Torch

Torch (pronounced tawrch)

(1) A light to be carried in the hand, consisting of some combustible substance, as resinous wood, or of twisted flax or the like soaked with tallow or other flammable substance, ignited at the upper end.

(2) A portable light-source (now almost universally electric and battery or solar powered); use rare in the US where the preferred term is “flashlight”.

(3) Any of various lamp-like devices that produce a hot flame and are used for soldering, burning off paint etc (blowtorch, oxy-gas torch et al).

(4) Figuratively, something considered as a source of illumination, enlightenment, guidance etc.

(5) In slang, an arsonist (one who to set fires maliciously (ie “torches” stuff).

(6) To burn or flare up like a torch.

(7) As “torch singer”, one who sings “torch songs” (pieces lamenting an unrequited love by one who still “carries a torch” for their object of desire).

(8) As “pass the torch”, the idea (sometimes inter-generational) of a responsibility or office being handed to a successor (synonymous with “pass the baton”).

(9) To insult someone or something, to ruin the reputation of someone or something; to release damaging claims about someone or something (a generalized term, particular flavors of such “torchings” on the internet often now described with specific terms).

1250–1300: From the Middle English noun torch & torche, from the Old French torche & torque (torch; bundle of straw), from the unattested Vulgar Latin torca (something twisted; coiled object) from the Latin torqua, a variant of torquis, from torqueō (twist), from the primitive Indo-European root PIE root terkw- (to twist).  In a very modern twist, it’s from this source that the OnlyFans favourite “twerking” comes.  From the Latin is drawn the modern measure of specific energy (twisting effort): “torque”), the original sense being a “torch formed of twisted tow dipped in wax”.  By at least the 1620s “torch” was in figurative use describing “a source of inspiration or guidance”.  Quite when the term “torch-bearer” (in the literal sense) was first used isn’t known but it’s a very old job and likely therefore also to be used as long as the word “torch” although use seems not to have been documented before the early fifteenth century.  The figurative sense of s “torch-bearer” being the “leader of a cause” dates from the 1530s.  The slang sense of “an arsonist” dates from 1938.  In the way these things happen, electrically powered portable light-sources usually are called “flashlights” in US use while “torch” tended to predominate elsewhere in the English-speaking world although, because so many products are now marketed internationally as “flashlight”, the use has spread.  The verb torch dates from circa 1819 in the sense of “illuminate with a torch” and was derived from the noun while as a regional or dialectal form by mid century it was used to mean “flare up, rise like flame or smoke from a torch”.  In US use, the meaning “set fire to” was in use by 1931, this extended by 1938 to “arsonist”.  Torch & torching are nouns & verbs, torcher is a noun, torched is a verb and torchable, torchless & torchlike (also as torch-like) are adjectives; the noun plural is torches.

In Greek mythology, Θᾰ́νᾰτος (Thánatos) was the personification of Death.  Thánatos was from θνῄσκω (thnēskō) (I die, I am dying) and although his name was transliterated in Latin as Thanatus, his counterpart in Roman mythology was Mors or Letum.  In the Iliad, Thánatos appears as the brother of Sleep (Hypnos) and according to the 7-8^th century BC Ancient Greek poet Hesiod, these two spirits were the sons of Nyx (the personification of the night and its goddess).  The sister of Ertebus and daughter of Chaos, her realm was the far west far beyond the land of Atlas and as well as Death & Sleep, she was the mother of a number of abstract forces including Morus (Destiny), Momus (Reproach), Oizys (Distress), the Moirae (Nemesis), Apate (Deceit), Philotes (Love), Geras (Old Age), Eris (Strife), and the Hesperides (the nymphs of the Setting Sun).  As a dramatic device, Thánatos sometimes appeared as a character in Greek theatre but his presence was otherwise rare.  When he appeared in paintings or sculpture, it was often with the torch he held in his hand being upside-down, signifying death or the end-of-life.

A cooking torch being used to apply a finishing touch to a lemon meringue pie.

There are all sorts of torches including “blow-torch” (a gas-powered tool used by plumbers), “cooking torch” (a gas-powered tool used by chefs usually to induce some sort of “burnt” effect on the surface of dishes), “cutting torch” (the tool attached to cylinders of oxygen & acetylene (ie oxy-acetylene) which, when combined and ignited, enable metal to be cut or joined, “fusion torch” (in nuclear physics, a technique using the high-temperature plasma of a fusion reactor to break apart other materials (especially waste materials) and convert them into reusable elements, “weed torch” (A torch used to kill weeds by means of a high-temperature propane flame, the attraction being precision (ie can be used in close proximity to desirable plants one wishes not to kill) and avoiding the use chemicals or disrupting the soil, “pen torch” (also as “pen-light”) small torches built into functional pens.

In the history of World War II (1939-1945), the word “torch” is most associated with “Operation Torch”, the Allied invasion of French North Africa, conducted between 8–16 November 1942.  One of those “compromises” thrashed out between the British and Americans in the mechanism of the Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS), it was a vital component in the rhythm of the conflict because (1) it allowed a final “mopping up” of the Axis forces in North Africa, (2) introduced US forces to the European theatre (albeit in Africa) and (3) removed any threat to the Allied control of the Mediterranean, (4) secured Middle East oil supplies and (5) made possible later military action in Italy & southern France.  There was though also a “torch” footnote in the history of the war.  Before things turned against him, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) would sometimes make (usually inept) attempts at humor and, early in 1941 when the invasion of the Soviet Union was going well, the Führerhauptquartiere (Leader’s Headquarters) was the Wolfsschanze (Wolf's Lair) near the East Prussian town of Rastenburg (now Kętrzyn in present-day Poland).  There one night, he found one of his secretaries (Christa Schroeder (1908–1984)) wandering in the darkness saying she couldn’t find her torch.  He claimed innocence, arguing: “I’m a country thief (Ländledieb) thief, not a lamp (Lämpledieb) thief”.  That was about as good as Anführerhumor got.

