Continuity

Continuity (pronounced kon-tn-oo-i-tee or kon-tn-yoo-i-tee)

(1) The state or quality of being continuous; logical sequence, cohesion or connection; lack of interruption.

(2) A continuous or connected whole.

(3) In political science, as “continuity theory”, an approach to twentieth century German historiography which focuses on structural and sociological continuities between eras (including pre-twentieth century influences and traditions).

(4) In narratology, a narrative device in episodic fiction where previous and/or future events in a series of stories are accounted for in present stories.

(5) As bicontinuity (the sate of being bicontinuous), (1) in topology: homeomorphic (a continuous bijection from one topological space to another, with continuous inverse) and (2) in physics, chemistry (of a liquid mixture), being a continuous phase composed of two immiscible liquids interacting through rapidly changing hydrogen bonds.

(6) In film production, as “continuity girl” (the now archaic title in film production (now called “continuity supervisor” or “script supervisor”)) for the person responsible for ensuring the details in each scene conform to the continuity of the narrative.

(7) In film production, the scenario (in the industry jargon a synonym of “continuity”) of script, scenes, camera angles, details of verisimilitude etc, in the sequence in which they should appear in the final cut.

(8) In fiction (especially in television series but also in film and literature), as “continuity nod”, a reference, to part of the plot of a previous series, volume, episode etc.

(9) In audio & visual production (radio, podcasts, television, internet et al), the spoken part of a script that which provides introductory, transitional or concluding material in non-dramatic (documentaries and such) programmes (some production houses include in their staff establishment the position “continuity announcer”).

(10) In film projection, the continuous projection of a film, using automatic rewind.

(11) In mathematics, a characteristic property of a continuous function.

(12) In mathematics, as semicontinuity (of a function), the state of being semicontinuous (that it is continuous almost everywhere, except at certain points at which it is either upper semi-continuous or lower semi-continuous).

(13) In mathematics, as equicontinuity, (of a family of functions), the state of being equicontinuous (such that all members are continuous, with equal variation in a given neighborhood).  The Lipschitz continuity was named after German mathematician Rudolf Lipschitz (1832–1903); the Scott continuity was named after US logician Dana Scott (b 1932).

(14) In mathematics, as hemicontinuity, the state of being hemicontinuous (having the property that if a sequence of points in the domain of a function converges to a point L, then either the sequence of sets that are the images of those points contains a sequence that converges to a point that is in the image of L, or, alternatively, for every element in the image of L, there will be a sub-sequence in the domain whose image contains a convergent sequence to that element.

(15) In marketing, in the plural, as “continuities”, sets of merchandise, given away for free or sold cheaply as promotional tool (the idea being the continuity of the customers returning).

1375–1425: From the late Middle English continuite (uninterrupted connection of parts in space or time), from the Old & Middle French continuité, from the Latin continuitatem (nominative continuitās) (a connected series (the construct being continu(us) (continuous) + -itās (equivalent to the English continu(e) +‎ -ity), from continuus (joining, connecting with something; following one after another) from the intransitive verb continere (to be uninterrupted (literally “to hang together”).  The –ity suffix was from the French -ité, from the Middle French -ité, from the Old French –ete & -eteit (-ity), from the Latin -itātem, from -itās, from the primitive Indo-European suffix –it.  It was cognate with the Gothic –iþa (-th), the Old High German -ida (-th) and the Old English -þo, -þu & -þ (-th).  It was used to form nouns from adjectives (especially abstract nouns), thus most often associated with nouns referring to the state, property, or quality of conforming to the adjective's description.  Continuity is a noun, continuance, & continuousness are nouns, continue is a verb, continuous & continual are adjectives and continually is an adverb; the noun plural is continuities.

The adjective continuous (characterized by continuity, not affected by disconnection or interruption) dates from the 1640s and was from either the French continueus or directly from the Latin continuus.  The verb continue (was in use by at least the mid-fourteenth century) in the form contynuen (maintain, sustain, preserve) which by the late 1300s has assumed the meaning “go forward or onward; persevere in”.  It was from the thirteenth century Old French continuer and directly from Latin continuare (join together in uninterrupted succession, make or be continuous, do successively one after another), from continuus.  The sense of “to carry on from the point of suspension” emerged early in the fifteenth century while the meaning “to remain in a state, place, or office” dates from the early 1400s, the transitive sense of “to extend from one point to another” was first documented in the 1660s.  The word entered the legal lexicon with the meaning “to postpone a hearing or trial” in the mid fifteenth century.

