Assassin

Assassin (pronounced uh-sas-in)

(1) A murderer, especially one who kills a politically prominent person for reason of fanaticism or profit.

(2) One of an order of devout Muslims, active in Persia and Syria circa 1090-1272, the prime object of whom was to assassinate Christian Crusaders (should be used with initial capital).

1525–1535: An English borrowing via French and Italian, from the Medieval Latin assassīnus (assassinī in the plural), from the Arabic Hashshashin (ḥashshāshīn in the plural) (eaters of hashish), the Arabic being حشّاشين, (ħashshāshīyīn (also Hashishin or Hashashiyyin).  It shares its etymological roots with the Arabic hashish (from the Arabic: حشيش (ḥashīsh)) and in the region is most associated with a group of Nizari Shia Persians who worked against various Arab and Persian targets.  The Hashishiyyin were an Ismaili Muslim sect at the time of the Crusades, under leadership of to Hasan ibu-al-Sabbah (known as shaik-al-jibal or "Old Man of the Mountains") although the name was widely applied to a number of secret sects operating in Persia and Syria circa 1090-1272.  The word was known in Anglo-Latin from the mid-thirteenth century and variations in spelling not unusual although hashishiyy (hashishiyyin in the plural) appears to be the most frequently used.  The plural suffix “-in” was a mistake by Medieval translators who assumed it part of the Bedouin word.  Assassin, assassination, assassinator, assassinatress, assassinatrix, assassinism, autassassinophilia and assassinship are nouns, assassining & assassinating are verbs and assassinlike & assassinous are adjectives; the noun plural is assassins.  The number of derived forms seems untypically high and although some are listed various as obsolete or archaic, that they ever existed is an indication the “assassin” may have exerted a special fascination.  A female assassin (there have been a few) was an assassinatress or assassinatrix (assassinatrices the plural) and they inspired a special horror, presumably because, (1) being less often suspected of being a murderer they might strike when least expected and (2) man may have harboured the fear their method of dispatch might be especially gruesome.  Noted assassinatrices include the Biblical Judith whose decapitation of Holofernes has been depicted in some of Renaissance art's most confronting paintings and Valerie Solanas (1936-1988) who in 1968 shot pop-artist Andy Warhol (1928-1987).  Warhol didn't immediately die from his wounds but never did he fully recover and it's believed the would-be assassin hastened his death.

"Fear of" assassination is a condition different from being "turned on" by the fear of being assassinated.

A special use was autassassinophilia (in psychiatry, a paraphilia in which an individual is sexually aroused by the risk of being killed) and despite the name, the condition is not restricted to those imagining being assassinated, the paraphilia instead covering all those sexually by the risk of being killed.  It’s a fetish which can overlap with others involving specific ways of finding death (drowning, decapitation, dehydration etc) and does not of necessity require actual risk of death; merely imagining it can be sufficient.  The paraphilia could for example be as specific as being sexually aroused by the thought of being murdered by the Freemasons but that is distinct from a fear of being murdered by the Freemasons (an instance of foniasophobia (fear of being murdered)) which was a condition once suffered by Lindsay Lohan while being stalked by "a schizophrenic Freemason".  The condition was first described by John Money (1921–2006), a New Zealand-born professor of psychology at Johns Hopkins University who listed it as the “reciprocal condition” to erotophonophilia (in which one sexually is aroused by “stage-managing and carrying out the murder of an unsuspecting sexual partner”, both paraphilias under the rubric of the “sacrificial/expiatory type”.  Neither have ever been listed as a separate diagnosis in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) but both, depending on the patient, could variously be “bolted into” the criteria for Sexual Masochism Disorder or Paraphilic Disorder.

Tree humor.

Whether in personal, political or family relations, assassination is one of the oldest and, done properly, one of the most effective tools known to man.  The earliest known use in English of the verb "to assassinate" in printed English was by Matthew Sutcliffe (circa 1548-1629) in A Briefe Replie to a Certaine Odious and Slanderous Libel, Lately Published by a Seditious Jesuite (1600), borrowed by William Shakespeare (circa 1564-1616) for Macbeth (1605).  Among the realists, it’s long been advocated, Sun Tzu in the still read The Art of War (circa 500 BC) arguing the utilitarian principle: that a single assassination could be both more effective and less destructive that other methods of dispute resolution, something with which Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527), in his political treatise Il Principe (The Prince, written circa 1513 & published 1532), concurred.  As a purely military matter, it’s long been understood that the well-targeted assassination of a single leader can be much more effective than a battlefield encounter whatever the extent of the victory; the “cut the head off the snake” principle.  Idiomatic uses include (1) “great assassin” which sarcastically was in September 1896 bestowed by William Ewart Gladstone (1809–1898; prime-minister 1868–1874, 1880–1885, Feb-July 1886 & 1892–1894) on the Ottoman Empire’s Sultan Abdul Hamid II (1842–1918; sultan of the Ottoman Empire 1876-1909) as a dark reference to the massacres of Ottoman Armenians, (2) “smiling assassin” (can be applied literally but is usually a figurative form meaning “one who maintains a friendly and pleasant visage but really is a back-stabber) and (3) “baby-faced assassin” (one whose youthful or innocent appearance belies their ruthless character).

Modern history

The assassination in July 2022 of Abe Shinzō san (安倍 晋三 (Shinzo Abe, 1954-2022, prime minister of Japan 2006-2007 & 2012-2020) came as a surprise because as a part of political conflict, assassination had all but vanished from Japan.  That’s not something which can be said of many countries in the modern era, the death toll in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and South & Central America long, the methods of dispatch sometimes gruesome.  Russia’s annals too are blood-soaked although it’s of note perhaps in that an extraordinary number of the killings were ordered by one head of Government.  The toll of US presidents is famous and also documented are some two-dozen planned attempted assassinations.  Even one (as far as is known) prime-minister of the UK has been assassinated, Spencer Perceval (1762–1812; Prime-Minister of the UK 1809-1912) shot dead (apparently by a deranged lone assassin) on 11 May 1812, his other claim to fame that uniquely among British premiers, he served at times also as solicitor-general and attorney-general.  Conspiracy theorists note also the death of Pope John-Paul I (1912–1978; pope Aug-Sep 1978).