Passing the Torch

In use since the late nineteenth century, the idiomatic phrase “pass the torch” is a metaphor drawn from Antiquity: the λαμπαδηδρομία (lampadēdromía) (torch-races), a feature at many festivals in Ancient Greece.  These were relay events, run over a variety of distances, each team member carrying a burning torch, the prize awarded to the team whose runner crossed the finish line first with the torch still burning.  That is of course the long accepted myth but many modern historians regard the "torch relay" from Antiquity as a "manufactured myth", one of many emerged in the centuries long after the purported events were said to have transpired.  The idea entered modern athletics in relay events where each runner carries a baton which they hand to the competitor about to run the next leg (thus “pass the baton” being synonymous with “pass the torch”).  The torch relay idea was revived for 1936 Summer Olympic Games in Berlin and has since been a feature of all games (winter & summer), the design of the devices now part of Olympic history.   

Berlin, 1936.

So much publicity did the torch run from Olympia in Greece to Berlin attract as a prelude to the 1936 Olympic games that it has since been a feature of every subsequent summer & winter games (and within five years the Nazis would occupy Greece although not willingly).  The 1936 run was a genuine relay which involved over 3,000 in a route which included Greece (which within five years the Nazis would occupy although not willingly, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia (invaded by the Nazis in 1941), Hungary (invaded by the Nazis in 1944), Austria (annexed by the Nazis in 1938), Czechoslovakia (annexed by the Nazis in 1938-1939) & Germany.

Rendered in steel and fueled by a flammable paste inside a magnesium tube, each load had a burning time for some 10 minutes, ideal for the relay schedule but there were quality control problems with one batch of torches so the Nazis cheated, some of the torchbearers in more rural regions being driven by car.  The decision to use a torch was a deliberate attempt to link the Third Reich with the classical civilizations of Antiquity.  Although symbolic fires had been kept alight during the games at Amsterdam (1928) and Los Angeles (1932), neither had been lit with flame carried from Olympia in a torch relay.  The first intention of the Berlin organizing committee had been to remain true to the old ways, creating torches of hardwood topped with bundles of narthex stalks, taken from a Mediterranean tree known for its slow combustion but tests soon revealed this to be impractical and so metal torches were fabricated.

Mexico City, 1968.

One of the more pleasing designs was that used for the 1968 summer games in Mexico City.  In a then novel touch, the torch was produced in four versions: (1) An all-steel construction with vertical grooves present on the whole body of the torch, (2) A similar design to the first type except for the bottom part of the body which featured a black leather handle, (3) A design which included a handle made partly from wood and a motif featuring a dove was repeated on the upper part and (4) A silver ring with repeated dove motifs was added to decorate the top of the torch while the caption “Mexico” was reproduced twice at the base of the handle.  Depending on which method of construction was used, the fuel load varied, the solid mix including nitrates, sulphurs, alkaline metal carbonates, resins and silicones.

Lake Placid, 1980.

According to the organizing committee, the design and choice of materials used for the torch for the XIII Olympic Winter Games held at New York’s Lake Placid in 1980 was intended to symbolize the blending of modern technology and the traditions of Ancient Greece.  Accordingly, it was constructed of metal with a bronze finish, a handle wrapped in leather and as fuel it used liquid propane, each torch able to remain alight for an impressive 40 minutes.  The sole decorative element was a silver ring where metal met leather, the inscription reading: “XIII Olympic Winter Games Lake Placid 1980”. Although it pre-dated both the personal computer (PC) revolution and the internet, apparently there was some use of computers in the design.    The committee described the shape of the bowl as a tribute to classical Greek architecture but many couldn’t help but notice some resemblance to a certain plumbing tool.

President Biden passes the torch

Opinion seems divided on whether the remarkable “Pass the torch Joe” advertisement a Democratic Party Super Political Action Committee (PAC) paid to run on what is known to be one of Joe Biden’s (b 1942; US president since 2021) favorite television shows had much to do with his decision to withdraw from seeking his party’s nomination for a second term.  Even if not decisive however, for a Super PAC publicly (and expensively) to advocate something which is usually an internal party matter must have had some sort of “shock effect” on the president because it was unprecedented; to him it must have been something like seeing "something nasty in the woodshed".  While the Super PAC structure is not exclusive to US politics, the American devices (created essentially as a work-around of tiresome campaign finance laws) work on a grand scale compared with those in other countries but previously they have exclusively been devoted to promoting a candidate, not airing the dirty laundry.

The Super PAC’s message (best translated as “Joe, you’re too old and senile to do this”) wasn’t new because it had (in sanitized form) since the first presidential debate in June been either stated or selectively leaked by any number of party grandees including a former president, a former speaker and leading Democrats in both houses of Congress.  That might have been manageable by the Biden faction but what was not was the flow of funds from party donors drying up, another candidate being the only conduction of resumption.  The Super PAC’s choice of “pass the torch” as a metaphor was clever because (1) it’s well understood and (2) with its classical origin it lends an air of nobility, the idea being the old warrior, standing undefeated, handing the torch to someone who was after all his chosen deputy.  Of course, what was left unspoken was that in Ancient Greece the point of the exercise was the torch has to be passed while still aflame, the question being whether it has in Mr Biden’s increasingly unsteady grip, blown out, leaving only smoking embers.

