Meddle

Meddle (pronounced med-l)

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

(2) To intervene, intrude or pry.

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

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

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

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

The word began in the sense of “to mix” and was used by many in professions which dealt with the mixing of stuff (apothecaries, bakers, chefs etc) and for the late fourteenth century came to be used to mean "to busy oneself, be concerned with, engage in" which soon gained the disparaging sense of "interfere or take part in inappropriately or impertinently, be officious, make a nuisance of oneself", which was the idea of meddling too much, the surviving sense of the word.  Similarly, the noun meddler (agent noun from the verb meddle), evolved over the same time from a "practitioner" to "one who interferes with things in which they have no personal or proper concern; a nuisance".  The mid-fourteenth century noun meddling (action of blending) was a verbal noun from the verb meddle which evolved with the newer meaning "act or habit of interfering in matters not of one's proper concern"; it has been used as a present-participle adjective since the 1520s, most famously as “meddling priest”, a phrase which described the habit of Roman Catholic clergy to assume the right to intrude uninvited into affairs of state or the lives of individuals.  There appears to be no record of meddle being applied as a collective noun but “meddle of priests” is tempting (though suggestions for a clerical collective are many).  Meddle & meddled meddling are verbs, meddling is a verb & adjective, meddler is a noun and meddlingly an adverb.  Words which can to some degree be synonymous with meddle include to some degree includes hinder, impede, impose, infringe, intrude, tamper, advance, encroach, encumber, inquire, interlope, interpose, invade, kibitz, molest, obtrude, pry, snoop & trespass.  The derived forms include meddlement & meddlesome.

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

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

Chaos theory explores the idea that something apparently insignificant can trigger a chain reaction of events which conclude with something momentous.  The theory can be mapped onto any sequence of events, the interest being in tracking lineal paths in behavioral patterns which might appear random.  The sequence which lay between Henry’s words and the decapitation of the saintly archbishop was, by the standards of some of what’s been explored by chaos theory, simple and to some degree perhaps predictable but there was nothing wholly deterministic.  Some nefarious activity is wrongly attributed to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) but it seems that genuinely they did coin the phrase plausible deniability.  It emerged in the post Dulles (Allen Dulles, 1893–1969; US Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) 1953-1961) aftermath to the Bay of Pigs fiasco and was a collection of informal protocols whereby senior government officials (particularly the president) were “protected” from responsibility by not being informed of certain things (or at least there being no discoverable record (a la the smoking gun principle)) which could prove transmission of the information.  Henry II’s "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" is a variation in that it once deconstructed, it can be interpreted as a wish the archbishop should in some way be “disappeared” yet is sufficiently vague that a denial that that was the intention is plausible.

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

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

Tamper

Tamper (pronounced tam-per)

(1) To meddle, especially for the purpose of altering, damaging, or misusing (usually followed by with).

(2) To make changes in something, especially in order to falsify (usually followed by with).

(3) Secretly or improperly to engage in something; to engage in underhand or corrupt dealings, especially in order to influence improperly (usually followed by with); to use corrupt practices such as bribery or blackmail.

(4) In the profession of blasting, an employee who tamps (to fill a hole containing an explosive with dirt or clay before blasting) or a device used to tamp.

(5) As “jury tampering”, an attempt by various means to influence a member or members of a jury.

(6) A device used to pack down tobacco in a pipe.

(7) In the construction of thermo-nuclear weapons, a casing around the core to increase specific efficiency by reflecting neutrons and delaying the expansion.

(8) In rail transport, a railway vehicle used to tamp down ballast.

(9) In law, to attempt to practice or administer something (especially medicine) without sufficient knowledge or qualifications (obsolete).

(10) In North America, to discuss future contracts with a player, against the rules of various sanctioning bodies in professional sports.

1560–1570: From the Middle English tamper, From the Middle French temprer (to temper, mix, meddle) and a doublet of temper.  The word began in Middle English as a verb, a figurative use of tamper “to work in clay etc, mixing it thoroughly”, probably originally a variant of the verb temper (and that original spelling persisted in places as late as the late eighteenth century), the shift to “tamper” possibly influenced by the dialectal pronunciation of workmen engaged in the process.  The noun tamper (one employed to tamp) emerged circa 1865 as an agent noun from the verb and almost simultaneously was used also as a descriptor of devices used for tamping.  The adjective tamperproof (also tamper-proof) dates from 1886 and the related forms (anti-tampering, tamper-evident, tamper-resistant) were coined as technology evolved.  Tamper & tampering are nouns & verbs, tamperer is a noun, tamperproof is a noun & adjective and tampered & tamperest are verbs; the common noun plural is tamperers.

The (almost) tamper-proof SCRAM

Alcohol monitoring bracelets are claimed by the manufacturer to be tamper-proof (as opposed to the less confident “tamper-resistant” sometimes used) and on the basis of the findings of the last decade-odd they may be close to correct.  The devices used to be marketed as the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) but SCRAM Systems re-branded as Alcohol Monitoring Systems Inc (AMS) and change the product name to AMS bracelets although in real-world use, both AMS SCRAM bracelets and the old SCRAM remain commonly heard.  Quite why they’ve always been called bracelets when, being attached around the ankle, they should properly be called anklets, is one of the mysteries of modern English.  One reason a SCRAM is so hard successfully to tamper with is its very simplicity: It keeps track of the wearer's alcohol intake by a sample of their sweat.  When someone drinks liquor, some 1% of it is emitted through the skin's pores and when these molecules are detected by a SCRAM’s sensors, the content is measured and recorded.  The sensors pass the data to an analysis chip which is calibrated to gauge exactly how much alcohol was consumed, this information transmitted wirelessly to an AMS server which hourly passes the findings to whichever court (or their agent) ordered the fitting of the SCRAM.

Lindsay Lohan in AMS SCRAM bracelet.

The simplicity of the process means that even if the wearer tampers with it by plunging their foot into cold water (thereby stopping the sweating), even that would flag a waring because the reading would be recorded as aberrant in the hourly data transmission and the inconsistency would trigger a response from the court.  Apparently, offenders are informed of the efficiency of the device when fitted but the manufacturer has noted some innovative attempts to bluff the booze box.  Some have tried to place cellophane, aluminium foil, animal membrane or condoms between skin sensor, others attempting to emulate human skin by using baloney, salami, sliced ham or even chicken skin.  All attempts have been defeated however because SCRAMs include other sensors including one which monitors temperature and another which triggers an alarm if the strap is stretched beyond a certain point.  Human skin has specific properties and if variations on an acceptable range of those parameters are detected, there’s an infrared beam which measures the volume of light reflected by the skin.  Cellophane, foil and other surfaces all trip the infrared alarm as they reflect differently than human skin.

Another popular attempt at tampering turned out to be known as “spiking the bracelet”, the preferred technique being liberally to spray the ankle with a perfume or other topical substance known to have a high alcohol content.  What this does is induce the sensor to report an impossibly high alcohol level and although it certainly masks any actual alcoholic intake, such tampering is itself a violation of the terms imposed by the court and an offender can be brought before a judge who may revoke the order imposing the use of the SCRAM (regarded as a privilege) and impose an immediate custodial sentence.