Death by katana.

Samuri Ultranationalist activist Otoya Yamaguchi (1943-1960), about to stab Socialist Party leader Inejiro Asanuma san (1898-1960) with his yoroi-dōshi ("armor piercer" or "mail piercer"), a short sword, fashioned with particularly thick metal and suitable for piercing armor and using in close combat; it was carried by the samurai class in feudal Japan.), Hibiya Public Hall, Tokyo, 12 October 1960.  The assassin committed suicide while in custody.

Historically however, political assassinations in Japan were not unknown, documented since the fifth century, the toll including two emperors.  In the centuries which unfolded until the modern era, by European standards, assassinations were not common but the traditions of the Samurai, a military caste which underpinned a feudal society organized as a succession of shogunates (a hereditary military dictatorship (1192–1867)), meant that violence was seen sometimes as the only honorable solution when many political disputes were had their origin in inter and intra-family conflict.  Tellingly, even after firearms came into use, most assassinations continued to be committed with swords or other bladed-weapons, a tradition carried on when the politician Asanuma Inejirō san was killed on live television in 1960.

Most remembered however is the cluster of deaths which political figures in Japan suffered during the dark decade of the 1930s.  It was a troubled time and although Hara Takashi san (1856-1921; Prime Minister of Japan 1918-1921) had in 1921 been murdered by a right-wing malcontent (who received a sentence of only three years), it had seemed at the time an aberration and few expected the next decade to assume the direction it followed.  However in an era in which the most fundamental aspects of the nation came to be contested by the politicians, the imperial courtiers, the navy and the army (two institutions with different priorities and intentions), all claiming to be acting in the name of the emperor, conflict was inevitable, the only thing uncertain was how things would be resolved.

Hamaguchi Osachi san (1870–1931; Prime Minister of Japan 1929-1931) was so devoted to the nation that when appointed head of the government’s Tobacco Monopoly Bureau, he took up smoking despite his doctors warnings it would harm his fragile health.  His devotion was praised but he was overtaken by events, the Depression crushing the economy and his advocacy of peace and adherence to the naval treaty which limited Japan’s ability to project power made him a target for the resurgent nationalists.  In November 1930 he was shot while in Tokyo Railway station, surviving a few months before succumbing an act which inspired others.  In 1932 the nation learned of the Ketsumeidan Jiken (the "League of Blood" or "Blood-Pledge Corps Incident"), a nationalist conspiracy to assassinate liberal politicians and the wealthy donors who supported them.  A list on twenty-two intended victims was later discovered but the group succeeded only in killing one former politician and one businessman.

The death of Inukai Tsuyoshi san (1855–1932; Prime Minister of Japan 1931-1932) was an indication of what was to follow.  A skilled politician and something of a technocrat, he’d stabilized the economy but he abhorred war as a ghastly business and opposed army’s ideas of adventures in China, something increasingly out of step with those gathering around his government.  In May 1932, after visiting the Yasukuni Shrine to pay homage to the Meiji’s first minister of war (assassinated in 1869), nine navy officers went to the prime-minister’s office and shot him dead.  Deed done, the nine handed themselves to the police.  At their trial, there was much sympathy and they received only light sentences (later commuted) although some fellow officers feared they may be harshly treated and sent to the government a package containing their nine amputated fingers with offers to take the place of the accused were they sentenced to death.  In the way the Japanese remember such things, it came to be known as “the May 15 incident”.

Nor was the military spared.  Yoshinori Shirakawa san (1869–1932) and Tetsuzan Nagata san (1884–1935), both generals in the Imperial Japanese Army were assassinated, the latter one of better known victims of the Aizawa Incident of August 1935, a messy business in which two of the three army factions then existing resolved their dispute with murder.  Such was the scandal that the minister of army was also a victim but he got of lightly; being ordered to resign “until the fuss dies down” and returning briefly to serve as prime-minister in 1937 before dying of natural cause some four years later.

Lindsay Lohan as assassin nun in Machete (2010).  The revolver is a Smith & Wesson .50 Magnum with 8.38" barrel (S&W500: SKU 163501).

All of the pressures which had been building to create the political hothouse that was mid-1930s Japan were realized in Ni Ni-Roku Jiken (the February 26 incident), an attempted military coup d'état in which fanatical young officers attempted to purge the government and military high command of factional rivals and ideological opponents (along with, as is inevitable in these things, settling a few personal scores).  Two victims were Viscount Takahashi Korekiyo san (1854–1936; Prime Minister 1921-1922) and Viscount Saitō Makoto san (1858–1936; admiral in the Imperial Japanese Navy & prime-minister 1932-1934 (and the last former Japanese Prime Minister to be assassinated until Shinzo Abe san in 2022)).  As a coup, it was a well-drilled operation, separate squads sent out at 2am to execute their designated victims although, in Japanese tradition, they tried not to offend, one assassin recorded as apologizing to terrified household staff for “the annoyance I have caused”.  Of the seven targets the rebels identified, only three were killed but the coup failed not because not enough blood was spilled but because the conspirators made the same mistake as the Valkyrie plotters (who sought in 1944 to overthrow Germany’s Nazi regime (1933-1945)); they didn’t secure control of the institutions which were the vital organs of state and notably, did not seize the Imperial Palace and thus place between themselves between the Emperor and his troops, something they could have learned from Hernán Cortés (1485–1547) who made clear to his Spanish Conquistadors that the capture of Moctezuma (Montezuma, circa 1466-1520; Emperor of the Aztec Empire circa 1502-1520) was their object.  As it was, the commander in chief ordered the army to suppress the rebellion and within hours it was over.

However, the coup had profound consequences.  If Japan’s path to war had not been guaranteed before the insurrection, after it the impetus assumed its own inertia and the dynamic shifted from one of militarists against pacifists to agonizing appraisals of whether the first thrust of any attack would be to the south, against the USSR or into the Pacific.  The emperor had displayed a decisiveness he’d not re-discover until two atomic bombs had been dropped on his country but, seemingly convinced there was no guarantee the army would put down a second coup, his policy became one of conciliating the military which was anyway the great beneficiary of the February 26 incident; unified after the rebels were purged, it quickly asserted control over the government, weakened by the death of its prominent liberals and the reluctance of others to challenge the army, assassination a salutatory lesson.

