Nice

Nice (pronounced nahys)

(1) Pleasing; agreeable; delightful.

(2) Amiably pleasant; kind.

(3) Characterized by, showing, or requiring great accuracy, precision, skill, tact, care, or delicacy.

(4) Showing or indicating very small differences; minutely accurate, as instruments.

(5) Minute, fine, or subtle.

(6) Having or showing delicate, accurate perception.

(7) Refined in manners, language etc.

(8) Virtuous; respectable; decorous.

(9) Suitable or proper; carefully neat in dress, habits, etc; dainty or delicate (especially of food).

(10) Having fastidious, finicky, or fussy tastes (sometime used as over-nice in a disparaging sense).

(11) Coy, shy, or reluctant (obsolete).

(12) Unimportant; trivial (obsolete).

(13) Uncertain; delicately balanced (obsolete).

(14) Wanton (obsolete).

(15) A Mediterranean port and the capital of the department of Alpes-Maritimes, in south-east France; a resort on the French Riviera; founded by Phocaeans from Marseille circa third century BC; it was ceded to France in 1860 by Sardinia.  Ancient Nicaea is from the Ancient Greek nikaios (victorious) from nikē (victory); Nizzard (a resident of Nice) is derived from Nizza, the Italian form of the city name.

(16) In the UK, an acronym for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, a body established in 1999 to provide authoritative guidance on current best practice in medicine and to promote high-quality cost-effective medical treatment in the National Health Service (NHS).

(17) In computing (the Unix operating system), a program used to trigger a script or program with a specified priority.

(18) In the slang of drug users, being well affected. 

1250–1300: From the Middle English nice, nyce & nys (foolish, stupid), from the Old French nice, niche & nisce (silly, simple, foolish, ignorant) from the Latin nescius (to be ignorant, incapable), the construct being ne- (the Latin negative prefix) + sci- (stem of scīre (to know)) + -us (the Latin adjectival suffix); the more familiar Latin form being nescire (to know not, be ignorant of), the construct being ne- + scire, the ultimate source of which was the primitive Indo-European ne (not).  Use of the noun "nice" is restricted to the Unix operating system, where it describes a program used to trigger a script or program with a specified priority, the implication being that running at a lower priority is "nice" (in the sense of "kind") because it leaves more resources for others (thus the specialized verbs nicing & niced).  Nice is a noun, adjective & adverb, nicity is a noun, nicer & nicest are adjectives & adverbs, niceish (nicish the archaic spelling) is an adjective, nicely is an adverb and niceness & nicety are nouns; the most common noun plural seems to be niceties.

Not always nice

Lindsay Lohan in a nice dress, LLohan Nightclub pop up event, Playboy Club, New York, October 2019: David Koma crystal-embellished cady midi dress with asymmetric hem, Valentino Rockstud 110mm pumps (part-number WS0393VOD) and Chanel mini tweed bag.

The sense development of nice is regarded as unusual by most etymologists, most of whom find the meaning shifts extraordinary, even for an adjective.  Meaning originally “silly or foolish”, by circa 1300, it meant "timid, faint-hearted", came to mean "fussy or fastidious" by the late fourteenth century, shifting (slightly) within decades to "dainty, delicate" yet meaning "precise, careful" by the 1500s, the sense preserved in Modern English in such terms as “a nice distinction” and “nice and early”.  By 1769 it’s being used to convey something "agreeable or delightful and by 1830, "kind & thoughtful" yet the variety of meanings clearly overlapped, perhaps due to generational inertia: the Duke of Wellington (1769-1852), writing in 1815 of the recent battle of Waterloo which at many points could have gone either way said “It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life”, using nice in yet another older sense of "uncertain, delicately balanced".

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.  As early as the 1990s, some guides were predicting the use of "nice" to convey the sardonically ironic was becoming so clichéd it might become unfashionable but it continues to flourish, possibly because it has never become associated with "lower class" speech.

The meaning shifts have created problems for historians and archivists, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) noting that when analysing documents from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it can be difficult to say in what particular sense a writer intended "nice" to be taken.  The imprecision upset many and by 1926, the authoritative Henry Fowler (1858–1933) wrote in his Dictionary of Modern English Usage that nice had become "too great a favourite with the ladies, who have charmed out of it all its individuality and converted it into a mere diffuser of vague and mild agreeableness."  Pace Henry Fowler but it is handy for a language to include a word which so encapsulates “vague and mild agreeableness” and in any of its meanings, nice is not without synonyms.  So the semantic history is varied and, as the etymology and the obsolete senses attest, any attempt to insist on only one of its present senses as correct will not be in keeping with actual use.  The criticism usually extended is nice is used too often and has become a cliché lacking the qualities of precision and intensity that are embodied in many of its synonyms.  In modern use, it’s now often used ironically, something not desirable, or worse, can now be described as “nice”, the meaning well-understood.

Naughty

Naughty (pronounced naw-tee)

(1) Disobedient; mischievous; wilful; wayward; misbehaving (used especially in speaking to or about children or pets).

