Simony

Simony (pronounced sahy-muh-nee or sim-uh-nee)

(1) The making of profit out of sacred things.

(2) In Christianity, the practice, now usually regarded as a sin, of buying or selling spiritual or ecclesiastical benefits such as pardons, relics, benefices or preferments.

The buying or selling of spiritual or sacred things, such as ecclesiastical offices, pardons, or consecrated objects.

1175–1225: From the Middle English & the twelfth century Old French simonie (selling of church offices; the sin of buying or selling sacred things), from the Late Latin simōnia (from Simon Magus (Σίμων ὁ μάγος in Greek, Simon Magvs in Latin), the Samaritan sorcerer (magician) who was rebuked by Peter when he tried to buy the power of conferring the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:9-24)).  The nouns simoniak & simoner (the alternative spelling was simonier) (one who practices simony) appear in documents around the turn of the fifteenth century but there’s no evidence the adverb simoniacally was in use before the mid-1700s.  Simony, simonist, simoner & simonism are nouns, simoniac is a noun & adjective, simonient is an adjective and simoniacally is an adverb; the noun plural is simonies.

Acts 8:9-24: Origin of the Church’s ban on outsourcing.

18: And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money.

19: Saying, give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

20: But Peter said unto him, thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

Simon Magus, known also as Simon the Sorcerer, was one of many magicians and, with competition fierce in a crowded market, he sought to increase his stock of magic tricks, gaining thereby a comparative advantage.  What he really wanted was to be thought of as one who, by laying on of hands, could make people feel filled with the Holy Spirit (the presence of the Lord), then a desired thing.

Saint Peter to Simon the Sorcerer: "Just don't do it; just say no."

When Simon Magus saw Peter and John deliver the presence by the laying of their on baptized believers, he offered money if they would confer on him the same power.  The pious pair were aghast at the idea one could buy the gift of God and urged Simon to repent so God might forgive him.  Hearing these words made Simon fearful and he pleaded with them to pray that nothing bad would befall him.  Whether Simon was truly repentant is never made clear although he did not immediately die so God did not at once smite him in his wrath.  Others were not so fortunate but Simon was the first heretic named in the New Testament and ever since, the Church has insisted on its monopoly in matters spiritual.  However, later popes, bishops and other clergy, while noting the the ruling of Peter & John as conferring on them exclusivity of supply in such matters, their interpretation didn't extend to banning profit from the business, something which would come to have profound consequences for Church and state. 

Compared with the unfortunate Ananias and Sapphira, Simon got off lightly.  In the Book of Acts (4:32), it’s recorded the early Christian disciples did not think of their possessions as their own but as the property of the collective to be used in the name of the Lord (not now a popular piece of scripture among the more materialist Christians).  Were money received by one, it belonged to all the apostles and were one to be found cheating, there were consequences and of course there had to be because, theologically, not only was the miscreant cheating others in the clergy, they were stealing from God Himself.  In Acts (5:1-11), it’s recounted that Ananias and his wife Sapphira sold their land but, when handing the proceeds to Peter, Anania kept some of the money for himself (the modern term in the study of governance & corruption in the distribution of foreign aid would be "siphoning").

5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

A salutary warning then, rather untypical of the New Testament, something more in the spirit of the vengeful God of the Old and it remains one of the passages in scripture most of modern Christianity prefers to ignore.  The endorsement of the death penalty often attracts little criticism but the notion of sharing with others one’s capital gains from the real-estate market would likely have little appeal to the many in evangelical congregations, although, given the corporate structure, the richer of the clergy might see some attraction.

The story has long been a struggle for theologians.  Although a injunction against lying is not one of the ten commandments (although it seems implied in (8) You shall not steal & (9) You shall not bear false witness), it wasn't explicitly prohibited although Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead simply for conspiring to lie; that would seem unfair for on the night Christ was tried, Peter himself lied three times yet was not thrice struck dead and anyway, as Peter acknowledged, they were under no obligation to donate the money.  It might then seem difficult to see just what was the sin so heinous that both deserved to die but theologians most often hint at something Aristotle might have called honor, what the social media marketing experts might call the quality of authenticity.  The transgression of Ananias and Sapphira was seeking the honor of their community in a manner dishonorable, shaming themselves as mere counterfeits; phoneys.  It was not the money which mattered, it was the fake news and, as Peter said, that news came from Satan for Satan had filled (to “the brim” in some translations) the heart of Ananias.  So, it's no great theological leap to see in their conduct as transgressions of (8) You shall not steal and (2) You shall not make any idols to worship (in that money had become an object of veneration).

La Mort de Saphire (The Death of Sapphira (1652)), oil on canvas by Nicolas Poussin (1594–1665).

People lie all the time and God does not smite them in his wrath but while all men might be equal before God, not all communities are equal.  When people lie to others in their community they are lying to others, to themselves and before God; it is a sin and one day they shall be judged.  But among the disciples of Christ himself, there can be no lies for to lie there is to lie about the work of the Holy Spirit and to speak that lie to God.  There can be only one consequence and that must be death.  It's a warning to those with the conceit to seek pre-eminence among the people of God, careerists seeking recognition, influence and power in God’s Church which is wrong for it is God alone who takes us into His Church (John 6:44, 65) and Him alone who elevates and ordains individuals to offices within (1 Corinthians 12:18, 28; Ephesians 4:11); as in all things, "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away; Blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21).  The vainglory of the self-aggrandizement of Ananias and Sapphira was the work of the mind and nature of Satan (Isaiah 14:13-14; Ezekiel 28:17) and was what made the couple willing instruments in the execution of his purposes.  Structuralists draw from the story a lesson about the authority of the hierarchical clergy and the nature of the institution of the Church.  Theologians writing their apologia (which seem always emphasise that Peter must be absolved of any responsibility) conclude the message is in everything we do we must love our neighbors as ourselves and seek not to accrue wealth, status and power.