On the way out; on the way in: Time magazine covers after the debate (left) and after the tweet (right).  What the latter cover lacked was a word to replace "panic".  The editorial board would have discussed the matter, pondering possibly "faith", "hope" or "desperation" before deciding to leave it to the readers.  The choice of red for the background was interesting.

By Sunday 21 July it seems the cold hard numbers had been assembled and presented to Mr Biden, explaining that not only could he not win the presidency but that with him as a candidate, The Democrats would likely lose control of the Senate and the Republicans would increase their majority in the House of Representatives.  Senile or not, Mr Biden can still comprehend basic electoral arithmetic and understand the implication for his “legacy” were he to cling to something his very presence was making a losing cause.  His statement on X (formerly known as Twitter) was essentially the same as that of Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969) who realized the war in Vietnam had destroyed his presidency:

President Biden, 2024 (edited): “My Fellow Americans, over the past three-and-a-half years, we have made great progress as a nation.  Today, America has the strongest economy in the world.  America has never been better positioned to lead than we are today.  I know none of this could have been done without you, the American people.  Together, we overcame a once in a century pandemic and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  We've protected and preserved our democracy. And we've revitalised and strengthened our alliances around the world.”

“It has been the greatest honour of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek re-election, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.  For now, let me express my deepest gratitude to all those who have worked so hard to see me re-elected.  I want to thank Vice President Kamala Harris for being an extraordinary partner in all this work. And let me express my heartfelt appreciation to the American people for the faith and trust you have placed in me.”

The Washington Post, 1 April 1968.

President Johnson, 1968 (edited): “With America's sons in the fields far away, with America's future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office — the presidency of this country.  Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”

Not all were happy when crooked old Lyndon announced he would not seek another term, Carl Giles (1916–1995), Daily Express, 2 April 1968.  Reaction to senile old Joe's tweet will also be mixed.

LBJ’s legacy is now better regarded than would have been thought likely in 1968 but it’s not possible to predict what will be the fate of Mr Biden’s except to say it will at least be influenced by the outcome of the 2024 election and perception of what part his long delayed withdrawal from the contest played.  The comparisons with 1968 are inevitable for a number of reasons, not least because both presidents were products of and operatives in the Democratic Party machine and both achieved the highest office in unlikely circumstances, having earlier failed while attempting a more conventional path.  The other echo of 1968 is the prospect of an open party convention in Chicago, something the political junkies would welcome for the same reasons the party leadership will wish to avoid one; on both sides, the conventions have for decades been stage-managed affairs, something in no small part encouraged by the scenes of violence and chaos in Chicago in 1968.  Thus, what’s planned is to have Kamala Harris (b 1964; US vice president since 2021) position on the ticket stitched up by a “virtual vote” of the delegates, well in advance of the mid-August convention which can then be allowed to function as a combination of coronation and formal campaign launch.  Details about which white, male governor of which battleground state will be named as running mate have yet to be confirmed.  It’s impossible to say how good Ms Harris will be as a candidate (or for that matter as president) because until they’re in the arena (having “the blowtorch applied to the belly” as Neville Wran (1926–2014; premier of the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) 1976-1986) put it), it won’t be known and political history is littered with examples of those of whom much was expected yet failed and of those expected to fail yet who prospered for a decade or more and not un-noticed in both parties is her unprecedented electoral advantage in being (1) not white and (2) not male, thus making available at any time accusations of racism or misogyny.  Already, some Republicans are complaining she’ll be “bubble-wrapped” by the liberal media (the outfits Mr Trump calls “the fake new media”) and they’re suggesting that any time a difficult question is asked (presumably by Fox News) it’ll be answered by “that’s sexist” or “that’s racist”.  Played selectively, they can be good cards.

So the 2024 election will be a very modern campaign.  One who must be mulling over the wisdom of doing such a good job in making Mr Biden’s candidature untenable is Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) and it was notable that in the hours after Mr Biden’s tweet, he couldn’t resist continuing his attacks of the person no longer his opponent.  It was flogging a dead horse but presumably his team had no more appropriate material available for his use.  The Trump campaign team certainly has a problem in that all the resources they have for months devoted to honing the attacks for a Trump-Biden re-match and it’s unlikely much can be re-purposed for a Trump-Harris bout.  Tellingly, perhaps because of concerns about the “racism, sexism thing”, not much thought seems to have been given to Ms Harris and even the occasionally used “laffin’ Kamala” has nothing like the ring of “crooked Hillary”, “sleepy Joe”, “the Biden crime family”, “low energy Jeb”, “crazy Bernie” “lyin’ Ted”, “Mini Mike” or any of the other monikers he used to so effectively import into political campaigning the techniques he’d perfected on reality television.  He does deliberately mispronounce “Kamala” (which, like “lafin’”, some have suggested is a coded racial slur) and, apparently impromptu, recently said “she’s nuts” but none of that suggests anything which had been well-workshopped.  The team will be aware that when dealing with a PoC (person of color) there must be caution so it'll be interesting to see what they come up with.  That caution meant Mr Trump must have regretted he couldn't use the gay slur "mayor Buttplug" of Pete Buttigieg (b 1982 US secretary of transportation since 2021), an allusion to him being (as it's still put in sections of the Republican Party) "a confessed homosexual" because "Alfred E Newman" didn't catch on, Mad Magazine now too remote for most of the population; "must be a generational thing" Mr Buttigieg said, explaining it baffled him although the resemblance certainly was striking.  

