Martyr

Martyr (pronounced mahr-ter)

(1) A person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce their religious faith, most notably those saints canonized after martyrdom.

(2) A person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause.

(3) A person who undergoes severe or constant suffering (often applied informally to those subject to chronic conditions such as rheumatism or migraine headaches).

(4) A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation (fake martyrdom) or who willingly assumes some sort of easily avoidable (self-imposed martyrdom), both usually applied in a facetious or derogatory manner.

(5) To make a martyr of someone (especially by putting to death); to persecute, to torment or torture.

Pre 900: From the Middle English noun marter, from the Old English martir & martyr, from the Ecclesiastical Latin martyr, from the Doric Greek μάρτυρ (mártur (martus & mártyr)) (witness), a later form of the Ancient Greek μάρτυς (mártus (mártys & mártyros)) (witness).  The verb was from the Middle English martiren, from the Old English martyrian, from the noun.  The noun martyr referred to one who bears testimony to faith, especially one who willingly suffers death rather than deny their religious faith and specifically one of the Christians who put to death because they would not renounce their beliefs.  The verb developed in the sense of "put to death as punishment for adherence to some religious belief (especially Christianity) and was from the Middle English martiren, from Old French martiriier (and influenced by the Old English gemartyrian, from the noun martyr) and Middle English also had the mid-fifteenth century verb martyrize.  The general sense of "constant sufferer, a victim of misfortune, calamity, disease, etc" was in common use by the late sixteenth century while the Martyr complex (an exaggerated desire for self-sacrifice or assuming burdens) dates from 1916.  The noun martyrdom ("torture and execution for the sake of one's faith) emulated the use in the Old English and in the more abstract sense of "a state of suffering for the maintaining of any obnoxious cause", came to be used in the late fourteenth century.  The word has proved productive in its proliferation.  Martyr is a noun, martyrization, martyrdom, martyrology, martyry, martyrer, martyrship, martyrion, martyrium, martyrologe, martyrologue, protomartyr are nouns, martyring, martyrize & martyrizate are verbs, martyrish & martyresque are adjectives, martyred is a verb & adjective and martyrly is an adverb & adjective; the noun plural is martyrs.

Self-help for one's self.

The word was adopted directly into most Germanic languages (Old Saxon, Old Frisian Old High German et al), but fourteenth century Norse used the native formation pislarvattr (literally "torture-witness" meaning "one who suffers death or grievous loss in defense or on behalf of any belief or cause" (which could be personal, devotional or political).  Danish, French, Norwegian & Swedish all used the modern English spelling (some language groups in the old British Empire modified the spelling (notably under the Raj) while others picked it up unaltered).  Among other languages there was the Proto-Brythonic merθɨr, the Dutch martelaar, the Estonian märter, the Finnish marttyyri, the Old French martire, the Scots mairtyr, the Maori matira, the German Märtyrer, the Hungarian mártír, the Old Irish martar, the Old Italian martore, the Italian martire, the Lombard màrtul, the Neapolitan marture, the Catalan màrtir, the Occitan martir, the Galician, Spanish & Portuguese mártir, the Romanian martor, the Sardinian màrturu, the Sicilian màrtiri, the Scottish Gaelic martai and the Tagalog martir.  The origin of the Greek word is uncertain but may have been connected to mermera (care, trouble), from mermairein (be anxious or thoughtful), from the primitive Indo-European smrtu & mrtu-, source also of the Sanskrit smarati (remember) and the Latin memor (mindful).  Not all etymologists support the theory, usually because the phonetic relationships are dubious, suggesting a more likely origin lies in Archaic or Pre-Greek, perhaps even as a loan-word.  The Arabic شهيد (shaheed or shahid) (witness) in Islam refers to a martyr and appears often in the Quran (in the sense of "witness") but in only one instance can it be understood as  "martyr", the sense it acquired in the Ḥadīth, the vast body of work produced by authors which documented the words and thoughts attributed to the prophet.  The variations in the translations of these texts are legion and there has been cynical exploitation of this by the recruiters to jihadist causes who tend to seek out and merge the most punitive of the translations and the rewards to martyrs of 72 (the number varies) dark-eyed virgins appears with frequency.

Self-help for those with a difficult mother.

