Chamber

Chamber (pronounced cheym-ber)

(1) A room, usually private, in a house or apartment, especially a bedroom (now archaic or poetic).

(2) A reception room or audience room in an official residence, palace, etc.

(3) The meeting hall of a legislative or other assembly.

(4) In law, a place where a judge hears matters not requiring action in open court.

(5) In England, the quarters or rooms that lawyers use to consult with their clients, especially in the Inns of Court.

(6) A legislative, judicial, or other like body.

(7) An organization of individuals or companies for a specified purpose.

(8) The place where the moneys due a government are received and kept; a treasury or chamberlain's office (obsolete).

(9) As chamberlet, a small chamber.

(10) Of or relating to, or performing chamber music.

(11) To put or enclose in, or as in, a chamber.

(12) To provide with a chamber.

(13) The space between two gates of the locks of a canal, dry dock, etc

(14) An enclosure for a cartridge in the cylinder of a revolver or for a shell in the breech of a cannon.

(15) An enclosed space, compartment or cavity; the smallest chamber in a cave.

1175-1225: From the Middle English chamber (a room in a (usually private) house) from the eleventh century Old French chambre (room, chamber, apartment), derived from the Late Latin camera (a chamber, room), variant of camara (vaulted room) from the Ancient Greek kamára.  In an interesting linguistic twist, the Old French and Middle English words were also used alone and in combinations to form words for "latrine, privy" from the idea of the "bedroom utensil for containing urine".  The word in the fourteenth century was adopted for use in to anatomy in the sense of "an enclosed space in a body" and this was extended to machinery after 1769, the use in gunnery or ballistics meaning  "part of the bore in which the charge is placed" dating from the 1620s.  The familiar use to refer to the rooms where legislative bodies assemble (ie upper & lower chambers) has been in use since circa 1400.  Chamber music dates from 1789; the distinction being it described a type of music meant to be performed in private rooms instead of public halls.  Chamber-lye, disturbingly to modern ears, meant "urine used as a detergent" and dates from the 1570s and the obviously related chamber-pot (also chamberpot) (vessel for urine used in bedrooms) came into use a decade earlier.  A chambermaid was (1) a female servant who dresses a lady and waits on her in her bedchamber and (2) a woman who makes beds and cleans rooms in a private house, palace or inn, a form which emerged in the 1580s and obviously derived from bedchamber (also bed-chamber) (a room for sleep or repose) which had been in use since the mid-fourteenth century.  Bedchamber is now archaic and used only in relation to royalty (an then mostly in historic reference), expensive hotels and hopeful real-estate salespeople.  The verb chamber was in the late fourteenth century derived from the noun and was used in the sense of (1) to restrain, shut up as in a chamber and (2) to furnish with a chamber" (implied in chambered); the related form was chambering.  The adjective chambered (divided into chambers) was from the same era and was the past-participle adjective the verb.  The famous reference to nautilus shells dates from 1819.  Chamber & chambering are nouns & verbs, chamberful & chamberer are nouns, chambered is a verb & adjective, chamberless & chamberlike are adjectives; the noun plural is chambers.

The cult of the combustion chamber.

In an ICE (internal combustion engine), the combustion chamber is the (temporarily) sealed space in which a quantity of fuel and air is compressed and then ignited (ie the mix is combusted), the energy released moving a piston or rotor, that energy subsequently transferred by a series of mechanical connections so the movement (transferred energy) can be applied to some purpose.  All else being equal, the larger the chamber and the more of them, the more energy can be produced, expressed usually as power or torque.  In an ICE, these ignitions happen thousands of times a second so the transfer of energy from the fuel to a mechanical action can be considerable.  Combustion chamber design has for well over a century occupied the time of engineers and a number of “standard types” emerged including the “wedge”, “hemi” “poly” and “swirl”.  For those designing a device for a single purpose the task can be a relatively simple quest for optimal efficiency (for short-duration purposes such as drag or sprint racing when all that matters is power & torque) whereas if there are a number of parameters it’s a matter of balancing out competing specific efficiencies (in endurance racing, economy matters as well as power & torque).  In mass production units for general sale, as well as striking a balance between output and economy, engineers also have to factor in the cost & ease of manufacture as well as (for the last 60-odd years) the toxicity of emissions.