In the early medieval church the legal position was unambiguous so the spirit was strong, even if the flesh of priests was sometimes weak, accusations of simony not uncommon, something encouraged presumably by the increasingly obvious wealth of not a few clergy.  In reaction, canon law banned what had become revenue streams derived from the supply of what had once been simple orders of service performed for events such as blessings or baptism.  Over the years many canons and edicts reinforced the sanctions, something necessitated by priests being good “black letter law” practitioners, eager to spot loopholes and eyes of needles through which money could pass.  Even papal bulls addressed the matter though it was a time of low literacy and distant channels of communications, things which helped imaginative priests hone their business model.  Famously, Gregory I (circa 540–604; usually styled Saint Gregory the Great, pope 590-604) condemned such transactions as “a simoniac heresy” but the problem was not the state of law but the efficiency of its enforcement, a familiar complaint in the modern secular world.

Despite it all, by the ninth and tenth centuries, simony had become so entrenched in the ecclesiastical structure that the very economy of the Church may have been dependent on the practices and in the eyes of the population, presumably was an accepted part of theology.  The more austere canon lawyers however found it disturbing and by the eleventh century, one of the debates between them concerned the issue of whether a priest who had gained his office by a simonical transaction (ie purchased it from a bishop) could be said to be validly ordained and this was not merely a tiresome technical point argued between lawyers: if an ordination was invalid, did this invalidate the legal effect of the rituals he’d since performed?  If so, were some marriages null & void, couples living in sin and unknowingly producing illegitimate children?  Were their baptisms valid or were there many unbaptised heathens?  That was bad enough but if so, would those who had died (and there would have been many), on that basis be sent not to Heaven but instead burn in Hell (discussions of some less unpleasant alternatives such as Limbo were not then well advanced)?

It was during the pontificate of Gregory IX (circa 1150-1241; pope 1227-1241) the sanctions were codified and it was done with a legal sledgehammer.  In issuing the Corpus Juris Canonici (literally “Body of Canon Law”) in 1234, Gregory provided the document which would provide the framework for the Church’s canon law for over 700 years and although subject to frequent refinement, it would not be replaced until 1917.  As a part of this, the matter of simony was dealt with in what might now be called “an omnibus provision”, the definitional basis for the offence so wide that just about any transaction “involving consideration” (ie money or some other benefit) might be caught in its net.

Canto XVIII, part of the eighth circle of Hell, in Divine Comedy (circa 1494), illustrated by Sandro Botticelli (Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi; circa 1445–1510).

It’s said to have had a great reforming influence but of course the problem shifted shape rather than going away and in the fourteenth century, Dante Alighieri (circa 1265–1321) in Divina Commedia (Divine Comedy (circa 1310-1321)) detailed (not without glee) the fate of avaricious simoniacs including “clergymen, and popes and cardinals” who, dammed for “fraud” would be cast into the eighth circle of Hell, a hot, fiery place where they’d have ended up trapped for eternity in a flaming tomb, the frequent punishments including being whipped by demons, immersed in excrement and transformed into reptiles:

Rapacious ones, who take the things of God,
that ought to be the brides of Righteousness,
and make them fornicate for gold and silver!
The time has come to let the trumpet sound
for you;

Ever if not scared of lawyers, from the most humble monk to the pope himself, priests were scared of going to Hell so Dante’s words may have had some effect, even though he wrote in common Italian rather than Latin.  The lure of money though proved strong and although the sale of “indulgences” (essentially God’s forgiveness, often in bulk) was not the sole inspiration for the movement which led to the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation, it was probably the most celebrated and an indication of the way corruption tends to be hydra-headed, difficult to suppress and probably impossible to eradicate.  Still, it was the framework of canon law which provided the basis for the structures the Church of England would adopt to stamp out simony and it’s not hard to see traces of it in many of the anti-corruption statutes and institutions which exist today in many Western states.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

Valentine

Valentine (pronounced val-uhn-tahyn)

(1) A card, message, token or gift sent by one person to another on Valentine's Day (14 February) as a mark of affection.  Historically they were usually amatory or sentimental but there are also commercially available versions (usually as cards or e-cards) which are satirical, comical or sardonic.  They were often (and perhaps still are) send anonymously but in an age when the awareness of stalking has become heightened, caution is now recommended.

(2) A sweetheart or object of desire chosen or greeted on this day.

(3) A written or other artistic work expressing affection for something or someone (the latter often a poetic or literary device).

(4) A surname and a given name, the latter variously feminine or masculine according to local convention.

(5) As Saint Valentine (circa 226-circa 269), a saint commemorated in both Western Christianity & Eastern Orthodoxy.

(6) A locality name in a number of places.

