Bombast (pronounced bom-bast)
(1) Speech deemed
pompous for the occasion or context; pretentious or grandiloquent language.
(2) Cotton
or cotton wool (archaic).
(3) Cotton,
or any soft, fibrous material, used as stuffing for garments or upholstery;
padding.
1560-1570: A
corruption of the earlier bombase
(raw cotton), from the Old French bombace
(cotton, cotton wadding), from the from the Medieval Latin bombācem, accusative of the Late Latin bombāx (cotton; linteorum aut
aliae quaevis quisquiliae (towels or any other rubbish (rags))), a
corrupted variant use of bombyx (silk;
silkworm (which in Medieval Greek came to mean “cotton”)), from the Ancient
Greek βόμβυξ (bómbux) (silkworm) and
perhaps connected with both certain oriental words and the Middle Persian pambak (cotton), possibly related to a primitive
Indo-European root meaning “to twist, wind”.
From the same source came the Swedish bomull, the Danish bomuld
(cotton) and, (via Turkish forms), the Modern Greek mpampaki, the Rumanian bumbac
and the Serbo-Croatian pamuk. The German Baumwolle (cotton) is thought likely to be the Latin word altered
by folk-etymology to look like “tree wool”.
Both the Lithuanian bovelna and
the Polish bawełna are partial
translations from the German. The earliest
known appearance in print of the adjective bombastic was in 1704. The synonyms include fustian, grandiloquence,
purple prose, overblown, pretentious and the now obsolete aureation. Bombast is a noun, verb & adjective,
bombaster & bombastry are nouns, bombastic & bombastical are adjectives
and bombastically is an adverb; the noun plural is bombasts.
In English,
the word “bombase” was used of raw
cotton as early as the 1550s and the sense of “stuffing and padding for clothes
or upholstery” would have begun as the verbal shorthand of tailors,
seamstresses and artisans making clothing, furniture and such. Remarkably quickly, the idea of what was done
with chairs and garments (padding them out) was co-opted to mean “pompous,
empty speech”, that sense in use as early as the 1580s. The idea was just as cotton (soft, loose,
insubstantial) was used to “swell” clothing or upholstery to provide the
illusion of something more substantial, so it was used of speech and writing
judged as “swollen by extravagant sentiments and expressions which add nothing
to the meaning”. Also by extension,
“fustian” was used as a synonym, that being a type of cloth that lend garments
a “stiff expansive character”, the similarity to “fuss” & “fuss” thought to
have added to the appeal. The old press
baron Lord Beaverbrook (Maxwell Aitken, 1879-1964) used the term “highfalutin
nonsense” whenever he detected bombast in anything his editors were proposing
to publish.
The
literary term bathos (from the Ancient Greek βάθος (bathos) (depth) is used of types of writing which may include the
bombastic. That was a contribution by
the English poet & satirist Alexander Pope (1688-1744) who, in the mock
critical treatise Peri Bathous or, Of the
Art of Sinking in Poetry (1728), assured his readers he would “…lead them as it
were by the hand… the gentle downhill way to Bathos; the bottom, the end, the
central point the non plus ultra [nothing further beyond], of true Modern
Poesy!” Bathos is attained
when a striving at the sublime, over-reaches and “topples into the absurd”, a classic collection
of the bathetic was published in The
Stuffed Owl (1930), compiled by the English authors Dominic Bevan “D.B.”
Wyndham Lewis (1891–1969) & Charles James Lee (1870–1956). Lewis should not be confused with the English
painter, writer & critic (Percy) Wyndham Lewis (1882-1957), best remembered
for his seminal contribution to short-lived Vorticist movement in art that was
extinguished by the blast of World War I (1914-1918). Although the usual suspects from poetaster’s
(bad poets) role of infamy appear in The
Stuffed Owl including the American Julia
Ann Moore (1847–1920) and Scotland’s notoriously inept William McGonagall (1825-1902),
Lewis & Lee didn’t defer to reputations or the canon and among the entries
were lines by Alfred Lord Tennyson (1809–1892), William Wordsworth (1770–1850),
Lord Byron (1788–1824), John Dryden (1631–1700), Robert "Rabbie"
Burns (1759–1796) and Robert Browning (1812–1889). Curiously, while the noun bombaster
(a bombastic speaker or writer) exists, there’s no such thing as a bombastee (one
compelled to listen to read the words of a bombaster).
