Peptonize

Peptonize (pronounced pep-tuh-nahyz)

(1) In physiology and biochemistry, to hydrolyse (a protein) to peptones by a proteolytic enzyme, especially by pepsin or pancreatic extract (done usually to aid digestion).

(2) In biochemistry, any water-soluble mixture of polypeptides and amino acids formed by the partial hydrolysis of protein.

(3) To render a text or some other form into something more easily understood (ie a figurative use of the notion of “making more digestible”).

1877: The construct was peptone + ize.  The noun peptone was from the German Pepton, from the Ancient Greek πεπτόν (peptón) (cooked, digested), (neuter of peptos), the verbal adjective of peptein (to cook), from πέπτω (péptō) (soften, ripen, boil, cook, bake, digest); the ultimate root was the primitive Indo-European root pekw (to cook; to ripen).  The –ize suffix was from the Middle English -isen, from the Middle French -iser, from the Medieval Latin -izō, from the Ancient Greek -ίζω (-ízō), from the primitive Indo-European verbal suffix -idyé-.  It was cognate with other verbal suffixes including the Gothic -itjan, the Old High German –izzen and the Old English -ettan (verbal suffix).  It was used to form verbs from nouns or adjectives which (1) make what is denoted by the noun or adjective & (2) do what is denoted by the noun or adjective; the alternative form is –ise.  In British English, alternative spelling is peptonise.  Peptonize, peptonized & peptonizing are verbs, peptonic is an adjective and peptonization & peptonizer are nouns; the most common noun plural is peptonizations.

Peptone was adopted as the general name for a substance into which the nitrogenous elements of food are converted by digestion.  The word entered scientific English in 1860, the German Pepton having first appeared in academic papers in 1849.  Being used in chemistry, a number of derived forms were created as required including antipeptone (a product of gastric and pancreatic digestion, differing from hemipeptone in not being decomposed by the continued action of pancreatic juice), hemipeptone (a product of gastric and pancreatic digestion of albuminous matter, which (unlike antipeptone) is convertible into leucin and tyrosin by the continued action of pancreatic juice; it's formed also from hemialbumose and albumin by boiling dilute sulphuric acid), bactopeptone (a peptone used as a bacterial culture medium) and neopeptone (a commercial mixture of peptones & vitamins), amphopeptone (a product of gastric digestion, a mixture of hemipeptone and antipeptone

Peptides attracted interest some years ago when their use in the performance enhancing drugs (PED) supplied to athletes was publicized.  Peptones and peptides are both derived from proteins but have distinct differences in their structures and properties.  Peptides are short chains of amino acids linked together by peptide bonds and are naturally occurring molecules found in the body and in some foods (hence the interest in their use in PEDs), their biological functions including acting as signaling molecules, hormones, and enzymes.  Under laboratory conditions or during industrial process they can also be derived from the hydrolysis of proteins to be used as therapeutic agents, diagnostic tools, and in many research environments.  Examples of peptides include oxytocin, vasopressin, and insulin.  Peptones are mixtures of amino acids and peptides produced by the partial hydrolysis of proteins and are significantly larger and more complex than peptides.  In the body, they’re produced by the digestion of natural proteins using enzymes or acids and in microbiological culture media are widely used as a source of amino acids and peptides which readily can be utilized by microorganisms for growth and metabolism.  In the industrial production of food, peptones are a common flavor enhancer and examples include tryptone, casitone, and yeast extract.

Mother's other little helper: Peptonized port was once recommended for nursing mothers.

The reason the verb peptonize (and peptonise) is at all known beyond biochemistry & industrial laboratories is the form can by analogy be used to describe the process by which some long or unintelligible document is rendered into something more easily digestible.  In this it differs from “abridge” which describes reducing the size of a document and, strictly speaking, the process should be restricted to removing passages of text which are not essential to the meaning or which intrude on the narrative flow.  Abridgment of novels (of which those published by the Reader’s Digest periodical remain the best-known) have become a popular form and often appear in editions including several of an author’s works.  The Reader's Digest began publication of these anthologies (fiction & nonfiction) in 1950 and originally they marketed by advertisements in the periodical and in mail-order catalogues (which were for 150-odd years a form of distribution which can be considered the B2C (business to consumer) websites of the pre-internet age as “Reader's Digest Condensed Books” before in 1997 being re-branded as “Reader's Digest Select Editions”.  There were some who were rather snobby about the Reader's Digest because it avoided abstractions and wrote for a literate but not necessarily highly educated audience and the news in the 1980s that it was Ronald Reagan’s (1911-2004, US president 1981-1989) preferred periodical reinforced the prejudice although it appears also to have boosted circulation.  More sympathetic critics however have praised the editing of the company’s abridged editions which they in more than one case observed made for a better novel.