(2) Improper, tasteless, indecorous, or indecent.

(3) Wicked; evil (obsolete).

(4) Sexually provocative; usually in a weakened playful sense, risqué or cheeky.

(5) Bad, worthless, sub-standard (obsolete).

1375-1400: From the Middle English naughty, nauȝty, nauȝti, naȝti, nowghty & noughti (needy, having nothing, also (also evil, immoral, corrupt, unclean)), from nought & naught (evil, an evil act; nothingness; a trifle; insignificant person; the number zero), from the Old English nawiht (nothing).  In the seventeenth century, as words like “bad” and “evil” came to be the preferred descriptors of the more extreme, naughty became something milder, used to describe the mischievous or those with a tendency to misbehave or act badly and this soon became most associated with children, a linguistic acknowledgment that bad behaviour unacceptable by an adult was excusable by in youth, This mitigated sense of "disobedient, bad in conduct or speech, improper, mischievous" to describe the delinquencies of children is attested from the 1630s.  The sense of "sexually promiscuous" is from 1869 but between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, a woman of bad character (which might include but was not limited to lose virtue) might be called “a naughty pack” and there is evidence this was occasionally extended also to men and later an especially recalcitrant child.  Naughty, naughtier & naughtiest are adjectives; naughtily is an adverb and naughtiness a noun.  The alternative spelling noughty is archaic and obsolete.

The construct was naught + -y.  Naught in the mid-fourteen century meant "evil, an evil act" and also " a trifle"; by circa 1400 it had come to mean "nothingness", hence the adoption by mathematicians in the early fifteenth century as “the number zero" (from noht & naht (nothing) both of which had existed since the twelfth century, from the Old English nawiht (nothing, literally "no whit" from the primitive Indo-European root ne- (not) + wiht (thing, creature, being).  It was cognate with the Old Saxon neowiht (nothing), the Old High German niwiht, the Gothic ni waihts, the Dutch niet, and the German nicht. In the Old English, it became and adjectival form meaning "good for nothing" which endured to evolve by the mid-sixteenth century to the more focused "morally bad, wicked", softened over the years to the way the modern adjective naughty is now variously applied.  Naughty is an adjective & verb, naughtiness is a noun and naughtily an adverb; naughty has been used as a (non-standard) noun, usually as a euphemism for something related to sex so the noun plural there would be naughties (on the model of nasties).

It certainly had a long gestation to get to the point where “naughty” now is used  to describe mischievous kittens, vegan restaurants, sex shops and patisseries.  The primitive Indo European roots ne (not) & wekti (thing) both date back almost seven thousand years and, at the time of Antiquity, proceeded through the Proto-Germanic to become the Old English word nawiht (not a thing; nothing).  With the same meaning the word existed in the Middle English as naht, nought & naught, the last spelling, though now quite rare, enduring to this day.  Naughty was a fourteenth century fork, with the addition of the –y it was used to convey the same quality but with a new meaning (poor, literally "having nothing").  In the way class systems work by association, the rich (and perhaps even more so, the less-poor) extended the definition to include lazy, lawless, dirty, malignant etc (as required) because of a perception of correlation between poverty and crime.  Naughty however mellowed somewhat and society adapted, finding many other words with which to demonise the poor.

Naughty and Nice

Before mobile bandwidth and faster hardware drove them extinct, there were free afternoon newspapers, handed to commuters to read on the bus, tram or train journey home.  They were a welcome replacement for the afternoon papers (for which people had to pay) which, years or even decades earlier had been killed off by television.

mX Newspaper 2012 London Olympics medal table, 2 August 2012.

During the 2012 London Olympic Games, Melbourne’s mX commuter daily noted North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; the DPRK) and South Korea (Republic of Korea; the ROK) coincidently were running respectively fourth and fifth in the medal count so causing the ROK directly to sit atop the DPRK on their medal table.  Fearing confusion among readers not well acquainted with the peninsula’s geopolitics, mX decided to help, labelling the South “Nice Korea” and the North “Naughty Korea”.

In Pyongyang, the DPRK’s official Korean Central News Agency was quick to respond, accusing capitalist lackey mX of "…sordid behavior…" and “…a bullying act little short of insulting the Olympic spirit of solidarity, friendship and progress and politicising sports.”  The news media, it added, was “…obliged to lead the public in today's highly-civilised world where [the] mental and cultural level of mankind is being displayed at the highest level.”  Warming to the topic, the agency damned mX’s editors a being “…so incompetent as to tarnish the reputation of the paper…" which will remain a “…symbol of a rogue paper which will long be cursed in Olympic history."

DPRK Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un (b 1983) inspecting the North Korean pastry production line.