The noun continuation (act or fact of continuing or prolonging; extension in time or space) dates from the late 1300s, from the thirteenth century Old French continuation and directly from the Latin continuationem (nominative continuatio) (a following of one thing after another), a noun of action from past-participle stem of continuare.  The adjective continual was from the early fourteenth century continuell (proceeding without interruption or cessation; often repeated, very frequent), from the twelfth century Old French continuel and directly from the Latin continuus.  The noun continuance (perseverance, a keeping up, a going on) dates from the mid-fourteenth century, from the thirteenth century Old French continuance, from continuer.  Continuance seems to have been the first of the family to appear in the terminology of legal proceedings, used since the late fourteenth century in the sense of “a holding on or remaining in a particular state”, in courts this by the early fifteenth had extended to “the deferring of a trial or hearing to a future date” and in some jurisdictions lawyers to this day still file an “application for continuation”.  The now widely used discontinuation (of legal proceedings; of a product range etc) has existed since at least the 1610s in the sense of “interruption of continuity, separation of parts which form a connected series” and was from the fourteenth century French discontinuation, from the Medieval Latin discontinuationem (nominative discontinuatio), noun of action from past-participle stem of discontinuare.

Page 1 of IMDb's (Internet Movie Database) listing of discontinuities in Mean Girls (2004).

A discontinuity: In Mean Girls, a donut (doughnut) appeared with a large bite taken from it while a few seconds later it had endured just a nibble.

In film production, the job title “continuity girl” seems to have been retired in favor of “continuity supervisor” or “script supervisor”, one of the terms culled in the process of gender neutrality which also claimed most of the “best boys” (they’re now styled with titles such as “assistant chief lighting technician” or “second lighting technician”.  Whether myth or not, the industry legend is the “best boy” job title really did begin with the request “give me your best boy” although that wasn’t something as ominous as now it may sound.  The first known reference to a continuity girl in a film’s credits was in the US 1918 and the job involved ensuring the “continuity” (in the industry “scenario” is synonymous) of the final cut appeared as a seamless narrative.  The job was required because although a single scene in a film might appear to be a contiguous few minutes, the parts assembled in the editing process to produce it may be made up of takes shot days or even months weeks and possibly in different places.  Among a myriad of tasks, what a continuity girl had to do was maintain a database with the details of each piece of film (vital for the editing process) and ensure the details of each shot (clothes, haircuts, props (including their exact placement) and environment (climate, time of day etc) are in accordance with the previous footage.  The detail can be as simple as the time displayed on a wall clock and it matters because there’s a minor industry of film buffs who go through things frame-by-frame looking for discontinuities, all of which gleefully they’ll catalogue on various internet sites.

Three covers used for Leah McLaren’s The Continuity Girl (2007, left); not all Chick lit titles used vibrant or pastel shades in the cover art.  The Continuity Girl (2018, right) by Dr Patrick Kincaid (b 1966) is an unrelated title.

The Continuity Girl (2007) was the debut novel of Canadian journalist Leah McLaren (b 1975), the protagonist being a continuity girl named Meredith Moore.  A classic piece of Chick lit (the construct being chick (slang for “a young woman” + lit(erature)), a now unfashionable term describing novels focused on women and their feelings) the plotline involves Ms Moore’s biological clock tick-tocking to the psychological moment on her 35^th birthday; she wakes up with a sudden acute yearning for a baby.  In a Chick lit sort of way, he solution to leave her predictably pleasant Canadian life and head for London where she plans to select a man on the basis of her assessment of his genetic suitability for breeding, seduce him and, in the way these things happen, fall pregnant.  Things of course don’t work out quite that effortlessly but, being Chick lit, there’s much self-realization, self-discovery and self-expression on the path to a happy ending.