Martyrdom was of great interest to the Church, illustrated by the frequency with which martyrs to their faith were canonized (made into saints).  As a branch of theological academia, martyrology (history of the lives, sufferings, and deaths of Christian martyrs) became a district thing in the 1590s, either as a native formation from the noun martyr + -ology, or from the Ecclesiastical Latin martyrologium, from Ecclesiastical Greek martyrologicon.  The suffix -ology was formed from -o- (as an interconsonantal vowel) +‎ -logy.  The origin in English of the -logy suffix lies with loanwords from the Ancient Greek, usually via Latin and French, where the suffix (-λογία) is an integral part of the word loaned (eg astrology from astrologia) since the sixteenth century.  French picked up -logie from the Latin -logia, from the Ancient Greek -λογία (-logía).  Within Greek, the suffix is an -ία (-ía) abstract from λόγος (lógos) (account, explanation, narrative), and that a verbal noun from λέγω (légō) (I say, speak, converse, tell a story).  In English the suffix became extraordinarily productive, used notably to form names of sciences or disciplines of study, analogous to the names traditionally borrowed from the Latin (eg astrology from astrologia; geology from geologia) and by the late eighteenth century, the practice (despite the disapproval of the pedants) extended to terms with no connection to Greek or Latin such as those building on French or German bases (eg insectology (1766) after the French insectologie; terminology (1801) after the German Terminologie).  Within a few decades of the intrusion of modern languages, combinations emerged using English terms (eg undergroundology (1820); hatology (1837)).  In this evolution, the development may be though similar to the latter-day proliferation of “-isms” (fascism; feminism et al).  In the Roman Catholic Church (an institution long given to making lists of stuff), an important part of martyrology was the index (or calendar) of martyrs, arranged according to their anniversaries (ie of their martyrdom).  In Middle English there was the late fourteenth century martiloge (the register of martyred saints), from the Medieval Latin martilogium; the related coining was martyrological.

Self-help for those with a difficult boyfriend.

Except where it’s unavoidable, the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) which publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), tends not to use popular forms like “martyr complex”, bundling the condition in the category of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), a cluster B personality disorder considered to be one of the least identified of the class, noting NPD frequently coexists with other psychiatric disorders.  A relatively recent diagnostic category, its development reflected not a distinct set of diagnostic criteria but rather the recognition by clinicians (psychoanalysts and psychoanalytic psychotherapists) that to classify certain difficult (though typically not neurotic) patients as psychotic was counter-productive.  The most often noted characteristics of NPD include grandiosity, the excessive quest admiration and a lack of empathy, coupled with underlying feelings of low self esteem issues and inadequacy.  In the DSM-5-TR (2022), the symptoms of NPD are listed as:

(1) A grandiose logic of self-importance.

(2) A fixation with fantasies of infinite success, control, brilliance, beauty, or idyllic love.

(3) A credence that he or she is extraordinary and exceptional and can only be understood by, or should connect with, other extraordinary or important people or institutions.

(4) A desire for unwarranted admiration.

(5) A sense of entitlement.

(6) Interpersonally oppressive behavior.

(7) No form of empathy.

(8) Resentment of others or a conviction that others are resentful of him or her.

(9) A display of egotistical and conceited behaviors or attitudes.

Foxe's Book of Martyrs (1653, the full title Actes and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Days, Touching Matters of the Church) by John Foxe (1517-1587) was a review of the history of martyrdom in European Christianity with a particular focus on the suffering of the early English Protestants.

The early Church celebrated particularly the example of Justin Martyr (circa 100-circa 165, who appears in some texts as Justin the Philosopher).  His name wasn’t actually Martyr but it was adopted because his conduct in the face of suffering was thought exemplary.  He was in all probability a pagan and had sought education from schools in the Peripatetic, Pythagorean and Platonic traditions but was still unsatisfied unit falling into conversation with an elderly man he met on a beach who “…convinced him of the truth as it is in Jesus”.  His conversion to Christianity led to a lifetime of teaching, writing his apologia which culminated with his martyrdom, beheaded with six others under the reign of Marcus Aurelius (121–180; Roman emperor 161-180) although there’s nothing to suggest the emperor was involved in the sentencing.  For his faith he was of course rewarded with eternal life in Heaven but Justin too achieved a kind of earthly immortality, venerated as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern & Oriental Orthodox Churches and in the Anglican community.  Later, the legend arose that Marcus Aurelius became disposed to relax the persecution of Christians after a group of them prayed for rain and the subsequent storm was of such intensity it enabled him to avoid military defeat although, off and on, persecution continued and it wasn’t until the reign of Constantine the Great (circa 272-337; Roman emperor 306–337) began to emerge as the dominant religion of the empire.