It is a whole new dynamic for the campaign but what hasn’t changed is that just as there was no great pro-Biden feeling, nor is there yet much of a pro-Harris feeling (although there may be a pro-woman & pro-PoC factor) and the 2024 poll remains pro-Trump vs anti-Trump.  Unlike a week ago, a Democrat victory is now something many are contemplating.  The critical factors are abortion which in recent months has proved an electoral asset for the Democrats and the potential a PoC has to entice to vote the habitually politically disconnected.  To win the election a party needs a surprisingly small number of these recalcitrant souls to turn out and it’s worth remembering that both Mr Biden and crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) in 2020 & 2016 respectively anyway received substantially more votes than Mr Trump.  The 2024 election can go either way and is now interesting in a way it wasn’t a week ago.

Torch Songs

The notion of “keeping the torch burning” refers to those who remain faithful to causes often thought doomed.  Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) for example never gave up the idea the Orthodox Church might one day return to communion with Rome and thus always “kept burning on the ramparts a torch to guide home the wandering daughter who ran off to Constantinople.”  It’s used also of those who never abandon the idea they might yet be reconciled with a long-lost lover and it’s those feelings which inspire the writers of “torch songs” although they are often tales of unrequited love.  Most “torch singers” seem these days to be women but the original pieces described as “torch songs” during the 1920s were performed by men although when “torch singer” came into wider use the next decades, it seems mostly to be used of women.

Over, a Lindsay Lohan torch song (official music video).

Over by John Shanks, Kara Dioguardi & Lindsay Lohan, © BMG Rights Management, Sony-ATV Music Publishing, Universal Music Publishing Group, released in 2004 on the album Speak.

I watch the walls around me crumble

But it's not like I won't build them up again

So here's your last change for redemption

So take it while it lasts because it will end

My tears are turning into time I've wasted trying to find a reason for goodbye

I can't live without you

Can't breathe without you

I'm dreamin' 'bout you honestly

Tell me that it’s over

'Cause if the world is spinning and I'm still living

It won't be right if we're not in it together

Tell me that it's over

And I'll be the first to go

Don't want to be the last to know

I won't be the one to chase you

But at the same time you're the heart that I call home

I'm always stuck with these emotions

And the more I try to feel the less I'm whole

My tears are turning into time

I've wasted trying to find a reason for goodbye

I can't live without you

Can't breathe without you

I'm dreamin' 'bout you honestly

Tell me that its over

'Cause if the world is spinning and I'm still living

It won't be right if we're not in it together

Tell me that it's over

And I'll be the first to go

Yeah, I'll be the first to go

Don't want to be the last to know

Over, over, over

My tears are turning into time

I've wasted trying to find a reason for goodbye

I can't live without you

Can't breathe without you

I'm dreamin' bout you honestly

Tell me that it’s over

'Cause if the world is spinning and I'm still living

It won't be right if we're not in it together

Tell me that it's over

Tell me that it's over

Honestly tell me,

Honestly tell me,

Don't tell me that it's over

Don't tell me that it's over.

Farce

Farce (pronounced fahrs)

(1) To stuff; to cram (obsolete).

(2) To make fat; to swell out (obsolete).

(3) To render pompous (obsolete).

(4) In the Roman Catholic Church, an alternative form of farse (to insert vernacular paraphrases into a Latin liturgy).

(5) A light, humorous production (plays, television film etc) play in which the plot depends upon the exploitation of improbable (or even impossible) situations rather than upon the development of character.

(6) The genre of comedy represented by works of this kind

(7) Humor of the type displayed in such works.

(8) Something foolish; a mockery; a ridiculous sham, a ludicrous situation or action.

(9) In cooking, forcemeat (a mixture of finely chopped and seasoned foods, usually containing egg white, meat or fish, etc., used as a stuffing or served alone).

(10) To add witty material to a speech or composition.

1300–1350: From the Middle English noun fars (stuffing), from the Middle French farce, from the Vulgar Latin farsa, noun use of feminine of Latin farsus, from the earlier fartus (stuffed), past participle of the verb farcīre (to stuff) which Middle English picked up as farsen, from the Old French farsir & farcir, from Latin farciō (to cram, stuff).  It was a doublet of farse.  The origin of the Latin farcire (to stuff, cram) is of uncertain origin but some etymologists suggest it may be connected with the primitive Indo-European bhrekw- (to cram together).  Farce in the fourteenth century first meant the chopped-meat stuffing used in cooking and farced into dishes.  The idea of a scene or plotline of “ludicrous satire or low comedy” being interpolated into a play was first described as “a farcing and thus soon ‘a farce’”) in the 1520s, while the dramatic sense of a “ludicrous satire; low comedy” was from the French use of farce (comic interlude in a mystery play) was a sixteenth century development while in English, the generalized sense of “a ridiculous sham” came into use in the 1690s.  In literary use, the companion term is tragicofarcical (having elements of both tragedy and farce).  Farce is a noun & verb, farced & farcing are verbs and and farcical is an adjective; the noun plural is plural farces.  The adjective unfarced (also as un-farced) is used in cooking to distinguished a dish not farced from one farced; it is not used of plays or literature.

The now rare noun infarction first appeared in the medical literature in the 1680s as a noun of action from the Latin infarcire (to stuff into), the construct being in- )in the sense of “into” (from the primitive Indo-European root en- (in) + farcīre (to stuff).  In pathology it was widely used of various morbid local conditions but as technology and techniques improved and more specific descriptions evolved used declined and the early twentieth century it tended to be restricted to certain conditions caused by localized faults in the circulatory system.  The construct of the noun forcemeat (also as force-meat) was force (“to stuff (as a variant of farce)) + meat.  The term first appeared in cookbooks in the late 1670s (although the technique (as “farcing”) dated back centuries; it described “mincemeat, meat chopped fine & seasoned, then used as a stuffing”.

