Voice

Voice (pronounced vois)

(1) The sound made by the vibration of the vocal cords, especially when modified by the resonant effect of the tongue and mouth; the sound or sounds uttered through the mouth of living creatures, especially of human beings in speaking, shouting, singing etc.

(2) The faculty or power of uttering sounds through the mouth by the controlled expulsion of air; speech.

(3) A range of such sounds to some extent distinctive to one person, or to a type of person or animal.

(4) The condition or effectiveness of the voice for speaking or singing (usually expressed in the phrases “in good voice” or “in poor voice” (although “in good voice” is also used sarcastically to refer to someone merely talkative or voluble).

(5) A sound likened to or resembling vocal utterance.

(6) Something likened to speech as conveying impressions to the mind (voice of the forest etc).

(7) Expression in spoken or written words, or by other means (to give voice); that which is communicated; message; meaning.

(8) The right to present and receive consideration of one's desires or opinions (usually in a political context, “the voice of the people” said to be expressed by voting in elections).

(9) An expressed opinion or choice (literally, electorally or behaviorally); an expressed will or desire, wish or injunction (“with one voice” meaning unanimous).

(10) The person or other agency through which something is expressed or revealed such as the notion of the Roman Catholic Pope being the “Vicar of Christ on Earth” and thus “The voice of God”.

(11) A warning that proved to be the voice of prophecy.

(12) In music, a substitute word which can apply to a singer, a voice part or that part of musical score which involves singing and (in harmony) an independent melodic line or parta fugue in five voices.

(13) In phonetics, the audible result of phonation and resonance; to pronounce with glottal vibration (and distinguished from the mere breath sounds heard in whispering and voiceless consonants).

(14) In grammar, a set of categories for which the verb is inflected in some languages (notably Latin) and which is typically used to indicate the relation of the verbal action to the subject as performer, under-goer, or beneficiary of its action; a particular way of inflecting or conjugating verbs, or a particular form of a verb, by means of which is indicated the relation of the subject of the verb to the action which the verb expresses.

(15) In grammar, a set of syntactic devices in some languages, as English, that is similar to this set in function; any of the categories of these sets (eg the English passive voice; the Greek middle voice).

(16) In the tuning of musical instruments, the finer regulation (expressed usually as intensity, color or shades of light), used especially of the piano and organ.

(17) To give utterance or expression to; declare; proclaim (“to voice one’s approval”, “to voice one’s discontent” etc).

(18) In sign languages, the interpretation into spoken language.

(19) In computers. of or relating to the use of human or synthesized speech (as voice to text, text to voice, voice-data entry; voice output, voice command etc).

(20) In telecommunications, of or relating to the transmission of speech or data over media designed for the transmission of speech (in classifications such as voice-grade channel, voice-data network, voice-activated, voice over internet protocol (VoIP) etc); in internet use, a flag associated with a user on a channel, determining whether or not they can send messages to the channel.

(21) A rumor; fame, renown; command precept; to vote; to elect; to appoint; to clamor; to cry out (all obsolete).

(22) In entertainment, to provide the voice for a character (as voice-over for purposes such as foreign translations).

(23) In literary theory (1) the role of the narrator, (2) as viewpoint, the position of the narrator in relation to their story & (3) the content of what is delivered behind a persona (mask), the most basic form of aesthetic distance.

1250–1300: From the Middle English noun voice, voys & vois (sound made by the human mouth), from the Anglo-French voiz, voys & voice or directly from the Old French voiz & vois (voice, speech; word, saying, rumor, report (which survives in Modern French as voix)), from the Latin vōcem (voice, sound, utterance, cry, call, speech, sentence, language, word (and accusative of vōx (voice)), from the primitive Indo-European wṓkws, root noun from wekw- (to utter, speak).  It was cognate with the Latin vocāre (to call), the Sanskrit वाच् (vāc) & vakti ((he) speaks), the Ancient Greek ὄψ (óps) (voice) & épos (word (and related to the later “epic”)) and the Persian آواز‎ (âvâz).  The Latin was the source also of the Italian voce and the Spanish voz. The Anglo-French borrowing displaced the native Middle English steven (voice), from the Old English stefn, from the Proto-Germanic stemno, from the primitive Indo-European stomen-.  The extension of use to mean "ability in a singer" dates from the early seventeenth century while the idea of "expression of feeling etc." (in reference to groups of people etc) was known as early as the late fourteenth century (and persists in uses such as the broadcaster “Voice of America”) The meaning "invisible spirit or force that directs or suggests, (used especially in the mental health community in the context of “voices in one's head” dates from 1911.  The verb was from the Middle English voysen & voicen, from the noun and emerged in the mid fifteenth century, initially in the sense of "to be commonly said" (familiar still in terms like “the Arab voice”) and from circa 1600s it was understood to mean "to express, give utterance to a feeling, opinion etc”.  From 1867 there was also the technical meaning "utter (a letter-sound) with the vocal cords", used often as voiced or voicing.  The spelling voyce is long obsolete.  Voice & voicer are nouns; voiced is a verb & adjective and voicing is a noun & verb; the noun plural is voices.

The noun voicemail (originally voice mail) dates from 1982 and was one of the bolt-ons to fixed-line telephony which was among the most popular features of the early cellular (mobile) phones but, interestingly, by the late 1990s users had come much to prefer SMS (short message service or text).  The adjective voiceless began in the 1530s as a doctor’s description of one who had “lost their voice” but within a century was used to refer to those who had no say in affairs of Church and state: The voiceless masses”.  It was first used in the sense of "unspoken, unuttered" to refer to non-verbal communication in 1816 and in phonology "unvoiced" dates from 1867.  In idiomatic use, the phrases include “at the top of one's voice”, chest voice, chipmunk voice. liking the sound of one's own voice, outdoor voice, raising one's voice, voice changer, voice coil, voiceprint & voice quality.  In formal grammar, there’s active voice, anti-passive voice, middle voice, neuter voice & passive voice.