Among the more infamous suggested abridgments was that recommended by some critics for Joseph Heller’s (1923-1999) dark satire Catch-22 (1961).  Apparently not enjoying the mental gymnastics demanded by the structure, not only did they suggest one or more chapters should be deleted, the consensus appeared it be it would matter little which chapters were sacrificed in the desired abridgment.  Time has been kinder to the book and few would now suggest deleting anything although the author, like many novelists, discarded much from his early drafts and in 2003 release Catch as Catch Can which included two chapters which never made it to the final draft (the previously published Love, Dad & Yossarian Survives), both of which worked well as short stories which were more viciously condemnatory of the US military than even what appeared in 1961.  Six decades on, it’s difficult to make the case removing a chapter from Catch-22 would in anyway peptonize to work although in at least one literary studies course students were set the task of working out which chapter could be deleted with the fewest consequential changes needing to be imposed on the rest. 

In 1970 however, it became possible to assess what would happen if chunks of the book were deleted because that year a film “version” was released and to produce that, radically the novel was abridged.  Whether it was much peptonized by the process was at least questionable, the phrase in the review by Richard Schickel (1933–2017): “One of our novels is missing” capturing the view of many.  In fairness, given the sprawling scale, there was of course no other way it could be condensed into two hours of screen time and something spread over many viewings, a la Richard Wagner’s (1813–1883) Ring Cycle (1876), would have brought its own problems.  Still, by 2019 technology had made the habits of audiences change and a six-part mini-series was released.  With a total running time over four hours it was still not enough to encompass the whole novel but hardly of a length to intimidate the binge generation and as a piece of entertainment it was well received although the advice of the serious-minded remained the same: read the book.

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

Both the film and the book actually went well beyond mere abridgment, verging solidly into what students of the visual forms call “interpretation” or “adaptation” so people can decide whether there was peptonization, simplification or both.  By contrast, a document subjected to a peptonization may be rendered shorter, longer or even transformed into a different format.  The genre known as “popular” (“popular science” and “popular history” the best known) often contain elements from technical or academic works which are re-written into a form more easily comprehended by readers without background in the specialization and is a classic form of peptonization.  Once can also exist as an adjunct document which accompanies the substantive text: an explanatory memorandum and an executive summary are both examples and even the abstract which sits as a header can fulfil the function and all three probably are valued by many because they obviate any need to read something which may be tiresomely and often needlessly long.  That may have been what Lord Salisbury (1893-1972) had in mind when in 1952 he remarked of the idea “…budget proposals could be simplified and summarized a little before being shown to the prime-minister.”: “Of course, I don’t know how far they are peptonized already.”  Even then, such use was rare (certainly outside the House of Lords) and now the meaning functionally be extinct.

Approved by His Majesty's Home Secretary.

In England in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, peptonised milk was part of the treatment regimes used in the force-feeding of patients in lunatic asylums, suffragettes on hunger strike those afflicted by Anorexia Nervosa (then still often called Anorexia Hysterica).  The method didn’t long endure in dealing with the bolshie proto-feminists because the public reaction was such the Home Office usually relented.  It remained often used for the anorexics and it presumably enjoyed some success but in 1895 The Lancet (a weekly medical journal first published in 1823) reported a fatal case: “The patient refused food so ‘was fed an enemata of peptonised milk, beef tea and brandy.  This was carried out for two to three days and in ten days she could take a moderate diet by the mouth, but suffered from diarrhoea.  On the thirteenth day after admission she rapidly became worse, the temperature rose to 102°F, and on the fifteenth day she died.”

Consecrate

Consecrate (pronounced kon-si-kreyt)

(1) To make or declare sacred; set apart or dedicate to the service of a deity (most often in the context of a new church building or land).

(2) To make something an object of honor or veneration; to hallow.

(3) To devote or dedicate to some purpose (usually in the form “a life consecrated to something”) usually with some hint of solemnly.

(4) In religious ritualism, to admit or ordain to a sacred office, especially (in the Roman Catholic Church) to the episcopate.

(5) In Christianity to sanctify bread and wine for the Eucharist to be received as the body and blood of Christ.

1325–1375: From the Middle English consecraten (make or declare sacred by certain ceremonies or rites), from the Latin & cōnsecrātus & cōnsecrāre (to make holy, devote), perfect passive participle of cōnsecrō, the construct being con- (from the Latin prefix con-, from cum (with); used with certain words (1) to add a notion similar to those conveyed by with, together, or joint or (2) to intensify their meaning) +‎ sacrāre (to devote) (from sacrō (to make sacred, consecrate”), from sacer (sacred; holy).  The most frequently used synonyms are sanctify & venerate (behallow is now rare); the antonyms are desecrate & defile.  The original fourteenth century meaning was exclusively ecclesiastical, the secular adoption in the sense of "to devote or dedicate from profound feeling" is from the 1550s.  The verb was the original for, the noun consecration developing within the first decade of use; it was from the Latin consecracioun (the act of separating from a common to a sacred use, ritual dedication to God) and was used especially of the ritual consecration of the bread and wine of the Eucharist (from the Latin consecrationem (nominative consecratio)), a noun of action from past-participle stem of consecrare.  In the Old English, eallhalgung was a loan-translation of the Latin consecratio.  Consecrate is a verb & adjective, consecration, consecratee, consecratedness & consecrater (also as consecrator) are nouns, consecrates, consecrated & consecrating are verbs and consecratory & consecrative are adjectives; the most common noun plural is consecrations.