Smith & Wesson Model 648 .22 WMR Revolver.  In a revolver, the bullets are housed in chambers (typically between 5 & 10) in the revolving cylinder.

Popular in the “female market” (in the US, a sector for some years exhibiting consistent growth) and something of a “sweet spot” for small-game-hunting and plinking (recreational target shooting), the .22 Magnum cartridge is suitable for use in both handguns and long-arms; inherently an accurate cartridge, the ballistics out of a 6-inch (150 mm) barrel handgun are at least equal to those of a 22 LR out of a 24-inch (610 mm) barrel rifle.  Smith & Wesson’s 648 was produced in runs between 1989-1996 and 2003-2005 and the re-introduction in 2020 was much welcomed.  The most recent edition uses a stainless steel version of S&W’s 6-inch K-Frame barrel with an 8-chamber cylinder.

The Court of Star Chamber

The former Court of Star Chamber (1836), engraving by unknown artist, published in Edward Walford’s (1823-1897) Old & New London (Volume 3, 1881), reproducing a visual record of the historic chamber shortly before it was demolished.

Named for the star pattern on the ceiling of the room in Westminster Palace where sittings were convened, the Court of Star Chamber (known almost always as the Star Chamber), was an English law court that operated in parallel with the common-law courts although its authority was drawn directly from the king's sovereign power and privileges; it was not bound by the common law or legal precedent.  Created originally to ensure the enforcement of laws against the socially and politically well-connected (those "ordinary" courts often for whatever reason hesitant to convict "the rich"), the Star Chamber evolved from the medieval King's Council.  There had been a tradition of the king presiding over a court composed of his Privy Counsellors and in 1487, under the supervision of Henry VII (1457–1509; King of England 1485-1509 and the first Tudor king), the Court of Star Chamber was established as a judicial body separate from the council (analogous with the way by the nineteenth century the courts of final appeal referred to as (1) the House of Lords and (2) the Privy Council had become specialized bodies with a small, judicially qualified membership while retaining the existing names).  The original rationale was for the Star Chamber to (1) oversee the lower courts, (2) act as a court of appeal and (3) hear petitions seeking redress addressed to the king.  Initially, the court heard cases only on appeal, but Henry VIII's (1491–1547; King of England 1509-1547) chancellor, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey (1473–1530; Lord High Chancellor of England 1515-1529) encouraged suitors directly to lodge writs of appeal and not await verdicts from the common-law courts (a concept that might have appeal for some modern-day litigants and lawyers).  Although most of the cases heard involved property rights, trade, government administration and public corruption, the Tudors especially were concerned with public disorder and Cardinal Wolsey referred matters involving forgery, fraud, perjury, riot, slander, and anything else he considered a breach of the peace. Following the Reformation, the Star Chamber was used (and much misused) to punish religious dissenters.

Procedurally the Star Chamber would begin a case with a petition or with information brought to the attention of the judges and depositions would be taken to discover the facts.  Accused parties could be put on oath to respond to the charges and answer detailed questions. No juries were used; members of the court decided whether to hear cases, passed verdicts and assigned punishments.  Structurally, the court was thus a hybrid with influences from the common law, Roman civil law, developments in Chancery (equity) law and the Court of Exchequer.  Interestingly, the court did not have capital jurisdiction so instead declared its choice of punishment was wholly arbitrary and not at all governed by precedent, guidelines or laws, judges able to choose (indeed even invent) the punishment(s) they felt most appropriate to the crime or criminal and on the bench there were some imaginative folk.  The sentences handed down included fines, time in the pillory (stocks), whipping, branding, mutilation or imprisonment for any length of time.  In Australia, there are critics of the NSW (New South Wales) ICAC (Independent Commission against corruption) who compare its operations with the Star Chamber; in this they’re only partially correct in that there are some procedural similarities but the comparison is not valid regarding punishments.

Tucked up: Lindsay Lohan in her bedchamber under tufted bedhead.