Assassins both:  David Low’s (1891-1963) Rendezvous, Evening Standard, 20 September 1939. 

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (usually styled as the Nazi-Soviet Pact), was a treaty of non-aggression between the USSR and Nazi Germany and signed in Moscow on 23 August 1939.  A political sensation when it was announced, it wouldn't be until the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) that the Western powers became aware of the details of the suspected secret protocol under which the signatories partitioned Poland between them.   Low's cartoon was published shortly after the Soviets (on 17 September) invaded from the east, having delayed military action until convinced German success was assured.

Low's work satirizes the cynicism of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) and comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) bowing politely, words revealing their true feelings.  After returning to Berlin from the signing ceremony, Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Nazi foreign minister 1938-1945) reported the happy atmosphere to Hitler as "…like being among comrades" but if he was fooled, comrade Stalin remained the realist.  When Ribbentrop proposed a rather effusive communiqué of friendship and a 25 year pact, the Soviet leader suggested that after so many years of "...us tipping buckets of shit over each-other", a ten year agreement announced in more business-like terms might seem to the peoples of both nations, rather more plausible.  It was one of a few occasions on which comrade Stalin implicitly admitted even a dictator needs to take note of public opinion.  His realism served him less well when he assumed no rational man fighting a war against a formidable enemy would by choice open another front of 3000-odd kilometres (1850 miles) against an army which could raise 500 divisions.  Other realists would later apply their own calculations and conclude that however loud the clatter of sabre rattling, Mr Putin (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999) would never invade Ukraine.

Cloak and axe of Giovanni Battista Bugatti (1779–1869), official executioner for the Papal States 1796-1864, Criminology Museum of Rome.

Woodcuts and other depictions from the era suggest the blood-red cloak wasn't always worn during executions.  At various points popes have hired assassins to do the Lord’s work (and many more have been contracted “on behalf of His Holiness (both with and without his knowledge) but (as far as is known), none have been on the payroll for at least two centuries.  The last executioner employed was Giovanni Battista Bugatti began his career at a youthful 17 under Pius VI (1717–1799; pope 1775-1799) and diligently he served six pontiffs before being pensioned off by Pius IX (1792–1878; pope 1846-1878).  His retirement induced not by the Holy See losing enthusiasm for the death penalty because one Antonio Balducci succeeded him in the office which fell into disuse only with the loss of the Papal States (756-1870; a conglomeration of territories in the central & northern Italian peninsula under the personal sovereignty of the pope), after the unification of Italy.  Unlike his illustrious predecessor, history has recorded little about Signor Balducci although it’s known he performed his final execution in 1870.  Signor Bugatti was by far the longest-serving of the Papal States’ many executioners and locals dubbed him Mastro Titta, a titular corruption of maestro di giustizia (master of justice) and his 69 year tenure in his unusual role can be accounted for only by either (1) he felt dispatching the condemned a calling or (2) he really enjoyed his work, because his employers were most parsimonious: he received no retainer and only a small fee per commission (although he was granted a small, official residence).  His tenure was long and included 516 victims (he preferred to call them pazienti (patients), the term adopted also by Romans who enjoyed the darkly humorous) but was only ever a part-time gig; most of his income came from his work as an umbrella painter (a part of the labour market which still exists in an artisan niche).  Depending on this and that, his devices included the axe, guillotine, noose and mallet(!) while the offences punished ranged from the serious (murder, conspiracy, sedition etc) to the petty (habitual thieves and trouble-makers).

Cardinal Pietro Gasparri (1852–1934; Cardinal Secretary of State 1914-1930, left) and Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943, right), signing the Lateran Treaty, Lateran Palace, Rome, 11 February 1929.

Although as early as 1786 the Grand Duchy of Tuscany became the first Italian state to abolish the death penalty (torture also banned), the sentence remained on the books in the Papal States; then as now, the poor disproportionately were victims of the sanction, similar (or worse) crimes by the bourgeoisie or nobility usually handled with less severity, “hushed-up” or just ignored.  With the loss of the Papal States, the pope’s temporal domain shrunk to little more than what lay around St Peter’s Square; indeed between 1870 and the signing of Lateran Treaty (1929) after which the Italian state recognized Vatican City as a sovereign state, no pope left the Vatican, their status as self-imposed prisoners a political gesture.  The Lateran treaty acknowledged the validity of the sentence (Article 8 of the 1929 Vatican City Penal Code stating anyone who attempted to assassinate the pope would be subject to the death penalty) although this provision was never used, tempted though some popes must have been.  Paul VI (1897-1978; pope 1963-1978) in 1969 struck capital punishment from the Vatican's legal code and the last reference to the sanction vanished in 2001 under Saint John Paul II (1920–2005; pope 1978-2005).

In contemporary Russia, such is the volume of deceased prominent citizens with a cause of death reported as: “Falling from window of high building” the mode of death is known on the streets as the “oligarch elevator”; predating even the Tsarist state, grim humor has a long tradition in Russia.  It may thus be assumed the Kremlin has on the books at least one “state assassin” but there may be more because there’s only so much one assassin or assassinatrix can do and the workload clearly is heavy.  Of other nations, there are the “usual suspects” assumed also to have such a contractor (although the DPRK (Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea)) seems also on occasion to outsource “jobs” in a most imaginative way) and these positions are not advertised, appointees doubtlessly selected for their demonstrated skills.  Whether in the West there are still many state assassins isn’t known although in the not too distant past the activities of some have been documented.

Fidel Castro enjoying a fine Havana cigar.  At 90, he died in his bed.