In response, mX ran the agency's attack on the next day’s front page under the headline Pyongyang Goes Ballistic Over mX Tally, claiming the table was “…not intended to be offensive” and just a “…humorous but harmless way…” for readers easily to differentiate between two countries with similar names.  It’s presumed Pyongyang was more upset at being labelled “naughty” than it was at the rogue state in the south being called “nice”.  Although nice has had many meanings, the agency probably well understood mX’s implication and acted appropriately against the imperialist propaganda.  The newspaper’s explanation was apparently accepted as an apology, the Supreme Leader not ordering any retaliatory missile strikes on the editorial office.

Naughty but Nice Patisserie, 39 Ilsham Road, Wellswood, Torquay, TQ1 2JG, UK.  Cakes, pastries, pies & rolls etc; it’s thought The Supreme Leader approves of pastry shops.

Naughty or Nice sex shop, 836 Main St, Lewiston, 83501 Idaho, USA.  Lingerie, toys, devices & accessories etc; it’s not known if The Supreme Leader approves of sex shops.

In December 2022, as a holiday season promotion, the Pepsi Corporation teamed with Lindsay Lohan to promote Pilk.  A Pilk is a mix of Pepsi Cola and milk, one of a class of dirty sodas created by PepsiCo which includes the Naughty & Ice, the Chocolate Extreme, the Cherry on Top, the Snow Float and the Nutty Cracker.  All are intended to be served with cookies (biscuits) and although Ms Lohan confessed to being “…a bit sceptical when first I heard of this pairing”, she was quickly converted, noting that “…after my first sip I was amazed at how delicious it was, so I’m very excited for the rest of the world to try it.”  

PepsiCo provided the instructions for mixing a Naughty & Ice: "For a pure milk taste that's infused with notes of vanilla, measure and combine 1 cup of whole milk, 1 tbsp of heavy cream and 1 tbsp of vanilla creamer.  From there, pour the mixture slowly into 1 cup of Pepsi and serve with a chocolate chip cookie."

Naughty and nice: Lindsay Lohan promotes Pilk.

Agastopia

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

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

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

Agastopic: Studies of the soles of Lindsay Lohan's feet in three aspects.

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

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

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

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

The DSM-5 Criteria

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

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

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

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

WikiFeet is a wiki which curates users’ submissions of women's feet with a predictable emphasis on celebrities. The Lindsay Lohan page contains 3639 images with the WikiFeet community rating her feet at 4.7 stars (out of 5) which means she has "beautiful feet".  The site includes sections for “feet of the day” and “feet of the week” although the criteria for making the selection cut for these honors aren’t disclosed.  An illustrative sample of the WikiFeet rating system includes:

Billie Eilish, 97 images, rated 4.1 (nice feet)

Anna Kournikova, 362 images, rated 5.0 (beautiful feet)

Selena Gomez, 1963 images, rated 4.7, (beautiful feet)

Nicki Minaj, 1135 images, rated 3.4 (OK feet)

Mila Kunis, 1131 images, rated 4.6, (beautiful feet)

Janelle Monáe, 486 images, rated 5.0 (beautiful feet)

Nancy Pelosi, 14 images, rated 2.9 (OK feet)

Rihanna, 5663 images, rated 5.0 (beautiful feet)

Emily Ratajkowski, 2571 images, rated 5.0 (beautiful feet)

Paris Hilton, 997 images, rated 3.2 (OK feet)

Emma Watson, 1047 images, rated 5.0 (beautiful feet)

Megan Fox, 1866 images, rated 4.1 (nice feet)

Emma Raducanu 80 images, rated 4.6 (beautiful feet)

Charli XCX, 960 images, rated 5.0 (beautiful feet)

Crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013, left) and Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025, right).

Crooked Hillary Clinton’s feet must convey something of her crooked crookedness because the Wikifeet connoisseurs rate them only at 2.5 stars (OK feet) but politics in the US being so polarized, there may be an element of strategic voting involved and the sample size is anyway small, crooked Hillary's page having only 24 images.  Following in the footsteps of the original, there exists a companion WikiFeet page for men’s feet although, predictably, it’s a mere shadow of the feminine version and that must be emblematic of many things in sociology, sexual politics and fetishism.  On the male site there is a solitary entry on Donald Trump’s page and while it’s not the only known photograph of his bare feet, it is the one with the best angle; with only a single image on which to base an assessment, the rating of 1.3 (bad feet) may reflect political bias rather than objective judgment.  That may also have influenced voting on the 32 images on Kamala Harris’s (b 1964; US vice president 2021-2025) page though the fact she rated a solid 4.0 (nice feet) clearly wasn’t enough to help her win the 2024 presidential election, feet just not an issue.

Shine envy: Field Marshal el-Sisi and President Trump, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia May 2017.  Military men usually have shiny shoes, the more senior ranks allocated a batman to do the polishing.