The common antonym was desecrate (divest of sacred character, treat with sacrilege), dating from the 1670s, the construct being de- + the stem of consecrate.  The de- prefix was from the Latin dē-, from the preposition dē (of, from (the Old English æf- was a similar prefix).  It imparted the sense of (1) reversal, undoing, removing, (2) intensification and (3) from, off.  In the Old French dessacrer meant “to profane” and a similar formation exists in Italian.  However, the Latin desecrare meant “to make holy” (the de- in this case having a completive sense).  In Christianity, to deconsecrate is not a desecration but an act of ecclesiastical administration in which something like a church or chapel ceases to be used for religious purposes and is able to be sold or otherwise used.  It means that in Christianity the notion of “sacred sites” is not of necessity permanent, unlike some faiths.  The alternative unconsecrated seems now obsolete but was once used as a synonym of deconsecrated (and also in clerical slang to refer to laicization (defrocking)).  The un- prefix was from the Middle English un-, from the Old English un-, from the Proto-West Germanic un-, from the Proto-Germanic un-, from the primitive Indo-European n̥-.  It was cognate with the Scots un- & on-, the North Frisian ün-, the Saterland Frisian uun-, the West Frisian ûn- &  on-, the Dutch on-, the Low German un- & on-, the German un-, the Danish u-, the Swedish o-, the Norwegian u- and the Icelandic ó-.  It was (distantly) related to the Latin in- and the Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), source of the English a-, the Modern Greek α- (a-) and the Sanskrit अ- (a-).

The word "consecrate" is of interest to etymologists because of the history.  By the early fifth century, Rome was forced to recall the legions from Britain because the heart of the empire was threatened by barbarian invasion.  This presented an opportunity and not long after the soldiers withdrew, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes landed on the shores of the British Isles, beginning the Germanic invasion which would come to characterize Britain in the early Middle Ages.  As the invaders forced the native Celts to escape to Wales, Ireland and the northern districts of Scotland, the Celtic language and indeed the last residues of Latin almost vanished; in a remarkably short time, the culture and language in most of what is now England was almost exclusively Germanic.  It was the arrival of Christianity in the sixth century which caused Latin to return; with the faith came nuns & priests and the schools & monasteries they established became centres of literacy and stores of texts, almost all in Latin.  For a number of reasons, the Germanic tribes which by then had been resident for five generations, found Christianity and the nature of the Roman Church attractive and readily adopted this new culture.  At this time words like temple, altar, creed, alms, monk, martyr, disciple, novice, candle, prophet and consecrate all came into use and it was the mix of Latin & the Germanic which formed the basis of The Old English, a structure which would last until the Norman (as in "the Northmen") invasion under William the Conqueror (circa 1028-1087; King William I of England 1066-1087) in 1066 at which point Norman-French began to infuse the language.

Bartholomew I (Dimitrios Arhondonis (b 1940); Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople since 1991) consecrating his Patriarchal Exarch in Ukraine to the episcopate, Istanbul, November 2020.

Additionally, just as buildings, land and other objects can be consecrated and deconsecrated, they can subsequently be reconsecrated (to consecrate anew or again), a verb dating from the 1610s.  In the wars of religion in Europe and places east, when buildings often swapped in use between faiths as the tides of war shifted, this lead even to theological debate, some arguing that when a church was re-claimed, there was no need to perform a reconsecration because there had been no valid act of deconsecration while other though “a cleansing reconsecration” was advisable.  The re- prefix was from the Middle English re-, from the circa 1200 Old French re-, from the Latin re- & red- (back; anew; again; against), from the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (again), a metathetic alteration of wert- (to turn).  It displaced the native English ed- & eft-.  A hyphen is not normally included in words formed using this prefix, except when the absence of a hyphen would (1) make the meaning unclear, (2) when the word with which the prefix is combined begins with a capital letter, (3) when the word with which the is combined with begins with another “re”, (4) when the word with which the prefix is combined with begins with “e”, (5) when the word formed is identical in form to another word in which re- does not have any of the senses listed above.  As late as the early twentieth century, the dieresis was sometimes used instead of a hyphen (eg reemerge) but this is now rare except when demanded for historic authenticity or if there’s an attempt deliberately to affect the archaic.  Re- may (and has) been applied to almost any verb and previously irregular constructions appear regularly in informal use; the exception is all forms of “be” and the modal verbs (can, should etc).  Although it seems certain the origin of the Latin re- is the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (which has a parallel in Umbrian re-), beyond that it’s uncertain and while it seems always to have conveyed the general sense of "back" or "backwards", there were instances where the precise was unclear and the prolific productivity in Classical Latin tended make things obscure.  The Latin prefix rĕ- was from the Proto-Italic wre (again) and had a parallel in the Umbrian re- but the etymology was always murky.   In use, there was usually at least the hint of the sense "back" or "backwards" but so widely was in used in Classical Latin and beyond that the exact meaning is sometimes not clear.  Etymologists suggest the origin lies either in (1) a metathesis (the transposition of sounds or letters in a word) of the primitive Indo-European wert- (to turn) or (2) the primitive Indo-European ure- (back), which was related to the Proto-Slavic rakъ (in the sense of “looking backwards”).