The persecution of Christians will seem familiar to minorities living under many authoritarian regimes including the Falun Gong in China and the Baháʼí in Iran and many historians have concluded the reasons tend to be political rather than theological, structuralists summarizing things thus:

(1) Emperors in Rome were much opposed to gods their regime did not recognize, the Bible noting (1 Corinthians 8:5) “there be gods many, and lords many” but the imperial authorities did not own the God of the Christians.

(2) The Christian faith preached One who was God over all the earth, who knew no political frontiers and that pagan gods were mere idols.

(3) Christians could not join in pagan worship or the idolatrous acts which were part of the social or civic occasions of which the state approved. 

(4) Christians met as a secret society and were unsociable in their behavior, the assumption being they might be plotting against the state.

(5) Christians were seen to be threatening the financial and political interests of various powerful classes, priests, the makers & sellers of idols and those who bred and sole sacrificial animals.

(6) Christians and their ways were accused to be arousing the anger of Roman gods who proved vengeful in visiting upon the empire famines, earthquakes, military defeats and other punishments.

The persecution continued until the year 311 when the Emperor Galerius (circa 258–311; Roman emperor 305-311) expired, meeting his death in a manner similar to that recorded in Acts (12:3) as that suffered by Herod Agrippa: “He was eaten of worms and gave up the ghost”.  Baffled yet convinced by grace with which Christians accepted their martyrdom, on his deathbed Galerius issued the Edict of Toleration and entreated Christians to pray on his behalf.

Relic & Relict

Relic (pronounced rel-ik)

(1) A surviving memorial of something past; something that has survived from the past, such as an object or custom.

(2) An object having interest by reason of its age or its association with the past; something kept in remembrance; souvenir; memento.

(3) A surviving trace of something.

(4) Remaining parts or fragments.

(5) In ecclesiastical use in Christendom, (especially in the Roman Catholic and Greek churches) the body, a bone or other body part, or some personal memorial of a saint, martyr, or other sacred person, preserved as worthy of veneration.

(6) In linguistics, a once widespread linguistic form that survives in a limited area but is otherwise obsolete.

(7) In informal use, an old or old-fashioned person or thing, a survivor from a bygone era.

(8) The remains of a dead person; a corpse (largely archaic and usually in the plural).

(9) In ecology a now less common term for relict.

1175–1225: From the Middle English relik (a body part or other object held in reverence or affection due to its connection with a holy person), from the Old French relique & relike (the eleventh century plural was reliques), from the Old English reliquias, the construct being reliqu(us) (remaining) + -iae the plural noun suffix), from the Late Latin reliquiæ (plural) (the remains of a martyr (although in Classical Latin it had meant “remains; remnants”)), noun use of the feminine plural of reliquus (remaining, that which remains), from relinquō (I leave behind, abandon, relinquish), the construct being from re- (back, backwards; again) the prefix added to various words to indicate an action being done again) + linquō (I leave, quit, forsake, depart from), and related to relinquere (perfective reliqui) (to leave behind, relinquish, forsake, abandon, give up), from the primitive Indo-European linkw-, a nasalized form of the root leikw- (to leave).  The Old English reliquias was a direct borrowing from Latin.  The noun reliquary (receptacle for keeping relics, often small enough to be carried on the person) dates from the 1650s, from the fourteenth century French reliquaire.  The noun plural was relics and the obsolete spellings were relick & relique.  The third-person singular simple present was relics, the present participle relicing or relicking and the simple past and past participle reliced or relicked).