European
manufacturers and coach-builders used “cabriolet” to distinguish certain
convertibles from the more rakish, sporty roadsters although the English had
to be different and decided they were DHCs (drop-head coupés) which meant a
convertible version of a FHC (fixed-head coupé). Cabriolets were for decades a fixture in the catalogues
(low-priced vehicles as well as the better-remembered exotics) but in the late 1920s
(with typically Teutonic attention to detail), Daimler-Benz codified the naming
conventions for cabriolets built by Mercedes-Benz:
Cabriolet A:
A cabriolet with two doors and room for two passengers.
Cabriolet B:
A cabriolet with two doors and room for four or five passengers, fitted with a
rear-quarter window for the rear seat.
Cabriolet C:
A cabriolet with two doors and room for four or five passengers with no rear
quarter window.
Cabriolet D:
A cabriolet with four doors and room for four to six passengers.
Cabriolet F:
A cabriolet with four doors, built on an extended wheelbase, usually for state
or formal use with room for six or more passengers.
The jump in
the factory's designations from "D" to "F" obviously
skipped "E" and because that didn't seem the German way of doing
things, there was speculation another type of open coachwork had been planned but
which was never built because of the outbreak of World War II (1939-1945). That's not impossible (some records were lost
during the war) but the archives for the period have revealed nothing which
supports the theory and the sometimes repeated assertion the "Cabriolet
F" label was an allusion to "Führer" (the car's most infamous
customer) is simply wrong because the designation was first used in the 1920s,
prior to the Nazis gaining power and creating the Third Reich (1933-1945). Quite what would have been the configuration
of the allegedly “missing Cabriolet E” is purely speculative and those who have
written on the subject have concluded it’d likely have been either (1) a
four-door body distinguished only from a Cabriolet D by a longer wheelbase or
different side-window treatment or (2) the intended differentiation of a
Cabriolet F without the rear-quarter window (as some were built but never
uniquely designated).
Bombast,
in its original sense, could prove fatal.
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head
of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) had in 1938 appointed
Baron Konstantin von Neurath (1873–1956; Foreign Minister of Germany 1932-1938)
as Reichsprotektor (a sort of proconsul
(from the Latin prōconsul, a shortened
form of prō consule (one acting on behalf of the consul))) of occupied Bohemia
and Moravia (a region of Czechoslovakia).
Hitler did not make the appointment because of any great regard for the
baron’s administrative or diplomatic skills but because (1) he wanted the more obsequious
Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Nazi foreign minister 1938-1945) as his
cipher in the Foreign Ministry and (2) he thought von Neurath’s reputation in
international circles as a “moderate” would mollify the outrage expressed about
the brutish and cynical tactics employed by the Nazis in their takeover of the
Czech lands. To an extend the political
window dressing worked, not because von Neurath’s delegated rule was benign but
because news of much of what was being done was suppressed and international attention
had already turned to events elsewhere as concerns grew over Hitler’s next
target.
With the
outbreak of World War II, von Neurath’s regime became harsher with
an increased rate of imprisonment in concentration camps, more executions and less
restrained persecution of Czech Jews (the last measure not wholly without support
from sections of Czech society).