There was nothing in the recent testimony of Stormy Daniels (stage name of Stephanie Gregory, b 1979) to suggest Donald Trump has a particular thing for feet but he certainly notices shoes.  When meeting Field Marshal Fattah el-Sisi (b 1954; president of Egypt since 2014) in Riyadh, Mr Trump couldn’t help but be impressed how much shinier were the field marshal’s shoes, his seemingly close to identical pumps dull by comparison.  As they left the room, Mr Trump remarked to him: “Love your shoes.  Boy, those shoes. Man …” but knew he’d lost face and doubtless the White House shoe-shine operative was told: "You're fired!"  The Democratic Party seems never to have drawn attention to Joe Biden's (b 1942; US president 2021-2025) shoes, presumably because they feared Fox News might have demanded proof he could still tie his own laces.

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

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

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

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

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

The washing of feet

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

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

Pope Francis kisses the foot of a female inmate of Rebibbia prison, Rome, 28 March 2024.

One of the set-piece motifs in Christianity, the foot-washing ritual takes place on the Thursday before Easter and seeks to imitate Christ’s washing of the Disciples’ feet the night before he was crucified.  It was on that evening he said to his Disciples: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.” (John 13:21)

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

Mourn

Mourn (pronounced mawrn or mohrn)

(1) To grieve or lament for the dead.

(2) To show the conventional or usual signs of sorrow over a person's death.

(3) To feel or express sorrow or grief over (misfortune, loss, or anything regretted); to deplore (now restricted mostly to literary or poetic use).

(4) To utter in a sorrowful manner.

(5) To observe the customs of mourning, as by wearing black garments (sables).

(6) In jousting, a ring fitted upon the head of a lance to prevent wounding an adversary in tilting (a charging with a lance).

Pre 900: From the Middle English mournen & mornen, from the Old English murnan (to feel or express sorrow, grief, or regret; bemoan, long after and also “be anxious about, be careful” (past tense: mearn, past participle: murnen), from the Proto-Germanic murnaną & murnan (sorrowfully to remember)  It was cognate with the Old High German mornēn (to be troubled), the Old Norse morna (to pine away. also “to dawn (become morning)”), the Greek mermeros (worried), the Gothic maurnan (to grieve) and the French morne (gloomy).  The proto-Germanic was the source also of the Old Saxon mornon and was probably a suffixed form of the primitive Indo-European root mer & smer- (to remember).  The use to mean “to lament the death of” emerged late in the thirteenth century while the sense of “display the conventional appearance of grieving for a period following the death of someone” was in use by the 1520s.  The noun mourning (feeling or expression of sorrow, sadness, or grief) was in use in the late twelfth century and was from the Old English murnung (complaint, grief, act of lamenting), a verbal noun from the verb mourn.  The meaning “customary dress or garment worn by mourners” dates from the 1650s although mourning habit was in use in the late fourteenth century.  The North American mourning dove was named in 1820 and was so-called because of its soulful call.  The adjective mournful (expressing sorrow; oppressed with grief) came into use in the early 1600s.  The spelling morne was used during the fourteenth & fifteenth centuries.  Mourn & mourned are verbs, mourning is a noun & verb, mourner & mournfulness are nouns, mournful is an adjective and mournfully is an adverb; the noun plural is mourners.

Comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953, far right) as chief mourner, carrying the coffin of comrade Sergei Kirov (1886–1934; Russian Bolshevik revolutionary & Soviet politician), Moscow 6 December 1934.

Although no documentary evidence has ever been found, most historians believe the execution was approved by comrade Stalin and in a nice touch, within a month, Kirov's assassins were convicted in a show trial and executed.  As the death toll from the purges of the 1930s accelerated, comrade Stalin stopped attending funerals; he just wouldn't have ben able to find the time.  Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) seems not to have appeared as a mourner at the funerals of any of those he’d ordered killed but he certainly issued statements mourning their passing.  Less ominously, UK Prime Minister Lord Salisbury (Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 1830–1903; UK Prime Minister for thirteen years variously 1885-1902) remarked of the long, sad decline of Lord Randolph Churchill (1849–1895) that the deceased had proved to be “chief mourner at his own protracted funeral”.

Political mourning is a special class of lament and when some politicians are buried, their erstwhile colleagues are among the mourners only because such events are a nice photo-opportunity and a useful place for a bit of networking.  The Australian politician Pat Kennelly (1900–1981; senator for Victoria (Australian Labor Party (ALP)) 1953-1971) (who had a chronic stutter) once attended the funeral of a member of parliament (MP).  It was well-attended event with many mourners and later he was heard to observe: “It w-w-w-a-as a v-v—very s-s-sa-ad occasion.  H-h-his w-w-wi-wife and f-f-f-family were there.  There was not a d-d-dry eye in the ce-ce-cemetery.  E-e-everyone w-a-was in t-t-t-tears.  As I w-w-w-watched them f-f-file out of th-th-the ce-ce-cemetery I th-th-thought h-h-how s-s—sad.  Th-th-three h-h—hundred m-m-mourners with a s-s-single th-th-thought: ‘Wh-h-ho’s g-g-oing to w-w-win the pre-pre-pre-selection f-f-for his s-s-seat?’”