In political science, “continuity theory” is an approach (in two aspects) to twentieth century German historiography which focuses on structural and sociological continuities between eras (including pre-twentieth century influences and traditions).  The first aspect was the notion there existed “continuity” in the persistent influence of long-term social, political, cultural, and institutional developments in German history, dating at least from the time of Martin Luther (1483–1546) contributed to the particular nature of Imperial Germany (1871-1918), the failure of the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) and the Führerprinzip (Leader Principle) which, structurally, was the distinguishing feature of the Third Reich (1933-1945).  This idea has underpinned a number of major historical studies but has always been contested because another faction (which has at times included a significant proportion of the German population) which argues that Nazism was uniquely radical and an aberration in the nation’s history.  Most controversially, some proponents of continuity theory extend the application to the post war years, examining how former Nazis, neo-Nazis and their ideologies persisted (and at times have flourished) both in the FRG (Federal Republic of Germany; the old West Germany (1949-1990)) and the unified state formed 1990 after the FRG absorbed the GDR (German Democratic Republic (the old East Germany)).

Adolf Hitler (left) looking at Ernst Röhm (right), Nürnberg, 3 September 1933.  Some nine months later, Hitler would order Röhm's discontinuation (murder).  Photograph from the Bundesarchiv (Federal Archives), Bild (picture) 146-1982-159-22A.

The theory’s other aspect was structural and was essentially an analysis of the extent to which the Nazi state operated under the constitutional and administrative arrangements inherited from the Weimar Republic, the state which Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) claimed “his” National Socialist revolution had overthrown.  The indisputable fact that the Nazi dictatorship was fundamentally different from Weimar at the time obscured the continuity but maintaining the Weimar constitution was hardly unique.  Hitler choose also to adapt the existing mixed economic model, something which upset some of the more idealistic souls in his movement who had taken seriously the “socialist” bit in “National Socialism” and led to the infamous Nacht der langen Messer (Night of the Long Knives), also called Unternehmen Kolbri (Operation Hummingbird) a purge executed between 30 June-2 July 1934, when the regime carried out a number of extrajudicial executions, ostensibly to crush what was referred to as “the Röhm Putsch” (Ernst Röhm (1887–1934; chief of the Sturmabteilung (the stormtroopers (the SA)), head of the four-million strong SA had certainly in the past hinted at one but there’s no doubt no such thing was imminent).

The USGS’s (US Geological Survey (1879)) depiction of the Mohorovičić discontinuity (the Moho).

The Mohorovičić discontinuity (which geologists tend to call “the Moho”) is the boundary between the Earth's crust and mantle, the extent defined by the distinct change in velocity of seismic waves as they pass through changing densities of rock.  The phenomenon is named after Croatian geophysicist Andrija Mohorovičić (1857–1936; one of the seminar figures in modern seismology), who first published his findings (based on seismographic observations of shallow-focus earthquakes) in 1909.

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 et al) 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 22^nd 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, now Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) is President elect awaiting inauguration, Steve Bannon (b 1957 and a one the most prominent MAGAs) 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 22^nd 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 22^nd 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 throw to his hungry 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 22^nd 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 27^th (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 26^th 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 18^th Amendment (prohibiting the manufacturing or sale of alcohol within the US) required 1 year, 29 days (18 December 1917-16 January 1919) whereas the 21^st (repealing the 18^th) was done in 288 days; proposed on 20 February 1933, the process was completed on 5 December the same year.

The path to the 22^nd amendment began when George Washington (1732–1799; first president of the United States, 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 images by Stable Diffusion of Lindsay Lohan and Donald Trump having coffee in the Mar-a-Largo Coffee Shop. 

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; US president 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; president of the United States 1909-1913 & chief justice of the United States 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, US president 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 had made a convention.  It took longer than usual but the process was completed in 1951 when the 22^nd Amendment 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 fifty 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. 

Bulla

Bulla (pronounced bool-uh or buhl-uh)

(1) A seal attached to an official document; in the Holy See, a leaden seal affixed to certain edicts issued by the papal chancellery (a papal bull), having a representation of the saints Peter and Paul on one side and the name of the reigning pope on the other.

(2) In archaeology, a clay envelope or hollow ball, typically with seal impressions or writing on its outside indicating its contents.