Rose Aymer (1806) by Walter Savage Landor (1775–1864)

Ah what avails the sceptred race,
Ah what the form divine!
What every virtue, every grace!
Rose Aylmer, all were thine.
Rose Aylmer, whom these wakeful eyes
May weep, but never see,
A night of memories and of sighs
I consecrate to thee.

Rose Aylmer is Landor’s best remembered poem, one he dedicated to Rose Whitworth Aylmer (1779-1800), daughter Lord Aylmer and his wife Catherine Whitworth.  Rose sailed to India with an aunt in 1798, dying from cholera within two years. The poem is epigrammatic, written in tetrameters and trimeter iambics with rhyming alternate lines.  It’s a lament for the loss of a divine creature for Rose was imbued with every virtue and grace, the last two lines verse alluding to memories of their night of passion he so vividly recalls, consecrating its memory to her.

Consecration and the Church

Consecrated ground: A church graveyard.

Movie makers sometimes dig into religious themes for plot-pieces or props and one which has been used by those working usually in the horror or supernatural genres is the idea “the dead can’t arise from unconsecrated soil”, one implication being the soul of the deceased cannot ascend to heaven and are compelled for eternity to lie cold and lonely (in horror films there are also other consequences).  However, there’s no basis for this in Christian theology and noting in Scripture which could be interpreted thus but the consecration of burial grounds and the burial of the deceased in consecrated earth seems to have a long tradition in Christianity.  The idea though clearly bothered some and there’s a record of a fifteenth century German bishop assuring seafarers that Seebestattung (burial at sea) is proper, the ceremony alone a sufficient act of consecration.  So, in the Christian tradition, consecrated ground for a burial seems “desirable but not essential”, one’s salvation depending on faith in Jesus Christ and God's grace, not where one’s early remains are deposited.

There were though some other restrictions and in many places the Church did not permit those who had died by their own hand to be laid to rest within the consecrated boundaries of a cemetery; those sinners were buried just outside in unconsecrated ground.  The tradition seems mostly to have been maintained by the Jews and Roman Catholics although it was not unknown among the more austere of other denominations, evidence still extant in the United States.  After the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II; 1962-1965), rules in the Catholic Church were relaxed and the burial in consecrated ground of those who had committed suicide became a matter for the parish priest, a referral to the bishop no longer demanded.  The attitude within Judaism doubtlessly varies according to the extent to which each sect conforms to orthodoxy but generally there has probably been some liberalization, even those with tattoos now able to have a plot among the un-inked, the old prohibition based on the prohibition of one of the many abominations listed by Leviticus (Vayikra) in Chapter 19 of the Old Testament (the Torah or Pentateuch): You shall not make cuts in your flesh for a person [who died].  You shall not etch a tattoo on yourselves. I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19:28).

The Vatican, the USAVC and Legal Fictions

The United States Association of Consecrated Virgins (USACV) is a voluntary association of consecrated virgins living in the world, the purpose of which is said to be “to provide support members in the faithful living out of their vocation to consecrated virginity” and “…to assist one another in service to the Church as befits their state” (Canon 604, Code of Canon Law).

In 2018, a document from the Vatican discussing the role of consecrated virginity drew criticism from some in the USACV which alleged there was a passage in the text which seemed ambiguous.  The issue was whether entering the Church's "order of virgins" requires women genuinely are virgins (in the accepted sense of the word).  Issued on 4 July, by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago (ESI; The image of the Church as Bride) contained a passage the critics claimed was "intentionally convoluted and confusing" and appeared to suggest “…physical virginity may no longer be considered an essential prerequisite for consecration to a life of virginity.”  The dissenting statement called this implication "shocking", pointing out there “are some egregious violations of chastity that, even if not strictly violating virginity, would disqualify a woman from receiving the consecration of virgins”, adding “The entire tradition of the Church has firmly upheld that a woman must have received the gift of virginity – that is, both material and formal (physical and spiritual) – in order to receive the consecration of virgins.”

The USAVC did seem to have a point, the ESI instructing that “it should be kept in mind that the call to give witness to the Church's virginal, spousal and fruitful love for Christ is not reducible to the symbol of physical integrity. Thus to have kept her body in perfect continence or to have practiced the virtue of chastity in an exemplary way, while of great importance with regard to the discernment, are not essential prerequisites in the absence of which admittance to consecration is not possible.  The discernment therefore requires good judgment and insight, and it must be carried out individually. Each aspirant and candidate is called to examine her own vocation with regard to her own personal history, in honesty and authenticity before God, and with the help of spiritual accompaniment.”

In the spirit of Vatican II, US-based canon lawyers responded, one (herself a consecrated virgin of the Archdiocese of New York) issuing a statement saying, inter alia: “I don't see this as saying non-virgins can be virgins. I see this as saying in cases where there is a real question, it errs on the side of walking with women in individual cases for further discernment, as opposed to having a hard-dividing line to exclude women from this vocation.  The presumption of the document is that these are virgins who are doing this [consecration].  An important thing to do though is to read the questionable paragraph in context with the rest of the document.  The instruction talks a lot about the value of virginity, Christian virginity, the spirituality of virginity.  The nature of this kind of document as an instruction doesn't change the law that it's intended to explain.  The rite of consecration itself is the law, while the instruction is meant as "an elaboration for certain disputed points; it's just giving you further guidance in places where existing law is vague.”