The most interesting example is the US but the answer to the question of whether Washington DC still “does assassinations” ultimately is: “Well, it depends how one defines ‘assassination’”.  Unambiguously, US administrations certainly did assassinate tiresome people and documents relating to some of the plots made good reading, especially the “exploding cigars” with which the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) planned to kill Fidel Castro (1926–2016; prime-minister or president of Cuba 1959-2008).  The conduct of Richard Nixon’s (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) administration weakened the authority of the executive and US Congress in the mid-1970s took steps to prohibit unlawful assassinations by government agencies, this prompted by revelations about the CIA’s involvement in plots to assassinate foreign leaders.  In response to the congressional nudge, Gerald Ford (1913–2006; US president 1974-1977) in 1976 issued Executive Order (EO) 11905, explicitly prohibiting political assassinations by US government personnel: “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.”  This was later reaffirmed and expanded by Jimmy Carter’s (b 1924; US President 1977-1981) EO 12036 (1978) and Ronald Reagan’s (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989) EO 12333 which in 1981 sought to close the “outsourcing” loophole with the words: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”  Despite the impression which seems afoot, Congress never passed a law banning assassinations and while EO 12333 remains active and binding on the executive branch it can, at the stroke of a pen, be amended or revoked by any POTUS (President of the United States).

So scope exists for an imaginative POTUS to act and the obvious device is a new EO.  While most EOs are published (gazetted) in the Federal Register and are thus publicly available, if a POTUS issues a certificate classifying an EO as being related to national security, they can be unpublished and their existence not even disclosed, meaning any change in an administration’s interpretation of the restriction (or even the word “assassination”) can remain unknown outside a small circle.  As the words are presumed still to be operative include: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the US Government...” that would include the military, CIA personnel and many others but there are certain legal and operational ambiguities including:

(1) The targeted killing of enemy combatants during armed conflict: The phrase “armed conflict” is significant because the US last declared war on another country in 1942, despite which, they’ve hardly been militarily inactive since.  What is means is that “armed conflict” has proved pleasingly flexible and of great utility in the age of drone strikes which has allowed the US precisely to target individuals, something justified subsequently as “self-defense”.

(2) Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMFs): In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the AUMF (2001) gives administrations broad powers to target individuals linked to 9/11 (or “associated groups”) and much use of the term “associated groups” has since been made as a legal justification for drone strikes in a number of countries.

(3) Covert Activities vs Military Operations: Covert operations by the CIA (or any other organ) require a “Presidential Finding” and a formal notification to the congressional intelligence committees (a legacy of the restrictions imposed during the 1970s) while the military are not subject to the same degree of oversight though are covered by the rules of war (the Geneva Conventions, the implications of the finding of the Nuremberg tribunals etc).

(4) The psychological effect of the UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, commonly called "drone"): From a legal standpoint, the use of drones to kill people really added no new factors but in the political and public mind they seemed a “game changer” and with each high-profile “hit” there’s usually an intense (if brief) debate, an example of which followed the 2020 killing of Lieutenant General Qasem Soleimani (1957-2020) of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).  As was usually the case, the “debate” was formulaic, the administration claiming a military act of self-defense while critics labeled it a political assassination.  After both sides let off some steam, life returned to business as usual.

While not something often discussed by the administration, the DoD (Department of Defense) does have a (sort of) codified doctrine in their War Manual (last updated in 2015 with the title retained despite no declarations of war since 1942 and there having been no secretary of defense in cabinet since 1947).  While DoD avoids reducing things to a single definition, it does distinguish between “assassination” and “lawful targeting”: “The term assassination has been interpreted to mean an unlawful killing of a specific individual for political or ideological reasons”, to which is added: “The lawful targeting of an enemy combatant is not assassination.”  What that would appear to imply is (1) killing enemy combatants or terrorist leaders during an armed conflict or in self-defense is not considered assassination and (2) killing a civilian political leader, or someone not engaged in hostilities, especially outside armed conflict may constitute an assassination.  Presumably, being an army officer (albeit not one on a battlefield (in the conventional sense of the word)) General Soleimani would be defined “an enemy combatant”.  Some deaths since have been rather more in the realm of a “gray area” but the strikes continue.

Mike Pompeo before & after.

Mr Pompeo told interviewers he had in six months achieved a 90 lb (41 kg) weight loss through rigorous adherence to a D&E (diet & exercise) schedule.  It was an impressive outcome but in the Ozempic age, some were sceptical, suspecting there may have been surgical or chemical assistance.  Being a politician does have the general effect of generating an air of doubt about their assertions and those accessing the likelihood of truthfulness have to weigh up variables like "possible", "plausible" and "unbelievable".  Generously, what Mr Pompeo claimed was "plausible" and a 90 lb shred, however done, a reasonable achievement.

One who seemed anxious to explore gray areas was Mike Pompeo (b 1963; director of the CIA 2017-2018 and US secretary of state 2018-2021).  Although an evangelical Christian, one-time church deacon and Sunday school teacher on the record as saying “…politics is a never-ending struggle... until the Rapture.”, Mr Pompeo seems to believe the sixth commandment is open to interpretation.  While General Soleimani was a military figure, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (b 1971) unambiguously was a civilian and one with no position in any government or Quango.  Despite that, Mr Pompeo was reported as have requested “options” which would provide a legal justification for killing Assange, his interest prompted by WikiLeaks’ publication of details of the CIA’s “Vault 7” hacking tools, said by the agency to be its worst ever data loss.  The possibilities Mr Pompeo could have been offered apparently included both abduction and assassination and Mr Pompeo, a trained lawyer, had in 2017 laid the groundwork for a bit of escalation, describing WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence service”, a term thought to be a declaration of his intent rather than a formal step up a rung on the ladder of legal possibility.  As things turned out, politics triumphed and a deal was done whereby Mr Assange pleaded guilty to something and was set free.

Sin-eater

Sin-eater (pronounced sin-ee-ter or sin-ee-tah)

(1) An individual (in the historic texts usually a man) who, by the act of eating a piece of bread laid upon the breast of the corpse (although in many depictions the goods are place on the lid of the coffin (casket)) , absorbs the sins of a deceased, enabling them to “enter the kingdom of heaven”.

(2) Figuratively, as a thematic device in literature, a way to represent themes of guilt, atonement, sacrifice, and societal exclusion (used variously to explore the moral complexities inherent in assuming the sins (or guilt) of another, the act of mercy and the implications of personal damnation.