(3) In Ancient Rome, type of ornament worn, especially an amulet worn around the neck (as a pendant (or boss), usually by children of “the better classes” (mostly boys) as a protective charm).

(4) In medicine, a large vesicle; alternative name for blister.

(5) In pathology, the tympanic part of a temporal bone (having a bubble-like appearance); any of several hollow structures as features of bones.

(6) In zoology, a blister-like or bubble-like prominence of a bone, as that of the tympanic bone in the skull of certain mammals.

(7) In archaeology, a clay envelope or hollow ball, typically with seal impressions or writing on its outside indicating its contents.

(8) In archaeology and linguistics, a clay envelope, hollow ball or token used in ancient Mesopotamian record-keeping; the link being the rounded, bubble-like form of the objects.

(9) A rich Jamaican cake made with molasses and spiced with ginger and nutmeg.

(10) In surgical use, as bullectomy (a procedure in which small portions of the lung (known as bulla, large areas (>10 mm diameter) in the lung filled with oxygen-depleted air) and bullostomy (the making of a hole through a bulla).

Circa 1845: From the Latin bulla (round swelling, stud, boss, knob (literally “bubble”)), either from the Latin Latin bullire (to boil), or from the Gaulish, from the primitive Indo-European bew- or beu- (a swelling) or bhel- (to blow, inflate, swell) which may have formed a large group of words meaning “much, great, many” (and also words associated with swelling, bumps, blisters and such and the source also of the Lithuanian bulė "buttocks and the Middle Dutch puyl (bag); etymologists remain divided over any link with the Latin bucca (cheek).  In medieval times, it referred to the seal (or stamp) attached to official documents because of its rounded, blister-like shape, familiar from many uses.  The speculative link with the Latin bullire (to boil) was an allusion to the need for heat to be applied to melt or partially melt the material (gold, lead, wax etc) used in the making of seals (once thus softened, the impression was applied).  Historically, while wax seals wear the most common, official imperial seals were gold and papal seals of lead (although some were gold).  The use to describe certain documents issued by the papal chancellery is an adoption of Medieval Latin.  Although it was never an absolute rule (the seal with a representation of the saints Peter and Paul on one side and the name of the reigning pope on the other has appeared variously), its existence usually indicates a papal document is a bulla, a specific type of papal document distinguished by its formality, purpose, and its authentication.  Bulla is a noun; the noun plural is bullas (the Latin bullae used of the papal documents).

Seal of the appropriation of Ospringe Hospital (Headcorn Kent) by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Boniface of Savoy, in accord with a papal bull of 31 March 1267, to, Headcorn Kent. 1267.

Bulls begin with the phrase Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei (The Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God) and are written in a formal style.  The significance of a document being a bull is that technically it is a decree with enduring legal & doctrinal authority including ex cathedra pronouncements or administrative acts (which can be as procedural as creating religious orders or dioceses).  In this they differ from (1) encyclicals which are letters intended for broader purposes, addressed to bishops, clergy, and the faithful, often dealing with theological or social issues, (2) Apostolic Constitutions which usually deal with issues of governance, the promulgation of liturgical texts or matters pursuant to earlier bullae and (3) Motu Proprio (literally “on his own initiative”) which are edicts issued personally by the pope and these can be used for just about any purpose although they’re most associated with rulings which provide an “instant solution” to a troublesome or controversial matter on which it’s not been possible to find consensus; the Moto Proprio may thus be compared to a "royal decree".  Papal bulls were more common in the medieval and early modern periods when formal seals were the primary means of authentication but today they are rare, most communication from the Vatican in the form of apostolic letters or exhortations, not all with origins in the papal chancellery.

The last papal resignation but one

Red Bull Chuck Wagon Restaurant (No Bum Bull Served Here), Winnemucca, Nevada, USA, circa 1967.

Even when absolute monarchies were more common, kings usually took care to placate at least elite opinion and today, although the constitutional arrangements in Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Oman and Eswatini (the old Swaziland) remain, on paper, absolute monarchies, even there things are not done quite as once they were.  The Holy See remains an absolute monarchy and is now the only theocracy so structured although doubtlessly many popes have lamented their authority seems to exist more in the minds of canon lawyers than among the curia or his flock, something exacerbated now malcontents can no longer be burned at the stake (as far as is known) and Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) may recall the words of a world-weary Benedict XIV (1675–1758; pope 1740-1758): “The pope commands, his cardinals do not obey, and the people do what they wish.”