The Australian Labor Party, the “Voice to Parliament” and the referendum process.

With great enthusiasm from one faction and a feeling of impending dread from the other, Australia’s brand new Labor Party (ALP) government has confirmed the election promise to submit to the people a referendum to append to the Constitution of Australia a “Voice to Parliament” for the indigenous peoples will be honored, the vote scheduled for the second half of 2023.  In Australia, even to submit a referendum is ambitious given that of the 44 submitted since 1901, only eight have been approved and the bar to success is high, demanding (1) an absolute majority of voters nationally and (2) a majority in at least four of the six states.

The “Voice to Parliament” does seem to be wholly symbolic given the consensus view among legal academics that it neither “confers upon Indigenous Australians any special rights” nor “takes away any right, power or privilege from anyone who is not indigenous”.  In other words, it will have the same constitutional effect as the words “…humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God” have had since being enacted as part of the constitution in 1901: Nothing.  The view seems to be that the voice will provide “a strong basis on which to conduct further consultation”, the implication being the creation of a mechanism whereby there’s a standing institution of communication between the political elite and an indigenous elite.  So logical and efficient does that appear, it looks like one of the classic colonial fixes at which the British were so adept under the Raj.  In India they were the key to minimizing troubles while in Fiji they worked so well even the British administrators were astonished.  There, the Great Council of Chiefs, an institution entirely of the Raj’s imagination became so culturally entrenched that within a generation, the chiefs themselves were speaking of the council as if it had existed a thousand years.

2023 Toyota Land Cruiser Sahara ZX.

The ALP government has been at pains to ensure there’s nothing to frighten the horses, repeatedly confirming the voice will have “no veto power over the functions or powers of the parliament or the executive” and is limited to a purely advisory role in “making representations to the parliament and the executive government about matters, including existing or proposed laws, policies or decisions that have a connection to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”  It also maintains the opportunity to make these representations will be “…available to any individual or organisation”.  That of course is unlikely to mean that all voices will be created equal and the government, like the Raj, will find the system most agreeable once it decides which are the Indigenous Australians whose representations prove most helpful and thus worthy of a salaried position, an expense account and a new Toyota Land Cruiser every year.  This will give the voice a coherent form and in a nice piece of political window-dressing, will likely include mostly (reasonably) tame “Brezhnev approved dissident” types there to protest just enough to seem edgy but not enough to forsake a salaried position, expense account and a new Toyota Land Cruiser every year.  Those who get ideas above their station will be offered a trip to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly or a six month "study tour" taking in Rome, Venice and Paris in the late spring; it will be a job for those "hard faced men and women who have done very well out of colonization".

The government has said “the ultimate model was still being debated by internal groups, and would be subject to negotiation” but given the need to create something which gives the appearance of being much yet has absolutely no constitutional effect, it difficult to see what the basis for discussion might be other than details about Toyota Land Cruisers.  Despite that, there is opposition, one source of which comes from within the ALP, certain figures convinced (and the history of referendums in Australia is not encouraging) it’s impossible to get a vote to pass unless both side of politics advocate a “yes” vote.  So sensitive has become the issue of race they fear a no vote would be damaging internationally so are lobbying to find some excuse to “delay” the vote, even arguing it would be better first to pursue a treaty, the theory being if the can is kicked far enough down the road, by the time the matter re-surfaces, they’ll be retired and it’s someone else’s problem.

The leader of the opposition has announced the Liberal Party will be advocating a “no” vote, something which has doomed every referendum submitted without bipartisan support.  The leader of the opposition didn’t articulate any coherent reason to oppose the voice but history suggests saying “no” when the government says “yes” can be a successful approach and Lord Randolph Churchill’s (1849-1895) dictum that “the duty of the opposition is to oppose” remains good politics.  Of interest too among those opposing the voice is their language: Eschewing the popular (if contested) phrase “first nations” to describe Indigenous Australians for “first peoples”, they are anxious to ensure that any notion of sovereignty can’t be part of the discussion although, given the indivisibility of the doctrine (as opposed to land title) under law, it’s hard to see how this could be part of the debate about the voice.  Perhaps they are fretting about negotiating treaties and perhaps they should.

Finally, there are the “black-letter lawyers” who, noting that judicial activism seemed to be fashionable on the bench of the High Court of Australia not that long ago, worry some judges might find in the words of “the voice” things which on the basis of the usual techniques of linguistic or judicial construction would seem not to exist.  The High Court is the final arbiter on constitutional matters; what a majority there says the words of the constitution mean is what they mean and while parliaments can by legislative change impose their will upon laws, the only way the wording of a passage in the constitution can be changed is to have substitute words approved by referendum; a probably improbable prospect.

Still, it’s difficult to advocate anything but a yes vote.  Since white settlement, Indigenous Australians have at times endured dispossession, discrimination, conditions which can be described only as slavery and not a few instances of mass murder and it’s absurd to suggest the level of disadvantage so many continue to suffer is not a consequence of this history.  What’s remarkable is not that among them there are expressions of discontent but that so many manage to maintain such generosity of spirit and willingness to engage.  The Voice may appear, as the Holy Alliance seemed to Lord Castlereagh (1769–1822; UK foreign secretary 1812-1822) “a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense” but it’s worth remembering he anyway recommended Britain signed the thing on the basis that although too vague to achieve anything substantive, it was unlikely to make things worse.  Something good may come from the Voice while little good can come from rejecting it.