Karl Marx (left) who turned G.W.F. Hegel (right) "upside down on his head".

Nowhere did Karl Marx (1818-1883) ever write “history repeats itself” but the phrase “history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce” is often attributed to him and has long been an undergraduate favourite.  The origin of that was in the first chapter of his essay Der 18te Brumaire des Louis Napoleon (18th Brumaire of Louis Bonapatre (1852)) in which, writing of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) he wrote: “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice.  He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”  The “second time as farce” notion seems to have been something picked up from his benefactor & collaborator German philosopher Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) who a few months earlier, in one of his letters to Marx, had observed: “it really seems as though old Hegel, in the guise of the World Spirit, were directing history from the grave and, with the greatest conscientiousness, causing everything to be re-enacted twice over, once as grand tragedy and the second time as rotten farce, Caussidière for Danton, L. Blanc for Robespierre, Barthélemy for Saint-Just, Flocon for Carnot, and the moon-calf together with the first available dozen debt-encumbered lieutenants for the little corporal and his band of marshals. Thus the 18th Brumaire would already be upon us.”

In Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie (Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1843), Marx had made a similar point:  “A coup d’état is sanctioned as it were in the opinion of the people if it is repeated.  Thus, Napoleon was defeated twice and twice the Bourbons were driven out.  Through repetition, what at the beginning seemed to be merely accidental and possible, becomes real and established.”  Marx did take a few interpretative liberties with Hegel.  When in Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Weltgeschichte (Lectures on the Philosophy of History (a compilation of lectures delivered at University of Berlin in 1822, 1828 & 1830)), Hegel compared nature where “there is nothing new under the Sun,” with history where there is always development he was describing historical progression in terms of the Hegelian philosophy which holds that history follows the dictates of reason and that the natural progress of history is due to the outworking of absolute spirit.  Still, Marx did boast that to make use of Hegel's dialectic he had to “turn him upside down on his head” so perhaps he felt entitled to kick the dead man’s ideas around a bit.

The farce on stage and in literature

In literary use, the farce is a form of comedy where the purpose is to “provoke mirth of the simplest and most basic kind: roars of laughter rather than smiles; humour rather than wit.  It is associated with, but must be distinguished from, burlesque; it is with clowning, buffoonery and knockabout slapstick, a form of ‘low’ comedy in which the basic elements are: exaggerated physical action (often repeated), exaggeration of character and situation in which absurd, improbable (even impossible ones and therefore fantastical) events and surprises in the form of unexpected appearances and disclosures”.  In farce, character and dialogue are nearly always subservient to plot and situation with plots often complex, events succeeding with a sometimes bewildering rapidity.

Quite when the first farces were performed is not known but historians seem to agree it would certainly have predated anything in the literary tradition.  Elements recognizably “farces” exist in some surviving plays from Antiquity in which “low comedy” in the shape of ridiculous situations and ludicrous results, ribaldry and junketings are interpolated into works of satire and studies of the farce have identified the device in Greek satyr play and the Roman fabak.  Technically though, the first plays actually described as “farces” were French works from the late Middle Ages where there were “stuffings” described as “between scenes”: comic interludes between the “serious” parts in religious or liturgical drama.  Usually, such “stuffings” were written in octosyllabic (containing eight syllables) couplets with an average length of some 500 lines.  These interpolations poked fun at the foibles and vices of everyday life (particularly at commercial knavery and conjugal infidelity, two subjects with enduring audience appeal).

The Taming of the Shrew, Barbican Theatre, June 2019.  For the RSC (Royal Shakespeare Company), Justin Audibert (b 1981) re-imagined the England of the 1590s as a matriarchy in which Baptista Minola is seeking to sell off her son Katherine to the highest bidder.

Later, in French theatre, these farcical interludes developed into a form of their own: the “one-act farce”, pieces which were in their time something like to short-form clips which TikTok made a business model.  The contemporary English Mystery Plays also often included one or more comic interludes and interestingly, demonic & grotesque figures behaving in a buffoonish manner (letting off fireworks something of a theme) appeared with much greater frequency than in France.  In the time of the Morality Plays, apart from aberrations like William Shakespeare’s (1564–1616) The Taming of the Shrew (1592) & The Comedy of Errors (circa 1593), there was little written for the English stage which could truly be described as farce but by the time the genre of “Restoration comedy” (known sometimes as “Comedy of manners”) had become established in the late seventeenth century, farce was back to celebrate the re-opening of public stage performances, banned for the previous 18 years by the Puritan regime.  For better or worse, farce has been with us ever since.

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

It can be difficult to decided whether “farce”, “fiasco” or “debacle” best applies in particular circumstances.  Indeed, it seems difficult to formulate anything close to a “rule” and every situation will need to be judged on its merits.  However, as a general principle, the pattern of use seems to indicate: (1) Farce is used in a way which hints at the theatrical tradition: real-life situations that are ridiculously chaotic and ludicrous, almost comical in their dysfunction. (2) A fiasco is a total utter failure, usually in a public and humiliating way when things have gone very wrong, typically due to poor planning or execution. (3) A debacle is an ignominious failure and one which often implies a broader, more significant collapse, sometimes with serious consequences.