For those not sure if this helped, she went on, verging close to descending to specifics, saying the ESI was offering a “more generous description” of the prerequisite of virginity in “allowing for people in difficult situations to continue some serious discernment”, adding that what ESI appeared to do was cover those “difficult cases” in which a woman cannot answer whether she is a virgin according to a strict standard; those instances where women might have lost their virginity without willing it or against their will, or out of ignorance. Women might thus have “committed grave sins against chastity but not actually lost their virginity in their minds”.  Such a concept has long been a part of criminal law in common law jurisdictions and the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty and usually clipped to “mens rea” (guilty mind)) and is the basic test for personal liability.

Had the Vatican been prepared to descend to specifics it might have avoided creating the confusion and the president of the USAVC, while noting the potentially ambiguous words, stated where “…a woman has been violated against her will and has not knowingly and willingly given up her virginity, most would hold that she would remain eligible for consecration as a virgin. Such a case would require depth of good judgment and insight carried out in individual discernment with the bishop.”  That seemed uncontroversial but the president continued: “In our society, questions of eligibility for the consecration of virgins are raised by those who have given up their virginity, perhaps only one time, and who have later begun again to live an exemplary chaste life.”  What the ESI should have made explicit, she said, was that “…these women do not have the gift of virginity to offer to Christ.  They may make a private vow of chastity, or enter another form of consecrated life, but the consecration of virgins is not open to them.”  Clearly, in the view of the USAVC, the ESI does not change the prerequisites for consecration into the USAVC.  One who is a victim of a violation has surrendered nothing whereas one who willingly succumbed cannot retrospectively re-assume virginity, however sincere the regret or pure their life since.

Pope Innocent VIII wearing the papal triple tiara.

So, according to the Vatican, the state of virginity can, in certain circumstances, be a “legal fiction”, another notion from the common law which allows certain things to be treated by the law as if they were fact however obvious it may be they are not.  That sounds dubious but legal fictions are an essential element in making the legal system work and are not controversial because they have always been well publicized (in a way which would now be called “transparent”) and if analysed, it’s obvious the alternatives would be worse.  Rome actually had “a bit of previous” in such matters.  For example, during the Renaissance, although the rules about the conduct and character of those eligible to become pope were well documented (and had once been enforced), there was Innocent VIII (1432–1492; pope 1484-1492) who, before drifting into an ecclesiastical career, had enjoyed a dissolute youth (something no less common then as now), fathering at least six or seven illegitimate children, one son and one daughter actually acknowledged.  Despite it all, he was created a cardinal and for reasons peculiar to the time proved acceptable as pope while all others did not, not because their pasts were more tainted still but because of curia politics; plus ça change…  After the vote, all the cardinals added their signatures to the document warranting Innocent VIII was of fine character.  Scandalous as it sounds, there were Renaissance popes who were plenty worse; the Vatican in those decades needed plenty of legal fictions.

Witches are also consecrated (by the coven).  Although now most associated with ecclesiastical ceremony & procedure, secular use in the sense of “to devote or dedicate (to something) from profound feeling" has existed since the mid-sixteenth century.  Just for the record, Lindsay Lohan has not been, and has no desire to be consecrated a witch.

Impeach

Impeach (pronounced im-peech)

(1) To accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.

(2) In law, as “to impeach a witness”; to demonstrate in court that a testimony under oath contradicts another testimony from the same person, usually one taken during deposition.

(3) To bring an accusation against; to call in question; cast an imputation upon:

(4) In British criminal law, to accuse of a crime, especially of treason or some other offence against the state

(5) In the US and some other jurisdictions, to charge (a public official) with an offence committed in office.

(6) To hinder, impede, or prevent (archaic).

(7) To call to account (now rare).

1350–1400: From the Middle English empechen & enpeshen, from the Anglo-French empecher (to hinder) from the Old French empeechier from the Late Latin impedicāre (to fetter, trap, entangle or catch), the construct being im- + pedic(a) (a fetter (derivative of pēs (foot))) + -ā- (a thematic vowel) + -re (the Latin infinitive suffix) and cognate with French empêcher (to prevent); The most usual Latin forms were impedicō & impedicāre.  Impeach is a verb, impeachment & impeachability &  are nouns, impeaching & impeached are verbs and impeachable & impeachmentworthy are adjectives (although not all authorities acknowledge the latter as a standard form); the noun plural is impeachments.