Lindsay Lohan in promotional interview for debut album Speak (2004, Casablanca Records-UMG).

Lindsay Lohan’s sometimes hoarse voice has attracted comment, some finding the gravelly tone sexy, others expressing concern the change might be lifestyle induced. The voices of actors and singers are after all their stock-in-trade so something so distinctive can limit the one’s range of characters or repertoire although notable artists such as Marlene Dietrich (1901–1992) and Marianne Faithfull (b 1946) made a signature of what used to called a “gin-soaked voice”.  Still, Lindsay Lohan’s vocal dynamics piqued the interest of Dr Reena Gupta, Director of the Division of Voice and Laryngology at the Osborne Head & Neck Institute (OHNI) and she provided some explanatory notes, noting that while inherent for some, hoarseness can be a serious matter for those whose living depends on their voice, the condition sometimes reversible, sometimes not.  According to Dr Gupta, a clear voice requires (1) straight edges of the vocal cords, (2) regular and symmetric vibration of the vocal cords, (3) no space between the vocal cords, (4) no mucous on the vocal cords, healthy lungs and (5) a healthy vocal tract (and that includes the mouth, nose, sinuses etc).  Hoarseness occurs when there is damage to the vocal cords that either disrupts the straight edge of the vocal cords or disrupts their vibration, the other factors more important for ease of voice use and vocal tone.

Many injuries can cause the vocal edge to be irregular, thereby inducing hoarseness including polyps, cysts & nodules but even when the edges are straight, scarring can also dampen vibrations and make them irregular, scarred vocal cords having lost their ability to vibrate due to a loss of the vibrating layer and there is currently no cure for the loss of vibration due to scarring.  The scarring can happen for many reasons but is almost always caused by vocal trauma which can be induced by (1) talking loudly or frequent yelling, (2) singing with a flawed technique, (3) smoking (any substance) or (4) a chronic cough or habitual throat clearing.  Any behavior that causes inflammation of the vocal cords will result in a higher likelihood of scarring and a videostroboscopy is the only non-surgical procedure which can confirm the presence of scarring.  There’s nothing unusual or concerning about a hoarseness which lasts only a day or so but if it persists beyond that, a professional evaluation should be sought and many of the causes of are treatable, almost all able to be at least to some extent ameliorated.

Celebrity site ETOnLine.com in 2016 noted the “darkening” in Lindsay Lohan’s voice and posted examples of the variations.

However, prevention being better than cure, Dr Gupta provided the following guidelines for caring for one’s voice and there’s probably no other aspect of our physiology which, despite being so important, is so taken for granted:

(1) No smoking (that’s anything, including vaping).

(2) No heavy use of alcohol, though in moderation it’s OK.

(3) When in a loud environment (restaurants, clubs, parties, sporting events et al), restrict the use of the voice use to a minimum and resist the temptation to shout except in cases of life or death.

(4) Hydration is especially important when in a loud environment (always carry water).

(5) If the voice has been subject to loud or prolonged use, rest the vocal cords the next day.  Under extreme conditions (towards the end of epic-length Wagnerian opera, the voices of even the most skilled will sound a little ragged) there will always be some damage, just as many athletes will tear a few things in competition which is why the recovery protocols must be observed.

(6) If scheduled to need one’s voice in perfect shape, do not the previous evening go somewhere one may be required to shout.

(7) Avoid recreational drugs; their effects are always uncertain.

(8) Learn correct voice use.  Although actors & singers often undertake professional voice training for reasons of articulation and projection, they also learn techniques to ensure damage is minimized and a clinical vocal exam prior to these lessons is advisable to ensure that physically, all is well.

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.

Fix

Fix (pronounced fiks)

(1) To repair or mend; to rectify a fault.

(2) To put in order or in good condition; to adjust or arrange.

(3) To make fast, firm, or stable; to place definitely and permanently.

(4) To settle definitely; to determine (place, value etc); to make rigid; to mount or secure in place.

(5) To direct (the eyes, one’s attention, one’s gaze etc) steadily; To attract and hold (the eye, one’s attention, one’s gaze etc).

(6) To put into permanent form.

(7) To put or place the responsibility or blame for something upon a person or institution.

(8) To assign or refer to a definite place, time, event etc.

(9) To provide or supply with something needed or wanted, especially popular in narcotics transactions; the quantity supplied in that transaction; to inject oneself with a narcotic.

(10) In informal us, to arrange or influence the outcome or action of, especially privately or dishonestly (juries, sporting events, stock prices etc).

(11) To prepare a meal, snack, drink etc.

(12) In informal use, to put in a condition or position to make no further trouble.

(13) In informal use, to get even with; to visit vengeance upon (often as “fix right up).

(14) In informal use, to castrate an animal (used usually of domestic pets).

(15) In slang, to prepare or plan (followed usually by an infinitive as in “fixing to go”, (mostly US, south of the Mason-Dixon Line).

(16) In informal use, a position from which it is difficult to escape; a dilemma; a predicament (typically “in a fix”).

(17) In informal use, a repair, adjustment, or solution, usually of an immediate nature (sometimes in the form “quick & dirty fix”, expressed also in IT as “a Q&D”).

(18) In navigation, a charted position of a vessel or aircraft, determined by two or more bearings taken on landmarks, GPS location, stars etc.

(19) In navigation, the determining of the position of a ship, plane etc, by mathematical, electronic, or other means.

(20) A clear determination (often as “get a fix on”).

(21) A compulsively sought dose or infusion of something (such as “one’s morning caffeine fix”).

(22) In slang, a euphemism for the state of pregnancy (such as “she’s fixed-up”).

