Etiquette

Etiquette (pronounced et-i-kit or et-i-ket)

(1) A construct both culturally specific and culturally variable which is a codification of the requirements as to social behavior; proprieties of conduct as established in any class or community or for any occasion (and thus often exists as sub-sets which can in detail be contradictory).

(2) A prescribed or accepted code of usage in matters of procedure, ceremonies etc in any formal environment (courts, investitures etc).

(3) An accepted (and sometimes in whole or in part codified) set of rules of ethical behavior relating to professional practice or the conduct between members of the profession.

(4) The expected behavior in certain situations (surfing; golf etc) and enforced according to prevailing standards.

(5) A label used to indicate a letter is to be sent by airmail (the French par avion (by airplane).

1730–1740: From the French étiquette (property, a little piece of paper, or a mark or title, affixed to a bag or bundle, expressing its contents, a label, ticket; a memorandum), from the Middle French estiquette (ticket, label, memorandum), from the Old French verbs estechier, estichier, estequier estiquier & estiquer (to attach, stick), from the Frankish stekan, stikkan & stikjan (to stick, pierce, sting), from the Proto-Germanic stikaną, stikōną & staikijaną (to be sharp, pierce, prick), from the primitive Indo-European steyg or teyg- (to be sharp, to stab).  It was akin to the Old High German stehhan (to stick, attach, nail) (which endures in Modern German as stechen (to stick)) and the Old English stician (to pierce, stab, be fastened).  Etiquette is a noun and etiquettal is an adjective; the noun plural is etiquettes.

The most attractive story of the origin of etiquette in its modern form is that the groundskeepers tending the gardens & parks at the Palace of Versailles became annoyed at the casual way the courtiers attached to the household of Louis XIV (1638–1715; le Roi Soleil (the Sun King), King of France 1643-1715) would walk across their lovingly manicured lawns.  In response the gardeners would erect stakes onto which they would pin étiquettes (literally “little cards”) warning transgressors to “Keep off the Grass”.  Unfortunately, although there’s no doubt the signs did exist at Versailles and the legend is even Louis XIV dutifully complied, they were not the origin of “etiquette” in its modern sense.

The reverence for lawns however outlasted the Ancien Régime, Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna, the revolutions of the nineteenth century, wars, occupations and five republics and Nicolas Sarközy (b 1955; President of France 2007-2012).  On visits to Paris, tourists who have since high school neglected their French sometimes see the signs Pelouse au repos in parks which they translate as “place to rest”, only to be harangued by an angry attendant, pointing and ordering them back to the pavement.  The actual translation is “the lawn is resting” and any other country would include “Keep off the Grass” in English (the world’s lingua franca) but that’s not the French way.  In the hierarchy of Gaelic officialdom, the part inspectors are said to be worse than the parking police but not as bad as the stewards patrolling the spectator areas at the annual Le Mans 24 hour endurance race, their officiousness something to behold as gleefully they enjoy being cloaked in their brief authority.

The exact history remains murky but etymologists seem most convinced the word in its modern sense can be traced to the seventeenth century Spanish royal court which, impressed by the ritualized forms of the Hapsburg monarchy in Vienna, had officials record a list of the rules and procedures covering dress, orders of procedure in ceremonies, forms of dress and so on.  There were printed on cards distributed to functionaries and others so they would know what to do and when.  From this, the Spanish court became one of Europe’s better behaved royal operations and from the French etiquette (label, ticket etc), the Spanish form was etiqueta.  Simultaneously, many army barracks had such labels nailed to the walls (France étiquettes, In Spain etiquetas, in Italy etichette) containing the relevant instructions for the soldiers.  However, it’s thought the use in the royal court was the most influential and from this evolved the concept of etiquette which has developed into a list of the rules or formalities signifying the socially accepted rules of behavior and decorum.  Not all agree with the Spaniards getting the credit and some trace it back to well before Louis XIV but all seem to agree it was one royal court or another.

There has for centuries been an industry in publishing “etiquette guides” (the first seem to have appeared in sixteenth century Italy) and that many have been issued with titles such as “Modern Etiquette” or “American Etiquette” which does suggest what is regarded as acceptable is subject to change although the very notion of etiquette is highly nuanced; what is acceptable in one context can be social death in another.  Nor is necessary even to purchase a book because the internet is awash with guides on the matter but as an indication that both formats may just be scratching the surface, there are finishing schools in Switzerland which offer six-week courses for US$34,000.  Presumably essential for daughters being prepared for husband hunting, the six-week duration does hint there’s more to it than mastering the use of the flatware arrayed at dinner and knowing whether it’s a properly a napkin or serviette.  Even more essential that learning those details, what such courses can impart is the essential skill to be able to identify those who are and are not “one of us”; group identity as important to the rich as it is to supporters of football clubs.

Surely only a matter of time.

The model of eitquette has been used to coin a few amusing forms including netiquette (the construct being (inter)net + et(iquette)) which was documented as early as 1993 (the dawn of the world wide web) and referred to the “appropriate style and manners to be used when communicating on the internet).  Some of this early (often doomed) attempt to imposed civility on digital communication survives including the warning that the use of capital letters conveys SHOUTING.  Chatiquette is a similar set of rules, specific to chatrooms.  Jetiquette lists the standards of acceptable behavior expected of passengers travelling on a commercial airline) (arm-rest ownership, the politics of the reclining seat, the matter of socks and bare feet and all that).  Hatiquette defines the etiquette attached to the wearing of hats and it’s a complex business because what’s obligatory in one place is a sin against fashion in another.  It goes back a long way: After the passing of the UK’s Reform Act (1832) which extended the franchise, permitting the entry to parliament by lower reaches of the middle class, the Duke of Wellington (1769-1852) cast his eye on the benches of the House of Commons and pronounced he’d “never seen such bad hats”.  Reddiquette describes the proper conduct to be followed on the website Reddit and it takes not long to work out not all redditors comply, any more than they take seriously the moderators’ rules on their sub-reddits.  In the narrow technical sense Wikiquette is the etiquette dictating how one should behave when working on a wiki (a type of database; there are many Wikis) but it’s used almost exclusively of Wikipedia, the open access online encyclopaedia.  Debtiquette sets out the rules of debt and deals both with owing something and being owed; it seems more to be about non-financial debts, the rules for which are fairly well defined in law. 

Protocol

Protocol (pronounced proh-tuh-kawl, proh-tuh-kol or proh-tuh-kohl)

(1) In government (applied especially to the diplomatic service), the customs and regulations dealing with diplomatic formality, precedence, and etiquette.