An English import the Americans made their own 

Although most associated with the US where the constitution permits the House of Representatives to impeach government officials (most notably the president) and send them for trial in the Senate, the concept of impeachment is a borrowing from the procedures of the UK Parliament.  Always a rare mechanism, impeachment was first used in England in 1376 with the last UK case in 1806 and while technically extant, is probably obsolete although it’s not unknown for relics of the UK’s long legal past occasionally to be resuscitated.  What is more likely is that matters once dealt with by impeachment would now be brought before a court although most historians and constitutional lawyers seem to believe it remains part of UK constitutional law and abolition would demand legislation.  That was exactly what select committees recommended in 1967 and again ten years later but nothing was done and despite the New Labour government (1997-2010) imposing some quite radical structural changes on the legal system, the mechanism of impeachment remained untouched.  In September 2019, it was reported that opposition politicians in the House of Commons were considering impeachment proceedings against Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) "on charges of gross misconduct in relation to the unlawful prorogation of parliament", as well as his threat to break the law by failing to comply with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (which required the prime-minister in certain circumstances to seek an extension to the Brexit withdrawal date of 31 October 2019).  Mr Johnson survived that one though it proved a temporary reprieve for his premiership.

Although the Sturm und Drang of Donald Trump’s (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) unprecedented two impeachments was entertaining for political junkies, as a spectacle the two trials were muted affairs because the verdicts were both predictable.  Under the US Constitution, the House of Representatives has the “sole Power of Impeachment” (essentially a form of indictment in other proceedings) while the Senate is vested with “the sole Power to try all Impeachments”.  An act of impeachment requires only a majority vote on the floor of a House but conviction in the Senate demand “the concurrence of two thirds of the members present”.  Given the numbers and the state of partisan which these days characterizes the two-party system, nobody in Washington DC believed there was even a vague prospect of Mr Trump being convicted.  Still, the dreary, confected, set-piece speeches on both sides were like slabs of raw meat thrown to the attack dogs watching Fox News and NBC so in that sense it was a kind of substitute for what the Founding Fathers might have hoped would have been the standard of debate in the Congress, 250-odd years on.  In an ominous sign, the Republicans have since made attempts to stage a retaliatory impeachment trial of Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) despite knowing there is no prospect of a conviction.  Political scientists have expressed concern this may be a harbinger of something like the situation is some countries (such as Pakistan & Bangladesh (the old West & East Pakistan)) where it is almost a form of ritualized revenge to pursue one's predecessor through the courts, jailing them if possible.  The hope is that such a culture might be peculiar to the Trump era and something less confrontation might emerge when he leaves the stage although, what he has threatened in a second term does sound like he has vengeance on his mind.

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

The best impeachment in the US was the one which never was, the one Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) avoided by resigning the presidency on 9 August 1974.  That an impeachment became inevitable was Nixon’s own fault.  The evidence of those acts of Nixon which met the standard of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” existed only on the tapes which came to the knowledge of those investigating the White House’s involvement in the Watergate affair only through a chance remark by an aide; prior to that the existence of the president’s recording mechanism had been restricted to a small circle around Nixon.  There was a wealth of other material which hinted or suggested there may have been unlawful acts by Nixon but what was lacking was what came to be called the “smoking gun”, the undeniable proof.  That proof was on the tapes and as soon as knowledge of them became public, Nixon should have destroyed them and the ways and means existed close to home.  Even in oppressively hot Washington summers, Nixon would have the air-conditioning turned high to provide a wintery ambiance and have a log fire burning in the fireplace, close to which he would sit while writing his noted on yellow legal pads; it was a lifelong habit.

Washington Post 7 August 1974.

The tapes should have been tossed into that fire and that would have solved the problem, a smoking tape no smoking gun.  It would of course have created other problems but they were political and could be handled in a way legal difficulties could not.  However, as soon as the tapes were subpoenaed they became evidence and their destruction would have been an obstruction of justice or worse.  Nixon had a narrow window of opportunity and didn’t take it, apparently convinced the doctrine of executive privilege would operate to ensure he wasn’t required to surrender the tapes to the investigators although in some of his subsequent writings he also maintained he genuinely believed they contained nothing which could cause him problems.  Given he genuinely would have had no knowledge of what exactly was on the tapes, that is at least plausible but all the material since published suggests his opinion of the protection executive privilege affords a president was the critical factor.  As it was the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) limited the application of the doctrine and compelled Nixon to hand over the tapes.

New York Times, 9 August 1974.

With the release of the “smoking gun tape” which contained recordings proving Nixon was implicated in the cover-up of the involvement in the Watergate break-in by staff connected to the White House, his support in the Congress collapsed and those Republican representatives who previously had refused to vote for impeachment switched sides and the same day, after sounding out the numbers in the Senate, a delegation of senior Republican senators told the president he would be convicted and by a decisive margin.  What was revealed on the tapes was enough to seal his fate but the verdict of history might have been worse still because To this day, mystery surrounds one tape in particular, a recording of a discussion between Nixon and HR Haldeman (1926–1993; White House chief of staff 1969-1973) on 20 June 1972, three days after the Watergate break-in.  Of obviously great interest, when reviewed, there was found to be a gap of 18½ minutes, the explanations offered of how, why or by whom the erasure was effected ranging from the humorously accidental to the darkly conspiratorial but half a century on, it remains a mystery.  Taking advantage of new data-recovery technology, the US government did in subsequent decades make several attempts to “un-delete” the gap but without success and it may be, given the nature of magnetic tape, that there is literally nothing left to find.  However, the tape is stored in a secure, climate-controlled facility in case technical means emerge and while it’s unlikely the contents would reveal anything not already known or assumed, it would be of great interest to historians.  What would be even more interesting is the identity of who it was that erased the famous 18½ minutes but that will likely never be known; after fifty years, it’s thought that were there to be any death-bed confessions, they should by now have been heard.  Some have their lists of names of those who might have "pressed the erase button" and while mostly sub-sets of Watergate's "usual suspects", one who tends not to appear is Nixon himself, the usual consensus being he was technically too inept to operate a tape machine though it's not impossible he ordered someone to do the deed.  However it happened, the suspects most often mentioned as having had their "finger on the button" (which may have been a foot-pedal) are Nixon's secretary and his chief of staff. 