However, bloody though it was, what the Reichsprotektor did was mild compared with what was done in other
conquered territories (notably Poland and later in the Soviet Union when the
Nazis turned to genocide as a “final solution”) and, not best pleased, late in
1941 Hitler appointed SS General Reinhard Heydrich as von Neurath’s nominal
deputy although Heydrich assumed full executive authority, leaving the Reichsprotektor as a figurehead, the
Nazis assuming his veneer of (relative) respectability remained useful. Hitler knew the murderous Heydrich would not
be troubled by the notions of humanity or residual decency that had constrained
von Neurath and he wasn’t disappointed in his latest appointment for within
days martial law had been imposed on the protectorate with thousands and
arrested and hundreds executed. When
Hitler wanted something done, if possible, he’d allocate the task to the SS.
The SS (ᛋᛋ in Armanen runes; Schutzstaffel (literally “protection
squadron” but translated variously as “protection squad”, “security
section" etc)) was formed (under different names) in 1923 as a Nazi party
squad to provide security at public meetings (then often rowdy and violet
affairs) and was later re-purposed as a personal bodyguard for Hitler. The SS name was adopted in 1925 and during
the Third Reich the institution evolved into a vast economic, industrial and
military apparatus more than a million strong to the point where some
historians (and contemporaries) regarded it as a kind of “state within a
state”. The Waffen-SS (armed SS (ie
equipped with military-grade weapons)) existed on a small scale as early as 1933
before Hitler’s agreement was secured to create a formation at divisional
strength and growth was gradual even after the outbreak of hostilities in 1939
and it was the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 which triggered the
Waffen-SS’s expansion into a multi-national armoured force with over 800,000
men under arms. As well as the SS’s role
in the administration of the many concentration and extermination camps, the
Waffen-SS was widely implicated in war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Just as Heydrich
understood Hitler’s language, so the Czechs understood his and rapidly the once
troublesome protectorate was pacified. Heydrich
was however there not merely to impose and maintain order but also to ensure
the agricultural and industrial capacity efficiently was exploited to benefit the
German economy and war machine; rapidly his “carrot & stick” approach
produced dividends with production rising and resources re-allocated within the
Czech economy towards the needs dictated by Berlin. Heydrich proved remarkably successful in his
role, his “cut the head off the snake” (ie identifying and what would now be
called “neutralizing” those likely to be troublesome) approach ending acts of sabotage
or other resistance while his increases in the allocation of food and consumer
goods to the population resulted in a workforce which, it not exactly “happy”,
was at least compliant and productive. Having
witnessed the crackdowns and collective punishments that had characterized the
early days of his rule, the Czech population had little taste for resistance,
knowing retribution would be swift, brutal and widespread, meaning the place soon
became peaceful. Heydrich however
regarded his tactics as a temporary measure and planned with the end of the war
to engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing to “Germanize” the whole region.
That goal
was known to Czech resistance based in London and for reasons both political
and military, wished to do something to encourage acts of disobedience, despite
knowing the consequences that would be visited upon the population. The British authorities did nothing to
discourage this view and believed resistance in occupied territories was a
vital element in their plan to “set Europe ablaze” with ferment against Nazi
rule. Accordingly, a team of London-based
Czech assassins was assembled and smuggled back into Prague with the audacious
plan to assassinate Heydrich. Code-named
Operation Anthropoid (a word translated variously as (1) a non-human creature
with some of the physical characteristics of a human or (2) a creature with the
characteristics of an ape), Heydrich made their task easier because, so assured
did he think was his pacification of his domain that routinely he was driven to
his office in an un-armored, open-top car with no escort or security detail.
On 27 May,
1942, the two Czech operatives waited at a corner where the Mercedes-Benz
cabriolet had to slow to negotiate a tight turn and although mechanical failures
meant Operation Anthropoid didn’t go to plan, the wounds which finally killed
Heydrich were inflicted by a grenade.