Papal Bull issued by Urban VIII (1568–1644; pope 1623-1644).  By the mid-fifteenth century, papal bulls had ceased to be used for general public communications and were restricted to the more formal or solemn matters.  The papal lead seals (the spellings bulla & bolla both used) were attached to the vellum document by cords made of hemp or silk, looped through slits.

But popes still have great powers not subject to checks & balances or constitutional review, the best known of which is “papal infallibility”.  The Roman Catholic Church’s dogma of papal infallibility holds that a pope’s rulings on matters of faith and doctrine are infallibility correct and cannot be questioned and when making such statements, a pope is said to be speaking ex cathedra (literally “from the chair” (of the Apostle St Peter, the first pope)).  Although ex cathedra pronouncements had been issued since medieval times, as a point of canon law, the doctrine was codified first at the First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican (Vatican I; 1869–1870) in the document Pastor aeternus (shepherd forever).  Since Vatican I, the only ex cathedra decree has been Munificentissimus Deus (The most bountiful God), issued by Pius XII (1876–1958; pope 1939-1958) in 1950, in which was declared the dogma of the Assumption; that the Virgin Mary "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory".  Pius XII never made explicit whether the assumption preceded or followed earthly death, a point no pope has since discussed although it would seem of some theological significance.  Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, there had been decrees issued ex cathedra.  In Ineffabilis Deus (Ineffable God (1854)), Pius IX (1792–1878; pope 1846-1878) defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, an important point because of the theological necessity of Christ being born free of sin, a notion built upon by later theologians as the perpetual virginity of Mary.  It asserts that Mary "always a virgin, before, during and after the birth of Jesus Christ", explaining the biblical references to brothers of Jesus either as children of Joseph from a previous marriage, cousins of Jesus, or just folk closely associated with the Holy Family.

Lindsay Lohan, posing with a can of Red Bull, photographed by Brian Adams (b 1959) for Harper’s Bazaar magazine, 2007.

Technically, papal infallibility may have been invoked only the once since codification but since the early post-war years, pontiffs have found ways to achieve the same effect, John Paul II (1920–2005; pope 1978-2005) & Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) both adept at using what was in effect a personal decree a power available to one who sits at the apex of what is in constitutional terms an absolute theocracy.  Critics have called this phenomenon "creeping infallibility" and its intellectual underpinnings own much to the tireless efforts of Benedict XVI while he was head of the Inquisition (by then called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and now renamed the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF)) during the late twentieth century (the Holy See probably doesn't care but DDF is also the acronym, inter alia, for “drug & disease free” and (in gaming) “Doom definition file” and there's also the DDF Network which is an aggregator of pornography content).  So while not since 1950 formally invoked, popes have not been reluctant to “play the de facto infallibility card”, possibly thinking of the (probably apocryphal) remark attributed to John XXIII (1881-1963; pope 1958-1963): “When one is infallible, one has to be careful what one says.”

Bulla issued 17 July 1492 by Innocent VIII (1432–1492; pope 1484-1492) granting St Duthac’s Church (Tain) official permission to become a Collegiate Church.

But for a pope’s own purposes, a bulla can prove invaluable.  Pietro Angellerio (1215-1296) was for five months between July and December 1294 installed as Pope Celestine V.  Prior to his elevation, Celestine had for decades been a monk and hermit, living a anchorite existence in remote caves and subsisting on little more that wild vegetables, fruits, honey and the occasional locust, his unworldly background meaning he emerged as the ultimate compromise candidate, declared pope after a two-year deadlock in the church’s last non-conclave papal election.  The cardinals had been squabbling for all those two years which so upset the hermit in his cave that he wrote them a letter warning divine retribution would be visited upon them if they didn't soon elect a pope.  Realizing he was entirely un-political, without enemies and likely pliable, the cardinals promptly elected him by acclamation.

Lindsay Lohan mixing a Red Bull & mandarin juice while attending an event with former special friend Samantha Ronson (b 1977), Mandarin Oriental Hotel, London, February 2012.