The now familiar general sense of "remains, remnants, that which is left after the loss or ruin of the rest" dates from the early fourteenth century whereas the meaning "something kept as a souvenir, a memento" didn’t emerge until circa 1600.  By the 1590s, the word had, in conversational use, developed the weakened sense of "anything made interesting by its association with the distant past and ten years earlier had come also to describe "surviving trace of some practice, idea etc, a use which later (by 1809) influenced the specific use in history & anthropology: “relic of barbarism” the “survival of a (bad) old custom or condition."  Other words used in this context includes antique, antiquity, artifact, curio, evidence, fragment, keepsake, memento, monument, remains, remnant, souvenir, archaism, curiosity, heirloom, memorial, remembrance, reminder, residue & ruins.

Relict (pronounced rel-ikt)

(1) In biology & ecology, a species or community of animals or plants that exists as a remnant of a formerly widely distributed group in an environment different from that in which it originated (usually as a modifier (eg a relict fauna)).

(2) In geology, a mineral that remains unaltered after metamorphism of the rock in which it occurs.

(3) In geomorphology, a landform (a mountain, lake, glacier etc) formed by either erosive or constructive surficial processes that are no longer active as they were in the past.

(4) A remnant or survivor (rare).

(5) The surviving member of a married couple after one or the other has died; a widow or widower (although in practice the word was only ever applied to widows and is now archaic).

(6) In linguistics, a surviving archaic word, language or other form (technically slightly different from a relic (qv) but in casual use both are often used interchangeably.

(7) In the law of real property, the gradual recession of water from its usual high-water mark so that the newly uncovered land becomes the property of the adjoining riparian property owner.

1525–1535: From the Middle English relicte, from the Medieval Latin relicta (widow), noun use of feminine of the Latin relictus, past participle of relinquere (to relinquish).  Relicte in the sense of a widow, etymologically is "one who is left, one who remains", from the Old French relict (feminine relicte) (person or thing left behind (especially a widow)) and directly from the Medieval Latin relicta (a widow), noun use of feminine of relictus (abandoned, left behind), past-participle adjective from the Latin relinquere (leave behind, forsake, abandon, give up),

Relict came so often to be confused with relic that by 1926, Henry Fowler (1858-1933) noted in his Dictionary of Modern English Usage it had become a word seldom used except in legal documents when referring to a widow (and only lawyers would find the word “widow” unsuitable) and was thus "more often seen than heard", its place as an adjective in Middle English and early modern English (originally "left undisturbed or untouched, allowed to remain" (although used in various senses) long supplanted by relic.  As a technical word in biology, zoology and geology, it remains useful; the noun plural was relicts.

Print of original Heiltumsblätter (woodcut; circa 1496) of the relics of the Holy Roman Empire by Hans Spoerer of Nuremberg, hand-colored, printer's ink on paper, donated to the British Museum in 1916.

In the great cities of the Holy Roman Empire, there were publishers which offered entire relic-books but, parchment and even paper being expensive, as an alternative, pilgrims could purchase Heiltumsblätter (woodcut) reproductions of relics associated with a particular church or shrine.  The single-leaf woodcut illustrating the relics of the relics of the Holy Roman Empire was first printed circa 1480 with a second run of hand-colored versions offered in 1496 and as well as being used for private devotion, being large-scale they could be displayed in public places like churches, where they performed a similar function to indulgence announcements.

The Heiltumsblatt illustrating the relics of the Holy Roman Empire included pieces of the True Cross, thorns from Christ's crown, along with the sword, robe and scepter of Charlemagne (747–814; first Holy Roman Emperor 800-814).  The imperial collection also featured the Holy Lance that tradition stated was used by Longinus to pierce Christ's side after his death; this was a highly prized possession, since it was one of the few contact relics associated with Christ who was said to have left behind no bodily relics.  In 1423, Sigismund of Luxembourg (1368–1437; Holy Roman Emperor 1433-1437) bequeathed the Lance to Nuremberg for safekeeping, where it became the centerpiece of the Heiltumsweisung (sanctuary).  The Holy Lance's size in the woodcut is one indication of its importance, although this was not a mere effect of representation, for its makers claimed that this was a "true copy" of the Lance, which measures 508 x 79 mm (20 x 3.1 inches).

Enshrine

Enshrine (pronounced en-shrahyn)

(1) To enclose (a sacred relic etc) in a shrine or chest.

(2) To cherish as sacred or venerated, someone, an idea or an institution.