The tossed grenade actually missed ending up in the rear compartment
where the target was sat and instead exploded outside, just ahead of the right-side
rear wheel. What happened was shrapnel
from the device passed through the cushion of the rear seat and entered
Heydrich’s torso and it’s believed it took with it some of the horsehair used
as the upholstery’s bombast. The most
common theory to account for his death (nine days after the blast) is the
horsehair caused a systemic infection, trigging sepsis and putting his body
into shock. For the Czechs, the
consequences were severe with the deaths and deportations in the thousands and
never again did the Czechoslovak government-in-exile order such an operation. In his honor, the programme to exterminate
Polish Jews in the General Government district of German-occupied Poland was
named Aktion Reinhard (Operation Reinhard) and this was the start of what came
to be called “the
Holocaust”. The circumstances
of the loss of a man he regarded as “irreplaceable” appalled Hitler who found
inexplicable the idea his representative would travel around occupied territory
unescorted and in an un-armored, open-top car. Accordingly, Mercedes-Benz was commissioned to
build a run of armoured sedans to be allocated to the Nazi party. This included the last 20 770Ks (W150, 1938-1943)
and 37 two-door 540Ks (W29, 1936-1940) built on the already completed chassis
and delivered between 1942-1944.
Bluster
(pronounced bluhs-ter)
(1) Noisy,
swaggering, empty threats or protests; inflated talk (often in the phrase
“bluff and bluster”).
(2) Boisterous
noise and violence.
(3) Of the
wind, noisy; gusty; tumultuous.
(4) To
speak or say loudly or boastfully
(5) To act
in a bullying way
(6) To
force or attempt to force (a person) into doing something by behaving thus
1520-1530: From
the Middle English blusteren (aimlessly
to wander about), the modern sense perhaps gained from the Middle Low German blustern & blüstern (to blow violently) (which may be compared with the later
Low German blustern & blistern). The obviously related words were blow and
blast and it seems likely there was some connection with the East Frisian blüstern (to bluster), the Old Norse blāstr (blowing, hissing) and the Saterland
Frisian bloasje (to blow) & bruusje (to bluster). In English, the use in the context of the
weather had emerged by at least the 1540s and the sense of bluster being “a
storm of violent wind” (directly from the circa 1400 verb) was in general use
by the 1580s. The meaning “noisy,
boisterous, inflated talk” appeared in print in 1704 but may long have been in
oral use. The adjective blustery dates
from the 1730s and seems to be used first of persons in the sense of “noisy,
swaggering” and may not have been applied to the weather (rough & stormy)
for some decades. Bluster is a noun
& verb, blusterer, blusteration & blustrification are nouns, blustering
is a noun, verb & adjective, blustered is a verb, blustersome, blusterous,
blustery & blustery are adjectives and blusterously & blusteringly are adverbs;
the noun plural is blusters.
Blustering was in use by the 1510s
to imply “someone stormy or tempestuous” and by the 1650s it was applied to “boastful,
swaggering people”. In the (possibly
co-authored) Pericles, Prince of Tyre
(circa 1608), William Shakespeare (1564–1616) uses blusterous: “Now may your life
be mild, for a blusterous birth had never babe!” (Act 3, Scene 1)
and of course in Coriolanus and Sir John Falstaff he created archetypes of the loud,
swaggering blustering character.
Bluster’s synonyms include boast, brag & rant. There are a remarkable number of phrases
meaning much the same thing as “all bluff and bluster” (full of talk but
lacking substance) including: “all bark and no bite”, “all foam, no beer”, “all
fur coat and no knickers”, “all garnish and no meat”, “all hat and no cattle, “all
icing, no cake”, “all lime and salt, no tequila”, “all mouth and no trousers”,
“all shot, no powder”, “all show, no go, “all sizzle and no steak and “all talk
and no action”.