Shocked, the hermit declined the appointment, only to have his own arguments turned on him, the cardinals insisting if he refused the office he would be defying God himself; trapped, he was crowned at Santa Maria di Collemaggio in Aquila, taking the name Celestine V.  The anchorite, lost in the world of power politics and low skulduggery was utterly unsuited to the role and within weeks expressed the wish to abdicate and return to his solitary cave in the Abruzzi Mountains.  The cardinals told him it wasn’t possible and only God could release him from the office (will all that implies) but they couldn’t stop him consulting the lawyers who drafted for him two bulls, the first codifying the regulations concerning a pope’s abdication and the second a sort of “enabling act”.  The second bull (Quia in futurum (for in the future)) restored the constitution (Ubi periculum (Where there lies danger)), and re-established the papal conclave (the constitution had been suspended by Adrian V (circa 1216-1276; pope 1276)).  The bulls having put in place the required mechanisms, while at Naples, Celestine V abdicated.

Brutum Fulmen issued by Pius V (1504–1572; pope 1566-1572), concerning the Damnation, Excommunication and Deposition of Elizabeth I (1533–1603; Queen of England & Ireland 1558-1603) by Thomas Barlow (circa 1608- 1691; Lord Bishop of Lincoln (1675–1691).

That done, he resigned, intending to return to his cave but his successor, Boniface VIII (circa 1231-1303; pope 1294-1303) had no wish to have such a puritanical loose cannon at large (he feared some dissidents might proclaim him antipope) and imprisoned him (in an agreeable circumstances) in the castle where ultimately he would die.   His resignation from the office was the last until Benedict XVI who in 2013 did rather better, retiring to a sort of papal granny flat in the Vatican where he lived (uniquely) as pope emeritus.  Celestine was canonized on 5 May 1313 by Clement V (circa 1265-1314; pope 1305-1314) and no subsequent pontiff has taken the name Celestine.

Revoke & Irrevocable

Revoke (pronounced ri-vohk)

(1) To take back or withdraw; annul, cancel, rescind or reverse; rescind or repeal.

(2) To bring or summon back.

(3) In certain card games, to fail to follow suit when possible and required (renege the more common term).

(4) Such an act or instance of revoking.

1300–1350: From the Middle English revoken, from the Latin revocāre (to call again; to call back; withdraw), the construct being re- (in the sense of “again”) + vocāre (to call).  The synonyms (depending on context) are countermand, nullify, recall and retract.  Revoke is a noun & verb, revoker is a noun, revoked & revoking are verbs and revokingly is an adverb; the noun plural is revokers.

Irrevocable (pronounced ih-rev-uh-kuh-buhl (U) or ih-ri-vohk-kuh-buhl (non-U))

Not to be revoked or recalled; unable to be changed, repealed or annulled; unalterable.

1350–1400: From the Middle English, from the Middle French irrévocable from the Latin irrevocābilis (that which cannot be recalled, unalterable), the construct being ir- (the prefix an assimilated form of in- (not, opposite of)) + revocabilis (able to be revoked).  Irrevocable is an adjective, irrevocableness & irrevocability are nouns, and irrevocably is an adverb; the noun plural is irrevocabilities.

The trust, Rupert Murdoch and irrevocably

The trust in its modern form is an invention of English common law.  Although the trustee concept was a part of Roman civil law, its operation essentially was restricted to the a class of ownership of assets held by someone who would now be known as the executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased; the administrator would be the legal owner (though not necessarily the possessor) of the goods but their rights to them was limited to distributing them (or if sold or dissolved, their value) to the beneficiaries named in the deceased testamentary documents (will).  The novel innovation of the English common law was to apply a similar concept to the property of someone living.  During the Crusades (the expeditions by Christian military formations between 1095-1291 attempting to retake the Holy Land (Jerusalem and its environs)), it was the practice for a land-owning Crusader to convey (ie transfer ownership) his property to another so the estate could continue to operate as part of the feudal land system, this done on the basis that upon his return to England, the property would revert to him.  Most such arrangements were honored but some were not and because English law regarded land title as absolute, whomever was the legal “owner” of the land could defend that right against any claim.  A subject’s only recourse was to seek justice by petitioning the king and in most cases the matter would be referred to the chancellor (an office something like a mix of prime-minister & minister of justice) who would decide each case on its merits.  That of course resulted in inconsistencies and led to the development of the Court of Chancery and the emergence of the principles of the law of “equity”, designed both to remove inconsistencies and avoid the injustices sometimes the result of the strict application of the rigid rules of the common law.