Late 1600s (although the culture practice long pre-dates evidence of the first use of the term):  The construct was sin + eat +-er.  Sin (in the theological sense of “a violation of divine will or religious law; sinfulness, depravity, iniquity; misdeeds”) was from the Middle English sinne, synne, sunne & zen, from the Old English synn (sin), from the Proto-West Germanic sunnju, from the Proto-Germanic sunjō (truth, excuse) and sundī, & sundijō (sin), from the primitive Indo-European hs-ónt-ih, from hsónts (being, true), implying a verdict of “truly guilty” against an accusation or charge), from hes- (to be) (which may be compared with the Old English sōþ (true).  Eat (in the sense of “to ingest; to be ingested”) was from the Middle English eten, from the Old English etan (to eat), from the Proto-West Germanic etan, from the Proto-Germanic etaną (to eat), from the primitive Indo-European hédti, from hed- (to eat).  The –er suffix was from the Middle English –er & -ere, from the Old English -ere, from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, thought most likely to have been borrowed from the Latin –ārius where, as a suffix, it was used to form adjectives from nouns or numerals.  In English, the –er suffix, when added to a verb, created an agent noun: the person or thing that doing the action indicated by the root verb.   The use in English was reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French –or & -eor (the Anglo-Norman variant -our), from the Latin -ātor & -tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.  When appended to a noun, it created the noun denoting an occupation or describing the person whose occupation is the noun.  Sin-eater is a noun and sin-eating is a verb; the noun plural is sin eaters.  The term often appears as “sin eater” but (untypically for English), seemingly not as “sineater”.

The first documented evidence of the term “sin-eater” appears in texts dating from the late seventeenth century but cultural anthropologists believe the actual practice to be ancient and variations of the idea are seen in many societies so the ritual predates the term, the roots apparently in European and British folk traditions, particularly rural England and Wales.  The earliest (authenticated) known documented mention of a sin-eater occurs Remaines of Gentilisme and Judaisme (1686) by English antiquary John Aubrey (1626–1697), in which is described the custom of a person eating “bread and drinking ale” placed on the chest of a deceased person in order that their “many sins” could be eaten, thus allowing the untainted soul to pass to the afterlife, cleansed of “earthly wrongdoings”.   Aubrey would write of a "sin-eater living along the Rosse road" who regularly would be hired to perform the service, describing him as a “gaunt, ghastly, lean, miserable, poor rascal”.  He mentioned also there was a popular belief that sin-eating would prevent the ghost of the deceased from walking the earth, a useful benefit at a time when it was understood ghosts of tormented souls, unable to find rest, haunted the living.  Whether this aspect of the tradition was widespread or a localism (a noted phenomenon in folklore) isn't know.  Interestingly, in rural England and Wales the practice survived the Enlightenment and became more common (or at least better documented) in the eighteenth & nineteenth centuries.  In the turbulent, troubled Middle East, a macabre variation of the sin-eater has been documented.  There, it's reported that a prisoner sentenced to death can bribe the jailors and secure their freedom, another executed in their place, the paperwork appropriately altered.   

Paris Hilton (b 1981, left) and Lindsay Lohan (b 1986, right) discussing their “manifold sins and wickedness” while shopping, Los Angeles, 2004.

The ritual was of interest not only to social anthropologists but also to economic historians because while it was clear sin-eaters did receive payment (either in cash or in-kind (typically food)), there’s much to suggest those so employed were society’s “outcasts”, part of the “underclass” sub-set (beggars, vagrants, vagabonds etc) which is the West was a less formalized thing than something like the Dalits in Hinduism.  The Dalits (better known as the “untouchables”) in the West are often regarded as the “lowest rung” in the caste system but in Hindu theology the point was they were so excluded they were “outside” the system (a tiresome technical distinction often either lost on or ignored by the colonial administrators of the Raj) and relegated to the least desirable occupations.  Being a sin-eater sounds not desirable and theologically that’s right because in absolving the dead of their sins, the sin-eater becomes eternally burdened with the wickedness absorbed.  Presumably, a sin-eater could also (eventually) have their sins “eaten” but because they were from the impoverished strata of society, it was probably unlikely many would be connected to those with the economic resources required to secure such a service.  As a literary device, a sin-eater (often not explicitly named as such) is a character who in some way “takes on” the sins of others and they can be used to represent themes of guilt, atonement, sacrifice, and societal exclusion.  In popular culture, the dark concept is quite popular and there, rather than in symbolism, the role usually is explored with the character being explicating depicted as a “sin-eater”, an example being The Sin Eater (2020) by Megan Campisi (b 1976), a dystopian novel in which a young woman is forced into the role as a punishment.

Nice work if you can get it: The Sin-Eater, Misty Annual 1986.  Misty was a weekly British comic magazine for girls which, unusually, was found also to enjoy a significant male readership.  Published by UK house Fleetway, it existed only between 1978-1980 although Misty Annual appeared until 1986.  The cover always featured the eponymous, raven haired beauty.

There’s the obvious connection with Christianity although aspects of the practice have been identified in cultures where they arose prior to contact with the West.  The novel The Last Sin Eater by born-again US author Francine Rivers (b 1947) was set in a nineteenth century Appalachian community and dealt with sin, guilt & forgiveness, tied to the “atonement of the sins of man” by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and thematically that was typical of the modern use.  However, the relationship between sin-eating and the Christian ritual of communion is theologically tenuous.  The communion, in which bread symbolizes the body of Christ and wine symbolizes His blood is actually literal in the Roman Catholic Church under the doctrine of transubstantiation which holds that during the sacrament of the Eucharist (or Holy Communion), the bread and wine offered by the priest to the communicants transforms into the body and blood of Christ.  That obviously requires faith to accept because while the appearances of the bread (usually a form of wafer) and wine (ie their taste, texture, and outward properties) remain unchanged, their substance (what truly they are at the metaphysical level) is said to transform into the body and blood of Christ.  Once unquestioned by most (at least publicly), the modern theological fudge from the Vatican is the general statement: “You need not believe it but you must accept it”.