The Star Chamber offered an expeditious resolution to legal conflicts. It was popular with the Tudors because quickly it could enforce the law (or the will of the king when the letter of the law proved tiresome) when other courts were slow or tainted by corruption.  In royal circles it was valued because it could be relied upon to deliver "satisfactory remedies" in cases  where the common law restricted punishments able to be inflicted or failed to address specific infractions.  These days, some might call it "judicially efficient".  Under the Tudors, Star Chamber hearings were held in public, proceedings and verdicts subject to inspection, that alone inducing most judges to act with reason and try to deliver fair justice; it was in the seventeenth century, the court evolved into something secretive and corrupt, the Stuarts using the court to enforce their royal proclamations (ancestor of the "executive order" now much associated with the White House), holding sessions in secret and allowing no appeals.  Charles I (1600–1649; King of England, Scotland, and Ireland 1625-1649) saw the court as a substitute for Parliament when he tried to govern without calling the legislature into session and resentment grew as the Stuarts used the court to prosecute members of the nobility who otherwise would not be subject to prosecution in common-law courts.  The Long Parliament in 1641 abolished the Star Chamber and, except in historic references, the term "star chamber" is now almost always pejorative and used to describe social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the powers wielded (in political science, the doctrine of separation of powers is held to be the most effective means to prevent abuse of power by the state; at its most simple, it means the executive can no longer in individual cases impose the sanctions of criminal law, a function belonging exclusively to the courts.  The verbal shorthand for the concept is "judicial independence".

Not often was the Court of Star Chamber a cause for mirth but William Shakespeare (1564–1616) found a way in The Merry Wives of Windsor (1602), Justice Shallow in Act 1, Scene 1 saying: “Sir Hugh, persuade me not; I will make a Star-chamber matter of it: if he were twenty Sir John Falstaffs, he shall not abuse Robert Shallow, esquire.”  The context was the carefully named Justice Shallow, an arrogant, pompous provincial magistrate from Gloucestershire, was furious because Sir John Falstaff and his followers had insulted and robbed him and his cousin.  That this petty crime was not the sort of thing to come before the Star Chamber was the joke, showing Shallow’s puffed-up sense of self-importance and legal pedantry.  The Court of Star Chamber was a classic example of an institution that “seemed a good idea at the time” that came, through a process of “mission creep” later to be "re-purposed" and misused to the extent it became something worse than the problems it was created to solve.  The early records are sketchy so the origins are obscure but the critical point was that despite the creation of several layers of courts and the evolution of the English common law, no sovereign ever surrendered their “supreme jurisdiction” and by the thirteenth century, when sessions of the King's Council became regular (and functionally distinct from parliament), this residual supreme jurisdiction continued to be exercised by the King in council.  What happened was that as the common law administered by the courts introduced (by the operation of precedent) a certain predictability, the more erratic judgments handed down by the council (a body with unlimited jurisdiction) resulted in an increasing volume of complaints but, such was the state of constitutional development (essentially the balance of power between the king and parliament), successive parliaments had little success in effecting reforms.

Sir Edward Coke (published 1792), line engraving by Thomas Trotter (circa 1750-1803), after a portrait by Cornelius Johnson (Cornelius Janssen van Ceulen, 1593-1661), published by publisher & bookseller Thomas Cadell the Elder (1742-1802), National Portrait Gallery, London.

As late as the nineteenth century, historians were still writing of the Star Chamber (after operating for a half-century odd) “ceasing to exist” towards the end of the reign of Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England (and Ireland after 1541) 1509-1547) with the court’s powers reverting to the Council.  The extant records are contradictory but whatever the terminology used, it would seem a deliberative body at least “Star Chamber-like” sat concurrently with the Council and, by whatever processes, the two bodies were again separate institutions late in the reign of Elizabeth I (1533–1603; Queen of England & Ireland 1558-1603).  The murkiness seems to stem from the Act of 1540 including the phrase “in the Star Chamber or elsewhere” and this may explain why it became difficult to determine a clear distinction between the duties of the Privy Council and those of the Star Chamber; essentially, it wasn’t clear in what capacity members were sitting and there’s little to suggest they made jurisdictional distinctions.