The farce of excommunication

Presumably the Spanish nuns of The Poor Clares of Belorado chose their words with care when in June 2024 they condemned the Holy See’s action against them as “the farce of excommunication” although whether they were still within the holy communion of the Church to be excommunicated may be a moot point because the sisters insisted they had already severed all connections with the Vatican and their departure from the “Conciliar Church” was “unanimous and irreversible”.  The exchange of views between Rome and Castile-Leon came after the sisters declined to attend the ecclesial tribunal of Burgos to which they had been summoned, their notice of no-attendance transmitted to the Archbishop of Burgos with a hint of rejection of modernity: they used the fax machine.  Informing the archbishop they had left the Conciliar Church “freely, voluntarily, unanimously and in a spirit of joy”, their fax message asserted the ecclesiastical tribunal had “no jurisdiction” over them since their separation the previous month which their said was prompted by the “larceny” of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II; 1962-1965), adding that no pope after Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958) was “legitimate”.

Being careful with words, it must be assumed the sisters were thus declaring Pope Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) an “illegitimate pope” rather than an “anti-pope”, a distinction of some significance to canon lawyers.  “Illegitimate pope” is a general term for any pope whose election or claim to the papacy is deemed invalid or improper according to the canonical laws and practices of the Church; such a state can arise from procedural failures or the appointee lacking the requisite qualifications.  An “anti-pope” is one who makes a claim to the papacy in opposition to the pope recognized by the majority of the Catholic Church, a status which is of any consequence only if such a person has a significant following among Catholics.  Typically, anti-popes have existed during periods of schism.

Belorado Convento de Santa María de Bretonera.

Founded in 1358, in 1458 the monastery was damaged during one of the feudal battles which for more than two centuries would from time-to-time briefly flare, the structure repaired two years later.  Built in the Gothic style, there are Baroque style altar-pieces from the seventeenth century and a pipe organ dating from 1799.  The Monastery of Santa Clara is presided over by nuns of the order of the Poor Clares.

So, being critical mass theorists like any good Catholics, the sisters would understand that at the moment, Francis “has the numbers” but they certainly seem to be attempting something schismatic, their 70-page manifesto explaining that henceforth the nuns would follow the spiritual leadership of Pablo de Rojas Sánchez-Franco (b 1982), a self-styled “bishop” and professed admirer of the fascist dictator Generalissimo Francisco Franco (1892-1975; Caudillo of Spain 1939-1975); De Rojas-Franco was excommunicated in 2019.  Like the sisters, Mr De Rojas-Franco is a sedisvacantist (one who regards all popes after Pius XII to be illegitimate heads of the Church; in this view, the Holy See in Rome is actually sede vacante (vacant throne) and Francis a heretic and usurper to be spoken of only as “Mr Bergoglio”.  One implication of this is that many post 1958 ordinations are also invalid so any penalty or canonical sanction “imposed by those who are not valid or legitimate bishops, and who have no power over souls” are thus null and void”.  In other words, “Mr Bergoglio, you can’t excommunicate us”, hence the description of Rome’s edict as a farce.

Chocolates and biscuits made by nuns of The Poor Clares of Belorado.  Presumably, chocolates made by heretics are more sinful than those made by the faithful.

So the ecclesiastical battle lines have been drawn and the Holy See has clearly decided the chirothecœ (liturgical gloves) are off, the 10 nuns of the order reporting sales of the pastries and chocolate truffles they produce as their only source of income are down, the faithful of the nearby villages clearing having been told by their priests to buy their sweet treats from non-heretics.  According to Rome, the bolshie Poor Clare nuns of Belorado have committed the crime of schism (Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law states defines schism as “the refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”, the penalty for which is excommunication).  Since burnings at the stake and such became unfashionable, excommunication is now the most serious penalty a baptized person can incur; it consists of being placed outside the communion of the faithful of the Catholic Church and denied access to the sacraments but it need not be final, the theological purpose of the act being “to bring the guilty to repentance and conversion” and, in a phrase with internal logic which makes complete sense in the corridors of the Vatican: “With the penalty of excommunication the Church is not trying in some way to restrict the extent of mercy but is simply making evident the seriousness of the crime.”

Of course heretics are flesh and blood and as they have declared themselves no longer members of the Catholic Church, by remaining in the monastery they are occupying property of the Church to which they do not belong and may be found to have no legal right to stay there.  Their archbishop has told them they are now trespassing but seems to be taking a patient approach, saying he hopes they will leave of their own volition, avoid the need to assemble a team of black-clad monsignors forcibly to evict them.  The social media savvy Francis would understand that might be “bad optics”.  Still, the archbishop insists the matter will be pursued and that Spanish civil law recognizes the Church’s Code of Canon Law as governing such things, adding “…they were told that they should not be in the monastery and in a steadfast and contumacious way they persist in being there”, concluding ominously “…so the legal authorities will act against them.”

This is not an isolated case and in the last year there have been a number of excommunications of bishops and archbishops, all of whom have denied the legitimacy of Francis, some actually calling him “a heretic”, something almost unknown for centuries.  With the death of Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022), so died too the last restraining influence on Francis’s reformist tendencies and the tensions which have mostly be suppressed since Vatican II are now bubbling over.  As an amusing spectacle for the neutrals, Church politics: (“You’re a heretic!”, “No, you’re a heretic!”) is something like modern Spanish political discourse: (“You’re a fascist!”, “No, you’re a fascist!”) but how this plays out in what may be the last days of this pontificate is likely much to influence the voting in the College of Cardinals when it comes time to choose the next pope.

As the Vatican takes heresy seriously, so the fashionistas guard haute couture.  The reaction to Lindsay Lohan brief fling as fashion designer for Ungaro, Paris Fashion Week, March 2010.