(2) By extension, an accepted code of conduct; acceptable behavior in a given situation or group.

(3) In diplomacy or other intra- & inter-governmental relations, an original draft, minute, or record from which a document, especially a treaty, is prepared.

(4) An agreement between states (or other national or international entities) or a supplementary international agreement (some notably being secret).

(5) An annex to a treaty containing technical data, definitions etc.

(6) In clinical medicine, the plan of a patient's treatment regimen (which can be a generalized document).

(7) In academic research (especially in medical trials including living subjects), the details, standards & safeguards etc.

(8) In computing, a set of rules governing the format in which data must exist to communicate between devices.

(9) In philosophy, a statement reporting an observation or experience in the most fundamental terms (ie without any commentary or other interpretative layers (and sometimes taken as the basis of empirical verification, as of scientific laws).  It’s known also as the protocol statement, protocol sentence & protocol proposition

(10) To draft, submit for consideration or issue a protocol; to make a protocol of; to make or write protocols; to issue protocols (actual use now probably extinct although such forms do still exist in some diplomatic manuals).

(11) In the Roman Catholic Church, (1) the introduction of a liturgical preface, immediately following the Sursum corda (lift up your hearts) dialogue & (2) an official list (technical details or consequential documents) which, since the late nineteenth century have sometimes been appended (at the beginning or end) to documents such as charters and papal bulls.

1535–1545: From the earlier protocoll, from the Middle French protocolle & protocole (document, record), from the Medieval Latin prōtocollum, from the Byzantine Greek πρωτόκολλον (prōtókollon) (the first kóllēma (a leaf or tag) glued to a rolled papyrus manuscript, listing the contents), the construct being πρῶτος (prôtos) (first) + κόλλα (kólla) (glue).  A kóllēma was “something bound or glued together”.  Proto- was a learned borrowing from the Ancient Greek πρωτο- (prōto-) from πρῶτος (prôtos) (first), superlative of πρό (pró) (before).  In the mid-fifteenth century the spelling prothogol had been used (meaning literally “prologue”) and by the 1540s prothogall (draft of a document, minutes of a transaction or negotiation, original of any writing”, again from the thirteenth century French prothocole (which in Modern French persists as protocole) was in use.  Protocol is a noun & verb, protocolar is a noun, protocoled & protocolled are verbs and protocolary & protocolic are adjectives; the noun plural is protocols.

The plural form was kollēmata (sheets of papyrus glued together to form a roll) and on the basis of those extant or referenced elsewhere, each was typically between 16-24 sheets which, when un-rolled, extended to between 18-30 feet (5.5-9 m).  It’s not clear when use began but the earliest documented evidence of use is from the early medieval period.  A tube-like prōtókollon (usually of a rougher form of parchment but some seem to have been made from tree bark) protected a rolled-up scroll and the original was similar to what in modern publishing came to be called the colophon (containing variously copyright details, a mark of authentication, the date of publication, the font and typesetting data and the name of the author) although the usual function was to list a summary of the contents, any errata or the purpose of the work.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (with preface and explanatory notes), The Patriotic Publishing Co., Chicago, 1934.  Ludwig Rosenberger Library of Judaica.

All such things were of course those which comprised the framework of government & diplomacy and, by the mid-nineteenth century, French bureaucrats had formalized the protocol as (1) “an official record of a transaction & a diplomatic document” (especially an agreement between states to achieve certain things by peaceful means) and (2) “official norms of behavior or etiquette to be maintained between states and their ministers”.  The later sense was understood in English by at least 1896 and by 1952 it was in common use to describe “civilized behavior” in society generally, becoming a popular word in the etiquette guides which proliferated (along with the middle class) in the post-war years.  Long in thrall to all things French, the use relating to matters etiquette was late in the nineteenth century picked up by Russian diplomats and from the Tsar’s court it entered various state apparatuses (of which the Tsar had many), the foreign ministry creating protokóls for everything from the thickness of the carpet allowed in offices according to the rank of the occupant to the form of words to be used when declaring war.  The police used protokól as a heading of “official police records of a case, interview or incident” although the use in Russia will forever be associated with the infamous forgery Протоколы сионских мудрецов (Protokoly sionskikh mudretsov) (The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion (1903)), an anti-Semitic tract published in English under the title The Jewish Peril (1920).  Although debunked as a forgery as early as 1921, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion enjoyed a remarkable life in the twentieth century, accepted as authentic even by some otherwise respectable professors and it remains widely available.  It purports to be the minutes of a secret meeting held by Jewish leaders (known as the Elders of Zion), who met allegedly to conspire to control the world, manipulate governments, and establish a global Jewish domination.  There have been a number of theories about the origin of the protocols and its spread has been compared to the conspiracy theories published by QAnon on 4Chan and other places in that such things rely less on the authenticity of their content than the accessibility to an audience which, even in embryonic form, already maintains those views.

In computing, the terms "protocol" and "parameter" are (casually) sometimes used interchangeably and while it is true protocols contain many parameters, correctly, the two words refer to different concepts.  A protocol is a set of rules and conventions, the best known of which are those which govern the communication between devices in a network; it defines the format, timing, sequencing, and error control of the data packets which are the messages exchanged between these entities.  The significance of protocols is that they ensure diverse devices and systems can interact effectively, removing the need for the hardware to be substantially similar and in that they can be compared with operating systems which sit atop sometimes very different hardware.  The best known network protocols include HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol), TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) and SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) although two of the oldest (RS-232, RS-422 & RS-485) serial communications protocols are still in use in the odd niche. By contrast, a parameter is a variable, a value passed to a function, procedure, or command in order to customize its behavior or provide input for its execution.  Parameters are helpful because they allow software to be flexible and adaptable by accepting different inputs without demanding changes to the code.  Parameters may be compared to the range of adjustments offered by the driver’s seat in a car.  Were no adjustments available, manufacturers would have to produce different models for people of different heights.

Lindsay Lohan released NFTs based on Trons’s TRC-721 protocol (functionally similar to Ethereum’s ERC-721).