The uncertainty is illustrated in the writings of eminent jurist Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634 Chief Justice of the King's Bench 1613–1616) who observed the Star Chamber “is (or may be) compounded of three several councils: (1) the Lords and others of the Privy Council; (2) the judges of either bench and the barons of the Exchequer; (3) the Lords of Parliament, who are not, however, standing judges of the court.”  Sir Edward usually is regarded as authoritative but William Hudson (circa 1577-1935), an advocate who practiced before the court, in 1621 claimed all peers had the right of sitting in the court and it’s not clear when that right was extinguished but definitely the privilege did not exist late in the seventeenth century.  Hudson’s Treatise of the court of Star Chamber (1621) was a quite strident defence of the Star Chamber, a response to complaints about the body’s haphazard ways with the records of pleadings and judgements.  Critics compared the court’s inconsistent, unstructured approach with the at least semi-codified methods by then adopted by Westminster’s other courts and found a “lack of diligence”, claiming the Star Chamber was no “settled, ordinary court of justice”, nor a “court of ordinary justice ever tied to form” but effectively “a committee for such great causes as it pleased the king”.  Hudson did not deny the administrative neglect but observed it was something new, the court in former times a model of record-keeping.  By the time Parliament abolished the Star Chamber, one of the distinctions MPs drew between it and what they deemed the “ordinary, legitimate courts of common law” was precisely that the former had no proper record whereas the latter did.

The Court of Star Chamber, Westminster (undated), lithograph by unknown artist, The National and Domestic History of England (circa 1890) by William Hickman Smith Aubrey (1858-1916).

That grumble really was a product of how “records” was defined.  The court produced an abundance of material, just not in the predictable, structured form used by other courts, a form that would come to be accepted as the proceedings of a “court of record” (ancestor of the modern law report).  If judged by volume alone, the Star Chamber certainly was productive, its documents including lengthy bills in the form of petitions through to rejoinders, demurrers, interrogatories, and depositions.  In a modern phrase, that was "a lot of data but not much information", lawyers finding it difficult to “mine” all this stuff for findings or facts, let alone incontrovertible determinations.  As an outgrowth of the authority of the sovereign, the jurisdiction of the Star Chamber was as vague as its constitution, Hudson making the point it was “impossible to define” without offending the supporters of “the prerogative” by a limitation of its powers, or the advocates by attributing to it “an excessive latitude”.  Given that, it’s hardly surprising the jurisdiction remained effectively close to unlimited and the vista was extraordinary, encompassing from time-to-time riots, murder, forgery, felony, perjury, fraud, libel and slander, duels and acts tending to treason, as well as of some civil matters, such as disputes about land between great men and corporations, disputes between English and foreign merchants, and testamentary cases.  It can be understood only as analogous to a delegation of the powers of an absolute monarch dispensing justice from his throne and that was of course the body's medieval root.  As Hudson put it: “All offences may be here examined and punished if the King will.”  Not constrained by the limitations and guideposts of the common law, Hudson’s critique was summed-up by a later reviewer as: “Its procedure was not according to the Common Law; it dispensed with the encumbrance of a jury; it could proceed on rumour alone; it could apply torture; it could inflict any penalty but death.”

The paradox of such an institution was that it was thus “admirably calculated to be the support of order against anarchy, or of despotism against individual and national liberty.”  So it proved, operating in the former light under the Stuarts and in the latter under the Tudors, shifting from “a tribunal constantly resorted to as a resource against the ignorance or prejudices of a country jury” where, in such investigations “it showed itself intelligent and impartial.”  Under the Stuarts, the Star Chamber became “the great engine of the royal tyranny” with “hateful and excessive punishments inflicted on those brought it judges”.  Amusingly, despite that perception, even as late as 1629 the Barons of the Exchequer felt moved to observe the Star Chamber was “one of the most high and honourable courts of justice.”  Although in 1641 abolished by an act of parliament, twenty years later the "gap in the judicial market" was considered by a committee of the House of Lords, their lordships reporting “that it was fit for the good of the nation that there be a court of like nature to the Star Chamber.”  The mood had however shifted and the matter wasn’t pursued.