Sin-eating and communion both involve the consumption of food and drink in a symbolic manner.  In sin-eating, a sin-eater consumes food placed near or on the corpse symbolically to “absorb” their sins so the soul of the deceased may pass to the afterlife free from guilt while in the Christian Eucharist, the taking of bread and wine is a ritual to commemorate the sacrifice of Jesus who, on the cross at Golgotha, died to atone for the sins of all mankind.  So the central difference is the matter of who bears the sins.  In sin-eating, that’s the sin-eater who personally takes on the spiritual burden in exchange for a small payment, thus becoming spiritually tainted in order that another may spiritually be cleansed.  In other words, the dead may “out-source” the cost of their redemption in exchange for a few pieces of silver.  In the Christian communion, it’s acknowledged Jesus has already borne the sins of humanity through His crucifixion, the ritual an acknowledgment of His sacrificial act which offered salvation and forgiveness of sin to all who believe and take him into his heart.  One can see why priests were told to discourage sin-eating by their congregants but historically the church, where necessary, adapted to local customs and its likely the practice was in places tolerated.

Panda

Panda (pronounced pan-duh)

(1) A black & white, herbivorous, bearlike mammal (in popular use sometimes as “giant panda”), Ailuropoda melanoleuca (family Procyonidae), now rare with a habitat limited to relatively small forested areas of central China where ample growth exists of the stands of bamboo which constitutes the bulk of the creature’s diet.

(2) A reddish-brown (with ringed-tail), raccoon-like mammal (in the literature often referred to as the “lesser panda”), Ailurus fulgens which inhabits mountain forests in the Himalayas and adjacent eastern Asia, subsisting mainly on bamboo and other vegetation, fruits, and insects.

(3) In Hinduism, a brahmin (a member of the highest (priestly) caste) who acts as the hereditary superintendent of a particular ghat (temple) and regarded as authoritative in matters of genealogy and ritual.

(4) In colloquial use (picked up as UK police slang) as “panda car” (often clipped to “panda”), a UK police vehicle painted in a two-tone color scheme (originally black & white but later more typically powder-blue & white) (historic use only).

(5) Used attributively, something (or someone) with all (or some combination of) the elements (1) black & white coloration, (2) perceptions of “cuteness” and (3) the perceived quality of being “soft & cuddly”.

1835: From the French (Cuvier), a name for the lesser panda, assumed to be from a Tibeto-Burman language or some other native Nepalese word.  Cuvier is a trans-lingual term which references the French naturalist and zoologist Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) and his younger brother the zoologist and paleontologist Frédéric Cuvier (1773–1838).  The term was use of any of the Latinesque or pseudo-Latin formations created as taxonomic names for organisms following the style & conventions used by the brothers.  Most etymologists suggest the most likely source was the second element of nigálya-pónya (a local name for the red panda recorded in Nepal and Sikkim), which was perhaps from the Nepali निँगाले (nĩgāle) (relating to a certain species of bamboo), the adjectival form of निँगालो (nĩgālo), a variant of निङालो (niṅālo) (Drepanostachyum intermedium (a species of bamboo)).  The second element was a regional Tibetan name for the animal, related in some way to ཕོ་ཉ (pho nya) (messenger).  The use in Hinduism describing “a learned, wise; learned man, pundit, scholar, teacher (and specifically of the Brahmin (a member of the highest (priestly) caste) who was the hereditary superintendent of a particular ghat (temple) and regarded as authoritative in matters of genealogy and ritual, especially one who had memorized a substantial proportion of the Vedas)” was from the Hindi पंडा (paṇḍā) and the Punjabi ਪਾਂਡਾ (pāṇḍā), both from the Sanskrit पण्डित (paṇḍita) (learned, wise; learned man, pundit, scholar, teacher).  The English word pundit (expert in a particular field, especially as called upon to provide comment or opinion in the media; a commentator or critic) entered the language during the British Raj in India, the use originally to describe native surveyor, trained to carry out clandestine surveillance the colonial borders.  The English form is now commonly used in many languages but the descendants included the Japanese パンダ (panda), the Korean 판다 (panda) and the Thai: แพนด้า.  Panda is a noun and pandalike (also as panda-like) is an adjective (pandaesque & panderish still listed as non-standard; the noun plural is pandas.

A charismatic creature: Giant Panda with cub.

As a word, panda has been productive.  The portmanteau noun pandemonium (the blend being panda +‎ (pande)monium was a humorous construct describing the reaction which often occurs in zoos when pandas appear and was on the model of fandemonium (the reaction of groupies and other fans to the presence of their idol).  The "trash panda" (also as "dumpster panda" or "garbage panda") was of US & Canadian origin and an alternative to "dumpster bandit", "garbage bandit" or "trash bandit" and described the habit of raccoons foraging for food in trash receptacles.  The use was adopted because the black patches around the creature's eyes are marking similar to those of the giant panda.  The Australian equivalent is the "bin chicken", an allusion to the way the Ibis has adapted to habitat loss by entering the urban environment, living on food scraps discarded in rubbish bins.

Lindsay Lohan with “panda” eye makeup (left) and a cat which manages the look "makeup free" (right).  The companion term is "reverse panda", a usually unintended effect caused by light makeup around the eyes appearing as white circles or patches.  The look sometimes is exaggerated in photographs because of the use of studio lighting or the camera flash.

The “panda crossing” was a pedestrian safety measure, an elaborate form of the “zebra crossing”.  It was introduced in the UK in 1962, the name derived from the two-tone color scheme used for the road marking and the warning beacons on either side of the road.  The design worked well in theory but not in practice and all sites had been decommissioned by late 1967.  The giant panda’s twotonalism led to the adoption of “panda dolphin” as one of the casual tags (the others being “jacobita, skunk dolphin, piebald dolphin & tonina overa for the black & white Commerson's dolphin (Cephalorhynchus commersonii).  “Reverse panda” is an alternative version of “raccoon eyes” and describes an effect achieved (sometimes “over-achieved”) with eye-shadow or other makeup, producing a pronounced darkening around the eyes, an inversion of the panda’s combination.  It’s something which is sometimes seen also in photography as a product of lighting or the use of a camera’s flash.