Agastopia

Agastopia (pronounced agg-uh-stow-pee-ah)

Deriving visual enjoyment from the appearance of a specific body part or parts (some suggesting the attraction must be fetishistic to cross the threshold from admiration to syndrome).

2011: A creation of etymologists Peter Novobatzky & Ammon Shea who included it in their 1999 book Depraved English (sub-titled: "The most disgusting and hilarious word book ever" which may be hyperbolic but certainly captured their intentions).  While the book may not have been exhaustive, there was an entry for maschalephidrosis (runaway armpit perspiration), the construct being the Ancient Greek μασχάλη (maskhálē) (armpit) + hidrosis, from the New Latin hidrōsis, from the Ancient Greek ἱδρώς (hidrṓs) (sweat) + -sis (the suffix in medicine used to form nouns of condition) so there were certainly highlights.  The construct of agastopia was the Ancient Greek ἀγα- (aga(s)-) (very) + -topia (a back-formation extracted from utopia (and other words) ultimately deriving from the Ancient Greek τόπος (tópos) (place).  Utopia was from the New Latin Ūtopia, the name of a fictional island possessing a seemingly perfect socio-politico-legal system in the 1516 book Utopia by Sir Thomas More (1478–1535).  The construct was the Ancient Greek οὐ (ou) (not) + τόπος (tópos) (place, region) + -ία (-ía) (the New Latin suffix, from the Latin -ia and the Ancient Greek -ία (-ía) & -εια (-eia) which formed abstract nouns of feminine gender.  More’s irony in calling a world in which everything and everyone works in perfect harmony being best translated as “not a real place” is often lost in modern use.  Agastopic is a noun & adjective, agastopia is a noun, and agastopically is an adverb; the noun plural is agastopias.    

Agastopic: Lindsay Lohan's feet.

Although there had not previously been a generic descriptor of part-focused voyeuristic fetishism, there’s no suggestion Novobatzky thought agastopia a serious contribution to the taxonomy of mental health but some have adopted it, fleshing out the definitional range.  It’s been suggested the condition manifests as (1) a love or admiration of one’s own body part, compelling either a fondness of performing a particular task with it or a preference to cover and shield it with a protective layer or (2) the more familiar admiration of another’s body part(s).  Some sources, without citation, note it’s “…believed to be a rare condition” and one for which there’s “… no cure.”  Despite these nudges, when the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was published in 2013 (DSM-5), there was no specific mention of agastopia and this was maintained when the revised version (DSM-5-TR) was released in 2022.  Still, for clinicians who find it a convenient medical shorthand, presumably, a patient found to be "fond of certain body part" without fetishizing it (or them) would be found to be "agastopish" and because fetishes seem inherently spectrum conditions, the comparative would be "more agastopic" & the superlative "most agastopic".

The notion agastopia is “believed to be a rare condition” must be based on the published statistics but they reflect (1) the profession no longer regarding it as a diagnosable condition unless certain criteria were fulfilled and (2) the general consensus most instances of agastopia are never reported.  Impressionistically, real-world experience would take note of industry having long recognized the prevalence in at least a (male) subset of the population at a level necessary to justify the investment necessary to supply the demand.  In the days when two of the most significant vectors for the distribution of pornography were glossy magazines and various digital media (tapes and optical discs), both forms provided some content devoted exclusively to one body part or another, the protocol carried over to the internet when websites became the default mode.  Among the pornography aggregation sites, it’s not unusual for the usual suspect body parts to be listed as categories for consumers with a particular agastopic focus.

So agastopia is a thing which exists at a commercially critical mass.  ‘Twas ever thus perhaps but what has in recent decades changed is the attitude of the mental health community.  Before the release of DSM-III-R (1987), fetishism was usually described as a persistent preferential sexual arousal in association with non-living objects or an over-inclusive focus on (typically non-sexualized) body parts (most famously feet) and body secretions.  With the DSM-III-R, the concept of partialism (an exclusive focus on part of the body) was separated from the historic category of fetishism and appended to the “Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified” category.  Although one of the dustier corners of psychiatry, the field had always fascinated some and in the years since the DSM-III-R was published, a literature did emerge, most critics maintaining partialism and fetishism are related, can be co-associated, and are non-exclusive domains of sexual behavior.  There was a technical basis for this position because introduced in the DSM-IV (1994) was a (since further elaborated) codification of the secondary clinical significance criterion for designating a psychiatric disorder, one the implications of which was that it appeared to suggest a diagnostic distinction between partialism and fetishism was no longer clinically meaningful or necessary.  The recommendation was that the prime diagnostic criterion for fetishism be modified to reflect the reintegration of partialism and that a fetishistic focus on non-sexual body parts be a specifier of Fetishism.

Fetish was from the Latin facere (to make) which begat factitious (made by art), from which the Portuguese feitico was derived (fetiche in the French), from which English gained fetish.  A fetish in this context was defined as "a thing irrationally revered; an object in which power or force was concentrated".  In English, use of fetish to indicate an object of desire in the sense of “someone who is aroused due to a body part, or an object belonging to a person who is the object of desire” dates from 1897 (although the condition is mentioned in thirteenth century medical documents), an era during which the language of modern psychiatry was being assembled.  However, in the literary record, surviving from the seventh century AD are dozens of brooding, obsessive love letters from the second century AD of uncertain authorship and addressed to both male and female youths.  That there are those to whom an object or body part has the power to captivate and enthral has presumably been part of the human condition from the start.

The DSM-5 Criteria

Criterion 1: Over a six month period, the individual has experienced sexual urges focused on a non-genital body part, or inanimate object, or other stimulus, and has acted out urges, fantasies, or behaviors.