1400–1450 (in the sense of the adoption in English): From the late Middle English, from the ecclesiastical feast of Saint Valentine (14 February).  The derived forms are rarely used.  The adjective valentinesy (something characteristic of Saint Valentine's Day) can be used of some romantic act usually more associated with 14 February and does have the advantage of being a single word which does the job which would otherwise take a phrase but the only thing that can be said in favor of the noun valentining (the practice of giving and (presumably) receiving something on Saint Valentine's Day) is that it seems not yet to have become a verb.  The noun Valentinian was used to describe a member or adherent of the second century AD school of Judaizing Gnostics, founded by Valentinus (circa 100–circa 180).  Valentinus seems to have been among the most popular of the early Christian Gnostic theologians and the legend is he founded his school in Rome after being passed over for appointment to a bishopric.  The use as a name is derived ultimately from the Latin Valentinus, from valeō (I am strong, healthy) and by accepted reckoning, Valentinus (circa 780-827; pope 780) was the hundredth pope of the Roman Catholic Church ("Pontiff 100" the preferred designation among Vatican archivists); he sat on the throne of Saint Peter "for forty days and forty nights".  Valentine evolved as a unisex given name, in use for males since the late fifteenth century and it’s been given also to females although this has been rare except in France (and the Francophone parts of the old French Empire) where it’s treated as a feminine form of Valentin.  Elsewhere, the usual feminine form is Valentina.  Valentine & Valentinian are nouns & proper nouns, valentining is a noun and valentinesy is an adjective; the noun plural is valentines.

Lindsay Lohan with Saint Valentine's Day stuffed teddy bear.

The precise origins of Valentine's Day are murky.  All agree the church festivals, feasts and holidays were named after Saint Valentine but there were a number of them in early Christianity and despite much digging, no authenticated documentary evidence has emerged to confirm which one deserves credit.  Revisionist historians have linked the later tradition to the ancient Roman festival of Lupercalia, celebrated mid-February, Lupercalia was a fertility festival dedicated to Faunus (Roman god of agriculture) and the mythical founders of Rome, the brothers Romulus & Remus. A kind of pre-modern blind-date night, during the festival, young men would draw names of young women from a jar and with whomever emerged from this lucky dip they would be coupled for the duration of the festival (hopefully longer if the things worked out).  The revisionists like the idea of a link because it hints at another example of an event on the church list owing less to theology or uniquely Christian history than being a takeover of a pagan festival (a la Christmas).  On and off, for centuries, between 496 when Gelasius I (d 496; pope 492-November 496) dedicated 14 February as the feast day on which the Christian martyr Saint Valentine was to be celebrated, it remained on the list was in 1955 struck from the General Roman Calendar by Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958), along with an array of other minor or obscure feasts which were relegated to mere “events” within the rituals of the formal ecclesiastical calendar.  However, in 2007 Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) issued the motu proprio (literally “on his own impulse”, a kind of executive decree) Summorum Pontificum (Of the Supreme Pontiffs) (described by some as “a shot across the bows of Vatican II” but really more a torpedo into the engine room) which was promulgated to permit the restoration of earlier forms of ritual (notably those conducted in Latin) but had the (perhaps unintended) effect of allowing feasts such as those of Saint Valentine to return as stand-alone events should that be the will of the local congregation.

The meme-makers feel Saint Valentine's pain.

By far the most popular version of the origin is that linked with Saint Valentine (circa 226-circa 269).  Valentine may have been the Bishop of Terni (in the modern day region of Umbria in Central Italy) but he was certainly a member of the Christian clergy and like many of them, he was persecuted by the authorities; even if not devoted pagans, many in authority did not much like trouble makers and alternative power structures (as members of the Falun Gong don’t need to be reminded).  There are different tales of just what were the activities which led eventually martyrdom including Valentine baptizing young men liable for military conscription (their status as Christians rendering them ineligible for service in the pagan army) but the preferred version is the one associated with young lovers.  It’s said Claudius II (214-270; Roman emperor 268-270) had banned marriage by young men, his rationale being single men made better soldiers, apparently because they were (1) less troubled by the thought of death and (2) more attracted to the prospect of the unlimited sexual license (rape (in the modern sense) & pillage) which was at the time one of the inducements to serve.  Valentine defied this imperial decree and in secret continued to conduct marriages for young lovers; when this was discovered, Claudius had the renegade priest arrested, brought to Rome and beheaded.  The act of execution seems sound historic fact although the circumstances, like much which appears in medieval texts, can’t be verified and while the tales of torture, prolonged beatings are plausible, it’s not certain the emperor’s displeasure was triggered by the priest joining the young in marriage; some histories suggest the execution was ordered merely because Valentine refused to deny Christ as his true savior.  Such deaths were far from uncommon.  God however may have been on the side of true love because shortly after, Claudius was struck down, killed by “a pestilence”, perhaps the Plague of Cyprian (250-270), one of the many epidemics that for centuries came and went, killing millions.

There seems not to have been any connection between Saint Valentine (or the celebrations in his name) and anything romantic until the notion appeared in the fourteenth century verse of Geoffrey Chaucer (circa 1344-1400) but the idea caught on to the extent that by the mid-fifteenth century, it was well-known and the secular practices attached to 14 February appear to have been tolerated by the Church and survived even the later puritans who disapproved of just about everything.  The fifteenth century customs are said to have begun in the circles associated with the French & English royal courts but it may simply be that the records of that class have survived better and the tales of February being the month when birds find their mates became part of the folk etymology.  The earliest known use of a valentine being “a letter or card sent to a sweetheart” dates from 1824 and the custom of sending special cards or letters on this date flourished in England in the mid-nineteenth century, declining gradually until the early years of the 1900s.  In the 1920s, modern capitalism (led by card manufacturers) revived the idea and for those selling cards, chocolates and flowers, 14 February has since provided good business and the rise of the internet has done little to blunt demand, virtual roses and chocolates just not the same.

The universal language of love.