(3) In statute or constitutional law, to protect (a concept, ideal, or philosophy) within a law or treaty.

(4) Figuratively, to make permanent.

1575–1585: The construct was en- + shrine.  The en- prefix was from the Middle English en- (en-, in-), from the Old French en- (also an-), from the Latin in- (in, into).  It was also an alteration of in-, from the Middle English in-, from the Old English in- (in, into), from the Proto-Germanic in (in).  Both the Latin & Germanic forms were from the primitive Indo-European en (in, into).  The intensive use of the Old French en- & an- was due to confluence with Frankish intensive prefix an- which was related to the Old English intensive prefix -on.  It formed a transitive verb whose meaning is to make the attached adjective (1) in, into, (2) on, onto or (3) covered.  It was used also to denote “caused” or as an intensifier.  The prefix em- was (and still is) used before certain consonants, notably the labials b and p.  Shrine ((1) a holy or sacred place dedicated to a specific deity, ancestor, hero, martyr, saint, or similar figure of awe and respect, at which said figure is venerated or worshipped, (2) a case, box, or receptacle, especially one in which are deposited sacred relics, as the bones of a saint & (3) figuratively a place or object hallowed from its history or associations) was from the Middle English shryne, from the Old English scrīn (reliquary, ark of the covenant), from the Medieval Latin scrīnium (reliquary (“case or chest for books or papers” in Classical Latin)) and ultimately from the primitive Indo-European sker & ker- (to turn, bend).  It was linked with the Old Norse skrín and the Old High German skrīni (which survives in Modern German as Schrein).  In the sixteenth century enshrine & inshrine were used in parallel, both in the sense of “enclose in or as in a shrine; deposit for safe-keeping”.  The (rare) alternative form inshrine is listed (like the verb enshrineth as obsolete for all but the odd ceremonial use in religious rituals.  Enshrine & enshrined are verbs, enshriner, enshrinee & enshrinement are nouns, enshrined is verb & adjective and enshrining is a verb.

Implausibly, the White House tries to suggest Joe Biden is "cool".

October 3 has become enshrined as Mean Girls Day which is good but the White House for the last two years (2023 (left) & 2022 (right)) has tweeted memes on the theme, apparently in an attempt to make Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) seem somehow relevant (al last to the early twentieth century).  On both occasions, the reaction has been such that one might hope it stops but the next Mean Girls Day falls a few weeks before the 2024 presidential election and if Mr Biden doesn’t die (God forbid) and really does again run, the temptation may be too great.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice (TheVoice)

In October 2014, the Australian government submitted to the voters by means of referendum (the only way to modify the nation’s constitution):

A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?

The insertion of the following chapter:

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

The “No” case assembled a number of arguments in opposition but one, although it seemed of fundamental importance, seemed to attract little comment and the “Yes” proponents made little attempt to refute its implications.  What the “No” case alleged, inter alia, was:

Putting a Voice in the Constitution means it’s permanent.  Enshrining in our Constitution a body for only one group of Australians means… once it is in the Constitution it won’t be undone.

In a literal sense that was of course almost certainly true but given the vagueness of the wording and the latitude afforded to the parliament in framing the parameters of “The Voice”, there seems no reason why things shouldn’t have gone the way of the Interstate Commission, a creature of Section 101 of the Constitution of Australia (1901):

There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.

In terms of both legal theory and the usual constitutional practice the words “There shall be an Inter-State Commission” seem unambiguous but the Inter-State Commission wasn’t established until 1912 and became dormant after 1920 because the High Court of Australia (HCA) in 1915 has found the judicial powers granted to the commission by the parliament were invalid.  The bench held a “separation of powers” was implicit in the constitution which demanded judicial power be vested only in the judiciary and that on technical grounds the commission was not a judicial body.  Rendered therefore merely investigative and deliberative, the government allowed the commission to become defunct and it wasn’t revived until the 1980s and even then, after a brief existence as a stand-alone body, it was absorbed by what eventually became the Productivity Commission.