The recent collapse in the non fungible token (NFT) market surprised few of the analysts who had predicted a bubble market based on selling something “non-fungible” which merely referenced something inherently fungible and infinitely duplicable wouldn’t long last and would be among the first victims of any instability in the wider economy.  Analysts always enjoy being able to say “I told you so”.  Still, the NFTs themselves (in the sense of the object on a blockchain) have a robustness which offers much promise as a kind of macro-title document and, if regulators can agree, the concept may have a future in fields like land title or ownership certificates for traded, high-value collectables.  The infrastructure is certainly beyond the embryonic because a number of blockchains have added support for NFTs since Ethereum created its ERC-721 standard.  ERC-721 is an “inheritable” protocol which means developers can create contracts by copying from a reference implementation, a contract able to be tracked to the owner of a unique identifier and it includes a mechanism by which ownership can be transferred.  Ethereum also developed the ERC-1155 protocol which (a little misleadingly), they described as offering a “semi-fungibility” whereby a token represents a class of interchangeable assets.  Ethereum did however demonstrate the inherent flexibility of the NFT approach even if they did little to improve the transactional speed although, if the protocols have a future in low-volume, high-value items such as land or collectable physical objects, that really matters little.  There were though other approaches and the Tron Network released their NFT model using Proof-of-Stake (PoS) which differs from Ethereum’s Proof-of-Work (PoW) based blockchain.  PoS & Tron’s TRC-721 protocol, cheaper and faster to use, attracted Lindsay Lohan when she released some “collectables” as NFTs.

Solecism

Solecism (pronounced sol-uh-siz-uhm or soh-luh-siz-uhm)

(1) In language, a non-standard or ungrammatical usage.

(2) A breach of good manners or etiquette.

(3) Any error, impropriety, absurdity or inconsistency.

1570-1580: From the Latin soloecismus, from the Greek soloikismos, from soloikos (speaking incorrectly), the construct being Sólo(i) + -ic (from the Middle English -ik, from the Old French -ique, from the Latin -icus, from the primitive Indo-European -kos, formed with the i-stem suffix -i- and the adjectival suffix –kos.  The Ancient Greek form was -ικός (-ikós), the Sanskrit श (śa), क (ka) and the Old Church Slavonic -ъкъ (-ŭkŭ); doublet of –y; on noun stems, it carried the meaning “characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to” and on adjectival stems, it acted emphatically) + -ism (ultimately from either the Ancient Greek -ισμός (-ismós), a suffix that forms abstract nouns of action, state, condition, doctrine; from stem of verbs in -ίζειν (-ízein) (from which English gained -ize), or from the related suffix Ancient Greek -ισμα (-isma), which more specifically expressed a finished act or thing done).  Solecism & solecist are nouns, solecistic & solecistical are adjectives and solecistically is an adverb; the noun plural is solecisms.

A solecism in sandals & socks, the look proscribed almost universally.

The meaning “gross grammatical error” or "any absurdity or incongruity" dates from the 1570s, a borrowing directly from the sixteenth century Middle French solécisme, from the Latin soloecismus (mistake in speaking or writing), which gained the word from the Greek soloikismos (to speak (Greek) incorrectly), from soloikos (an ungrammatical utterance), the literal translation of which was "speaking like the people of Sóloi, an Athenian colony in Cilicia (Mezitli in the modern-day Republic of Türkiye); there, the dialect spoken was a corrupt form of Attic Greek which Athenians condemned as barbarous.  The English, perhaps predictably, later extended the meaning to matters of etiquette, thus the sense of “awkward or rude in manners” and, by the late twentieth century, sins against fashion and good taste.

A solecism in blusher: Lindsay Lohan in court, Los Angeles October 2011.

The zombie-like look presumably wasn't intentional and it attracted some comment from professional make-up techs.  Speculation about how this happened ranged from the blusher being applied (1) in less than ideal lighting conditions, (2) in a car with only the rear-vision mirror available and (3) with bare fingers because a brush couldn't be found.  The consensus was the goal was a contoured blush look which, if applied with some delicacy, can accentuate the cheekbones but this was heavy handed and ended up as a smear across the cheeks.

Nicolás Maduro (b 1962; President of Venezuela 2013-2026, left) meeting with Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei (1939-2026; Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran 1989-2026, right), the pair watched over by the official portrait of the Islamic Republic’s ever-unsmiling founder, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900-1989; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979-1989).  Ayatollah Khamenei seemed in 1989 an improbable choice as Supreme Leader because others were better credentialed but though cautious and uncharismatic, he was for almost four decades a great survivor in a troubled region but finally was killed by the sheer weight of US firepower and the effectiveness of its intelligence gathering (at least some of which is assumed to have come from within the Iranian regime).  What the death of the Supreme Leader reminded everyone was that bunkers have their limits so, just as recent events will have strengthened the ayatollahs' view that possession of an IND ( independent nuclear deterrent) is both wise and Godly, they'll also want deeper holes dug and more concrete poured.

The socks & sandals combo is not not solecistical if on the Supreme Leader's feet.  It’s true that for men the pairing of sandals with socks is probably more than a mere solecism and constitutes an actual crime against fashion but when one is (1) a grand ayatollah and (2) Supreme Leader, one sets the rules.  As a general principle, the Supreme Leader cannot make a fashion mistake because what the Supreme Leader does is the fashion.  Even if challenged (on a basis presumably not theological), the Supreme Leader could have cited the precedent of Grand Ayatollah Khomeini having been photographed with his feet in socks and sandals.  It's quite agreeable to live in a theocracy if one is the ruling theocrat.

The Supreme Leader meets three wise men of the Hamas.

In the Middle East, everything is of course political and that includes clothing.  Best known (and most contentious) is what is demanded of women (which can range from a minimalist (verging on symbolic) hijab to an enveloping burka) but also of interest are the feet, shoes being objects of great significance because what is done with them can be vested with political and social messaging.  This was in 2024 illustrated when the Supreme Leader met with Ismail Haniyeh (1962-2024; third chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau 2017-2024) and two members of his entourage; on a number of sites what attracted most interest was not the substantive matters discussed but the shoeless feet of the Hamas apparatchiks.  In the ensuing debate what was pondered was whether this was merely Iranian protocols being followed or whether any disrespect had been created or intended.  One theory was the Supreme Leader was wearing “indoor” sandals with his socks while the Hamas operatives, travelling only with “outdoor” shoes, removed them in deference to local practice.  The alternative conjecture was the threesome were compelled by their hosts to appear in socks in an attempt to “undermine their dignity” and diminish their status as leaders of the Palestinian resistance, the rationale for that argument being the Islamic Republic of Iran is regime of the Shia tradition (specifically the Twelver Shi'ism branch) of Islam while the Hamas substantially was Sunni.  The consensus was it was less a conspiracy than an unexceptional example of the custom of removing shoes when entering indoor spaces, customary in homes and places of prayer and widespread also in many Islamic countries.  After the event concluded, IRNA (Islamic Republic News Agency) reported that during the meeting the Supreme Leader had observed Iran: “…will not hesitate to support the Palestinian cause and the oppressed and resistant people of Gaza, praising the exemplary resilience of the Palestinian resistance forces and the people of Gaza.  The exemplary patience and steadfastness of the people of Gaza and the resistance forces during these six months, resulting from their strong faith, have prevented the Zionist enemy from achieving any of its strategic objectives in the Gaza war.”  Clearly, the “shoe incident” had not weakened Persian-Palestinian solidarity.