Flowers, chocolate and stylized red hearts being the universal lingua franca when seeking courtship with a young lady, even in the People's Republic of China (PRC), Valentine’s Day (情人节, qíngrén jié) has become a thing.  The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) approve not at all of decadent Western influence and Christian saints (the only "true" saints being venerable figures like the General Secretary of the CCP) but it's good for business and adds to GDP so, simultaneously the day is tolerated and ignored.  The idea though has spread, several other days to one degree or another also marked including (1) White Valentine’s Day (白色情人节, báisè qíngrén jié) on 14 March when the tradition is for women who have a month earlier received something to respond with a gift of chocolate, (2) 520 Day (wǔ’èr línga) on 20 May; it's pronounced as wǔ èr líng which sounds like “I love you” (wǒ ài nǐ) in Mandarin and it's said to be entirely the invention of Chinese business, (3) the Qi Xi Festival (七夕节, qīxì jié) celebrated on 7 July on the lunar calendar (which occurs usually in August) and based on the romantic tale of two lovers who can meet but once a year, (4) the Lantern Festival (元宵节, yuánxiāo jié) held on the 15^th day in the lunar calendar; it has ancient origins from the days when this was one of the few occasions young women left the home, going out to light a lantern which signified they were single and willing to meet a partner and (5) Single’s Day (双十一, shuāng shíyī) on 11 November, a recent invention said originally to have been a kind of dating society created by students at Nanjing university but which was quickly co-opted by rapacious Chinese commerce; even in the PRC it was criticized for blatant consumerism (it’s by value now one of the world’s biggest on-line shopping days although analysts are cautioning the downturn in the economy and rising youth unemployment may affect sales in 2024).  Still, even with all those options, with the recent awareness of the demographic problem created by all those “leftover women” choosing to remain single and not have babies, the CCP may decide to encourage Valentine's day.  Even those who marry often can't be induced to have more than one child so the most obvious catchment for increased procreation are the young singles: Valentine's Day target market.  The CCP is better at social engineering than many Western governments and may be tempted to make Valentine's Day compulsory, penalties imposed on eligible bachelors and spinsters "at risk" (the historic term for women deemed capable of falling pregnant) found to have neither sent nor received a box of chocolates.

Irrefragable

Irrefragable (pronounced ih-ref-ruh-guh-buhl)

(1) Not to be disputed or contested (as assertion).

(2) Not able to be denied or refuted; indisputable (as fact).

(3) That which cannot or should not be broken; indestructible (archaic and probably extinct).

(4) Of a person, someone obstinate; stubborn (obsolete except as a literary device).

1525–1535: A learned borrowing from Late Latin irrefrāgābilis (irrefragable) with the English suffix –able appended.  The suffix -able was from the Middle English -able, from the Old French -able, from the Latin -ābilis (capable or worthy of being acted upon), from the primitive Indo-European i-stem forms -dahli- or -dahlom (instrumental suffix); it was used to create adjectives with the sense of “able or fit to be done”.  The construct of irrefrāgābilis was the Latin ir- (a variant of in- (used a prefix meaning “not”)) + refragā(rī) (the present active infinitive of refrāgor (to oppose, resist; to gainsay, thwart)) + -bilis (the suffix used to form adjectives indicating a capacity or worth of being acted upon).  Because of the paucity of documentary evidence, the ultimate source of the Latin refrāgor remains uncertain, but the construct may have been re- (the prefix used in the sense of “again”) + fragor (a breaking, shattering; a crash; din, uproar (from frangō (to break, shatter), ultimately from the primitive Indo-European bhreg- (to break)), formed as an antonym of suffrāgōr, the first-person singular present passive indicative of suffrāgō (to support; to vote for).  The sixteenth century French form was irréfragable, also from the Late Latin.  The meanings related to “indestructible objects” fell from use as early as the mid-seventeenth century while the figurative sense of “someone stubborn or obstinate” endured into the twentieth and, as a literary device, probably still tempts some and for those so tempted, the better style guides help by telling us to stress the second syllable.  The spelling irrefragible is obsolete.  Irrefragable is an adjective, irrefragability & irrefragableness are nouns and irrefragably is an adverb; the noun plural is irrefragabilies.

In English, irrefragable didn’t survive in common use for no better reason than people for whatever reason preferred the alternatives (literal & figurative) including (depending on the context): undeniable, indubitable, unassailable, indisputable, unambiguous, unquestionable, irrefutable, incontestable, immutable and unanswerable.  All those synonyms convey much the same thing for most so usually, the only thing the use of “irrefragable” is likely to engender is bafflement; few people will know what it means.  That can be fun between consenting word-nerds but it otherwise tends just to annoy.  There are structuralists who claim “irrefragable” is (or at least can be) different form a word like “unquestionable” because the former should specifically be associated with logical or argumentative strength while the later can be used in any context without necessarily emphasizing the same rigorous logical support.  So, because the underpinning of the scientific method is the disproving stuff, to say a scientific theory is irrefragable does not mean it cannot be argued against or disproven or that it’s beyond doubt or uncertainty; it means only that it cannot be refuted based on the current evidence.  By contrast, in some schools of theology, many things are unquestionable, not because they can be proved or disproven but because they must be accepted as matters of faith.  In the Roman Catholic Church, this is formalized: If a pope (invoking his infallibility in matters of dogma), declares something to be thus, it is, as a matter of canon law, both irrefragable & unquestionable.  The ancient idea of papal infallibility has been invoked only once since it was codified in the proceedings of the First Vatican Council (Vatican I 1869-1870) 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 phenononom "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) during the late twentieth century.