Thus the emergence of the trust in which property could be transferred from one to another but with rights of the legal “owner” of the property in the trust restricted by the terms of the trust (typically that the property or its proceeds could be used or applied only to those beneficiaries named); the “legal owner” was thus really the trustee (the administrator).  It was a mechanism which proved useful over the centuries including during the wars of religion when trusts could be created to protect property from confiscation.  The trust is a flexible beast and a variety exist including the “secret trust” (although in most places they’re not as secret as once they were) and although most trusts formally are created an so-named, if an arrangement is found in substance and operation to be “a trust in all nut name”, a court can declare it to be a trust (technically a “constructive trust”).  Trusts are widely used today, mostly tax-minimization platforms because, as a general principle, income gained by a trust is not taxable until paid out to a beneficiary.  That has made trusts of great interest to those advocating tax-reform but because among the most enthusiastic users of trusts are the rich and politicians (society’s most dynamic and influential symbiosis whether in New York, Moscow, Beijing, Islamabad or Pyongyang), not much is likely to change.  A particular flavor of trust is the “irrevocable trust” which, as the name suggests, should be one in which the terms cannot be altered.

Washoe County Courthouse (1910), Reno Nevada.  Built in Classical Revival style, it first gained national attention when the combination of liberal residency requirements and liberal divorce laws created a "divorce boom" which made a significant contribution to the Nevada economy.

In 1999 Rupert Murdoch (b 1931), at the time of his second divorce, created the Murdoch Family Trust (MFT), into which was transferred the shareholdings of a number of companies and the terms of the trust were such that the succession plans for his media empire were settled.  The trust grants the family eight votes, Mr Murdoch controlling four, each of his eldest four children holding one; upon Mr Murdoch’s death, his four would have been distributed equally to them.  The device was created as an “irrevocable trust” as part of the terms of the divorce, the ex-wife waiving the right to a much higher payout in return for the “irrevocable” protection the terms of the trust afforded the four children.  In December 2023, Mr Murdoch filed papers in Reno, Nevada seeing to amend (ie in the technical sense “partially revoke”) the terms of the “irrevocable” MFT to the extent that his oldest son would assume full control over News Corp, the holding company which manages literally hundreds of assets (the best-known of which is now Fox News), excluding the other three siblings.  This was about operational control and did not affect the children’s financial stake in the trust.  The matter (In the Matter of the Doe 1 Trust) was in September 2024 heard before a probate commissioner, in camera, at Washoe County Courthouse, the parties (1) Rupert Murdoch and the eldest son on one side and (2) the three other siblings on the other.

Mr Murdoch had not previously been much associated with the state of Nevada but his legal team chose to file in Nevada because the state has the nation’s most flexible (they like to use the term “progressive”) statutes relating to trust law and it was thus concluded it was there that the highest chance existed for amending an “irrevocable” trust.  The Nevada approach in these matters in interesting in that the state permits “decanting”, a process by which a trustee can transfer assets from one trust into a new trust with different terms, in effect modifying the original trust in that the assets become subject to different rules.  Decant (inter alia “to pour from one vessel into another”) was from the French From French décanter, from the Medieval Latin dēcanthāre, the construct being dē- (of; from) +‎ canthus (beak of a cup or jug).  For administrative simplicity, decanting does not require the approval of a court but can be subject to challenge if it’s alleged a trustee lacks the requisite discretionary authority under the terms of the original trust document.

Wedding day: Rupert Murdoch (b 1931) & model Jerry Hall (b 1956).  The ceremony was conducted at Church of England church of St Bride's, Fleet Street, London, March 2016.  The couple divorced in 2022.