Entasis

Entasis (pronounced en-tuh-sis)

(1) In architecture, a slight convexity given to a column or tower, claimed to correct the optical illusion of concavity and create the perception of straight lines.

(2) In medicine and physiology, an involuntary or spasmodic muscular contraction (also called entasia (from the Greek ɛnˈteɪzɪə)).

(3) In typography & calligraphy, the thinning in the waist of a stroke, the technique used to compensate for the visual perception of a stroke with perfectly straight sides appearing slightly to bulge.

1745–55: From the Latin entasis, from the Ancient Greek ἔντασις (éntasis) (tension, straining), from εντείνω (enteínō) (to stretch or strain tight), the construct being enta, variant stem of enteínein (to stretch tight) + teínein (to stretch) + sis.  The –sis suffix was from the Ancient Greek -σις (-sis) and was attached to words in English often via Latin or French.  It was identical in meaning with the Latin –entia and the English –ing and was used (1) to form nouns of action or process (catharsis, dialysis, diagnosis, crisis etc), (2) in medicine to form nouns of condition (psoriasis, sepsis, tuberculosis, psychosis etc) and more generally (3) nouns as required (basis, oasis, thesis, stasis etc).  Entasis is a noun; the noun plural is entases.

The Entasis or Parthenon Principle

The Parthenon in Athens; it's the most celebrated use of entasis.

In modern architecture, entasis is the application of a convex curve to a surface for aesthetic purposes.  Its best-known use is in the columns from antiquity which curve slightly as their diameter is decreased from the bottom upward.  Because no relevant documents have yet been discovered, it’s not known whether the architects in antiquity applied the technique for aesthetic effect or as an engineering technique to enhance strength.  The latter is suggested by the design principle being described by Roman architect Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (circa 75 BC–circa 20 BC) using the Greek word enteino (to stretch or strain tight), suggesting some emphasis on structural strength rather than appearance.  However, until contemporary records are uncovered, their reasons for using entasis remain mysterious, hence the two-thousand odd years of conjecture.  The earliest known documented view of the matter was that written by Greek mathematician and engineer Hero of Alexandria (circa 10-circa 70), is that entasis corrects the optical illusion of concavity in the columns that the human eye would create if the correction were not made.  

Basilica's western front of the Second Temple of Hera, a Greek temple in Paestum, Campania, Italy.

The Second Temple of Hera (circa 55 BC) was built in the Doric order, just north of the first.  For the visual effect of entasis to work, the convex curve has to be so slight as to be imperceptible and it's not known why the Second Temple of Hera has an entasis so pronounced the curvature is obvious; there is illusion of straightness.  The proportions are such that historians have speculated it must have been deliberate (presumably for structural strength) but it's at least possible the architect was afflicted by the desire many of his modern contemporaries share: The wish to produce something "original" and "new", the reason why so many modern buildings are so unpleasing to the eye, architectural awards & prizes handed out not for beauty and elegance but novelty and shock.

For millennia, entasis and its place in the history of architecture has been one of the most persistent tales from Antiquity but there have long been contrarians prepared to argue the concept, while not exactly a myth, is greatly exaggerated in significance.  In September 2026, Belgian mathematician Professor Alain Goriely (b 1967; professor of mathematical modelling at the University of Oxford) published the findings of his study, challenging the belief the Parthenon’s “curves” were included to correct “optical illusions” that would have made pure straight lines appear “distorted”.  What the professor’s modelling was said to reveal was (1) the “curves” are practically imperceptible and the alleged “illusion” they were claimed to correct doesn’t exist; “the illusions are illusory”.  Deconstructing Vitruvius, the study begins with the claim the sides of the Parthenon’s stylobate (base) are not horizontal but form a very flat “V”, rising gently 60 mm (2.36 inches) towards the centre.  According to Vitruvius, this was to correct the illusion that, when viewed as a whole, the base appears to “sag in the middle”.  For centuries, the “sagging effect” was attributed to one of two “tricks of the light”: (1) That because of the way light is interpreted by the human brain, long horizontal lines “appear to slump” towards the centre or (2) That the structure’s marble columns create the illusion; this based on the “Hering illusion” (where in 2D (two dimensions) parallel lines can appear “bowed” when intersected by other lines).  Professor Goriely found nothing to support either proposition, noting the Hering illusion (discovered in 1861 by German physiologist Ewald Hering (1834--1918) is most apparent when lines intersect at acute angles and the Parthenon’s columns are anyway “too close to the vertical” to produce the illusion.  Additionally, extensive modelling produced no proof the effect would manifest on the Parthenon even in 3D (three dimensions), viewed from any angle.