(23) In chemistry, to make stable in consistency or condition; reduce from fluidity or volatility to a more stable state.

(24) In photography, to render (an image) permanent by removing light-sensitive silver halides; in digital imaging, any form or correction.

(25) In microscopy, to kill, make rigid, and preserve for microscopic study.

(26) In cytology to kill, preserve, and harden tissue, cells etc for subsequent microscopic study.

(27) In industrial production, to convert atmospheric nitrogen into nitrogen compounds, as in the manufacture of fertilizers or the action of bacteria in the soil.

(28) In biology, to convert carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially carbohydrates, as occurs in photosynthesis in plants and some microorganisms.

(29) In foreign exchange (forex) trading, a benchmark exchange rate used to settle or fix the value of certain financial instruments or transactions.

1350–1400: From the Middle English fixen, from the Middle French fixer or the Medieval Latin fixāre, from the Latin fixus (fixed), past participle of fīgere (to fasten).  The sense of “to repair” may first have been used in the US in the eighteenth century but the first recorded used in England was in the early 1800s although, in the way of such things, it’s likely already to have been in oral use for some time.  The use to mean “to prepare” to plan ” is a uniquely American use, now heard mostly south of the Mason-Dixon Line (“feel like I’m fixing to die” etc) although linguistic anthropologists note that until the mid twentieth century was a common form throughout the US eastern seaboard states.  Forms (sometimes hyphenated) like overfix, defix & refix are created as required and fixt (an archaic form of fixed) is still sometimes used in SMS messaging, advertising etc.  Fix & fixer are nouns & verbs, fixed, fixated & fixing are verbs, fixable is an adjective, fixative is a noun & adjective and fixability, fixer, fixator & fixation are nouns; the noun plural is fixes.

Depending on the context the synonyms can include dilemma, plight, quandary, mess, install, secure, set, settle, stabilize, define, establish, limit, resolve, solve, specify, work out, adjust, correct, overhaul, patch, rebuild, regulate, amend, fasten, stabilize.  In idiomatic use the word often appears.  To “fix someone right up” means to visit vengeance upon them (including killing them, sometime on behalf of others).  A “fix up” can mean (1) wrongly to implicate someone in a crime or other wrong-doing, (2) corruptly to interfere with a jury, the outcome of a sporting event, the operation of a market, the level of an interest-rate etc.  “Been fixed up” can refer to a young lady with child (in or out of wedlock), often with the implication the state may be unplanned or undesired.  To say “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it” is cautionary advice hinting that if something functionally fulfils its purpose, attempting to improve it may make things worse.  To be in a fix (often as “a bit of a fix”) is to find one’s self in a position from which it is difficult to escape; a dilemma; a predicament.  For someone to be “a fixture” is to be seemingly a permanent part of something (a squad, a sporting team etc); it’s used also of institutions.  The “fixer-upper” is something (typically a house or car) in dilapidated condition but usually still in a fit state to inhabit, drive etc so thus suitable for those able to make their own repairs.

Finger fix: In October 2016, during an Aegean cruise, Lindsay Lohan suffered a finger injury.  In this nautical incident, the tip of one digit was severed by the boat's anchor chain but details of the circumstances are sketchy.  It may be that upon hearing the captain give the command “weigh anchor”, she decided to help but, lacking any background in admiralty terms and phrases, misunderstood the instruction.  The detached piece was salvaged from the deck and soon re-attached by a micro-surgeon ashore.  Digit and the rest of the patient apparently made a full recovery and despite the gruesome injury Ms Lohan later managed to find husband and recently announced she’s “fixed up” in the sense of being with child so all’s well that ends well.

The human race has a long tradition of fixing broken stuff but in the twentieth century manufacturers devoted much attention to try to dissuade consumers from fixing things, preferring instead they purchase a new one.  The origins of this were identified by historians in the inter-war years (1918-1939) but the economic conditions of the 1930s limited the effects and it was in the long economic boom of the post-war years that the trend developed in conjunction with the concept of “planned obsolescence”, the beginnings of an era in which it became typically less expensive to replace a broken something than have it fixed, a phenomenon influenced by factors such as increasing unit labor costs, the substitution of parts made from metal, wood, leather etc with plastics and designs deliberately intended to make fixes difficult to effect.  In recent years, particularly in the field of consumer electronics, the tricks have included “sealing for life” (said to be a water-proofing measure) and the use of screws or other fasteners which can be opened only with a special tool (either unavailable to the public or sold as a prohibitively expensive part-number).  One interesting reaction to this has been the “right to repair” movement, an on-line cooperative community which publishes manuals, repair guides and tricks & tips for those who wish to fix.

Fluctuations: Eurodollar LIBOR rates 1 July 1989-28 April 2023 (chart by FedPrimeRate.com). The LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) is the average interest rate at which (a basket of major) banks borrow funds from other banks in the London market (as defined).  Globally, the daily LIBOR fix is a widely used benchmark (or reference) rate for short term interest rates.

In foreign exchange (forex) trading, the term “a fix” most often used to refer to a benchmark exchange rate used to settle (or fix) the value of certain financial instruments or transactions and it’s commonly heard in the context of determining the daily or hourly exchange rates for major currency pairs.  The rate is used as a standard for settling various transactions, such as corporate hedging, portfolio valuation, or derivatives contracts and there are also interest-rate fixes such as the LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) which gained infamy following revelations of the insider-trading some used to manipulate to point at which it was fixed.  Reflecting the city’s history as a financial centre, the “London 4 pm fix” (known also as the “WM/Reuters” or “London” fix) is probably still the best-known daily fix; used as a benchmark against which many forex-related instruments are valued, it’s calculated from the aggregate of physical trades executed during a specific time-window and, as the name implies, that’s usually some defined period either side of 16:00 London time.  As a general principle fixes are set by aggregating and averaging the transactional traffic generated by major banks and financial institutions which, in theory, should ensure a fair and transparent process but there have been instances of malpractice (of which the one associated with the LIBOR was merely the most publicized) which have seen fines imposed and regulatory scrutiny increased.  The principle of the fix as used in forex markets is typical but in other areas of finance, the mechanisms can differ.