Potential gig: Lindsay Lohan in mourning garments (sables), Sohu Fashion Achievement Awards Ceremony, Shanghai, China, January, 2014.  Acting is of course a good background for a professional mourner and the career part is sometimes available to even the well-known because their presence at a funeral would be an indicator of the wealth of the deceased.

Culturally, the mourners at one’s funeral can matter because their measure in both quantity & quality greatly can influence how one is remembered and to some (and certainly their surviving friends & family), greatly that matters.  While it’s true that once one is dead, that’s it, the memory others have of one is affected by whether one drank oneself to death, was struck by a meteorite or murdered by the Freemasons and the spectacle of one’s funeral also leaves a lasting impression.  A funeral with a scant few mourners presumably says much about the life of the deceased but for those facing that, there’s the ancient tradition of the professional mourners (known in some places as moirologists, sobbers, wailers, or criers.  In South Africa, those after greater drama can hire someone hysterically to cry and threaten to jump into the grave to join the departed forever wherever they’re going (it’s said this is an “extra-cost” service).

There is reference in both the Old and New Testaments to the profession: In 2 Samuel 14 it was recorded: “…and fetched thence a wise woman, and said unto her, I pray thee, feign thyself to be a mourner, and put on now mourning apparel, and anoint not thyself with oil but as a woman that had a long time mourned the dead.”  It does seem the practice of paid mourning began in China or the Middle East but it was a thing also in ancient Egypt and Rome.  In Egypt, it was actually a formalized part of the ritual (at least for the urban wealthy) in that part of the order of service required the family to pay for the provision of “two professional women mourners”, there as representatives of the psychopomps ( conductors of souls to the afterworld) Isis (inter alia the guardian deity who protected her followers in life and in the afterlife) and her sister Nephtys (protector of the deceased and guardian of the dead).

In Rome, it was more an expression of conspicuous consumption and the more rich or more illustrious a celebrity someone had been while walking the Earth, the better attended and more ostentatious would be the funeral procession, professional mourners making up usually a goodly proportion of the count.  They earned their money because the cultural expectation was they were expected to cry and wail, look distraught, tear at their hair and clothes and scratch their faces with their fingernails, the drawing of a little blood a sign of grief; the more professional mourners in a procession, the higher the implied status of the deceased.  Historically (and apparently cross-culturally), professional mourners have tended to be women because such displays of emotions from them were accepted in a way that wouldn’t have been accepted if exhibited by a man.

Consecutive

Consecutive (pronounced kuhn-sek-yuh-tiv)

(1) Following one another in uninterrupted succession or order; successive without interruption.

(2) Marked or characterized by logical sequence (such as chronological, alphabetical or numerical sequence).

(3) In grammar & linguistics, as “consecutive clause”, a linguistic form that implies or describes an event that follows temporally from another (expressing consequence or result).

(4) In musical composition, a sequence of notes or chords which results from repeated shifts in pitch of the same interval (an alternative term for “parallel”).

1605-1615: From the sixteenth century French consécutif, from the Medieval Latin cōnsecūtīvus, from the Latin cōnsecūtus (follow up; having followed), from consequī (to pursue) & cōnsequor (to travel).  The construct was consecut(ion) + -ive.  Consecution dates from the early fifteenth century and by the 1530s was used in the sense of “proceeding in argument from one proposition to another in logical sequence”.  It was from the Middle English consecucioun (attainment), from the Latin consecutionem (nominative consecution), noun of action from the past-participle stem of consequi (to follow after), from an assimilated form of com (in the sense of “with, together”) + sequi (to follow (from the primitive Indo-European root sekw- (to follow).  The meaning “any succession or sequence” emerged by the 1650s.  The Latin cōnsecūtiō (to follow after) was from the past participle of cōnsequor (to follow, result, reach).  The –ive suffix was from the Anglo-Norman -if (feminine -ive), from the Latin -ivus.  Until the fourteenth century, all Middle English loanwords from the Anglo-Norman ended in -if (actif, natif, sensitif, pensif etc) and, under the influence of literary Neolatin, both languages introduced the form -ive.  Those forms that have not been replaced were subsequently changed to end in -y (hasty, from hastif, jolly, from jolif etc).  The antonyms are inconsecutive & unconsecutive but (except in some specialized fields of mathematics) “non-sequential” usually conveys the same meaning.  Like the Latin suffix -io (genitive -ionis), the Latin suffix -ivus is appended to the perfect passive participle to form an adjective of action.  Consecutive is a noun & adjective, consecutiveness is a noun and consecutively is an adverb; the noun plural is consecutives.