In English, the first known reference to the panda as a “carnivorous raccoon-like mammal (the lesser panda) of the Himalayas” while the Giant Panda was first described in 1901 although it had been “discovered” in 1869 by French missionary Armand David and it was known as parti-colored until the name was changed which evidence of the zoological relationship to the red panda was accepted.  The giant panda was thus once included as part of the raccoon family but is now classified as a bear subfamily, Ailuropodinae, or as the sole member of a separate family, Ailuropodidae (which diverged from an ancestral bear lineage).  The lesser panda (the population of which has greatly been reduced by collectors & hunters) is now regarded as unrelated to the giant panda and usually classified as the sole member of an Old World raccoon subfamily, Ailurinae, which diverged from an ancestral lineage that also gave rise to the New World raccoons, most familiar in North America.  As late as the early twentieth century, the synonyms for the lesser panda included bear cat, cat bear & wah, all now obsolete.

Panda diplomacy

Lindsay Lohan collecting Chinese takeaway from a Panda Express outlet, New York City, November 2008.

Although the first pandas were gifted by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek’s (1887-1975; leader of the Republic of China (mainland) 1928-1949 & the renegade province of Taiwan 1949-1975) Chinese government in 1941, “panda diplomacy” began as a Cold War term, the practice of sending pandas to overseas zoos becoming a tool increasingly used by Peking (Beijing after 1979) following the Sino-Soviet split in 1957.  Quite when the phrase was first used isn’t certain but it was certainly heard in government and academic circles during the 1960s although it didn’t enter popular use until 1972, when a pair of giant pandas (Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing) were sent to the US after Richard Nixon’s (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) historic visit to China, an event motivated by Washington’s (1) interest in seeking Peking’s assistance in handling certain aspects of the conflict in Indochina and (2) desire to “move Moscow into check on the diplomatic chessboard”.  Ever since, pandas have been a unique part of the ruling Communist Party of China’s (CCP) diplomatic toolbox although since 1984 they’ve been almost always leased rather than gifted, the annual fee apparently as high as US$1 million per beast, the revenue generated said to be devoted to conservation of habitat and a selective breeding program designed to improve the line’s genetic diversity.  Hong Kong in 2007 were gifted a pair but that’s obviously a special case ("one country, two pandas") and while an expression of diplomatic favour, they can be also an indication of disapprobation, those housed in the UK in 2023 returned home at the end of the lease and not replaced.

It’s one of a set of such terms in geopolitics including  “shuttle diplomacy” (the notion of a negotiator taking repeated "shuttle flights" between countries involved in conflict in an attempt to manage or resolve things (something with a long history but gaining the name from the travels here & there of Dr Henry Kissinger (1923-2023; US national security advisor 1969-1975 & secretary of state 1937-1977) in the 1960s & 1970s)), “ping-pong diplomacy” (the use of visiting table-tennis teams in the 1960s & 1970s as a means of reducing Sino-US tensions and maintaining low-level cultural contacts as a prelude to political & economic engagement), “commodity diplomacy” (the use of tariffs, quotas and other trade barriers as “bargaining chips” in political negotiations), “gunboat diplomacy” (the threat (real or implied) of the use of military force as means of coercion), “hostage diplomacy” (holding the nationals of a country in prison or on (sometimes spurious) charges with a view to exchanging them for someone or something) and “megaphone diplomacy” (an official or organ of government discussing in public what is usually handled through “usual diplomatic channels”; the antonym is “quiet diplomacy”).

Panda diplomacy in action.

A case study in the mechanics of panda diplomacy was provided by PRC (People’s Republic of China) Premier Li Qiang (b 1959; premier of the People's Republic of China (PRC) since 2023) during his official visit to Australia in June 2024.  Mr Li’s presence was an indication the previous state of “diplomatic deep freeze” between the PRC & Australia had been warmed to something around “correct but cool”, the earlier state of unarmed conflict having been entered when Beijing reacted to public demands (delivered via “megaphone diplomacy”) by previous Australian prime minister Scott Morrison (b 1968; Australian prime-minister 2018-2022) for an international enquiry into the origin of the SARS-Covid-2 virus which triggered the COVID-19 pandemic.  Such a thing might have been a good idea but underlying Mr Morrison’s strident call was that he was (1) blaming China and (2) accusing the CCP of a cover-up.  Mr Morrison is an evangelical Christian and doubtlessly it was satisfying for him to attend his church (one of those where there’s much singing, clapping, praising the Lord and discussing the real-estate market) to tell his fellow congregants how he’d stood up to the un-Christian, Godless communists but as a contribution to international relations (IR), it wasn’t a great deal of help.  His background was in advertising and coining slogans (he so excelled at both it was clearly his calling) but he lacked the background for the intricacies of IR.  The CCP’s retributions (trade sanctions and refusing to pick up the phone) might have been an over-reaction but to a more sophisticated prime-minister they would have been reasonably foreseeable.

Two years on from the diplomatic blunder, Mr Li arrived at Adelaide Zoo for a photo-opportunity to announce the impending arrival of two new giant pandas, the incumbent pair, Wang Wang and Fu Ni, soon to return to China after their 15 year stint.  Wang Wang and Fu Ni, despite over those years having been provided “every encouragement” (including both natural mating and artificial insemination) to procreate, proved either unable or unwilling so, after thanking the zoo’s staff for looking after them so well, the premier announced: “We will provide a new pair of equally beautiful, lovely and adorable pandas to the Adelaide Zoo.”, he said through an interpreter, adding: “I'm sure they will be loved and taken good care of by the people of Adelaide, South Australia, and Australia.”  The duo, the only giant pandas in the southern hemisphere, had been scheduled to return in 2019 at the conclusion of the original ten year lease but sometime before the first news of COVID-19, this was extended to 2024.  Although their lack of fecundity was disappointing, there’s nothing to suggest the CCP regard this as a loss of face (for them or the apparently unromantic couple) and Wang Wang and Fu Ni will enjoy a comfortable retirement munching on abundant supplies of bamboo.  Unlike some who have proved a “disappointment” to the CCP, they’ll be spared time in a “re-education centre”.