Defragable: Defragmentation in action under MS-DOS 6.22.  On a nearly full big drive (say 320 MB) on which defragmentation had been neglected for a while, the process could take literally hours.  True obsessives would add the relevant command to their autoexec.bat to start every day with a defrag, the sequence being: (1) switch on, (2) go and get coffee and (3) hope it was done upon return.

Before installable file systems (IFS) began to gain critical mass in the 1990s, disk defragmenters were something of a fetish among nerds because, at the software level, there were few quicker (a relative term) and cheaper ways to make things run faster.  Fragment was from the late Middle English fragment, from the Latin fragmentum (a fragment, a remnant), the construct being frangō (I break) +‎ -mentum, from the suffix -menta (familiar in collective nouns like armenta (herd, flock)), from the primitive Indo-European -mn̥the.  The tendency of the early file systems to increasing sluggishness was because the File Allocation Table (FAT) was an up-scaled variant of that used on floppy diskettes where the cluster sizes (the segments into which the media was divided) were small and thus less prone to fragmentation.  However, because of the arcane math which dictated how many clusters there could be under the various implementations of FAT, the only way to accommodate the increasing size of hard disk drives (HDD) was to make the clusters larger, the consequence of which was a file of 1 KB or less absorbed all of a 32 KB cluster, something both an inefficient use of space and inherently prone to fragmentation.  What defragmenters did was re-allocate files to make data both as contiguous and un-fragmented as possible.  Modern file systems (HPFS, NTFS et al) still have limits but the numbers are very big and contemporary operating systems now handle defragmentation dynamically.  Although it remains a useful system on USB pen drives and such because of the wide system compatibility and ease of use, it’s doubtful even the more nostalgic nerds have fond memories of FAT on HDDs; a corrupted FAT could be a nightmare.

Mule

Mule (pronounced myule)

(1) The sterile offspring of a female horse and a male donkey; a generalised term for any hybrid between the donkey and the horse.

(2) In informal use, a very stubborn person.

(3) In botany, any sterile hybrid.

(4) As drug mule, slang for a person paid to carry or transport contraband, especially drugs, for a smuggler.

(5) A small locomotive used for pulling rail cars, as in a coal yard or on an industrial site, or for towing, as of ships through canal locks.

(6) As spinning mule, a machine for spinning cotton or other fibers into yarn and winding the yarn on spindles.

(7) A style of open-backed women’s shoe, historically a lounging slipper that covers the toes and instep or only the instep.

(8) In nautical use, a large triangular staysail set between two masts and having its clew set well aft.

(9) In numismatics, a hybrid coin having the obverse of one issue and the reverse of the succeeding issue, or vice versa.

(10) A cocktail in various flavors (Jamaican Mule, Kentucky Mule & Moscow Mule) based respectively on Rum, Bourbon whiskey and Vodka

(11) As mule-deer, a species native to the western United States and so-named because of its large ears.

Pre 1000: From the Middle English mule, from the Anglo-Norman mule and the Old English mūl, both from the Latin mūlus, from the primitive Indo-European mukslós.   Related were the Middle Dutch mūle, the Old French mul (mule, hinny), the Late Latin muscellus (young he-mule), the Old East Slavic мъшкъ (mŭškŭ) (mule), the Phocian Ancient Greek  μυχλός (mukhlós) (he-ass) and the German Maul, Maultier & Maulesel, again derived from Latin.  It’s thought the Latin word was influenced by the Proto-Italic musklo- which is probably (along with the Ancient Greek myklos (pack-mule) and the Albanian mushk (mule)) a loan-word from one of the languages of Asia Minor.  The noun muleteer (mule driver) dates from the 1530s and was from the French muletier, from mulet (mule), a diminutive formation which in French displaced the Old French mul as the word for "mule".  The adjective mulish (possessing the characteristics imputed to the mule) is used of people thought obstinate rather than hard working; the word was in use by 1751 and the  alternative is mulelike (or mule-like), mulesque apparently either never created or not catching on. Mule is a noun & verb, mulishness & muleteer are nouns, mulishly is an adverb and mulish & mulelike are adjectives; the noun plural is mules. 

The mule became a popular pack animal because it was aid to "combine the strength of the horse with the endurance and surefootedness of the ass" and for centuries mules extensively have been bred to select for one characteristic or the other, those working mountainous trails a different beast from those on the plains.  To be zoologically correct, a mule is properly the offspring of a he-ass and a mare; that of a she-ass and a stallion is technically a hinny while a mule born of a horse and a she-ass is a burdon, a late fourteenth century creation based on the Latin burdonem.  Ordinarily, male mules incapable of procreation and commonly the word is applied allusively of hybrids and things of mixed nature.  The phrase "test mule" entered engineering (and later product development generally) in the 1920s to describe devices built for purposes of evaluation and thus expendable, a fate suffered no doubt by many an unfortunate. 

The mule's well-deserved reputation as a stellar beast of burden appears in the odd idiomatic form but it's the other traits which accounts for most popular use and perhaps surprisingly, given "stubborn as a mule" now appears in much greater frequency than "dumb as a mule" .  The meaning “stupid person” was noted by the 1470s, that of someone "obstinate or stubborn” not emerging until the eighteenth century although the latter use has endured and "working like a mule" proved an acceptable replacement when "working like an N-word" became proscribed.  There must have been some grounds for the beast picking up its reputation for obstinacy but there seems no evidence of the origin of that but it must sufficiently have been recognized to gain currency and become a proverbial descriptor of stubbornness.  A soul with such a tendency said to be "mulish"; within the family, Winston Churchill's (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) daughter Sarah (1914-1982) was nicknamed “the mule” (the English upper classes do like nick-names).  It seems likely the phrase "kick like a mule" was born of bitter experience although modern use is almost exclusively figurative, stronger forms of alcoholic drink commonly attracting the label.  It was formalized as the "Moscow Mule" (a cocktail made with vodka, ginger beer, and lime juice) although in the Western intelligence community that term was used also of traitors in the pay of the Soviet Union.  That use was probably modelled on "drug mule", underworld slang for "a smuggler of narcotics" which was noted as early as 1935 and came into general use in the post-war years.  The mule-deer of the western United States picked up the name because of its strikingly large ears.  