Bombast and
bluster are much associated with politicians although, if anything, those
tendencies are now seen less as the trend from at least the mid-twentieth
century has been towards simplicity and repetition (the most effective form
clearly believed to be the 3WS (three word slogan)). In political rhetoric however, bombast and
bluster did have a long and sometimes ignoble history and among critics the
terms often were used interchangeably because, despite the subtle differences
in meaning, very often there’d be elements of both in the one speech. They are different faults: Bombast refers to
inflated, grandiose, pompous language. The criticism is that the speaker's
words are overly elaborate or impressive-sounding relative to their actual
substance; after listening for a while to some of Winston Churchill’s
(1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) carefully crafted
phrases, Aneurin “Nye” Bevan (1897–1960) responded by saying: “The majesty of
his words conceals the poverty of his thoughts.”. Bluster is different in that it refers to loud,
aggressive, boastful, or threatening talk, often with the implication there is
more noise than action. Bluster is a
label applied to the speaker's swaggering manner rather than their vocabulary
or phraseology. So, bombast is a thing
of style & language while bluster is about tone and attitude but there are
many instances of speeches contain both bombast (grandiose language) with
bluster (aggressive attitude); the preferred collective term is “hot air”. That of course reflects the different etymology,
bombast (originally “padding or stuffing” in its figurative sense meaning “stuffed
excessively with words” while bluster (originally of stormy wind conditions)
suggesting “noisy or overbearing speech”.
So, in as few words as possible: bombast is verbal inflation; bluster is
verbal intimidation.
Mr Trump often is described as “bombastic” but that really is a misuse, albeit a common one among those commenting on politics and politicians. Whether or not one concurs with his views, Mr Trump usually expresses himself in commendably succinct terms which readily can be understood by most, eschewing the use of long, unusual or obscure words. It’s an example of how the meaning of bombast has shifted but what critics really mean to say is Mr Trump is inclined to bluster and prone to exaggerate; he does not however “pad out” his sentences with decorative phrases or words inserted mere to prove his erudition. Instead, his language is direct and simple and while someone like the classically educated Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) sometimes couldn’t resist delighting at least some in his audience with the odd linguistic flourish, Mr Trump likes simple, punchy words and some fragments from his address to the UNGA (United Nations General Assembly) in September 2025 illustrate his approach: “One year ago, our country was in deep trouble. But today, just eight months into my administration, we're the hottest country anywhere in the world, and there is no other country even close.”; “This is the greatest administration in US history. We have strongest borders, military and relationships around the world.”; “What is the purpose of the United Nations? It has such tremendous, tremendous potential. But it's not even coming close to living up to that potential. For the most part, at least for now, all they seem to do is write a really strongly-worded letter and then never follow that letter up. It's empty words and empty words don't solve war. The only thing that solves war and wars is action.”; “Everyone says that I should get the Nobel Peace Prize for each one of these achievements.”; “Europe has to step it up. They can't be doing what they're doing. They're buying oil and gas from Russia while they're fighting Russia. It's embarrassing to them.”; “Not only is the UN not solving the problems it should, too often it's actually creating new problems for us to solve. The best example is the No. 1 political issue of our time, the crisis of uncontrolled migration. It's uncontrolled. Your countries are being ruined. Your countries are going to hell.”; “Climate change is the greatest con job ever. If you don't get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.” There are grounds on which Mr Trump can be criticized but he uses plain, simple words and his meaning is always clear and that approach may be compared with that of Kamala Harris (b 1964; VPOTUS 2021-2025), his opponent in the 2024 election and it wasn't only Fox News that liked to describe her speech as a “word salad”. In fairness, what Ms Harris did wouldn’t have met the clinical threshold of what in psychiatry used to be called schizophasia (a severe form of disorganized speech consisting of a confused, unintelligible mixture of seemingly random, unconnected words and phrases; while the words themselves may be grammatically correct, they lack logical or semantic meaning, making the speech impossible for a listener to understand) but it could be a challenge to gain meaning from her words. At least Joe Biden (b 1942; VPOTUS 2009-2017 and POTUS 2021-2025) had an excuse for his mumbling and incoherence; he was senile.
No comments:
Post a Comment