inches (152x127 cm) @ US$43; Large, 80x60 inches (203x152cm) @ US$56.  Lightweight hoodies are available in sizes from XS-3XL, all at US$39.  T-Shirts are available in sizes XS-XXL for US$7-17.  Coasters are available in a packs of four for US$15. Mug-shot Mugs are available with either individual (with date of photo on reverse side) or multiple mug-shots from US$10-$22 with a discount for volume purchase.  Facemasks are from US$12 with discounts if purchased in packs of four.  A-Line dresses are available in sizes XXS-4XL for US$56.

Three approaches to the mug-shot aesthetic: Jenna Ellis (left), Rudy Giuliani (centre) & Donald Trump (right).

The recent release of the mug shots of Donald Trump and a number of his co-accused attracted comments about the range of expressions the subjects choose for the occasion.  Legal commentators made the point it's actually not a trivial matter because prosecutors, judges and juries all often are exposed to a defendant's mug-shot and the photograph may have some influence on their thoughts and while judges are trained to avoid this, the effect may still be subliminal.  Also, apart from the charges being faced, in the internet age, mug-shots sometimes go viral and modelling careers have been launched from their publication so for the genetically fortunate, there's some incentive to make the effort to look one's smoldering best.

The consensus appeared to be the best approach is to adopt a neutral expression which expresses no levity and indicates one is taking the matter seriously.  On that basis, Lindsay Lohan was either well-advised or was a natural as one might expect from one accustomed to the camera's lens.  Among Donald Trump's alleged co-conspirators there was a range of approaches and the consensus of the experts approached for comment seemed to be that Rudy Giuliani's (b 1944) was close to perfect as one might expect from a seasoned prosecutor well-acquainted with the RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) legislation he'd so often used against organized crime in New York City.  Many of the others pursued his approach to some degree although there was the odd wry smile.  Some though were outliers such as Jenna Ellis (b 1984) who smiled as if she was auditioning for a spot on Fox News and, of course, some of the accused may be doing exactly that.  However, the stand-out was Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) who didn't so much stare as scowl and it doubtful if his mind was on the judge or jury, his focus wholly on his own image of strength and defiance and the run-up to the 2024 presidential election.  Regaining the White House wouldn't automatically provide Mr Trump with the mechanisms to solve all his legal difficulties but it'd be at least helpful.  In the short term Trump mug-shot merchandize is available, the Trump Save America JFC (joint fundraising committee) disclosing the proceeds from the sales of Trump mug-shot merchandize will be allocated among the committees thus: 90% to Donald J. Trump for President 2024, Inc (2024 primary election) & 10% to Save America while any contribution exceeding the legal amount that may be contributed to either of the committees will be allocated to Donald J. Trump for President 2024, Inc (2024 general election).

Catawampus

Catawampus (pronounced kat-uh-wom-puhs)

(1) Out of alignment, in disarray or disorder; crooked, askew, awry.

(2) Positioned diagonally; cater-cornered; obliquely.

(3) Of fierce demeanor or appearance (archaic).

1830s: A US colloquialism which originally meant “utterly” or “of fierce demeanor or appearance”, apparently influenced by (wild)cat + rumpus or the fierce looking catamount (cougar, puma, lynx).  As a noun, the US use described “a fierce imaginary animal, a bogeyman”.  The rapid meaning shift to “positioned diagonally” (which influenced the later use to mean “askew; awry” is explained by the construct being cata- (diagonally (from cater-cornered)) + -wampus.  The alternative spellings recorded include caddywompus, caliwampus, caliwampous, cankywampus catawamptious and (influenced by cat, catty, kitty) cattywampus, catiwampus, cattywampous; kittywampus, kittywumpus.  The synonyms include askew, awry, crooked, off-kilter, skewampus & skiwampus.  Catawampus is an adjective & adverb (and historically a noun); the noun plural was catawampuses.

Kitty corner.

The term “cater-cornered” dates from the early nineteenth century and has an archaic feel but is still in use variously as kitty-cornered, catty-cornered & caddy-cornered, depending on the region; catty-corner is the form most often used in the UK while kitty-corner prevails in North America and although it’s rare anywhere, caddy-corner seems to know no boundaries.  It has nothing to do with felines and refers to something which lies in a position diagonally across from something else and can be applied to streets, rooms, or any other space or place where the requisite corners exist.  As a descriptor of location, it’s dependent not on proximity but the diagonality of the relationship; a building might be within a few feet of the one beside or on the opposite side of the street but to be catty-cornered, it need not be all that close, just in the right place.

Catawampus: At this intersection, buildings one & four and buildings two & three are catawamptic and thus catty or kitty cornered.

Catty-cornered is said to have been the original version, from the French quatre (four), meaning four.  Quatre was from the Old French quatre, qatre & catre, from the Latin quattuor, from the primitive Indo-European ketwóres and was picked up by a number of European languages including the Catalan quatre, the Italian quattro, the Portuguese quatro and the Spanish cuatro.  In English, quatre became cater, used to showcase the four spots on a die or the four legs of a beast and, as cater-cornered, the four corners created where two streets cross.  From here, the term evolved to describe the buildings positioned diagonally from each-other on those corners, like the opposite corners on a square die.  Then, cater-cornered evolved as catty-corner, kitty-corner and caddy-corner, something not uncommon at a time when regionalisms were much more common.  Wampus was US slang for a lout or yokel but the use may have been a corruption of the archaic Scottish wampish which, when used as an intransitive verb, meant “to wriggle, twist, swerve or flop about (a la a swimming fish).

Catawampic mug shots; the concept able to be applied to just about any diagonal relationship: Here, Lindsay Lohan & Donald Trump are kitty-cornered and Bill Gates & Rudy Giuliani are kitty-cornered.

Some sources suggest the earliest use appears to have been the adverbial catawampusly (1834) which expressed no specific meaning but was an intensifier meaning “utterly, completely; with avidity, fiercely, eagerly”.  The noun as catawampus dates from 1843 when it was used as a name for an imaginary hobgoblin, a fierce imaginary animal or a bogeyman (and even a sense of fright), perhaps from influence of catamount (cougar, puma, lynx).  The adjective was used since the 1840s as an intensive but etymologists caution the use was almost exclusively in British publications lampooning the Americanisms in US English.  By 1864 it has come to mean “askew, awry, wrong” but the regionalism which most spread was that in North Carolina (dating from 1873) which meant “in a diagonal position, on a bias, crooked” and that persists to this day.  This orthodox etymology is generally accepted but because documentary evidence of the origin is lacking, it really is all speculative and etymologists note catawampus may well have been one of the many jocular, pseudo-classical formations popular in the slang of mid-nineteenth century America.

Trends of use of "kitty-corner" & "catty-corner" in the US, one of a series of statistical representations by Joshua Katz, Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University.  Catty-corner is the preferred form south of the Mason-Dixon Line but it fades from use in Florida, reflecting presumably the inward migration pattern from the northern states.