The so-named spinning machine dates from 1793 (first known as the "mule jenny" in 1788), the name derived from it being a "hybrid" of Richard Arkwright's (1732–1792) drawing-rollers and the spinning jenny invented by the English carpenter James Hargreaves (circa 1720–1778).  In what seems to have been an imaginative flight of etymological fancy, it was in the eighteenth century suggested the name "mule" was applied because the thing without complaint did so much of the labor which would otherwise have to be undertaken by human hand but there seems no doubt the inspiration was the machine's hybrid origin.  The use to describe the loose slipper worn as footwear was drawn into English in the 1560s from the Old French mule (slipper) from the Latin mulleus calceus (literally “red high-soled shoe”), a shoe worn by Roman patricians and associated with magistrates.  This footwear is unrelated to the long tradition of the Roman Catholic Pope wearing red shoes, the association tracing back to the notion of the blood of Christ falling on his feet as he carried on his back the cross on which he was crucified on Golgotha.  They were made again famous by fashion icon Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) although his successor, Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013), favours plain black.

The mule the clog and the slide

Lindsay Lohan in Alexander Wang Amelia mules, Mykonos, June 2019.  Note the low heel, an example of how the term “mule" is used now by manufacturers to describe just about anything with some degree of openness in the heel.

Mules, by definition are backless but may be sling-backs and can have open or closed toes.  There are many who would classify these as sandals and some manufacturers agree.  In this context "mule" was from the Ancient Roman mulleus calceus a red (or reddish-purple) shoe popular with upper-class Romans and worn as a symbol of office by the three highest magistrates although the scant historical evidence does suggest the Roman footwear looked more like modern clogs than mules and logically, one would expect footwear with thicker, tougher soles would at the time have been preferred for use outdoors.  High-heeled mules became a popular indoor style during the 1700s, influenced by the pattern, a backless overshoe of the sixteenth century, although, by early in the twentieth, mules were often derided as the "dress-wear" of the "better class of prostitutes" and it wasn’t until Marilyn Monroe (1926–1962) adopted the mule in the 1950s they again assumed some respectability.  By the 1990s, mules were among the most popular of shoes.

Chanel Mesh & Grosgrain Mule in black with 3.3 inch (85mm) heel @ US$800, Chanel part-number: G37505 Y55290 94305.

The descriptors mules, clogs and slides are sometimes used interchangeably.  The typical clog is a closed-toed wooden (or other) soled shoe with a heel no more than a couple of inches high.  Clogs are backless (although there are clog boots).  Mules, by comparison, traditionally had a higher heel although the strictness applied to that definition has weakened the emphasis seemingly now on the backlessness although there standards too are loose, slingback mules common.  The term slide derives from being applied to designs permitting the foot to slide in and may thus apply to both mules and clogs rather than being a distinct style.

Adiaphoron

Adiaphoron (pronounced add-e-ah-for-on or eh-dee-ah-for-on)

(1) A matter of indifference.

(2) In philosophy, a matter held to be morally neutral.

(3) In Christian theology, something neither forbidden nor commanded by scripture and thus neither prescribed nor proscribed in church law.

(4) In Christian theology, the position that adherence to certain religious doctrines, rituals or ceremonies (even if non-standard) are not matters of concerned and may be practices or not, according to local preference.

1630s: From the Latin adjective adiaphoron, an inflection of adiaphoros (indifferent, non-essential, morally neither right nor wrong), neuter of Ancient Greek ἀδιάφορος (adiáphoros) (not different; indifferent), the construct being from a- (used in the sense of “not”) + diaphoros (different).  The Greek ἀδιάφορον (not different or differentiable) was thus the negation of διαφορά (diaphora) (difference).  The noun adiaphoria (a failure to respond to stimulation after a series of previously applied stimuli) is unrelated in meaning, the construct being a- (not) +‎ dia- (through) +‎ -phor (bearer) +‎ -ia (the suffix used to form abstract nouns).  Adiaphoron is a noun & adjective, adiaphorist & adiaphorism are nouns, adiaphorous, adiaphoristic & adiaphoric are adjectives; the noun plural is adiaphora.

In the philosophy of the Ancient Greeks, adiaphorism was an aspect in more than one school of thought.  To the Cynics it was used in the sense of “indifference” to both unfortunate events and the “stuff” which, then as now, functioned as the markers of success in society: power, fame & money.  The ancestor of the anti-materialists of the modern age, Cynicism understandably had more admirers than adherents.  The Stoics were more deterministic, dividing all the concerns of humanity into (1) good, (2) bad and (3) indifferent (adiaphora).  What they listed as good & bad was both predictable and (mostly) uncontroversial, something like a form of utilitarianism but without that creed’s essential component of distributive justice.  The implication, which retains much appeal to modern libertarians, was that for anything to be thought a matter of ethical concern, it needed to be defined as “good” or “bad”, the adiaphora being outside the scope of morality.  Acknowledged or not, this is what all but the most despotic legal and social systems can be reduced to although, being culturally and historically specific, the results can vary greatly.  In Athenian thought, the word also had a technical meaning wholly removed from morality.  To the Pyrrhonists (the most uncompromising of the philosophical sceptics) who essentially discarded all forms of imposed values in favor of defining everything by objective truth alone, the significance of the adiaphora was that these were things which, as a technical point, could not logically be differentiated.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