Under Nevada law, despite the name, an “irrevocable trust” is not “irrevocable” in an absolute sense because beneficiaries and trustees can agree to modify the terms of such a trust, even if the trust is irrevocable.  This process (a “non-judicial settlement agreement”) avoids the need for a court hearing, thereby reducing the expense and time required and exemplifies the sort of “flexibility” Nevada’s corporate regulators cite as reasons why the state should be a trustee’s jurisdiction of choice.  However, Nevada does require any modifications be consistent with the trust's purpose and not in violation with its fundamental terms and moreover the usual principles of equity governing trusts apply: there can be no unconscionable conduct.  A Nevada court also can modify or terminate an irrevocable trust if the trust's purpose has become impossible, impracticable, or illegal, or if circumstances not anticipated by the original grantor arise.  In that the remit of equity is wider than in contract law where courts have always been reluctant to “write contracts” although they will correct technical errors and a Nevada court can appoint a “trust protector”, an officer with the authority to amend trust terms, change beneficiaries, or even (under specified conditions) terminate the trust.  This authority can extend to the creation of a “directed trust” (a special class of constructed trust) which allow the grantor or beneficiaries to appoint an entity or individual to oversee specific trust decisions, which can include modifications (all of which are subject to the supervision and ultimately the approval of the court).

The decision of the probate commission in Reno will not have pleased Mr Murdoch.  In a 96 page opinion published on 9 December, the commissioner found Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch (b 1971; the eldest son) had acted in “bad faith” in their attempts to change the terms of the irrevocable MFT, suggesting the pair had organized a “carefully crafted charade” to “permanently cement Lachlan Murdoch’s executive roles” inside the empire “regardless of the impacts such control would have over the companies or the beneficiaries” of the MFT.  He didn’t go as far as one New Zealand judge who once damned evidence brought before him as “an orchestrated litany of lies” but the tone was still severe.

One untypical aspect of the matter is that it wasn’t directly about money; most trust cases involve money, indeed, a financial motivation is at the root of most civil matters.  Mr Murdoch was moved to seek to change the terms of the MFT because he’d concluded Lachlan was the only one of the four children who shared his views on how the editorial position of affected media outlets (most notably Fox News) should be maintained, the other three tending to a more liberal (in US terms) stance.  Interestingly, although that may appear a family’s ideological squabble, the documents which emerged from the discovery process in the matter of Dominion Voting Systems v Fox News (Delaware Superior Court: N21C-03-257; N21C-11-082) which culminated (thus far) in Fox settling the matter by paying Dominion some US$790 million, the alternative being to continue the case and allow more of Fox’s internal documents to enter the public domain) suggested that Mr Murdoch’s decisions about such things are led more by a commercial imperative than any political commitment.  In other words, Fox News should do what it does because it attracted viewers (the product) to deliver to advertisers (the customers); were the Fox News audience suddenly to have a moment of mass-catharsis and become a bunch of seed-eating, basket-weaving hippie vegans, so would shift the Fox News editorial stance.

The usual purpose of an irrevocable trust is to protect the beneficiary (or beneficiaries) from others but they have been recommended for those who might be advantaged by being “protected from themselves”.

So what Mr Murdoch wishes to ensure is that Fox News keeps on doing what it does (and whether one agrees with it or not, few would deny at what it does it’s the best in the world) because that is the path to the highest financial benefits for the MFT.  Lachlan understands and the others don’t so Mr Murdoch is trying to protect the three dissident children from themselves.  Whether defiant or deluded, the dissident triumvirate were pleased with the recommendation: “We welcome the commissioner’s decision and hope that we can move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members.”  It’s there’s a Murdoch family Christmas dinner, there might be what a diplomatic communiqué would describe as a “frank and robust exchange of views”.

Wedding day: Rupert Murdoch (b 1931) & molecular biologist Elena Zhukova (b 1956).  The ceremony was conducted at Mogara, Mr Murdoch’s Californian vineyard, June 2024.

The procedure in Nevada is the commissioner’s opinion will now be referred to a district court judge, sitting as a court of probate.  The judge can issue a ruling wholly favourable to one side or the other or in some way structure a decision which gives something to each; there will thus be one appeal or two and that may trigger more so although it’s possible the matter may not be finalized before Mr Murdoch dies (God forbid), he recently celebrated his fifth marriage so appears to remain robust and in rude good health.