The persistent claims of entasis.

Those details were really footnotes in architecture textbooks, entasis the most famous of the legends.  What that suggests is “bulges” in the Parthenon’s columns (the curvature called entasis) were included by the builders to correct an optical illusion that would make them appear “too narrow” in the middle.  Not only did Professor Goriely found no evidence the illusion exists but the columns bulge by a mere 18 mm (less than ¾ inch) which, at that scale, is simply not perceptible to the human eye at a typical viewing distance.  What he doesn’t dispute is the architects may have had some reason to include variations in the dimensions; it’s just he found no evident they were there as “optical correctives”, the slopes on the base perhaps there for a reason as mundane as preventing puddles forming after rain; as every builder knows, only a very slight incline is needed for water to flow.  The very minor increase in width in the columns’ centre sections is more mysterious and may have been something to do with what would have been a very labor-intensive production process but there seems to be no optical effect.

Beyond the math, Professor Goriely speculates the reason the myth has proved so enduring was the extraordinary level of veneration granted to the engineers, philosophers and architects of Antiquity when, in the late Medieval period and (especially) the Renaissance, so many of the texts were “re-discovered” and a the perception emerged of Ancient Greece as a supremely knowledgeable and ingenious civilisation.  For centuries, in Western Europe, the Classical World was idealized and unless explicitly disproved (as came to be done of their medicine, cosmology and such), the texts were treated with great respect, thought something of “Civilization’s gold standard”.  In the modern age, the veracity of what Vitruvius wrote tended to be reinforced by internet users repeating the tale, search engines affording a greater credibility to “facts” appearing in the greatest volume.  Now of course, AI (artificial intelligence) bots have centuries of architectural texts from which to harvest information and given what Vitruvius who wrote about the Parthenon (400 years after its construction), came to be treated as something “scriptural” (despite the loss of loss of the many Greek texts about their temple architecture he claimed to have read when preparing his own), the authority was strengthened.  Untypically for an academic paper, the professor recommends not too much dwelling on his findings but commending instead: “Trust your own eyes, question what you see and decide for yourself whether the theory of optical corrections holds up.”  Professor Goriely concluded entasis “might be the oldest myth that we have” before mischievously adding “apart from religion.”

1964 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud III Flying Spur; coachwork by H.J. Mulliner Park Ward.

One orthodoxy to emerge in the twentieth century was the famous Rolls-Royce radiator grille owed as much to Classical architecture as to being something there to prevent stones damaging the fragile core behind; if Rolls-Royce was going to be influenced by anyone, it’d be the architects of Antiquity.  According to chapter 4 of The Lexicon of Rolls‑Royce (the company doesn’t have web pages, it has chapters), what it styles as the “Pantheon Grille” was “…inspired by Rome’s imposing Pantheon temple, the Rolls-Royce grille is iconic. The Pantheon’s majestic columns were purposefully built with wider middle sections so that the human eye perceives each long pillar to be completely straight. It’s a perfect optical illusion and a genius stroke of design.  Taking inspiration from this, the Rolls-Royce grille is tactfully arranged using wider columns at the edge and thinner columns towards the middle to create an aesthetic illusion of symmetry when admired from the front. It’s a design that appears more perfect than nature intended.”  The days are gone when Rolls-Royce’s documents were characterized by understatement (it once described its engines’ power outputs as “adequate”), the vulgar numbers revealed only when German regulators humorlessly insisted.