A young lady in Birkenstocks and socks.

Although it has long been an orthodoxy that for men not ayatollahs, wearing sandals over sock is a solecism, that rule does not apply to attractive young women (upon whom a different sub-set of rules is imposed) and for them, the fashionistas have declared the combo is now normcore (used in the attributive sense of describing a look which should be thought unremarkable).  There are still those who for any purpose reject the embrace of socks & sandals but, done well, matched with an over-sized blazer, Vogue calls the look “deconstructed business casual”.

Sconce

Sconce (pronounced skons)

(1)  A bracket for candles or other lights, placed on a wall, mirror, picture frame etc (a development of the earlier use relating to candles).

(2) The hole or socket of a candlestick (for holding the candle).

(3) A fortification; a small detached fort or defense work, as to defend a pass, bridge etc; a protective screen or shelter (obsolete).

(4) In the University of Oxford, informally to fine an undergraduate for a breach of rules or etiquette (the penalty drinking a specified quantity of ale); a fine so imposed; a mug or tankard used in sconcing (typically a beer bong).

(5) The head or skull; sense or wit (now rare, probably obsolete); a piece of armor for the head; headpiece; helmet (now for historic reference only).

(6) A poll tax; a mulct or fine.

1350–1400: From the Late Middle English sconce, sconce & sconse (defensive fortification or fortification work), from the Old French esconce (hiding place; lantern) from the Medieval Latin scōnsa, an aphetic variant of abscōnsa (noun use of feminine past participle of abscondere (to conceal; dark lantern) (also the source of the modern abscond)).  The Latin absconsus (hidden) was the perfect passive participle of abscond (hide).  Related was the Dutch schans (defensive fortification or fortification work) and the Middle High German Schanze (bundle of brushwood).  The Dutch word also had an interesting evolution, used to mean (1) a type of small fort or other fortification, especially as built to defend a pass or ford, (2) a hut for protection and shelter; a stall, (3) a fragment of a floe of ice ( (4) as fixed seat or shelf.  Sconce is a noun & verb and sconced & sconcing are verbs;  the noun plural is sconces.  In English, while other meanings emerged, in military use sconce continued to be used to refer to fortifications or defensive works and during the English Civil War (1642-1651) a sconce was a small fortification or earthwork that was built quickly to defend a position. 

An Oxford tradition

Beer bong half-yard.

A tradition of the Oxford colleges, a sconcing was a demand a person drink a tankard of ale as a penalty for some breach of etiquette.  The word in this context is attested from 1617 and originally described a monetary fine imposed for a more serious breach of discipline, the use as a kind of high table drinking game becoming common only in the early nineteenth century.  Offences which might have attracted a sconce included talking at dinner about women, religion, politics, one's work, the portraits hung in the college hall or making some error in the reciting of the Latin Grace.  Originally reserved for the senior scholar or fellow at each table, the right to demand a sconce (usually in Classical Latin (and mixing in later variants was not tolerated) or Ancient Greek) was later extended to all.  The quantity of a sconce varied from two imperial pints (1.1 litres) and three and three-quarters (2.1 litres) although the larger measures are believed to have been "rare".  The Oxford tradition was essentially the same as "fining" at Cambridge although in the narrow technical sense, a sconce was the act of issuing a penalty rather than the penalty itself, a distinction often lost on undergraduates, especially after a couple of sconces.

Lindsay Lohan with bandaged sconce: Falling for Christmas (2022).

In the Netflix film Falling for Christmas, the plot line includes Lindsay Lohan suffering trauma-induced amnesia after a blow to the sconce.  In English slang (UK and most of the Commonwealth although it seems not to have reached the critical mass needed for survival in the US & Canada) the use of sconce (which may have peaked in the early nineteenth century although any measure of oral use is difficult to estimate) to mean "the head, the skull" remained common until just after World War I (1914-1918).  Etymologists suspect the decline may have been the result of UK & Commonwealth troops mixing with those from other nations and developing a preference for their slang, a trend by which US English (formal & informal) has influenced the language for well over a century.

Courtesy

Courtesy (pronounced kur-tuh-see or kurt-see (now rare))

(1) Excellence of manners or social conduct; polite behaviour.

(2) A respectful or considerate act or expression.

(3) Indulgence, consent, or acquiescence; something granted or extended in the absence of any specific right.

(4) Favor, consent, help, or generosity.

(5) An alternative spelling of curtsy (archaic and probably obsolete).

(6) Something done or performed as a matter of politeness or protocol.

(7) Something offered or provided free by the management.

(8) In law, the life interest that the surviving husband has in the real or heritable estate of his wife.

1175–1225: From the Middle English curteisie (courtly ideals; chivalry, chivalrous conduct; elegance of manners, politeness (also “a courteous act, act of civility or respect”)), from the Old French curteisie & cortoisie (courtliness, noble sentiments; courteousness; generosity) (which in modern French endures as courtoisie), from curteis (courteous).  The construct was courteo(u)s +‎ -y (the abstract noun suffix).  From the late thirteenth century the word was used and understood as “good will, kindness” but it gained the sense of “a reward, a gift” an echo of that enduring in the modern term “by courtesy of” (something received without payment or other consideration).  By the mid-fourteenth century courtesy was part of etiquette in the sense of “refinement, gentlemanly conduct” and related to that is the development of curteisie (source of the English “curtsy”.  The noun discourtesy (incivility, bad manners, rudeness) was in use by at least the 1550s and may have been influenced by the fifteenth century Old French discourtoisie, from discourtois although other forces in English construction were anyway by then prevalent.  The idea of a discourtesy being an “an act of disrespect” emerged late in the sixteenth century.  There is in polite society the notion of “common courtesy” which means the obligation to afford a certain respect to all, regardless of their status and courtesy is thought a good quality and a marker of civilization.  Clearly however, one can have “too much of a good thing” because some style and etiquette guides note the rare noun “overcourtesy” (excessive courtesy) which can suggest obsequiousness, sycophancy, or needless, time-consuming formalism.  Courtesy is a noun, verb & adjective, courtesying is a noun & verb, courtesied is a verb; the noun plural is courtesies.