On 8 August 1974, Nixon resigned his office, effective the next day, saying in conclusion during his nationally televised speech:

To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as President, I must put the interest of America first. America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad. To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home. Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office.

Herblock's (Herbert Block; 1909–2001) Watergate affair-era take on Richard Nixon's then novel position on the presidency and the US Constitution, Washington Post, 13 March 1974.  The cartoon has been noted by some in the light of Donald Trump's comments about the extent of presidential immunity.

Swiftie

Swiftie (pronounced swiftee)

(1) In slang (originally Australian) a trick, ruse, or deception (often in the form “(s)he pulled a swiftie”).

(2) A self-identifying term used by the most devoted (some suggest obsessed) fans of the musician Taylor Swift (b 1989).  The collective is “Swifties” (the initial capital not always used) and as fandom they distinguish themselves from mere casual listeners although the media tends to apply the term to all.  In 2017, Taylor Swift trade-marked the term Swiftie for commercial use and The Oxford English Dictionary elevated it from “slang” to “word” in 2022; it was a finalist in Oxford’s 2023 Word of the Year judging.

(3) As "Singapore Swiftie", an emerging alternative form for term "exclusivity clause", most associated with contract law.

1945 (for the Australian slang) and (at least) 2010 (of Taylor Swift’s fans):  The construct was swift + -ie.  The word swift existed in the Middle English as an adjective & adverb prior to 900 and was an adjective in the Old English.  It was akin to the Old English swīfan (to revolve) and the Old Norse svīfa (to rove) and was most common as an adjective (moving or capable of moving with great speed or velocity; fleet; rapid; coming, happening, or performed quickly or without delay; quick or prompt to act or respond).  The Old English swift was from the Proto-Germanic swiftaz (swift; quick), from the primitive Indo-European sweyp & weyp- (to twist; wind around) and cognate with the Icelandic svipta (to pull quickly) and the Old English swīfan (to revolve, sweep, wend, intervene).  While the derived forms (swiftly, swiftness et al) are well-known and most have survived, one which went extinct was the thirteenth century swiftship “the ability to run fast”.  In the Australian way, the slang “swiftie” (also often as “swifty”) was also re-purposed as a nickname for someone “slow” (both mentally & physically).  The suffix -ie was a variant spelling of -ee, -ey & -y and was used to form diminutive or affectionate forms of nouns or names.  It was used also (sometimes in a derogatory sense to form colloquial nouns signifying the person associated with the suffixed noun or verb (eg bike: bikie, surf: surfie, hood: hoodie etc).  Swiftie is a noun; the noun plural is swifties.

The surname Swift was of English origin and is thought to have been literally a reference to someone who was “swift” (a fast runner).  There are entries in parish records in Suffolk dating from 1222 recording the birth of “Nicholas, ye sonne of Swyfte” and Swift evolved as a name often given to a messenger or courier (the faster a carrier, the faster the transmission of the message, a concept which has survived into the internet age.  In the household books of the court of Edward III (1312–1377; King of England 1327-1377), a Ralph Swyft was recorded as his courier.  The name became common in England and in later centuries spread throughout the English-speaking world.

As SWIFT, it’s the acronym for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication: an international consortium that routes instructions concerning transfer of funds between financial institutions.  Except in the business of money transfers, it was an obscure organization until Mr Putin’s (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999) special military operation against Ukraine when the significance of SWIFT in the commodities markets (where Russia is a big player) became widely understood after the imposition of trade and other economic sanctions.

In the purple: Dr Taylor Swift in academic gown after being conferred an honorary doctorate in fine arts from New York University, May 2022.

The noun swift was applied to name any of numerous long-winged, swallow-like birds of the family Apodidae, related to the hummingbirds and noted for their rapid flight.  It was used also of several types of moth, butterfly & lizard noted for their rapid movements and in engineering was used of the adjustable device on the processing apparatus upon which a hank of yarn is placed in order to wind off skeins or balls or the main cylinder on a machine for carding flax.  In the plural, the word was used of the faster-flowing current of a stream or reaches of a river and “swifts” in that sense remains in literary and poetic use although it’s otherwise obsolete.  Historically, the adjective Swiftian meant “of or pertaining to the Anglo-Irish satirist and essayist Jonathan Swift (1667–1745) or his works” (the best known of which were A Tale of a Tub (1704) & Gulliver's Travels (1726) but of late it has in academia been used also of Taylor Swift.  Universities are businesses which operate to make a profit and even Harvard now runs Taylor Swift courses which focus on her musical and lyrical style.  Jonathan Swift in 1713 became Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, thus his later common sobriquet: “Dean Swift”.  It’s thought unlikely Talyor Swift will follow her namesake into ecclesiastical administration.