So, even had the words “There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice” had been enshrined in the Constitution, that alone would not seem to prevent a parliament at some point passing a law defining “The Voice” as one (suitably accommodative) indigenous person attached to the Department of Prime-Minister & Cabinet (PM&C) or just about any other model.  Because of the wording, it might be the High Court would have been generous in their view of who would have standing to challenge a model but the clause “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures” would seem to offer little scope.  Lord Denning (1899-1999; English judge 1944-1982) himself would have struggled to find an “indigenous peoples’ equity” in all that.  Mere enshrinement of “The Voice” in the Constitution would not in itself have guaranteed any sort of legal or political dynamic because, as the tale of the Inter-State Commission demonstrated, words can be dead letters.

Valentine

Valentine (pronounced val-uhn-tahyn)

(1) A card, message, token or gift sent by one person to another on Valentine's Day (14 February) as a mark of affection.  Historically they were usually amatory or sentimental but there are also commercially available versions (usually as cards or e-cards) which are satirical, comical or sardonic.  They were often (and perhaps still are) send anonymously but in an age when the awareness of stalking has become heightened, caution is now recommended.

(2) A sweetheart or object of desire chosen or greeted on this day.

(3) A written or other artistic work expressing affection for something or someone (the latter often a poetic or literary device).

(4) A surname and a given name, the latter variously feminine or masculine according to local convention.

(5) As Saint Valentine (circa 226-circa 269), a saint commemorated in both Western Christianity & Eastern Orthodoxy.

(6) A locality name in a number of places.

1400–1450 (in the sense of the adoption in English): From the late Middle English, from the ecclesiastical feast of Saint Valentine (14 February).  The derived forms are rarely used.  The adjective valentinesy (something characteristic of Saint Valentine's Day) can be used of some romantic act usually more associated with 14 February and does have the advantage of being a single word which does the job which would otherwise take a phrase but the only thing that can be said in favor of the noun valentining (the practice of giving and (presumably) receiving something on Saint Valentine's Day) is that it seems not yet to have become a verb.  The noun Valentinian was used to describe a member or adherent of the second century AD school of Judaizing Gnostics, founded by Valentinus (circa 100–circa 180).  Valentinus seems to have been among the most popular of the early Christian Gnostic theologians and the legend is he founded his school in Rome after being passed over for appointment to a bishopric.  The use as a name is derived ultimately from the Latin Valentinus, from valeō (I am strong, healthy) and by accepted reckoning, Valentinus (circa 780-827; pope 780) was the hundredth pope of the Roman Catholic Church ("Pontiff 100" the preferred designation among Vatican archivists); he sat on the throne of Saint Peter "for forty days and forty nights".  Valentine evolved as a unisex given name, in use for males since the late fifteenth century and it’s been given also to females although this has been rare except in France (and the Francophone parts of the old French Empire) where it’s treated as a feminine form of Valentin.  Elsewhere, the usual feminine form is Valentina.  Valentine & Valentinian are nouns & proper nouns, valentining is a noun and valentinesy is an adjective; the noun plural is valentines.

Lindsay Lohan with Saint Valentine's Day stuffed teddy bear.

The precise origins of Valentine's Day are murky.  All agree the church festivals, feasts and holidays were named after Saint Valentine but there were a number of them in early Christianity and despite much digging, no authenticated documentary evidence has emerged to confirm which one deserves credit.  Revisionist historians have linked the later tradition to the ancient Roman festival of Lupercalia, celebrated mid-February, Lupercalia was a fertility festival dedicated to Faunus (Roman god of agriculture) and the mythical founders of Rome, the brothers Romulus & Remus. A kind of pre-modern blind-date night, during the festival, young men would draw names of young women from a jar and with whomever emerged from this lucky dip they would be coupled for the duration of the festival (hopefully longer if the things worked out).  The revisionists like the idea of a link because it hints at another example of an event on the church list owing less to theology or uniquely Christian history than being a takeover of a pagan festival (a la Christmas).  On and off, for centuries, between 496 when Gelasius I (d 496; pope 492-November 496) dedicated 14 February as the feast day on which the Christian martyr Saint Valentine was to be celebrated, it remained on the list was in 1955 struck from the General Roman Calendar by Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958), along with an array of other minor or obscure feasts which were relegated to mere “events” within the rituals of the formal ecclesiastical calendar.  However, in 2007 Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) issued the motu proprio (literally “on his own impulse”, a kind of executive decree) Summorum Pontificum (Of the Supreme Pontiffs) (described by some as “a shot across the bows of Vatican II” but really more a torpedo into the engine room) which was promulgated to permit the restoration of earlier forms of ritual (notably those conducted in Latin) but had the (perhaps unintended) effect of allowing feasts such as those of Saint Valentine to return as stand-alone events should that be the will of the local congregation.