The noun curtsy seems to have appeared in the 1540s with the sense of “an expression of respect (ie a variant of courtesy) while the specific meaning “a bending the knee and lowering the body as a gesture of respect” dates from the 1570s and the gesture was not then exclusive to women, the convention “men bow; women curtsy” not (more or less) standardized in England until the 1620s.  Predictably, it was the Victorians who coined “courtesy call” to refer to “a visit made for the sake of politeness”, in use by at least 1898.  The term was adopted as part of the language of diplomacy, describing the (usually symbolic) formal visits an ambassador or other emissary of a state makes to a head of state or other local official “out of courtesy” (ie with no substantive purpose).  That notion vaguely was related to the admiralty practice of the “courtesy flag”; a visiting vessel by convention and as a mark of respect flying the flag of the host nation (as well as that of her own) when entering port.  Perhaps opportunistically, in commerce, “courtesy card” is used as the alternative name for the “customer loyalty card” while the “courtesy clerk” was the employee who “bagged customers' purchases”; they were also called the “bagger” and the species is believed now functionally extinct, even in Japan where, until the “lost decade” (the 1990s although many economists claim that epoch has yet to end), they were once an established part of “shop culture”.  Probably the most memorable use of the word is in the term “courtesy flush” which is the “mid-sitting flush” (of a toilet) performed by men thoughtful enough to wish to avoid inflicting on others: “unpleasant odours”.

1973 Imperial LeBaron Four-Door Hardtop (left) and 1978 Chrysler New Yorker Brougham Coupe (right).  In cars, courtesy lamps (or lights, seen illuminated in kick panel (left)) are located where light may be needed (start buttons, where a passenger is about to put their feet etc) and they differ from “specific purpose” lights such as “map reading” lights (seen illuminated, right).  Map-reading lights were fitted on more expensive vehicles because. before maps migrated to glowing screens, they were on paper and to be read in a low-light environment, an external light source was needed.  The significance of the name was in the “courtesy” the fittings exercised by automatically switching on when a door was opened.  By contrast, a map-reading light manually was activated as required.

Both “uncourtesy” and “discourtesy” have at times been in use and the difference primarily is one of usage frequency, historical development, and semantic nuance.  Discourtesy is the established, idiomatic noun in modern English and is used variously to denote rudeness, a lack of courtesy, an impolite act and such.  The form emulated a use in the Old French and it has been in continuous, standard usage since the Middle English period; in contemporary English, it remains the correct and expected form.  Uncourtesy literally means “absence of courtesy” but has for centuries been rare and now is close to obsolete, appearing only in historic references or as a literary device.  That reflects the way English evolves because although the word adhered to the use of the un- prefix pattern (as in unkindness), people for whatever reason settled on the dis- form for this lexeme.  In structural linguistics, it’s true that because of the Latin origin of the “dis-” prefix, that would imply “reversal-negation-deprivation” whereas the Germanic “un-” would suggest “simple negation, but English lexical convention matters more than morphology and the pattern of use has made “discourtesy” the standard noun.  Probably that was a consequence of the Latin-influenced forms gaining sociolinguistic prestige over those words with a Germanic core from the native, Old English vocabulary.  After the Norman Conquest (1066 and all that), what came later to be known as the “Romance superstratum” (the massive influx of words and elements from Norman French and Latin) rapidly undertook a form of linguistic colonialism and words which entered English through French or Latin often arrived morphologically pre-packaged with Romance affixes; English did not build discourtesy from scratch; either it was inherited or imposed, depending on one’s views of such processes and that history is the reason disloyal & dishonest emerged and endured while unloyal & unhonest did not.  Pragmatically though, speakers settled, on a case-by-case-basis on whichever worked best: thus untruth, unlikely and such prevailing because they were the most pleasing pure negations, something more significant than the tendency for native Germanic bases to take “un-”, however a robust morphological bias this may describe.

Prelude to a handover: Donald Trump (left) and Barak Obama (right) shaking hands, the White House, November, 2016.  The handshake is one one of humanity's oldest courtesies. 

Barack Obama (b 1961; POTUS 2009-2017) was known carefully to choose his words (indeed, he’d complain he thought himself a better speech-writer than those hired to do the job) and he used “courtesy” when issuing something of a lament at the depiction of him and his wife (Michelle Obama (b 1964; FLOTUS 2009-2017) as “digitally altered” apes in a video shared by Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) on his Truth Social platform.  Although President Obama’s artful text only “indirectly addressed the racist video”, few would have failed to draw the connection between the two and for students of the technique, his response was a fine example of Michelle Obama’s “when they go low, we go high” school of thought.  While not mentioning the president, Obama observed there seemed no longer “…any shame about this among people who used to feel like you had to have some sort of decorum and a sense of propriety and respect for the office” but “that’s been lost”, adding “there's this sort of clown show that's happening in social media and on television.”  While he understood the political value in such a post because “it gets attention” and is “a distraction”, his feeling was “it's important to recognise that the majority of the American people find this behaviour deeply troubling” and that when travelling around the nation, he would meet people who “still believe in decency, courtesy, kindness.”

Behind the famous lectern: Karoline Leavitt (b 1997; White House press secretary since 2025) who also has retreated a little from previously well-established standards of courtesy.

For a president to have reposted such an obviously racist trope would even a year ago have been unthinkable and a major political scandal but so rapidly has the culture shifted that within barely 48 hours, it had fallen from the news cycle, relegated to just another footnote in the history of Trump 2.0 (which definitely is not Trump 1.1).  Although there was widespread, if remarkably muted criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, the White House initially defended the video, calling the backlash “fake outrage” before noting the volume and deleting the video, blaming the sharing on an (unnamed) member of staff.  Citing the actions by the staffer, Mr Trump said “I didn't make a mistake” and thus would not be issuing an apology, adding he’d not watched the whole clip so didn’t see the offensive image.  Analysts of such things were divided on whether the fact the posting happened “in the middle of the night” made the “staffer cover story” less or more plausible but all that information attracted renewed interest when, a couple of days, from the famous lectern, Karoline Leavitt asserted everything posted on President Trump’s social media account comes “directly” from him: “It’s coming straight from the horse’s mouth” as she put it.  “When you see it on Truth Social, you know it’s directly from President Trump. That’s the beauty of this president, his transparency in relaying the administration’s policies to the rest of you and the world.”  Trumpologists were left to make of that what they could.