The Singapore Swiftie

The lawyers in the Singapore government have a famously acute commercial sense and wouldn’t have needed the back of an envelope, let also a spreadsheet, to work out that if an exclusivity clause could be agreed with Taylor Swift, guaranteeing her six concerts in the city-state would be her only performances in the region, the economic benefits in terms of inward capital flows would be considerable.  For Taylor Swift’s operation too there would have been advantages, not the least of which would have been Singapore’s high level of security and world-class infrastructure but the cost off-sets would also have been considerable including a reduction in travel expenses and the logistical impositions of touring (the set-up and tear-down of the venues is a major operation with a high labor component).  The amount the government paid for the exclusivity clause wasn’t disclosed but presumably both parties were satisfied with the transaction.  Such is Ms Swift’s cultural power that it seems not even Greta Thunberg (b 2003) was prepared to risk incurring the wrath & indignation of the Swifties by commenting on the addition carbon generated by so many of them flying to see their idol.

Exclusivity clauses are common in commercial contracts and are used variously for purposes such as (1) guarding software, products or services from unwanted distribution, (2) granting exclusive rights to certain parties and forbidding the transfer of those permissions to others, (3) obliging certain parties to purchase products or services exclusively from one’s company rather than a competitor.  So, there’s nothing novel about exclusivity clauses and in most jurisdictions, usually they’re enforceable unless they offend against some over-arching restriction such as “unconscionable conduct” or a violation of competition rules.  As a general principle, the guidelines for an exclusivity clause to be held valid are (1) voluntariness (ie entered into without coercion), (2) certainty of terms (ie no ambiguity), (3) a beginning and an end (although the clauses can, with the agreement of both parties, be extended indefinitely, the clause should be limited in time and renewal & termination protocols must be clear), (4) product & service standards and payment terms must be clear (including variation protocols) and (5) the consequences of any breach must be explicit and detail specific remedies such as monetary compensation.

There are reasons other than the music to become a Swiftie:  The statuesque Taylor Swift in a Sachin & Babi patchwork dress at Capital FM’s Jingle Bell Ball, London, December 2014.  The eye was drawn by the intricate detailing and although some missed her trademark red lipstick, the garment's array of variegated reds meant that would have been too much, the same admirable restraint dictating the choice of black shoes.  Solid colors tend to dominate the red carpet so this piece was a rare splash of genuine adventurism.

Reaction to the deal (soon labeled the “Singapore swiftie”, the formation presumably influenced also by the equally alliterative "Singapore Sling") in the region was swift.  Authorities in Hong Kong & Thailand were immediately critical and one Philippine politician told local media Singapore was operating by “the law of the jungle” and not the law of a “neighborhood of countries bound by supposed principles of solidarity and consensus”, a not so subtle reminder that in the neighborhood diplomatic relations have in recent decades been usually smooth, the members of Asean (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), the regional economic and security bloc, famously operating on the basis of “consensus”, a reasonably achievement in an organization of which Myanmar (sometimes still referred to as Burma) is a member.

A Singapore Swiftie: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

However, even while the waves from west & north were disturbing Asean’s usually calm waters, Lee Hsien Loong (b 1952; Prime Minister of Singapore since 2004) was addressing the matter of the Singapore Swiftie in a press conference conducted as part of an Asean summit held, unusually, in Melbourne: “A deal was reached.  And so it has turned out to be a very successful arrangement.  I don't see that as being unfriendly” Mr Lee said, confirming an “incentive” had been paid to secure the deal.  That matter had already attracted interest but the Singapore Tourism Board declined to comment on the amount paid, saying the terms were “commercial in confidence” and Taylor Swift's concert promoter was just as reticent.  The math however will have been done by many and not only does the Singapore economy gain from all the visitors arriving to rent hotel rooms, buy food and catch trains but the city state benefits also from its citizens not leaving the territory, taking their money to neighboring countries to spend there.  Thus, Singapore’s gain is the loss of others and while the numbers in the estimates of the benefit gained bounce around a bit, all were in the hundreds of millions of US dollars.

Pulling a swiftie on X (when it was known as Twitter)?

Lindsay Lohan’s tweet to Taylor Swift on 14 December 2020 contained no message but it nevertheless garnered some 8K retweets, 53K Likes and over 1000 responses.  Neither sender nor recipient have ever commented but Twitter's deconstructionists pondered this postmodern message and concluded: Lindsay Lohan is a Swiftie.

Plenty of touring acts will have noted all of this and while few have anything like the drawing power of Taylor Swift, doubtless most will have suggested promoters add the Singapore Swiftie to their negotiating toolbox, the hope being that in playing countries & cities off against each other, a bidding war will ensue; certainly, for decades, the approach has worked well for operators like the IOC (International Olympic Committee), FIFA (Fédération internationale de football association) and Formula One.  Hopefully there’s also a linguistic legacy and in the jargon of law and commerce, the dull & boring “exclusivity clause” will be replaced by the exciting and attractively alliterative “Singapore Swiftie”.