In sport, the most celebrated consecutive sequence seems to be things in three and that appears to first to have been institutionalized in cricket where for a bowler to take three wickets with three consecutive deliveries in the same match was first described in 1879 as a “hat trick”.  Because of the rules of cricket, there could be even days between these deliveries because a bowler might take a wicket with the last ball he delivered in the first innings and the first two he sent down in the second.  A hat trick however can happen only within a match; two in one match and one in another, even if consecutive, doesn’t count.  Why the rare feat came to be called “hat trick” isn’t certain, the alternative explanations being (1) an allusion to the magician’s popular stage trick of “pulling three rabbits out of the hat” (there had earlier also been a different trick involving three actions and a hat) or (2) the practice of awarding the successful bowler a hat as a prize; hats in the nineteenth century were an almost essential part of the male wardrobe and thus a welcome gift.  The “hat trick” terminology extended to other sports including rugby (a player scoring three tries in a match), football (soccer) & ice hockey (a player scoring three goals in a match) and motor racing (a driver securing pole position, setting the fastest lap time and winning a race).  It has become common in sport (and even politics (a kind of sport)) to use “hat trick” of anything in an uninterrupted sequence of three (winning championships, winning against the same opponent over three seasons etc) although “threepeat” (the construct being three + (re)peat) has become popular and to mark winning three long-established premium events (not always in the same season) there are “triple crowns).  Rugby’s triple crown is awarded to whichever of the “home countries” (England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales) wins all three matches that season; US Horse racing’s triple crown events are the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes and the Belmont Stakes.

Graham Hill (1929–1975) in BRM P57 with the famous (but fragile) open-stack exhausts, Monaco Grand Prix, 3 June 1962.  Hill is the only driver to have claimed motor-racing's classic Triple Crown.

The term is widely used in motorsport but the classic version is the earliest and consists of the Indianapolis 500, the 24 Hours of Le Mans and the Formula One (F1) World Drivers' Championship (only one driver ever winning all three) and there’s never been any requirement of “consecutiveness”; indeed, now that F1 drivers now rarely appear in other series while contracted, it’s less to happen.

Donald Trump, a third term and the Twenty-second Amendment

Steve Bannon (left) and Donald Trump (right).

Although the MAGA (Make America Great Again) team studiously avoided raising the matter during the 2024 presidential election campaign, while Donald Trump (b 1946; US president (POTUS) 2017-2021 and since 2025) was president elect awaiting inauguration, Steve Bannon (b 1957 and a most prominent MAGA operative) suggested there’s a legal theory (that term may be generous) which could be relevant in allowing him to run again in 2028, by-passing the “two-term limit” in the US Constitution.  Speaking on December 15 at the annual gala dinner of New York’s Young Republican Club’s (the breeding ground of the state’s right-wing fanatics), Mr Bannon tantalized the guests by saying “…maybe we do it again in 28?”, his notion of the possibility a third Trump term based on advice received from Mike Davis (1978, a lawyer who describes himself as Mr Trump’s “viceroy” and was spoken of in some circles as a potential contender for attorney general in a Trump administration).  Although the Twenty-second Amendment to the constitution states: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”, Mr Davis had noted it was at least arguable this applied only to “consecutive” terms so as Mr Bannon confirmed, there was hope.  Warming to the topic, Mr Bannon went on to say :“Donald John Trump is going to raise his hand on the King James Bible and take the oath of office, his third victory and his second term.” (the MAGA orthodoxy being he really “won” the 2020 election which was “stolen” from him by the corrupt “deep state”.

Legal scholars in the US have dismissed the idea the simple, unambiguous phrase in the amendment could be interpreted in the way Mr Bannon & Mr Davis have suggested.  In the common law world, the classic case in the matter of how words in acts or statutes should be understood by courts is Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers (1891) AC 107, a bills of exchange case, decided by the House of Lords, then the UK’s final court of appeal.  Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers was a landmark case in the laws relating to negotiable instruments but of interest here is the way the Law Lords addressed significant principles regarding the interpretation of words in statutes, the conclusion being the primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intention of Parliament as expressed in the statute and that intention must be derived from the language of the statute, interpreted in its natural and ordinary sense, unless the context or subject matter indicates otherwise.  What the judgment did was clarify that a statute may deliberately depart from or modify the common law and courts should not assume a statute is merely a restatement of common law principles unless the statute's language makes this clear.  The leading opinion was written by Lord Herschell (Farrer Herschell, 1837–1899; Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain 1886 & 1892-1895) who held that if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, it should be interpreted as it stands, without assuming it is subject to implicit common law principles; only if the language is ambiguous may courts look elsewhere for context and guidance.

So the guiding principle for courts is the words of a statute should be understood with what might be called their “plain, simple meaning” unless they’re not clear and unambiguous.  While the US Supreme Court recently has demonstrated it does not regard itself as bound even its own precedents and certainly not those of a now extinct UK court, few believe even the five most imaginative of the nine judges could somehow construe a constitutional amendment created for the explicit purpose of limiting presidents to two terms could be read down to the extent of “…more than twice…” being devalued to “…more than twice in a row…”.  Still, it was a juicy chunk of bleeding raw meat for Mr Bannon to toss to his ravenous audience.

The ratification numbers: Ultimately, the legislatures of 41 of the then 48 states ratified the amendment with only Massachusetts and Oklahoma choosing to reject.  