While Professor Goriely’s computer models could find no evidence of the effect, a century-odd earlier, Rolls-Royce’s designers were convinced by the optical tricks of the Greeks and in 1925 integrated one of their optical techniques their new grille.  Although the “squared-off” shell dates from shortly after the company’s formation in 1904, not until 1928 did the now familiar grille with its upright bars become standardized.  Prior to 1925, the radiators were fronted by horizontal “slats” best thought of as “louvers” in that they functioned like “venetian blinds” (controlled by a lever next to the driver) to enable the airflow to be controlled (thus regulating engine temperature).  By the time of the release of the model Twenty in 1928, improvements in thermal-management technology meant the slats were no longer needed so the designers could start with a “clean sheet” and, being Rolls-Royce, the went neo-classical and built their own Pantheon, refining the ideas first seem in 1925 on the “New Phantom” (known retrospectively as the “Phantom I” (1925-1931) after new generations of the model followed).  So, although Professor Goriely’s math couldn’t detect any evidence entasis produced a detectable effect for those looking at the Parthenon, what Rolls-Royce does has been modelled and although slight, the effect of their trick is real.

Lindsay Lohan in Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead Coupé (2007-2017).  By the 1970s factory (mostly) had ceased to use the historic terms FHC (Fixed-Head coupé) and DHC (Drop-Head Coupé (DHC) and the revival in 2007 for the Phantom Drophead Coupé has proved (thus far) a nostalgic one-off.  Over the decades, the designers generally were successful in their adaptations as they were required to make the grille wider and lower but the Phantom would have benefited aesthetically if a more traditional approach had been taken with the headlamps (centre) and even hidden units (right) would have been more pleasing.  Still, twenty-first century customers seem more accommodating of stylistic innovation than earlier generations.

According to opticians, what the design does (wider bars at the edges, more slender towards the centre) is create the illusion of symmetry when viewed straight on (at even a slight angle there will be no effect).  That’s said to be because when viewing such a structure, the brain processes the image as a whole (not a sequence of individual bars) and, paradoxically, what the slight difference in width does is render an “artificial equalization”.   Because of the way the brain processes the sight of a series of “parallel bars”, were they equally-spaced and equally wide, there would be a “hollowing” effect with a “pinching” towards the centre, caused by the natural human tendency to perceive outer edges as tapering away.  The eye is an outgrowth of the brain and it’s the brain doing the processing; while “looking at a grill” might sound a simple task, in the Rolls-Royce grille there’s a lot of “information” and processing it all is an act of high-level cognition.

Hi-rise Pantheon: 1965 Rolls-Royce Phantom V.  This was about at tall as the grille got; it appeared on the Phantom V (1959-1968) & VI (1968-1990).

All else being equal, the brain tends first to focus on an image’s centre (that information sent to the fovea centralis (the part of the retina handling “sharp central vision”)) with the edges simultaneously entering the “peripheral vision” where spatial resolution decreases (the brain therefore gathering less precise detail about the outer dimensions).  All this happens in a fraction of a second but does still happen sequentially, the brain using “predictive modelling” to “fill in the blanks” and there is much to process, the grille a large, highly reflective three-dimensional object with repeating lines.  The brain’s visual cortex has much to do understand the contrasting light patterns and depth cues and that it does all this in a fraction of a second in an indication of how powerful a machine it is.  Additionally, Rolls-Royce further assists the brain in “manufacturing perfection by machining each bar with a very slight outward curve, not detectable to the naked eye.  The combination of this functionally imperceptible “width-shifting & curvature” uses the way the brain operates to induce the required corrective “shortcuts”.

The Pantheon Temple, Rome (left) and 1985 Rolls-Royce Camargue (right).