The colonial fix

The term “colonial fix” is used to describe the various trick and techniques the European colonial powers used to maintain and extend control in their empires, all of which, sometimes for centuries, used a relative handful of personnel to rule over millions and the best remembered are those practiced under the Raj.  Raj refers to British rule in India prior to 1947 (historians debate just when it can be said to have begun because the project predated the legal construct which formalized things in 1858-1859 although some, for convenience, have applied it to the whole empire.  Raj was a proprialisation of the Hindi noun raj (reign, rule), from the Hindustani राज & راج‎ (rāj), (reign, rule; empire, kingdom; country, state; royalty), from the Pali & Prakrit rajja, from the Sanskrit राज्य (rājyá) (empire, kingdom, realm; kingship, royalty, sovereignty; country), from rājati (he rules), ultimately from the primitive Indo-European h₃reǵ- (to right or straighten oneself; to govern, rule; just; right (with derivatives meaning “to direct in a straight line” and thus “to lead, to rule”)), source also of the German Reich.

A classic colonial fix was the Great Council of Chiefs (Bose Levu Vakaturaga) in Fiji which the British administrators created in 1878.  While it's true that prior to European contact, there had been meetings between tribal chiefs (turaga) to settle disputes and for other purposes, all the evidence suggests they were ad-hoc appointments with little of the formality, pomp and circumstance the British introduced.  Still, it was a successful institution which the chiefs embraced, apparently with some enthusiasm because the cloaks and other accoutrements they adopted for the occasion became increasingly elaborate and it was a generally harmonious form of indigenous governance which enabled the British to conduct matters of administration and policy-making almost exclusively through the chiefs.  The council survived even after Fiji gained independence from Britain in 1970 until it was in 2012 abolished by the military government of Commodore Frank Bainimarama (b 1954; prime minister of Fiji 2007-2022), as part of reform programme said to be an attempt to reduce ethnic divisions and promote a unified national identity.  The commodore's political future would be more assured had he learned lessons from the Raj.

Colonial fixes took many forms, all designed to “fix” some tiresome local problem but they really can be reduced to two themes: (1) In any dispute between factions/tribes/families etc in the local population, always back the weakest, politically and militarily and (2) the most effective and efficient method of control is to align with a recognized and accepted local elite and strengthen their authority and status (knighthoods, visits to London to meet the queen, their own Rolls-Royce etc).  The idea of the colonial fix comes to mind when watching the squabble going on in Australia about the creation of a “Voice”, a institution of some kind (the structure uncertain, the details unclear) which would provide representatives (elected somehow, the details unclear) of the indigenous peoples of the continent (First Nations) now the preferred term) with a mechanism whereby they can make submissions to both the national parliament and executive government (where that begins and ends undefined, the details unclear) about matters which in any way involve or affect indigenous peoples (which is presumably everything, the details are unclear).  There will be a national referendum on the Voice late in 2023, required because of the desire to include the institution in the constitution.  That’s the only way to amend the constitution and the success rate of such referenda is low, only 8 of the 44 submitted gaining the necessary “double majority” of an absolute majority of “yes” votes nationally and a majority in each of the six states.  Because of the distribution of population, it’s possible to succeed in one but not the other in which case the proposal is rejected.  If the details of what’s proposed remain unclear, it’s possible still to predict the likely form a Voice will assume.

In the abstract it’ll be something like feminism in that most of the benefits will accrue to a small, urban, educated elite.  In the same way most female CEOs don’t give a lot of thought (or a pay rise) to the working-class women who serve their coffee and empty their trash bins compared with their efforts to secure quotas for women to be appointed to corporate boards, be given winnable seats in legislatures or seats in cabinet, those who serve on the voice will be most interested in cementing their own power and status and the most disadvantaged among the indigenous can expect little.  The phrase “First Nations” at least partly explains the dynamics of this because viewed from the comfort of the Voice, they’ll appear as inconveniently disparate as Karl Marx (1818-1883) found peasants who he compared to a sack of potatoes: “all the same, yet all different”.  Although the word is no longer fashionable (and is probably proscribed), the structure of the First Nations remains that of competing tribes with interests and priorities which sometimes conflict with others and the Voice cannot simultaneously advocate for both.  At that point, the government will back the weakest.  Practically, it will be a bureaucracy which the government will be sure richly to endow with the trappings of office (big cars, fancy titles, much business class travel and a dutiful secretariat which will produce mountains of reports few will read and those who do will ignore).