Criterion 2: The fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause distress, or impairment in functioning.

Criterion 3: The fetishistic object is not an article of clothing employed in cross dressing, or a sexual stimulation device, such as a vibrator.

Specifiers for the diagnosis include the type of stimulus which is the focus of attention (1) the non-genital or erogenous areas of the body (such as feet) and this condition is known also as Partialism (a preoccupation with a part of the body rather than the whole person), (2) Non-living object(s) (such as shoes), (3) specific activities (such as smoking during sex).

WikiFeet is a wiki which curates users’ submissions of feet with the predictable emphasis on celebrities (Lindsay Lohan’s wears a US size 9 shoe).  It includes the sections “feet of the day” and “feet of the week” although the criteria for making the selection cut for these honors aren’t disclosed.  Even crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) has a page but both senile old Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) and sleazy old Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) are neglected.  That may be an opportunity missed by the campaign teams given the evidence suggests many people think much about feet and the sight of those of the candidates may influence the votes of at least a few.

Shine envy: Field Marshal el-Sisi and President Trump, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia May 2017.  Military men usually have shiny shoes.

There was nothing in the recent testimony of Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Gregory, b 1979) to suggest Mr Trump has a particular thing for feet but he certainly notices shoes.  When meeting Field Marshal Fattah el-Sisi (b 1954; President of Egypt since 2014) in Riyadh, Mr Trump couldn’t help but be impressed how much shinier were the field marshal’s shoes, his seemingly close to identical pumps made to look dull.  As they left the room, Mr Trump remarked to him: “Love your shoes.  Boy, those shoes. Man …” but knew he’d lost face and doubtless the White House shoe-shine operative was told: "You're fired!"  The Democratic Party may have their own reasons not draw attention to Mr Biden’s feet lest Fox News demand proof he can still tie his own shoe-laces.

Noting the definitional model in the DSM-IV-TR (2000), despite the history in psychiatry’s world of paraphilias and a notable presence in popular culture, there were those who claimed the very notion of a foot fetish was false because of that critical phrase “non-living” which would seem to disqualify a foot (unless of course it was no longer alive but such an interest would be seriously weird and a different condition; although in this context there are deconstructionists who would make a distinction between a depiction of a live foot and the foot itself, clinicians probably regard them as interchangeable tools of the fetishist although the techniques of consumption would vary).  The critic noted many fetishes are extensions of the human body, such as articles of clothing or footwear but that did not extend to feet and that diagnostically, a sexual fascination with feet did correctly belong in the category of “Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified,” and thus be regarded as partialism: Foot partialism.

OnlyFans is a niche player in the gig economy but it’s the oldest niche in the world and one of the first successfully to embrace the implications of AI (artificial intelligence).  There are also “parasitic sites” which exist as intermediaries between OnlyFans and third parties handling transactions with a guarantee of anonymity although, if curated with care, one’s own feet on an OnlyFans page should be similarly anonymous.  Content providers are known as “sole traders”.

The feet of Ana de Armas, OnlyFans "Feet of the Year, 2023".

It need not be an expensive hobby, provided one focuses on one's favorite feet.  English singer Lily Allen (b 1985) has an OnlyFans page (Lily Allen FTSE500) for her (US size 6) feet and subscriptions are offered at US$10 per month, her hook on an Instragram post titled “La dolce feeta” including a snap of her toes next to Rome’s Trevi in which Anita Ekberg's (1931-2005) feet splashed, all those years ago.  While to those not part of the fetish it can be hard to tell one foot from another, aficionados have eyes as well-trained as a sommelier's palate; in 2023 OnlyFans "Feet of the Year" title was awarded to Cuban-born Spanish actress Ana de Armas (b 1988).

It was Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) who admitted that, lawfulness aside, as animals, the only truly aberrant sexual behavior in humans could be said to be its absence (something which the modern asexual movement re-defines rather than disproves).  It seemed to be in that spirit the DSM-5 was revised to treat agastopia and many other “harmless” behaviors as “normal” and thus within the purview of the manual only to the extent of being described, clinical intervention no longer required.  Whether all psychiatrists agree with the new permissiveness isn’t known but early reports suggest there’s nothing in the DSM-5-TR (2022) to suggest agastopics will soon again be labeled as deviants.

The washing of feet

In the New Testament there are three texts describing Christ washing feet, the best known of which is John 13:1-17 (Jesus Washing the Disciples' Feet).  The ritual is explained usually as Jesus demonstrating his humility and mission to serve mankind but it's clear he wished also to set an example to his sometimes fractious disciples:

"So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you."  John 13:12-15 (King James Version; KJV, 1611)

Pope Francis kisses the foot of a female inmate of Rebibbia prison, Rome, 28 March 2024.  The foot-washing ritual takes place on the Thursday before Easter and seeks to imitate Christ’s washing of the Disciples’ feet the night before he was crucified.  It was on that evening he said to his Disciples: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.” (John 13:21)

The sight of a pope washing feet is familiar but when Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) performed the ritual at Rome’s Rebibbia prison on Holy Thursday 2024, it was apparently the first time in the institution’s two-thousand year odd existence a pontiff has washed the feet only of women.  Historians concede records from earlier centuries are obviously incomplete but the event was thought so remarkable most seemed to conclude a precedent had been set.  In the past Francis has washed the feet of women, Muslims, refugees and other minorities but never women exclusively.  He has certainly cast a wider net than his more conservative predecessor, Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) who sponged the feet only of men and, in the final years of his pontificate, only those of ordained priests.  It’s said feet proffered to popes, diligently are pre-sanitized.