The Pantheon's Latin inscription M·AGRIPPA·L·F·COS·TERTIVM·FECIT isn't all that poetic and reads like a note the draftsman might have put on the blueprint (had there then been blueprints): it translates as "Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, made [this building] when consul for the third time.", crediting the Roman statesman & general, Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (circa 63 BC–12 BC) who commissioned the construction during his third consulship in 27 BC.  The Pantheon that stands today was rebuilt by Emperor Hadrian (Publius Aelius Hadrianus, 76–138; Roman emperor 117-138) circa 126 AD after the original structure suffered severe damage in a blaze; Hadrian chose to retain Agrippa's inscription as a tribute (not all the emperors were narcissists).  Since 609 AD, the Pantheon has been a Roman-Catholic church and is known as the Basilica Santa Maria ad Martyres (Basilica of St. Mary and the Martyrs).   In 1975, when the Camargue (1975-1986) was released, the novelty of it being the first Rolls-Royce designed using exclusively metric measurements (except for the odd carry-over component) attracted little attention but there was much comment about it being the first built with anything but a perfectly vertical grille.  The Camargue's grille was slanted at a (for mid-century Rolls-Royce) rakish 7^o.

Waftability

Parthenon Grill, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Understandably, the malapropism “Parthenon grill” is sometimes heard (and there is a well-reviewed Greek restaurant in Murfreesboro, Tennessee of that name) and despite occasional claims, the Pantheon grille doesn't feature a classic entasis (slight swelling in the middle of a column to counteract the alleged illusion of concavity) but the slight curve of the bars is real and can be checked with equipment no more complex than a “straight-edge” (a 12 inch (300 mm)) metal ruler ideal for the purpose.  Although for much of the twentieth century Rolls-Royce was much associated with straight lines (the “knife-edge” models bodied by coach-builder Hooper between 1935-1959 the high point of the brief era of  blending of a severe rectilinearly with the flowing lines of the pre-war aesthetic although, despite the mix, the approach was not within the lineage of post-modernism) curves have often been a component and in 2009 Tom Purves (b 1949; CEO of Rolls-Royce Motor Cars 2008-2010) announced the neologism “waftability” was “the essence of the brand”.  That, he defined as “calm perfect motion and accelerating quickly without fuss”.  Back then (and 2009 seems now little less remote than the days of the Cold War (1947-1991)), the CEO was describing the relationship between the appearance of a static Rolls-Royce as something that embodied that definition, revealing the internal name for the “gentle, upswept line of the sill” on the new Ghost model was a “waftline” (actually borrowed from the fashion business), the idea being it created “a powerful, poised stance and makes the car appear to be moving when stationary.”

1988 Rolls-Royce Corniche Convertible.  Although rendered redundant by electric motors, the Pantheon Grille will endure; it will be wider and lower (as has already happened) and some functional use may even be found but as an essential element in “brand identity” it won't go away.

The significance of “waftability” was Rolls-Royce was then still in the business of making large-displacement engines running on fossil fuels sound and behave as if they were electric motors but, by 2023, the company announced the Spectre, the brand’s first purely electric car.  So it had taken a while but the interest in electric energy predated even the formation of the company in 1904.  Sir Henry Royce (1863–1933) was an engineer who had designed dynamos, electric crane motors and patented the bayonet-style light bulb fitting while Charles Rolls (1877–1910) as early as 1900 drove an electric car declaring it the almost ideal form of propulsion, observing: “The electric car is perfectly noiseless and clean. There is no smell or vibration, and they should become very useful when fixed charging stations can be arranged.  But for now, I do not anticipate that they will be very serviceable – at least for many years to come.”  So it proved.  By 2023 however, the technology was ready and so (more debatably) was the infrastructure and there is nothing better at waftability than something large, luxurious and electric, Rolls-Royce saying that some time in the next decade, their last car running on fossil fuel will leave the assembly line.  Nothing lasts forever and, having spent more than a century trying to make ICEs (internal combustion engine) as smooth and silent as electric motors, the times seem now to suit Rolls-Royce.  For others (such as Ferrari, Porsche, Dodge etc), selling to a customer base with an emotional attachment to the howl, throb & scream of gasoline (petrol) exploding in six, eight or twelve combustion chambers, the challenge is to find a way to make them content with a piped soundtrack.  Engineers have conquered matters of performance and even range but nostalgia may prove harder to package.  For Rolls-Royce however, the task is simpler because it’s purely visual: While an electric car needs no radiator and thus no protective grill, it can be guaranteed Pantheon Grilles, severely cut in stainless steel, will continue to appear.