In Christianity, the adiaphora are those matters which, while they might be a significant or traditional part of worship either universally or sectionally, are not regarded as essential components of belief but may be practiced where the preference exists.  Within the schismatic world of Christianity, views differ and what is essential doctrinal orthodoxy in some denominations can be mere adiaphora in others.  Historically, the matter of what is and is not adiaphoric has been a matter of dispute and was a significant factor in the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation, a movement much concerned with the appropriateness of non-biblical ritual, rites, decorations and “…the other detritus of Popery”.  It took some time to work out but what emerged was a political compromise which defined adiaphora essentially as those traditions “neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God”, thus permitting the ongoing observation of the “bells & whistles” of worship which had evolved over centuries and despite the entreaties of the iconoclasts, continued to be clung to by congregations.  The lesson of this compromise to accommodate “harmless regionalisms” was well learned by some later leaders, religious and secular.

Between the Christian denominations, the same thing can variously be dogma, heresy or mere adiaphora and an illustrative example of disagreement lies in the cult of Mary (Mariology to the theologians).  In the Roman Catholic Church, the cult of Mary is based on dogma worked out over centuries: (1) that Mary was a pure virgin, before, during and after giving birth to Christ, (2) that Mary was the “Mother of God”, (3) that Mary, at her conception was preserved immaculate from Original Sin and (4) that at the conclusion of her earthly existence, Mary was assumed, body and soul into heaven (it has never been made explicit whether Mary died on earth although this does seem long to have been theological orthodoxy, the essential point being the physical assumption (from the Latin assūmptiō (taking up)) meant her body did not remain to be corrupted).

In the intricate interplay of theology and church politics, what really appealed to nineteenth century popes was linked to Gnosticism, the notion of “the dual realms of darkness and light beyond the mere veil of appearances, where reside the Godhead, the Virgin Mary, Michael, and all the angels and the saints, opposed by the powers of the Prince of Darkness and his fallen angels who wander through the world for the ruin of souls” as Leo XIII (1810–1903; pope 1878-1903) wrote in a prayer to be recited at the end of every Mass.  In other words, whatever happens depends on Mary’s intercession with her Christ child “to so curb the power of Satan that war and discord will be vanquished.”  In turn, this depends on Marian revelations sanctioned as authentic by the pope, whose power is thus parallel to Mary’s.  It's something which has been criticized as "opportunistic constructed symbiosis".

Assumption of the Virgin Mary (circa 1637) by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640), Liechtenstein Museum, Vienna.

Modern popes, if they hold such a view, no longer dwell on it but it remains church dogma and because it was in the 1950s proclaimed with the only (formal) invocation of papal infallibility since the First Vatican Council (Vatican I; 1869-1870), any change would be something extraordinary.  In some other denominations Mary is more a historical figure than a cult and in the Anglican Church the doctrine of the Assumption ceased to be part of orthodoxy in the sixteenth century; while the Protestant Reformation wasn’t a project of rationalism, it was certainly about simplicity and a rejection of some of the mysticism upon which whole the clerical class depended for their authority.  Despite that, in Anglicanism, the Assumption of Mary seems never to have been proscribed and in the twentieth century it re-appeared in the traditions of the so-called “Anglo-Catholics” who adore the "Romish ways".  For most of the Anglican communion however, it seems to be thought of as adiaphora, one of those details of religious life important to some but which seems neither to add much or threaten anything.

Nuncio

Nuncio (pronounced nuhn-shee-oh, nuhn-see-oh or noo-see-oh)

(1) In the Roman Catholic Church, the ecclesiastic title of a permanent diplomatic representative of the Holy See to a foreign court, capital or international organization, ranking above an internuncio and accorded a rank equivalent to an accredited ambassador.

(2) By extension, one who bears a message; a messenger.

(3) Any member of any Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Galicia (of the Austrian Partition), Duchy of Warsaw, Congress Poland, or Grand Duchy of Posen (historic reference only).

1520–1530: From the older Italian nuncio (now nunzio) from the Classical Latin nūncius & nūntius (messenger) of uncertain origin.  It may be from the primitive Indo-European root neu- (to shout) or new (to nod), same source as the Latin nuō, the Ancient Greek νεύω (neúō) (to beckon, nod) and the Old Irish noid (make known).  The alternative view is it was contracted from noventius, from an obsolete noveō, from novus.  Nuncio, nunciature & nuncioship are nouns and nunciotist is an adjective; the noun plural is nuncios but according to the text trawlers, the more frequently used plural is nunciature ((1)the status or rank of a nuncio, (2) the building & staff of a nuncio and (3) the term of service of a nuncio) which seems strange and may reflect the selection of documents scanned. Nunciatory & nunciate are unrelated (directly) and are form of the Latin Latin nuncius & nuntius (messenger, message).

In diplomatic service

An apostolic nuncio (also known as a papal nuncio or nuncio) is an ecclesiastical diplomat, serving as envoy or permanent diplomatic representative of the Holy See to a state or international organization and is head of the Apostolic Nunciature, the equivalent of an embassy or high-commission.  The Holy See is legally distinct from the Vatican City, an important theological distinction for the Vatican although one without practical significance for the states to which they’re accredited.  Most nuncios have been bishops or Archbishops and, by convention, in historically Catholic countries, the nuncio usually enjoys seniority in precedence, appointed ex officio as dean of the diplomatic corps.  Between 1965 and 1991, the term pro-nuncio was applied to a representative of full ambassadorial rank accredited to a country that did not accord precedence and de jure deanship of the diplomatic corps and in countries with which Holy See does not have diplomatic ties, an apostolic delegate may be sent to act as liaison with the local church.  Apostolic delegates have the same ecclesiastical rank as nuncios, but no diplomatic status except those which the country may choose to extend.