In literature, the “courtesy book” was a “book of etiquette” but many of the early editions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries went beyond the merely prescriptive in that they embodied a philosophy of the art of living (elegantly and with virtù (Italian for “virtue)) and provided a guide to help.  The ones which survive are noted for their high literary standard and are of great interest to historians because they’re an invaluable source for the history of education, ideas, customs and social behaviour of certain classes.  While the readership of some originally would have been the “upper middle class” or those who aspired to attain that status or at least emulate their manners, there were also courtesy books written for servants going to work in the houses or on the estates of the gentry; these existed so they’d know “how to behave”.  From the fifteenth century, changes in society were profound as the mass production of gunpowder and books exerted their respective influences and it was in this era the concept of “the gentleman” can be said to have emerged in a recognizably modern form, best understood in the most refined version in the term “Renaissance man”; from this point, culture and education really became courtesy's companion terms.  In earlier times, there had been what were known as “conduct books” but the emphasis in these was on morality deportment, manners and religion; they were very much in the “thou shall not” tradition of repressive Christianity.  Reflecting the way the Renaissance spread north and west, among the most influential of the courtesy books were those publish in Venice in the 1520s & 1530s, some of which began to appear in English translation by the mid-1570s.

Woodcut illustration for Book II (Cantos VII-XII) of The Faerie Queene (1590) by Edmund Spenser (circa 1552-1599).

Although The Faerie Queene was an epic-length poem recounting tales of knightly exploits and written in a deliberately archaic style, it merged history and myth, drawing especially on the Arthurian legends with each of the books an allegorical following of a knight who represents a particular virtue (holiness, temperance, chastity, friendship, justice and courtesy) which will be tested by the plot.  It’s long been of interest to scholars of the work of William Shakespeare (1564–1616) because Book Two appears to be a source for much of King Lear (circa 1605) (and has drawn the ire of some feminists) but some critics have suggest it can (almost) be described as the “Bible of Renaissance anthropocentric humanism, which, in its most idealistic form, was a sort of apotheosis of man.”  That may seem a little “purple” but in The Faerie Queene, with its depictions of the Renaissance conceptions of knightly and chivalrous conduct, the author’s purpose was clear.  Indeed, in the dedication he wrote: “The generall end therefore of all the booke is to fashion a gentleman or noble person in virtuous and gentle discipline.”  In scope and literary form, it’s regarded still the “most ambitious courtesy book of all.”

Mandy all dressed up but now with no place to go: The Right Honourable Peter “Mandy” Mandelson PC, Baron Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool (b 1953) in the scarlet robes (the white trim now miniver or even faux fur rather than the traditional ermine) worn on certain ceremonial occasions in the House of Lords.

In 2008, Gordon Brown (b 1951; UK prime-minister 2007-2010), for reasons understandable if not admirable, granted Mandy a Barony, thereby "ennobling" him with a seat in the House of Lords.  The peerage entitled him (for life) to use the title "Lord" and, as one of His Majesty's privy counsellors (appointed in 1998), he may (again for life) add a post-nominal "PC" and be styled "the Right Honourable".  The membership of the Privy Counsel (essentially, members of the UK cabinet and a select few others) is unusual in that even if members cease to hold the role which justified their appointment, they don't cease to be a member; they just are "not summoned".  However, unlike the removal of a peerage (which requires an act of parliament), any member may at any time resign from the counsel as would be expected in the case of a scandal which can't be "swept under the map", one famous example being John Profumo (1915–2006)  who in 1963 (while aged 56, "happily married" and serving as Secretary of State for War (ie minister of defence)) was found to be having an affair with a young lady of 19 who simultaneously also was enjoying the affections of a KGB spy attached to the Soviet embassy in London.  That scandal played a part in dooming a Tory (Conservative Party) government which had been in office 13 years but never has Mandy been accused of sleeping with women who are sleeping also with the Kremlin's spies so there's that.  Mandy since 2008 has be for most purposes styled as “Lord Mandelson” and that is not a courtesy title because as a “life peer” Mandy enjoys the same privileges (other than not being able to pass the barony to an eldest son) as one who inherited his barony and were he to have children, they would be entitled to style themselves “the honourable”.  It’s believed he does not plan to have children.

Mandy in underpants (presumably his but who knows?).  There is no suggestion Mandy engaged in inappropriate or improper conduct with this unidentified young lady.

The photograph was released by the US DoJ (Department of Justice) in one of the tranches of files related to convicted paedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein (1953–2019).  It was shot in Epstein's New York City apartment when asked about the circumstances, his lordship responded by saying he “did not recall”.  About that (lack of) recollection, some were uncharitably cynical but it does seem plausible given (1) Mandy doubtless spent much time wandering Epstein’s apartment while in his underpants and (2) because Epstein had so many “acquaintances”, Mandy could hardly be expected to remember them all.

There are many “courtesy titles”, a class of address loosely defined as those governed by social convention, long-established practice or even administrative convenience.  In the UK’s intricate peerage system, courtesy titles are those used by certain relatives of peers, even though they do not themselves hold a substantive peerage and are not in law members of the peerage so thus never conferred with any right to sit in the House of Lords.  Although almost universally acknowledged, the courtesy titles are sustained only by convention rather than letters patent.  The interaction of the multi-tiered structure of the UK’s peerage system and the distinctions between (1) elder & younger sons and (2) daughters means there are a number of “rules” for courtesy titles but collectively they mean, for most purposes, depending on which rung on the peerage their father stands, sons commonly are styled either “Lord” or “The Honourable” and daughters “Lady” or “The Honourable”.  Wives also gain a honorific with them being granted a style based on the peerage held by their husband although other than the wives of dukes (who are “duchesses”), for most purposes, the convention follows calling non-ducal male peers “Lord” in that the wives are styled “Lady”.  Complicating all this is there are now also female peers so while, for example, the wife of a baron usually would be styled “Lady”, if a woman in her own right holds a barony, the most pedantic would use “baroness”.  All this may sound arcane but when moving in certain circles the official Order of Precedence can be socially consequential because, when attending events, it can dictate things like where one gets to sit and (more significantly), with whom.  So, the significance of the element “courtesy” in “courtesy title” is that use is “a courtesy extended” and not “a right acknowledged”.  That’s why Mr Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (b 1960, formerly Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Admiral etc) was not deprived of being styled “Lord” (something usually attached to the younger son of a duke) because, in the legal sense, the title never existed, such use a mere (though widely observed) convention.  Of course, anyone can if they wish call him “Lord Andrew” though it seems unlikely many will bother.  Maybe his ex-wife will grant him that one final courtesy.

Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) coveted medals and decorations but had little interest in titles; although the grandson of a Duke of Marlborough, his self-image was that of “a great House of Commons man” and one peer once lamented: “The House of Lords means nothing to him”, another noble noting: “he thinks us a collection of disreputable old gentlemen”.  In opposition in 1946 he’d been offered a KG (Knight The Most Noble Order of the Garter (1348), the oldest and most senor knighthood in the UK’s orders of chivalry) but declined because he didn’t like the idea of receiving something recommended by a socialist prime minister.  In 1953, back in office, he accepted because “now only the queen decides” but did regret having to become “Sir Winston” rather than the plain “Mr Churchill” he claimed to prefer, observing to the cabinet secretary: “I don’t see why I should not have the Garter but continue to be known as Mr Churchill.  After all, my father was known as Lord Randolph Churchill, but he was not a lord.  That was only a courtesy title.  Why should I not continue to be called Mr Churchill as a discourtesy title?”  Sir Winston he became although his wife (1885-1977) would have preferred he not accept.  Other wives have been keener, the New Zealand trade union leader Sir Tom Skinner (1909–1991; President of the NZ FoL (Federation of Labour) 1959-1979) explaining to colleagues that while he had no wish to be Sir Tom, he didn’t fancy going home to tell his wife she wouldn’t soon be “Lady Skinner” although, given the darkly comic possibilities in that moniker, some women might have had second thoughts.

Woodrow Wilson (left) and Colonel House (right), New York City, 1916.

In the US, south of the Mason-Dixon Line, there have been many “captains” and “colonels” who had little or no military experience and some became well known including the Dutch-born impresario Colonel Tom Parker (1909–1997) who managed the singer Elvis Presley (1935-1977) and Colonel Edward House (1858–1938) who was for years the most influential of the camarilla in the White House of Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924; POTUS 1913-1921).  Colonel House had been a king-maker in Texas politics but during World War I (1914-1918) it was his advice in international relations Wilson often preferred and, despite lacking any background in matters of European politics, was appointed the US’s senior diplomat at the Paris Peace Conference (1919).  Disappointed by the outcome of the conference and feeling deceived by House who had, during the president’s absence in Washington DC, made certain decisions on his behalf, Wilson sundered their relationship; after House returned to the US, they would never meet again.  To the president it had been simply a matter of the colonel “getting ideas above his station” but, to his dying day, House believed the estrangement was engineered at least in part by the second Mrs Wilson (1872-1961), the “blame the wife” theory a recurrent theme in dynastic and political history.  There was of course also Colonel Harland Sanders (1890–1980) who was 1935 was created a member of the HOKC (Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels) by Ruby Laffoon (1869–1941; governor of Kentucky 1931-1935) and his memory lives on in the fast food KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken), a culinary institution now with more international recognition than the HOKC despite “Kentucky Colonel” being the highest honor bestowed by the state and the nation’s best-known colonelcy.

Colonel Sanders outside a Kentucky Fried Chicken store.  The latte-day name change to "KFC" was effected because the word "fried" had gained negative connotations.

The title became much associated with Texas and many of the Southern States. It was Texas Governor Jim Hogg (1851–1906; governor of Texas 1891-1895) who in 1893 appointed Edward House as a member of his gubernatorial staff, granting him the honorary rank which recipients were entitled to keep for life.  It was something that carried no military command or responsibilities and no federal commission, operating at the “social and political” level something like a Rotary Club membership in that while it conferred a certain perception of status, there was also an expectation (sometimes honoured, sometimes not) the member would fulfil some philanthropic or other worthy public services.  Legally, the basis for the practice dated from the historic rights of governors to appoint officers in their state’s militias and after federation, as the US evolved, the use was extended to non-military use, titles there quite sought after because with no honors systems granting them (knighthoods, peerages and such), those who attain some elected or appointed office (governor, admiral, judge, mayor, senator, ambassador etc), tend for life so to be styled; those who have several get to choose which they prefer.  South of the Mason-Dixon Line, there was an attachment to the tradition because of the cultural significance of the Antebellum Militias which, before the US Civil War (1861-1865) had enjoyed great social prestige, officers drawn often from the (obviously white) elites, plantation owners, lawyers, merchants and such; the granting of a colonelcy didn’t confer community authority: it acknowledged it.  Although much of what was “Southern culture” passed into history, the system remained and proved handy in the way knighthoods and peerages fulfil the function in the UK: (1) rewarding political supporters, (2) providing a quid pro quo to party donors, (3) cementing patronage networks and (4) “paying off” debts or “hushing up” those with troublesome knowledge.  By the early twentieth century, so numerous and associated with unsavoury politics had the colonelcies become that the title became a popular device for satirists.

Jaguar Nashville’s page listing its retired courtesy vehicles available for purchase, the concept much the same as the way “dealer demo cars” are sold.

While in the last decade-odd the engineering has mostly been good, Jaguar has yet to find a way to create a design language to match the distinctive “look” which for more than half-a-century underpinned its success after World War II (1939-1945).  The most recent attempt met with derision although that was a reaction more to the unsubtle DEI (diversity, equity & inclusion) “messaging” in the images used, the approach about as heavy-handed as the lines of the “concept EV” (electric vehicle) later shown.  Because what came to be understood as “a Jaguar” was so defined by what was done in the post-war years, there seems no obvious path for the designers so the company is left in a crowded field, competing on the basis of dynamic qualities and price-breakdown, able no longer to summon the intangible (but real) emotional appeal of old. 

In the US, the medical degree qualifying a graduate to seek to practice the profession is the MD (Doctor of Medicine) but elsewhere in the English speaking world the standard award is MB BS (Bachelor of Medicine & Bachelor or Surgery).  Despite that, most of the latter routinely are styled “doctor” despite not holding a doctorate (MD in the UK and Commonwealth (like a PhD (doctor of philosophy)) awarded as a higher degree after submission of a thesis rather than a course of instruction).  Historically, for medical practitioners, the use of the title “doctor” comes from many layers, dating from antiquity, medieval university practice, professional licensing traditions and later social conventions.  “Doctor” did originally denote “a doctorate” though not in the modern academic sense.  So, for those appropriately qualified in medicine (whether MD or MB BS) “doctor” really isn’t a “courtesy title” but a job title although, of late it’s been adopted also by dentists and vets and some insist that in such cases it should be thought of exactly that.  Doctor was from the Middle English doctor & doctour (an expert, authority on a subject), from the Anglo-Norman doctour, from the Latin doctor (teacher), from doceō (to teach).  It displaced the native Middle English lerare (teacher), from the Middle English leren (to teach, instruct) from the Old English lǣran & lēran (to teach, instruct, guide) which may be compared with the Old English lārēow (teacher, master) and lǣċe (doctor, physician).  In the US the MD evolved into a professional doctorate and the title “Dr” thus followed yet among US lawyers, although many qualify with the analogous JD (Doctor of Jurisprudence), not only is it though bad form for such graduates to use the title “doctor”, professional associations actively discourage use although the legal basis of any attempt at enforcement may be dubious.  As a general principle, the only lawyers in the US styled as “Dr” are those with a doctorate in law (which may be a PhD, DPhil etc).