The meme-makers feel Saint Valentine's pain.

By far the most popular version of the origin is that linked with Saint Valentine (circa 226-circa 269).  Valentine may have been the Bishop of Terni (in the modern day region of Umbria in Central Italy) but he was certainly a member of the Christian clergy and like many of them, he was persecuted by the authorities; even if not devoted pagans, many in authority did not much like trouble makers and alternative power structures (as members of the Falun Gong don’t need to be reminded).  There are different tales of just what were the activities which led eventually martyrdom including Valentine baptizing young men liable for military conscription (their status as Christians rendering them ineligible for service in the pagan army) but the preferred version is the one associated with young lovers.  It’s said Claudius II (214-270; Roman emperor 268-270) had banned marriage by young men, his rationale being single men made better soldiers, apparently because they were (1) less troubled by the thought of death and (2) more attracted to the prospect of the unlimited sexual license (rape (in the modern sense) & pillage) which was at the time one of the inducements to serve.  Valentine defied this imperial decree and in secret continued to conduct marriages for young lovers; when this was discovered, Claudius had the renegade priest arrested, brought to Rome and beheaded.  The act of execution seems sound historic fact although the circumstances, like much which appears in medieval texts, can’t be verified and while the tales of torture, prolonged beatings are plausible, it’s not certain the emperor’s displeasure was triggered by the priest joining the young in marriage; some histories suggest the execution was ordered merely because Valentine refused to deny Christ as his true savior.  Such deaths were far from uncommon.  God however may have been on the side of true love because shortly after, Claudius was struck down, killed by “a pestilence”, perhaps the Plague of Cyprian (250-270), one of the many epidemics that for centuries came and went, killing millions.

There seems not to have been any connection between Saint Valentine (or the celebrations in his name) and anything romantic until the notion appeared in the fourteenth century verse of Geoffrey Chaucer (circa 1344-1400) but the idea caught on to the extent that by the mid-fifteenth century, it was well-known and the secular practices attached to 14 February appear to have been tolerated by the Church and survived even the later puritans who disapproved of just about everything.  The fifteenth century customs are said to have begun in the circles associated with the French & English royal courts but it may simply be that the records of that class have survived better and the tales of February being the month when birds find their mates became part of the folk etymology.  The earliest known use of a valentine being “a letter or card sent to a sweetheart” dates from 1824 and the custom of sending special cards or letters on this date flourished in England in the mid-nineteenth century, declining gradually until the early years of the 1900s.  In the 1920s, modern capitalism (led by card manufacturers) revived the idea and for those selling cards, chocolates and flowers, 14 February has since provided good business and the rise of the internet has done little to blunt demand, virtual roses and chocolates just not the same.

The universal language of love.

Flowers, chocolate and stylized red hearts being the universal lingua franca when seeking courtship with a young lady, even in the People's Republic of China (PRC), Valentine’s Day (情人节, qíngrén jié) has become a thing.  The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) approve not at all of decadent Western influence and Christian saints (the only "true" saints being venerable figures like the General Secretary of the CCP) but it's good for business and adds to GDP so, simultaneously the day is tolerated and ignored.  The idea though has spread, several other days to one degree or another also marked including (1) White Valentine’s Day (白色情人节, báisè qíngrén jié) on 14 March when the tradition is for women who have a month earlier received something to respond with a gift of chocolate, (2) 520 Day (wǔ’èr línga) on 20 May; it's pronounced as wǔ èr líng which sounds like “I love you” (wǒ ài nǐ) in Mandarin and it's said to be entirely the invention of Chinese business, (3) the Qi Xi Festival (七夕节, qīxì jié) celebrated on 7 July on the lunar calendar (which occurs usually in August) and based on the romantic tale of two lovers who can meet but once a year, (4) the Lantern Festival (元宵节, yuánxiāo jié) held on the 15^th day in the lunar calendar; it has ancient origins from the days when this was one of the few occasions young women left the home, going out to light a lantern which signified they were single and willing to meet a partner and (5) Single’s Day (双十一, shuāng shíyī) on 11 November, a recent invention said originally to have been a kind of dating society created by students at Nanjing university but which was quickly co-opted by rapacious Chinese commerce; even in the PRC it was criticized for blatant consumerism (it’s by value now one of the world’s biggest on-line shopping days although analysts are cautioning the downturn in the economy and rising youth unemployment may affect sales in 2024).  Still, even with all those options, with the recent awareness of the demographic problem created by all those “leftover women” choosing to remain single and not have babies, the CCP may decide to encourage Valentine's day.  Even those who marry often can't be induced to have more than one child so the most obvious catchment for increased procreation are the young singles: Valentine's Day target market.  The CCP is better at social engineering than many Western governments and may be tempted to make Valentine's Day compulsory, penalties imposed on eligible bachelors and spinsters "at risk" (the historic term for women deemed capable of falling pregnant) found to have neither sent nor received a box of chocolates.