What the Twenty-second amendment did was limit the number of times someone could be elected president.  Proposed on 21 March 1947, the ratification process wasn’t completed until 27 February 1951, a time span of time span: 3 years, 343 days which is longer than all but one of the other 26, only the Twenty-seventh (delaying laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives) took longer, a remarkable 202 years, 223 days elapsing between the proposal on 25 September 1789 and the conclusion on 7 May 1992; by contrast, the speediest was the Twenty-sixth which lowered the voting age to 18, its journey absorbed only 100 days between 23 March-1 July 1971.  While not too much should be read into it, it’s of interest the Eighteenth (prohibiting the manufacturing or sale of alcoholic drinks within the US) required 1 year, 29 days (18 December 1917-16 January 1919) whereas the Twenty-first (repealing the Eighteenth) was done in 288 days (little more than half the time); proposed on 20 February 1933, the process was completed on 5 December the same year.

The path to the Twenty-second amendment began when George Washington (1732–1799; first POTUS, 1789-1797) choose not to seek a third term, his reasons including (1) a commitment to republican principles which required the presidency not be perceived as a life-long or vaguely monarchical position, (2) the importance of a peaceful transition of power to demonstrate the presidency was a temporary public service, not a permanent entitlement and (3) a desire not to see any excessive concentration of power in one individual or office.  Historians have noted Washington’s decision not to seek a third term was a deliberate effort to establish a tradition of limited presidential tenure, reflecting his belief this would safeguard the republic from tyranny and ensure no individual indefinitely could dominate government.

AI (Artificial Intelligence) generated image by Stable Diffusion of Lindsay Lohan and Donald Trump enjoying a coffee in Trump Tower's coffee chop. 

For more than a century, what Washington did (or declined to do) was regarded as a constitutional convention and no president sought more than two terms.  Theodore Roosevelt (TR, 1858–1919; POTUS 1901-1909), celebrating his re-election in 1904 appeared to be moved by the moment when, unprompted, he announced: “Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for or accept another nomination” and he stuck to the pledge, arranging for William Howard Taft (1857–1930; POTUS 1909-1913 & chief justice of the SCOTUS (US Supreme Court) 1921-1930) to be his successor, confident he’d continue to pursue a progressive programme.  Taft however proved disappointingly conservative and Roosevelt decided in 1912 to seek a third term.  To critics who quoted at him his earlier pledge, he explained that “…when a man at breakfast declines the third cup of coffee his wife has offered, it doesn’t mean he’ll never in his life have another cup.”  Throughout the 1912 campaign, comedians could get an easy laugh out of the line: “Have another cup of coffee”? and to those who objected to his violating Washington’s convention, he replied that what he was doing was “constitutional” which of course it was.

Puck magazine in 1908 (left) and 1912 (right) wasn't about to let Theodore Roosevelt forget what he'd promised in 1904.  The cartoon on the left was an example of accismus (an expression of feigned uninterest in something one actually desires).  Accismus was from the Latin accismus, from Ancient Greek ακκισμός (akkismós) (prudery).  Puck Magazine (1876-1918) was a weekly publication which combined humor with news & political satire; in its use of cartoons and caricatures it was something in the style of today's New Yorker but without quite the same tone of seriousness.

Roosevelt didn’t win the Republican nomination because the party bosses stitched thing up for Taft so he ran instead as a third-party candidate, splitting the GOP vote and thereby delivering the White House to the Democrats but he gained more than a quarter of the vote, out-polling Taft and remains the most successful third-party candidate ever so there was that.  His distant cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR, 1882–1945, POTUS 1933-1945) was the one to prove the convention could be ignored and he gained not only a third term in 1940 but also a fourth in 1944.  FDR was not only a Democrat but also a most subversive one and when Lord Halifax (Edward Wood, 1881–1959; British Ambassador to the United States 1940-1946) arrived in Washington DC to serve as ambassador, he was surprised when one of a group of Republican senators with whom he was having dinner opened proceedings with: “Before you speak, Mr Ambassador, I want you to know that everyone in this room regards Mr Roosevelt as a bigger dictator than Hitler or Mussolini.  We believe he is taking this country to hell as quickly as he can.”  As a sentiment, it sounds very much like the discourse of the 2024 campaign.

"The Trump Dynasty has begun" four term coffee mugs (currently unavailable) created for the 2020 presidential campaign. 

The Republicans truly were appalled by Roosevelt’s third and fourth terms and as soon as they gained control of both houses of Congress began the process of adding an amendment to the constitution which would codify in that document the two-term limit Washington has sought to establish as a convention.  It took longer than usual but the process was completed in 1951 when the became part of the constitution and were Mr Trump to want to run again in 2028, it would have to be repealed, no easy task because such a thing requires not only the concurrence of two thirds of both the House of Representatives & Senate but also three quarters of the legislatures of the 50 states.  In other countries where presidential term limits have appeared tiresome to those who have no intention of leaving office the “work-arounds” are usually easier and Mr Trump may cast the odd envious eye overseas.  In Moscow, Mr Putin (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999) solved the problem by deciding he and his prime-minister temporarily should swap jobs (though not authority) while he arranged a referendum to effect the necessary changes to the Russian Constitution.  The point about referendums in Russia was explained by comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) who observed: “it matters not who votes, what matters is who gets to count the votes.”  Barring accidents or the visitation of the angel of death, Mr Putin is now set to remain as president until at least the mid-2030s.  