Der Apostolische Nuntius (Apostolic Nuncios) to Germany leaving the presidential palace  of Generalfeldmarshall Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934), Reichspräsident (1925-1934) of the Weimar Republic 1918-1933): Archbishop Eugenio Pacelli (1876–1958, later Pope Pius XII 1939-1958), October 1927 (left) and Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo (1873–1946), May 1930 (right).

The above photograph of Archbishop Pacelli was central to what proved a fleeting literary scandal.  In 1999, journalist John Cornwell (b 1940) published Hitler's Pope, a study of the actions of Pacelli from the decades before the coming to power of the Nazis in 1933 until the end of the Third Reich in 1945.  As a coda, the final years of the pontificate of Pius XII (1939-1958) were also examined.  Cornwell’s thesis was that in his pursuit of establishing a centralized power structure with which the rule of the Holy See could be enforced over the entire church around the world, Pacelli so enfeebled the Roman Catholic Church in Germany that the last significant opposition to absolute Nazi rule was destroyed, leaving Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) able to pursue his goals which include military conquest and ultimately, what proved to be the attempted genocide of the Jews of Europe.  For a historian that would be an indictment damning enough but Cornwell went further, citing documentary sources which he claimed established Pacelli’s anti-Semitism.  More controversially still, the author was critical of Pius' conduct during the war, arguing that he did little to protect the Jews and did not even loudly protest against the Holocaust.  

Critical response to Hitler’s Pope was, as one might imagine, varied and understandably did focus on the most incendiary of the claims: the lifetime of anti-Semitism and the almost lineal path the book tracked from Pacelli’s diplomacy (which few deny did smooth Hitler’s path to power) to Auschwitz.  The consensus of professional historians was that case really wasn’t made and by 1933 Pacelli’s view of Hitler as (1) a staunch anti-communist and (2) likely to provide German with the sort of rule Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943) had delivered in Italy, then the only model of a fascist regime and one with which the Holy See had successfully negotiated a concordat (a convention or treaty) which resolved issues which between the papacy and the Italian state had festered since 1870.  Pacelli was hardly the only notable figure to misjudge Hitler and few in 1933 anticipated anything like the events which would unfold in Europe over the next dozen years.  The critics however were legion and in the years after publication Cornwell did concede that in the particular circumstances of wartime Italy the “scope” for a pope to act was limited and he needed carefully to consider what might be the repercussions for others were his words to be careless; he was at the time playing for high stakes.  Cornwell though did not retreat from his criticism of the pope’s post-war reticence to discuss the era and appeared still to regard the documents he’d quoted and the events he described as evidence of anti-Semitism.

An example of how the book enraged Pius XII’s Praetorian Guard was the brief controversy about the cover, the allegation being there had been a “constructive manipulation” of the image used on the hardback copies of the US edition, the argument being the juxtaposition of the title “Hitler’s Pope” with the photograph of him leaving the presidential palace in Berlin implied the image dated from March 1939, the month Pacelli was elected Pope.  To add to the deception, it was noted the photograph (actually from 1927) had been cropped to remove (1) one soldier of the guard obviously not in a Nazi-era uniform and (2) the details identifying an automobile as obviously from the 1920s.  Whether any reader deduced from the cropped image that the pope and Führer (the two never met) had just been scheming and plotting together isn’t known but the correct details of the photograph were printed on back flap of the jacket, as in common in publishing.

Pius XII giving a blessing, the Vatican, 1952.  The outstretched arms became his signature gesture after his visit to South America in 1934.  Pius XI (1857–1939; pope 1922-1939), even them grooming his successor, appointed him papal legate to the International Eucharistic Congress in Buenos Aires and his itinerary included Rio de Janeiro where he saw the Redēmptōre statue (Christ the Redeemer) which had been dedicated three years earlier.    

That storm in a tea cup quickly subsided and people were left to draw their own conclusions on substantive matters but it was unfortunate the sensational stuff drew attention from was a genuinely interesting aspect explored in the book: Pacelli’s critical role in the (re-)creation of the papacy and the Roman Curia as a centralized institution with absolute authority over the whole Church.  This was something which had been evolving since Pius IX (1792–1878; pope 1846-1878) convened the First Vatican Council (Vatican I; 1869-1870) and under subsequent pontificates the process had continued but it was the publication of Pacelli’s codification of canon law in 1917 which made this administratively (and legally) possible.  Of course, any pope could at any time have ordered a codification but it was only in the late nineteenth century that modern communications made it possible for instructions issued from the Vatican to arrive within days, hours or even minutes, just about anywhere on the planet.  Previously, when a letter could take months to be delivered, a central authority simply would not function effectively.  It was the 1917 codification of canon law which realised the implications of the hierarchical theocracy which the Roman church had often appeared to be but never quite was because until the twentieth century such things were not possible and (as amended), it remains the document to which the curia cling in their battles.  Although, conscious of the mystique of their two-thousand year history, the Holy See likes people to imagine things about which they care have been unchanged for centuries, it has for example been only sine the codification that the appointment of bishops is vested exclusively in the pope, that battle with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) still in an uneasy state of truce.