Quite why there’s such agitation in certain right-wing circles against the Voice is curious because the very existence of the body seems likely only to be one of their assets.  Although some are cautious, the constitutional lawyers have taken the view that there’s nothing in the amendment which would require a parliament or government to act upon the submissions a Voice might make, it saying only that the right to make them exists; they need to be heard and can be acted upon or ignored on a case-by-case basis.  Nor does there seem great potential that the Voice could seek judicial review if their proposals are declined although presumably the possibility does exist if a case can be made that the Voice is not even being listened to.  The concern about appeals to the courts was based on an earlier period in the life of the High Court of Australia (HCA; the nation’s final court of appeal which might in matters involving the relationship between the voice and the parliament & government be a court of first instance) when some judges were inclined to find that although some concepts weren’t written in the constitution, there was a construction under which they could be said to be “implied” and the court could thus proceed as if they were ink on paper.  That moment of judicial activism seems now to have passed although, even if it reappears, it would be quite a leap for a court to find a parliament or government is compelled to adopt a recommendation of an advisory body.  At the most, they would probably require a process which indicates the matter has been duly considered.  For the right-wing fanatics, the run-up to the vote has actually started well.  Already there’s dissention among the self-appointed elite of the First Nations, the view of the dominant faction being there’s only one permissible view and anyone who dares to express another view must be put down.  Politically that makes sense but it’d be better done behind closed doors.  Hopefully, the referendum will pass with a substantial majority so political junkies can enjoy watching the shark-feeding which will follow.  Unfortunately for the most disadvantaged of the indigenous peoples, the latest generations of those who have been marginalized and appallingly treated since white settlement, they can expect that a decade hence, things are likely to be much the same.  Still for those who can hop aboard the Voice gravy train, there’ll be expense accounts, five-star hotels and celebrity status when addressing the United Nations (UN) General Assembly so there’s that.

Cede

Cede (pronounced seed)

(1) To yield or formally surrender to another; to transfer or make over something (especially physical territory or legal rights).

(2) To allow a point in an argument, negotiation or debate (technically as a synonym of concede).

1625-1635: From the Old & Middle French céder, from the Latin cēdere (to yield, give place; to give up some right or property (and originally "to go from, proceed, leave”)), from cēdō (to yield), (from the Proto-Italic kesd-o- (to go away, avoid), from the primitive Indo-European ḱyesd- (to drive away; to go away), from ked- (to go, to yield).  The original sense in English (to go from, proceed, leave) is long archaic; the transitive meaning “yield or formally surrender (something) to another” dating from 1754.  The sense evolution in Latin was via the notion of “go away, withdraw, give ground” and cēdere, with the appropriate prefix bolted-on, proved extraordinarily in English, yielding forms such as accede, concede, exceed, precede, proceed, recede, secede, antecedent, intercede, succeed & supercede.  Cede (in one context or another) can be vested with specific meanings in law but relinquish, abandon, grant, transfer & convey can sometimes be used as synonyms.  Cede, cedes, ceded & ceding are verbs and ceder & cedents are nouns; the noun plural is ceders.

Senator Lidia Thorpe.

The “debate” between the “yes” and “no” cases for the upcoming referendum to amend the Australian constitution to include a “Voice” to make representations to the parliament and executive on matters concerning Indigenous Australians has evolved to the interesting position of the no case being split between (1) those who argue the Voice would have too much power and (2) those who claim it would possess not enough.  Politics being what it is, that split might be unremarkable except the yes case simultaneously is disagreeing with both while trying hard to avoid having to descend to specifics and by far the interesting position among the noes is that advocated by Lidia Thorpe (b 1973; senator (Independent though elected for the Green Party) for Victoria since 2020).  What Senator Thorpe describes as the basis of the “radical no case” is that (1) colonial settlement of the Australian land mass was effected by an invasion, (2) Indigenous Australians never ceded their sovereignty over that land mass and (3) Indigenous sovereignty is not only ongoing but exclusive and does not co-exist with the claimed sovereignty of the Crown (ie the construct which is the Australian state).  This is the position of the Blak sovereign movement (BSM) which says Indigenous Australians “…are the original and only sovereign of these lands” which would seem to imply the Australian government should be considered an “occupying power”.  Whether that’s an “illegal occupation” or the natural consequence of a successful invasion which extinguished Indigenous sovereignty depends less on what one thinks happened in the past and more on what one would like to happen in the future.  Either way, the Australian government is continuing to promise the matter of a treaty (or treaties) will be pursued “sometime” after the Voice referendum passes; any thought of a failed referendum seems to be unthinkable.  The spelling blak existed in Middle English and several Germanic languages; in all cases meant “black” and it’s used by the movement as a point of political differentiation, “black” being a “white” construct.

For something which is the fundamental tenet of the international order, the modern understanding of sovereignty is a surprisingly recent thing and though political arrangements which are recognizable as “nations” have existed for thousands of years, the concept of the nation-state began to coalesce only in the late Middle Ages.  In international law, sovereignty encapsulates the supreme authority and independence of a state but it depends not only on an assertion but also recognition by other sovereign entities.  Internally, it implies a government enjoys an exclusive right to exercise authority and make decisions within its borders, free from control or influence by other states but in its purest form it now rarely exists because so many states have entered into international agreements which to some degree impinge on their sovereignty.  Externally, it means that a state is recognized by other sovereign states and is thus able to conduct foreign policy, enter into agreements with other states and participate in international organizations.  It also implies non-interference in a state's domestic affairs by others.  All of this illustrates why sovereignty is so important and why the ongoing existence matters to the BSM activists.  Only sovereign entities can enter into legally binding treaties with others which is why Senator Thorpe observed: “Treaty is so important because we don’t want to cede our sovereignty. We have maintained our sovereign status in our own country since forever. We are not about to cede our sovereignty.”  However, as many “sovereign citizens” have discovered when attempting to evade their speeding tickets using arguments invoking everything from scripture, the writings of medieval natural law theorists and the Magna Carta, sovereignty is determined not by assertion but by recognition.