Some mutual matters of interest: Donald Trump (left) and Vladimir Putin (right).

There have been many African presidents who have "arranged" for constitutional term limits to be "revised" but the most elegant in the handling of this was Pierre Nkurunziza (1964–2020; president of Burundi 2005-2020) who simply ignored the tiresome clause and announced he would be standing for a third term, tidying up loose ends by having Burundi's Constitutional Court declare the president was acting in accordance with the law.  It would seem the principle of statutory interpretation in Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers wasn't brought before the court (formerly part of the empire of Imperial Germany and later a Belgian-administered territory under a League of Nations mandate, Burundi follows the civil law tradition rather than the common law inheritance from the old British Empire) and shortly before the verdict was handed down, one judge fled into exile, claiming the government had applied "pressure" on the court to deliver a ruling favorable to the president.

For most of the republic's existence, holders of the office of VPOTUS (vice-president of the US) tended to be obscure figures noted only if they turned out to be crooks like Spiro Agnew (1918–1996; VPOTUS 1969-1973) or assumed the presidency in one circumstance or another and during the nineteenth century there was a joke about two brothers: “One ran off to sea and the other became vice-president; neither were ever heard from again.”  That was of course an exaggeration but it reflected the general view of the office which has few formal duties and can only ever be as powerful or influential as a president allows although the incumbent is “a heartbeat from the presidency”.  John Nance Garner III (1868–1967, VPOTUS 1933-1941), a reasonable judge of these things, once told Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; VPOTUS 1961-1963 & POTUS 1963-1969) being VPOTUS was “not worth a bucket of warm piss” (which in polite company usually is sanitized as “...bucket of warm spit”).  In the US, a number of VPOTUSs have become POTUS and some have worked out well although of late the record has not been encouraging, the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon (1913-1994; VPOTUS 1953-1961, POTUS 1969-1974) and Joe Biden (b 1942; VPOTUS 2008-2017, POTUS 2021-2025) 1963-1968, all ending badly, in despair, disgrace and decrepitude respectively.

Still, in the post-war years, the VPOTUS has often assumed a higher profile or been judged to be more influential, the latter certainly true of Dick Cheney (b 1941; VPOTUS 2001-2009) and some have even been given specific responsibilities such as LBJ’s role as titular head of the space program (which worked out well) or Kamala Harris (b 1964; VPOTUS 2021-2025) co-ordinating the response to difficulties on the southern border (a role in which either she failed or never attempted depending on the source).  So wonderfully unpredictable is Donald Trump that quite what form the Vance VPOTUSship will assume is guesswork but conspiracy theorists already are speculating part of MAGA forward-planning is to have Mr Vance elected POTUS in 2028, simply as part of a work-around in a constitutional jigsaw puzzle.

The conspiracy revolves around the words in Section 1 of the Twenty-second Amendment: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice” and even the most optimistic MAGA lawyers concede not even Brett Kavanaugh (b 1965; associate justice of the SCOTUS since 2018) or Clarence Thomas (b 1948; associate justice of SCOTUS since 1991) could construct an interpretation which would allow Mr Trump to be elected for a third term.  The constitution is however silent on whether any person may serve a third (or fourth, or fifth!) term so that makes possible the following sequence:

(1) In the 2028 election J.D.Vance is elected POTUS and somebody else (matters not who) is elected VPOTUS.

(2) J.D. Vance and somebody else (matters not who) are sworn into office as POTUS & VPOTUS respectively.

(3) Somebody else (matters not who) resigns as VPOTUS.

(4) J.D. Vance appoints Donald Trump as VPOTUS who is duly sworn-in.

(5) J.D. Vance resigns as POTUS and, as the constitution dictates. Donald Trump becomes POTUS and is duly sworn-in.

(6) Donald Trump appoints J.D.Vance as VPOTUS.

Whatever the politics, constitutionally, there is nothing controversial about those six steps because it replicates what happened between 1968 when Nixon & Agnew were elected POTUS & VPOTUS and 1974 when the offices were held respectively by Gerald Ford (1913–2006; VPOTUS 1973-1974 & POTUS 1974-1977) & Nelson Rockefeller (1908–1979; VPOTUS 1974-1977), neither of the latter pair having been elected.  Of course, in January 2029 somebody else (matters not who) would be a “left-over” but he (it seems a reasonable assumption somebody else (matters not who) will be male) can, depending on this and that, be appointed something like Secretary of Agriculture or a to sinecure such as an ambassadorship to a nice (non-shithole) country with a pleasant climate and a majority white population.