A classic UK police Wolseley 6/80 (1948-1954) in black, a staple of 1950s UK film & television (top left), Adaux era Hillman Minx (1956–1967) (top centre) & Jaguar Mark 2 (1959-1969) (top right), the first of the true "black & white" panda cars, Ford Anglia 105E (1958-1968) on postage stamp issued by the Royal Mail in 2013 (bottom left), in one of the pastel blues which replaced the gloss black, Rover 3500 (SD1, 1976-1984) (bottom centre) in one of the deliberately lurid schemes used in the 1970s & 1980s (UK police forces stockpiled Rover 3500s when it was announced production was ending; they knew what would follow would be awful) and BMW 320d (bottom right) in the "Battenburg markings" designed by the Police Scientific Development Branch (SDB).

Until 1960, the fleets of cars run by most of the UK’s police forces tended to be a glossy black.  That began to change when, apparently influenced by US practice, the front doors and often part or all of the roof were painted white, the change said to be an attempt to make them “more distinctive”.  The new scheme saw then soon dubbed “panda cars”, the slang picked up by police officers (though often, in their economical way, clipped to “panda”) and use persisted for years even after the dominant color switched from black to pastels, usually a duck-egg blue.  Things got brighter over the years until the police developed the high-visibility “Battenburg markings” a combination of white, blue and fluorescent yellow, a system widely adopted internationally.  Interestingly, although the black & white combination was used between the 1960s-1990s by the New Zealand’s highway patrol cars (“traffic officers” then separate from the police), the “panda car” slang never caught on.

The Fiat Panda

Basic motoring, the 1980 Fiat Panda.

Developed during the second half of the troubled and uncertain 1970s, the Fiat Panda debuted at the now defunct Geneva Motor Show in 1980.  Angular, though not a statement of high rectilinearism in the manner of the memorable Fiat 130 coupé (1971-1977), it was a starkly functional machine, very much in the utilitarian tradition of the Citroën 2CV (1948-1990) but visually reflecting more recent trends although, concessions to style were few.  Fiat wanted a car with the cross-cultural appeal of its earlier Cinquecento (500, 1957-1975) which, like the British Motor Corporation’s (BMC) Mini (1959-2000) was “classless” and valued for its practicality.  It was designed from “the inside out”, the passenger compartment’s dimensions created atop the mechanical components with the body built around those parameters, the focus always on minimizing the number of components used, simplifying the manufacturing and assembly processes and designing the whole to make maintenance as infrequently required and as inexpensive as possible.  One innovation which seemed a good, money saving device was that all glass was flat, something which had fallen from fashion for windscreens in the 1950s and for side windows a decade later.  In theory, reverting to the pre-war practice should have meant lower unit costs and greater left-right interchangeability but there were no manufacturers in Italy which had maintained the machinery to produce such things and the cost per m² proved eventually a little higher than would have been the case for curved glass.  Over three generations until 2024, the Panda was a great success although one which did stray from its basic origins as European prosperity increased.  There was in the 1990s even an electric version which was very expensive and, its capabilities limited by the technology of the time, not a success.

The name of the Fiat Panda came from mythology, Empanda, a Roman goddess who was patroness of travelers and controversial among historians, some regarding her identity as but the family name of Juno, the Roman equivalent of Hera, the greatest of all the Olympian goddesses.  Whatever the lineage, she was a better choice for Fiat than Pandarus (Πάνδαρος) who came from the city of Zeleia, Apollo himself teaching him the art of archery.  Defying his father’s advice, Pandarus marched to Troy as a foot soldier, refusing to take a chariot & horses; there he saw Paris & Menelaus engaged in single combat and the goddess Athena incited Pandarus to fire an arrow at Menelaus.  In this way the truce was broken and the war resumed.  Pandarus then fought Diomedes but was killed, his death thought punishment for his treachery in breaking the truce.

Press-kit images for the 2024 Fiat Grande Panda issued by Stellantis, June 2024.

In June 2024, Fiat announced the fourth generation Panda and advances in technology mean the hybrid and all-electric power-trains are now mainstream and competitive on all specific measures.  The Grande Panda is built on the new Stellantis “Smart Car platform”, shared with Citroën ë-C3, offering seating capacity for five.  Unlike the original, the 2024 Panda features a few stylistic gimmicks including headlights and taillights with a “pixel theme”, a look extended to the diamond-cut aluminium wheels, in homage to geometric motifs of the 1980s and the earlier Panda 4x4.

Panda scene from Homer vs Dignity.

Pandas (fake & real) have a role in Homer vs Dignity, (November, 2000, episode 5, season 12 of the animated television series The Simpsons (on the Fox network 1989-2024, on Disney+ since 2024)).  The plot line involved evil nuclear power-plant owner Montgomery Burns hiring Homer Simpson as his “prank monkey”, staging public antics and publicly humiliating himself, all for Mr Burns’ amusement.  The most controversial scene was the one in which Homer, dressed in a panda suit, sexually was violated by a real panda (presumably this was referred to and signed-off by the Fox lawyers).  On The Simpsons, there’d not before been a scene like it and despite the cartoon South Park (on Paramount+'s Comedy Central since 1997) raising (or lowering) the cartoon bar, there’s not been one like it since.

Psychological moment, Homer Simpson being dragged into the panda’s den.  In the age of #metoo, Fox’s lawyers might have suggested a script-revision.

Homer vs Dignity was at the time cited as a “jumping the shark” moment although it’s regarded now as an aberration and not a marker of terminal decline.  The idiomatic “jumping the shark” is a reference to some creative endeavor having worked the concept dry and resorting instead to gimmicks and absurdities.  The term dates from 1985 and was coined by US media personality Jon Hein (b 1957) as a belated response to an 1977 episode in the fifth season of the ABC sitcom Happy Days (1974-1984) in which a character, most incongruously, performs a water ski jump over a caged shark.  However, although Homer vs Dignity widely was panned, it appears not to appear in the various “top five worst episode ever” lists, headed usually by The Principal and the Pauper (September, 1997, episode 2, season 9) in which school principal Seymour Skinner is revealed to be an imposter and dismissed from his position.  Because Principle Skinner was needed as an ongoing character, the episode resolved things in a twist improbable even by cartoon standards with the entire population of Springfield declaring never again to speak of the matter.