In the case of the Indigenous Australians, quite how a conception of their sovereignty at the point of the colonial invasion should be constructed is interesting, not only in the abstract but because the BSM wants treaty negotiations to begin rather than the creation of “a Voice” on the grounds the latter might be seen to imply an acquiescence to the sovereignty of the Australian state, thus extinguishing Indigenous Australian sovereignty.  The rapidity with which the government moved to assure all the Voice would not have this effect suggests not a statement of constitutional law but an indication they don’t take the BSM position too seriously.  However, sovereign entities can enter into treaties and although as a pre-literate culture, there are no pre-1788 written records (in the Western sense), the work of anthropologists has established the first peoples did have a concept of sovereignty over their lands.  Importantly though, implied in the phrase “first nations”, the peoples were organized into tribes (“mob” the preferred modern slang) and their understanding of sovereignty related to each of the tribal lands.  In a legal sense, that is thought not to be a problem because the Western concept of sovereignty is quite compatible and for treaty purposes could be considered equivalent (indeed there was nineteenth century colonial case law which said exactly that).  In a practical sense however, there is one sovereign Australian state and (at least) hundreds of first nations so the mechanics of the treaty process would seem onerous although almost all the other former colonies of the British Empire have managed, however imperfectly, to execute treaties.  However, it seem inevitable the Australian government would prefer to enter into one treaty, even one with hundreds of signatories but as the Voice discussions have proved (and the very existence of the BSM has emphasized), Indigenous Australia is not monolithic and a treaty process could be long and involved.

An outgrowth of a small music store which in 1976 opened in the Swiss town of Winterthur selling vinyl records and cassettes, the Music Box added Compact Discs (CD) and Digital Versatile Discs (DVD) as the new formats became available and in 1997 became one of the pioneers of Swiss e-commerce, launching CeDe.com (pronounced see-dee-dot-com) as an online shop.  That might have been a bad choice as the CD faded from use but CeDe gained sufficient market presence to become an established brand-name and has transcended its etymology.

Stubborn

Stubborn (pronounced stuhb-ern)

(1) Unreasonably obstinate; obstinately unmoving.

(2) Fixed or set in purpose or opinion; resolute; obstinately maintaining a course of action regardless of circumstances.

(3) Something difficult to manage or suppress.

(4) An object which is hard, tough, or stiff (stone, timber etc) or wood and thus difficult to shape or work; an object such (as a tightly fastened bolt) which is difficult to move; any problems which prove resistant to attempts to secure a solution.

(5) In the slang of the citrus industry, as stubbornness, a disease of citrus trees characterized by stunted growth and misshapen fruit, caused by Spiroplasma citri.

1350–1400: From the Middle English stiborn, stiborne, styborne, stuborn & stoborne, of obscure origin; the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) noting the earliest known form as stiborn.  Stubborn is an adjective, stubbornly an adverb and stubbornness a noun.

Stubborn is one of a remarkably large number of words in English with an unknown origin and is thus self referential, itself unreasonably obstinate in an unwillingness to disclose its source.  Deconstruction (stub + born) is no help because the spelling seems to have evolved merely to respect the pronunciation (something which in English can’t always be relied upon) and however tempting might seem a link with “stub” (a short, projecting part or remaining piece) (from the Middle English stubbe (tree stump), from the Old English stybb, stobb & stubb (tree stump), from the Proto-West Germanic stubb, from the Proto-Germanic stunjaz& stubbaz and related to the Middle Dutch stubbe, the Old Norse stubbr and the Faroese stubbi (stub), from the primitive Indo-European steu (to push, stick, knock, beat) & stew- (sharp slope)), a thing often immovable and unyielding, there’s simply no evidence.

More correctly, there’s simply no verified evidence.  As modern English coalesced during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, lexicography became more industry than art and there was great interest (and competition) in the production of dictionaries, some of which included etymological detail in their entries.  At this time, it was thought the origin of stubborn was known, the accepted method of the time being to look for similar constructions in Hebrew, Latin and Greek on the basis it was supposedly from these ancient tongues that the words of modern languages were derived.  That supposition wasn’t entirely accurate but was true enough for many of the words in English at the time fully to be understood.  Because the Greek adjective στι-βαρóς (obstinate, stubborn) enjoyed such a similarity of sound with stubborn, that was thought conclusive, hence the entries in early dictionaries.  However, later scholarship proved the two words unrelated and no research has ever offered a plausible alternative.

That stubbornness is a frequently encountered part of the human condition is perhaps indicated by the numbers of words and phrases (most famously “stubborn as a mule”) in English associated with the idea including adamant, determined, dogged, headstrong, inflexible, intractable, ornery, persistent, perverse, relentless, rigid, single-minded, steadfast, tenacious, tough, unshakable, willful, balky, bloody-minded, bullheaded, contrary, refractory, unyielding, obdurate, wayward, obstinate, disobedient, insubordinate, undisciplined & rebellious.

In use, stubborn, dogged, obstinate, persistent imply some fixity of purpose or condition and resistance to change, regardless of changing circumstances or compelling evidence.  There are however nuances, stubborn and obstinate both imply resistance to advice or force but stubborn is more suggestive of an innate quality and is used almost exclusively when referring to inanimate things; by convention, to be obstinate seems to demand there be some process of thought or at least character (mules presumably difficult in nature rather than in any way thoughtful).  One who is dogged might be both obstinate and stubborn but dogged can also imply tenacity, a pertinacity and grimness of purpose in doing something, especially in the face of difficulties which seem insurmountable and one who persists in seeking to solve an apparently insoluble problem can be lauded for their, dogged, stubborn determination.  Persistent implies having a resoluteness of purpose, one who perseveres despite setbacks and discouragement.  Some insist stubborn describes an extreme degree of passive obstinacy and while that tends to be true when the word is used of objects, among the sentient, stubbornness can manifest as anything but passive.