The Barber Surgeon (1524), engraving by Lucas van Leyden (1494–1533), The Met, New York.

In the great Medieval universities (Bologna, Paris etc), the three higher faculties were Theology, Law and Medicine, graduates of each receiving the degree of Doctor which meant one was a licensed teacher of their discipline.  Thus, a “Doctor of Medicine” was someone qualified to teach medicine at a university, not merely practice it.  In pre-modern medicine (often a gruesome business) there was also distinct social and educational difference between physician and surgeons, especially in England where things became institutionalized.  The physicians were university-trained, held an MD and thus correctly were styled “Dr” whereas the origins of the surgeons lay in the old trade of barber-surgeons; trained by apprenticeship, they did not hold degrees and were styled “Mr”.  In the pre-anaesthetic age, surgical techniques tended to be primitive, often involving cutting or sawing off body parts so for the barbers, skilled in the use of razors and scissors, it was a natural evolution.  This division was in England institutionalized by the formation of the RCP (Royal College of Physicians (1518)) and RCS (Royal College of Surgeons (1843)).

The surgeons had anyway been schematic, guilds existing in London as early as the 1360s and a demarcation dispute between the “surgeons” and “barber surgeons” dragged on until 1540 when a “coming-together” between the “Worshipful Company of Barbers” and the “Guild of Surgeons” was engineered, creating the “Company of Barbers and Surgeons of London”.  However, while papering over the cracks (perhaps “bandaging the wound” might work better), the tensions remained and in 1745 the surgeons departed to form “Company of Surgeons” a royal charter (as Royal College of Surgeons in London) granted in 1800, extended in 1843 to become the “Royal College of Surgeons of England”.  Through all that, even after the early nineteenth century when a university education was made a condition of a licence to practice as a surgeon, the tradition endured and doctors, upon qualifying as members or fellows of the RCS revert from Dr to Mr.  In that context, “Mr” really is not a courtesy title but a professional equivalent and the because of the long history, the field is littered with linguistic quirks, “physician” both a generic term for all qualified to practice medicine and a specialist in internal medicine.  One perhaps once unexpected twist in the history of the history of the barber surgeon is that to this day there appear to be people who get medical advice (or at least a “second opinion”) from their hairdresser, presumably on the basis they’re a proven good source for fashion tips, relationship counselling and such.

Three galleries at the Lindsay Lohan Retrospective by Richard Phillips (b 1962), Gagosian Gallery, 555 West 24th Street, New York, 11 September-20 October 2012.

Described by the artist as an installation, the exhibition was said to be "an example of the way Phillips uses collaborative forms of image production to reorder the relationship of Pop Art to its subjects, the staging and format of these lush, large-scale works said to render them realist portraits of the place-holders of their own mediated existence."  The curator explained the retrospective was conducted as an example of the way collaborative forms of image production can reorder the relationship of Pop Art to its subjects, the staging and format used to render them realist portraits of "...the place-holders of their own mediated existence."  That seemed to explain things.

Vimeo's hosting of Lindsay Lohan, courtesy of Richard Phillips and Gagosian Gallery.

Historically, the term “courtesy of” implied “something provided by its owner to another party without payment or other consideration” and that’s presumably the way Vimeo is using the phrase although it’s likely the file was provided with certain limitations of use (such as “may not be edited”).  However, although for generations used in that way by the print media, on the internet “courtesy of” appears often to be used as a synonym of “attributed to” in cases where explicit permission for use has being neither sought or granted.  Owners of the rights (which may include copyright) can of course seek to have such content “taken down” regardless of any baseless assertion the use is by their “courtesy” but because of the volumes, such actions are by necessity limited and were, for example, some nihilistic psychopath to use on their blog an image of a 1961 Jaguar from the company’s website to illustrate some arcane aspect of a word’s etymology, JLR (Jaguar Land Rover, the corporate identity since 2013 when JLR was created by Tata Motors) likely would either neither notice nor care.

Lindsay Lohan (2011) by Richard Phillips, hosted by Vimeo by courtesy of Richard Phillips and Gagosian Gallery.

Screened in conjunction with the 54^th international exhibition of the Venice Biennale (June 2011), Lindsay Lohan was a short film the director said represented a “new kind of portraiture.”  Filmed in Malibu, California, the piece was included in the Commercial Break series, presented by Venice’s Garage Center for Contemporary Culture and although the promotional notes indicated it would include footage of the ankle monitor she helped make famous, the device doesn't appear in the final cut.

Directed by: Richard Phillips & Taylor Steele
Director of Photography: Todd Heater
Costume Designer: Ellen Mirojnick
Creative Director: Dominic Sidhu
Art Director: Kyra Griffin
Editor: Haines Hall
Color mastering: Pascal Dangin for Boxmotion
Music: Tamaryn & Rex John Shelverton

A variant on the idea is when an owner provides something “as a courtesy” and there are neither rules nor conventions governing this aspect of use.  First appearing in version 1.1 (1982) of PC-DOS (1980-1995), the obscure file EXE2BIN.exe was a command-line utility (it appeared also in other DOS (disk operating system) forks) that could be used to convert .EXE (executable) files into .COM or BIN (binary executables) files.  In the manuals, Microsoft noted “EXE2BIN is included with MS-DOS as a courtesy to software developers. It is not useful for general users.”  So it was a thoughtful gesture but MS-DOS grew at a faster rate than the capacity of the floppy diskettes which were then the only generally available medium for software distribution.  So, needing space for the essential stuff, when in 1987 MS-DOS 3.3 was released, EXE2BIN was no longer included, relegated to the Technical Reference Pack (available at extra cost).  That didn’t mean the decision was a discourtesy, just that space was needed and it was almost certain anyone likely to use EXE2BIN for its intended purpose anyway purchased the pack.  By the time MS-DOS v6.00 was released in 1991, EXE2BIN was thus no longer described as “a courtesy” and was included on one of the “Supplemental Disks” (US$5.00), which were also part of the “Resource Kit” (US$19.95).