Trumpery

Trumpery (pronounced truhm-puh-ree)

(1) Something without use or value; rubbish; trash; worthless stuff.

(2) Nonsense; twaddle; foolish talk or actions.

(3) Worthless finery; a mere trinket (archaic).

(4) Deceit; fraud (obsolete).

1425–1475: From the late Middle English trompery (deceit) from the Middle French tromperie from tromper (to cheat).  The construct of tromperie was tromper ((from the Middle & Old French tromper (to tramp, delude; literally “to play on the trumpet”), from trompe (trump, trumpet), from the Frankish trumpa (trump, trumpet), from a common Germanic word akin to the Old High German trumba & trumpa (trump, trumpet); ultimately an imitative form) +‎ -erie (from the Old French -erie, inherited the from Latin -arius & -ator; the suffix denoting, inter alia, nouns describing qualities or properties).  The plural is trumperies.

In English, the original meaning of the mid-fifteenth century noun trumpery was deception & trickery and as late as 1847, British statesman and novelist Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881; prime-minister Feb-Dec 1868 & 1874-1880) wrote of a political movement being condemned as “…fraud and trumpery”.  The French original (tromperie from the verb tromper) also meant “to deceive” but its original, literal meaning was “to blow a trumpet” so tromper quelque chose (literally “to trump something”) meant to announce something to the sound of a trumpet, and tromper quelqu’un, (literally “to trump someone”), meant “to announce something to someone to the sound of a trumpet.  Etymologists believe the figurative sense of tromper (“to deceive”) emerged because the perception evolved that such announcements were often false, truth thought likely to be in inverse proportion to the volume of the advertising.

The English noun trump is now obsolete in the senses related to trumpets except in the Biblical expression “the last trump” (Revelation 11:15), denoting the trumpet blast that will wake the dead on Judgment Day.  Trump continues in English in card games in the sense a playing card of a suit that ranks higher than any other suit but that meaning developed separately and is a variant of triumph, once used in card games in the same sense; the French and Italian masculine nouns triomphe and trionfo were used in the same way.  The first known user of trump in the sense of a winning card was the English Protestant prelate and martyr Hugh Latimer (circa 1485-1555) in the first of his Sermons on the Card (circa 1529): “We must say to ourselves, “What requireth Christ of a christian man?” Now turn up your trump, your heart (hearts is trump, as I said before), and cast your trump, your heart, on this card; and upon this card you shall learn what Christ requireth of a christian man.”

At the GOP Shop, every card was once a Trump.  Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the GOP Shop seems to have removed all Donald Trump merchandise from its catalogue but the decks of waterproof Donald Trump 24k gold plated playing cards have been off-loaded and are available on Amazon at US$7.88, only a little more than when last advertised by the GOP Shop when they listed at US$6.25 (reduced from US$19.95).

A deck of waterproof Donald Trump 24k gold plated playing cards for US$7.88 would seem good value because a 54 card (52 + 2 jokers) Lindsay Lohan deck costs US$36.

Consecrate

Consecrate (pronounced kon-si-kreyt)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consecration and the Church

Consecrated ground: A church graveyard.

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

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

The Vatican, the USAVC and Legal Fictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Innocent VIII wearing the papal triple tiara.

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

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