Meddle

Meddle (pronounced med-l)

(1) To involve oneself in a matter without right or invitation; to interfere officiously or unwantedly.

(2) To intervene, intrude or pry.

(3) To interest or engage oneself; to have to do (with), in a good sense (obsolete).

(4) To mix something with some other substance; to commingle, combine, blend (an obsolete form used between the fourteenth & seventeenth centuries by apothecaries and others (the synonyms being bemix & bemingle)).

(5) To have sex (a fourteenth century euphemism now obsolete except as in US regional slang, south of the Mason-Dixon line, also in the variant “ming”).

1250–1300: From Middle English medlen (to mingle, blend, mix), from the Anglo-Norman medler, a variant of Anglo-Norman and Old North French medler, a variant of mesler & meller (source of the Modern French mêler), from the Vulgar Latin misculō & misculāre, frequentative of the Latin misceō & miscēre (to mix).  The Vulgar Latin was the source of the Provençal mesclar, the Spanish mezclar and the Italian mescolare & meschiare), ultimately from the primitive Indo-European root meik- (to mix).  The similar noun mélange (a mixture, a medley (usually in the sense of "an uncombined mingling on elements, objects, or individuals”)) dates from the 1650s, from the fifteenth century French mélange, from mêler (to mix, mingle), from the Old French mesler (to mix, meddle, mingle).

The word began in the sense of “to mix” and was used by many in professions which dealt with the mixing of stuff (apothecaries, bakers, chefs et al) and for the late fourteenth century came to be used to mean "to busy oneself, be concerned with, engage in" which soon gained the disparaging sense of "interfere or take part in inappropriately or impertinently, be officious, make a nuisance of oneself", which was the idea of meddling too much, the surviving sense of the word.  Similarly, the noun meddler (agent noun from the verb meddle), evolved over the same time from a "practitioner" to "one who interferes with things in which they have no personal or proper concern; a nuisance".

The mid-fourteenth century noun meddling (action of blending) was a verbal noun from the verb meddle which evolved with the newer meaning "act or habit of interfering in matters not of one's proper concern"; it has been used as a present-participle adjective since the 1520s, most famously as “meddling priest”, a phrase which described the habit of Roman Catholic clergy to assume the right to intrude uninvited into affairs of state or the lives of individuals.  There appears to be no record of meddle being applied as a collective noun but “meddle of priests” is tempting (though suggestions for a clerical collective are many).

Meddle & meddled meddling are verbs, meddling is a verb & adjective, meddler is a noun and meddlingly an adverb.  Words which can to some degree be synonymous with meddle include to some degree includes hinder, impede, impose, infringe, intrude, tamper, advance, encroach, encumber, inquire, interlope, interpose, invade, kibitz, molest, obtrude, pry, snoop & trespass.  The derived forms include meddlement & meddlesome.

Three popes attended by a meddle of meddling priests during an ad limin.  Pope Saint John Paul II (1920–2005; pope 1978-2005) in 2004 (left), Pope Benedict XVI (b 1927; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus since) in 2012 (centre) & Pope Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) in 2019.  The ad limina visits (from the Latin ad limina apostolorum (to the threshold of the apostles) are obligatory pilgrimages to Rome made by all bishops, during which they pray at the tombs of Saint Peter & Saint Paul before meeting with the pope and Vatican officials.  During their ad limina, bishops present a quinquennial report of matters in their respective diocese, considered usually to represent the truth if not the whole truth.

One of the more memorable expressions of the tension between secular and ecclesiastical authority on Earth was "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" (sometimes as "meddlesome priest" or "troublesome priest"), attributed to Henry II (1133–1189; King of England 1154-1189) and held to be the phrase which inspired the murder in 1170 of Saint Thomas Becket (circa 1120–1170; Archbishop of Canterbury 1162-1170).  Henry’s rant was a reaction to being told Becket had excommunicated some bishops aligned with the king and like the legendary invective of some famous figures (Oliver Cromwell, Adolf Hitler et al), are probably not a verbatim record of his words but certainly reflect his mood.  The familiar version dates from a work of history published in 1740, the influence apparently biblical, the debt owed to Romans 7:24: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (King James Version (KJV 1611) and the work of subsequent authors does suggest Henry’s words were from the start understood as being a complaint to his staff that none of them appeared to have the initiative needed to act against the wrongs of the archbishop.  While not literally perhaps an order to commit murder, it seems at least to have been an inducement because it prompted four knights to travel to Canterbury Cathedral where they killed the archbishop either deliberately or as a consequence of him resisting attempts to drag him off to face Henry’s wrath.  The chain of events has been used to illustrate contexts as varied as chaos theory, plausible deniability and working towards the leader.

Chaos theory explores the idea that something apparently insignificant can trigger a chain reaction of events which conclude with something momentous.  The theory can be mapped onto any sequence of events, the interest being in tracking lineal paths in behavioral patterns which might appear random.  The sequence which lay between Henry’s words and the decapitation of the saintly archbishop was, by the standards of some of what’s been explored by chaos theory, simple and to some degree perhaps predictable but there was nothing wholly deterministic.

Some nefarious activity is wrongly attributed to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) but it seems that genuinely they did coin the phrase plausible deniability.  It emerged in the post Dulles (Allen Dulles, 1893–1969; US Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) 1953-1961) aftermath to the Bay of Pigs fiasco and was a collection of informal protocols whereby senior government officials (particularly the president) were “protected” from responsibility by not being informed of certain things (or at least there being no discoverable record (a la the smoking gun principle)) which could prove transmission of the information.  Henry II’s "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" is a variation in that it once deconstructed, it can be interpreted as a wish the archbishop should in some way be “disappeared” yet is sufficiently vague that a denial that that was the intention is plausible.

It’s related too to “working towards the Führer” an explanation English historian Sir Ian Kershaw (b 1943) most fully developed as part of his model explaining the structures and operation of the Nazi state.  For decades after the war, there were those who claimed that because, among the extraordinary volume of documents uncovered after the end of the Third Reich, nothing had ever been found which suggested Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Nazi dictator 1933-1945) had ever issue the order which triggered the Holocaust.  To emphasize the basis of their claims in this matter, some who wrote attempting to exonerate Hitler of his most monstrous crime styled themselves as “archivists” rather than historians, the heavy-handed hint being they were relying wholly on evidence, not speculative interpretation.  Kershaw’s arguments proved compelling and now few accept the view that the absence of anything in writing is significant and there’s no doubt Hitler either ordered or approved the Holocaust in its most fundamental aspects.

The “working towards the Führer” model did however prove useful in understanding the practical operation (rather than the theoretical structures) of the Führerprinzip (leader principle).  Throughout the many layers of the party and state which interacted to create the Third Reich, it’s clear that not only did Hitler’s words serve to inspire and justify actions of which the Führer was never aware but that much of what was done was based on what people thought he would have said had he been asked.  Hitler didn’t need to order the Holocaust because those around him worked towards what they knew (or supposed) his intent to be.