In the Bible there are passages which suggest stubbornness in the doing of God's work is a virtue but the trait was sometimes clearly a sin.  In the Book of Deuteronomy (21:18-21 as part of the Deuteronomic Code), the penalty of death by stoning is specified as a punishment for a stubborn and delinquent son.  The text is an interesting example of the usefulness of the Bible as a historic document, the inclusion in the Deuteronomic Code an attempt to reform the breakdown in family life characteristic of an era in which the absolute power parents had once exercised over their children had dissipated, hence the notion that the authority of a village's elders must be both invoked and exercised.  As a solution (though perhaps without the executions), it sounds like many modern suggestions to solve the problem of youth crime and juvenile delinquency.  

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (King James Version (KJV 1611))

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

The 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 (it's an urban myth the Kennedys drove only Buicks) driven by Senator Ted Kennedy in which Mary Jo Kopechne (1940-1969) died.  Kennedy survived, having left the scene of the crash in circumstances never satisfactorily explained.

As recent events and judicial decisions illustrate, in the United States there is a tension created by the dynamics which existed from the first days of white settlement, the competing lust to live free from oppression versus the undercurrent of a muscular, puritanical religiosity.  The Old Testament force of the latter in November 1646 prevailed upon the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, inspiring a law providing, inter alia, for the capital punishment of male children found disobedient to their parents.  Although the death penalty was later removed (though punishment for recalcitrant daughters was added in an early example of gender equality), the law was not repealed until 1973 although, as the troubled life of Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy (1932-2009) might suggest, enforcement had by then long fallen into disuse.  Similar laws were enacted in Connecticut in 1650, Rhode Island in 1688, and New Hampshire in 1679.

The Massachusetts statute: "If a man have a stubborn or rebellious son, of sufficient years and understanding sixteen years of age, which will not obey the voice of his Father, or the voice of his Mother, and that when they have chastened him will not harken unto them: then shall his Father and Mother being his natural parents, lay hold on him, and bring him to the Magistrates assembled in Court and testify unto them, that their son is stubborn and rebellious and will not obey their voice and chastisement, but lives in sundry notorious crimes, such a son shall be put to death."

King Manuel II (standing, third from left) in May 1910, European royalty gathered in London for the funeral of Edward VII and among the mourners were nine reigning sovereigns, the image colorized from a sepia-toned original.  Dom Manuel II ("The Unfortunate" 1889–1932) reigned as the last King of Portugal and the Algarve 1908-1910, his brief tenure occasioned by the Lisbon regicide of 1908 in which his father and elder brother were murdered.

Counter-intuitively, considering the blood-soaked histories of Europe’s squabbling dynasties, of all the hundreds of cognomina (names appended before or after the person's name which are applied to identify their nature) attached to kings and princes, it seems only to have been Louis X of France (1289–1316; King of France 1314-1316 & King of Navarre (as Louis I) 1305-1316) who was informally styled "The Stubborn" (Louis le Hutin), although, just to stress the point, he was known also as "Louis the Quarrelsome" & "Louis the Headstrong".  Because in royalty names are so often recycled (John, Frederick, Louis, Charles etc), cognomina are genuinely helpful to historians and are for readers, probably more mnemonic that Roman numbering (Louis XI, XII, XIII etc).  While there has been much use of the usual suspects (the Brave, Great, Good, Bad, Cruel, Victorious etc) and some have been merely descriptive (the Fat, Bald, Tall, Hairy etc (although some of these were ironic)), some were evocative:

There was the Abandoned (John I of Aragon), the Accursed (Sviatopolk I of Kiev), the Affable (Charles VIII of France), the Alchemist (John, Margrave of Brandenburg-Kulmbach), the Apostate (Julian, Emperor of Rome, the Arab (Phillip I, Emperor of Rome), the Astrologer (Alfonso X of Castile), the Bad (applied to many but famously associated with Emund of Sweden), the Bastard (of which there have been many more than those to whom the sobriquet was attached, the best known being William I (better known as the Conqueror)), the Beer Jug (John George I, Elector of Saxony), the Bewitched (Charles II of Spain), the Bloodaxe (Eric I of Norway), the Bloodthirsty (doubtless a widely used adjective but the most cited seems Ismail of Morocco), Bloody (Mary I of England (and the well known Vodka cocktail)), the Cabbage (Ivaylo of Bulgaria), the Crosseyed (Vasili Kosoi, a Muscovian usurper), the Devil (Robert I, Duke of Normandy), the Indolent (Louis V of France (also the Sluggard which in this context imparts much the same meaning)), the Drunkard, (Michael III, Byzantine Emperor although one suspects he was one of many), the Dung-Named (Constantine V, Byzantine Emperor), the Executioner (Mehmed I of the Ottoman Empire, again one of many), the Fat (most associated with Charles III, Holy Roman Emperor), the Fowler (Henry I of Germany, a notable figure of the First Reich), the Hairy (Wilfred I of Urgel), the Impaler (the infamous Vlad III of Wallachia (Basarab Ţepeluş cel Tânăr of Wallachia was the Little Impaler)), the Impotent (Henry IV of Castile), the Mad (of which there should have been more than there are and associated (fairly or not) with Lorenzo de' Medici of the Florentine Republic), Minus-a-Quarter (Michael VII Dukas, Byzantine Emperor (and apparently the only regal sobriquet derived from monetary policy)), the Priest Hater (Eric II of Norway), the She-Wolf (Isabella of France), the Be-shitten (James II (of England and Ireland and James VII of Scotland)), the Stammerer (Louis II of France), the Terrible (a popular one but best remembered for Ivan IV of Russia), the Unfortunate (which could fairly be applied to many but seems linked only with Manuel II of Portugal and the Algarve (who was unfortunate (o Desaventurado) but it could have been worse (he survived to see out his years in Twickenham) and he was known also as the Patriot (o Patriota)).