President

President (pronounced prez-i-duhnt or preza-dint (plus many regional variations)

(1) The title of the highest executive officer of most modern republics.

(2) An official appointed or elected to preside over an organized body of persons.

(3) The chief executive (and sometimes operating) officer of a college, university, society, corporation etc.  Many corporate presidents function as something like a “char(man) of the board” rather than a CEO or COO.

(4) A person who presides.

(5) An alternative form of “precedent” (long obsolete).

1325–1375: From the Middle English, from the Old French president, from Late Latin praesidēns (presiding over; president of; leader) (accusative praesidentem) from the Classical Latin praesident (stem of praesidēns), the noun use of the present participle of praesidēre (to preside over, sit in front of).  The Latin word was the substantivized present active participle of the verb praesideō (preside over) while the construct of the verb was prae (before) + sedeō (sit).  The verb’s original sense was “to sit before” (ie presiding at a meeting) from which was derived the generalized secondary meaning “to command, to govern”, praesidēns thus meaning variously “the one who presides at a meeting”, “governor or a region”, “commander of a force” etc.  In English the construct is thus understood as preside + -ent.  Preside was from the Old French presider, from Latin praesidēre, the construct being pre- (before) + sedere (to sit).  It displaced the Old English foresittan which may have been a calque of the Latin.  The –ent suffix was from the Middle English –ent (which existed, inter alia, also as –ant & -aunt.  It was from the Old French -ent and its source, the Latin -ēns (the accusative singular was -entem), suffix of present participles of verbs in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th conjugations.  The word is used with an upper case if applied honorifically (President of Italy; President Nixon etc) but not otherwise but this is of the more widely ignored rules in English.  Modifiers (minister-president, municipal president, president-elect et al) are created as required.  The spelling præsident is archaic.  President & presidency are nouns, verb & adjective, presidentship & presidenthood are nouns, presidenting & presidented are verbs, presidential is an adjective and presiˈdentially is an adverb; the noun plural is presidents.  The feminine form presidentess dates from at least 1763 and is probably obsolete unless used in humor but that may risk one’s cancellation.

US politics in the last decade has had moments of strangeness so some things which once seemed unthinkable are now merely improbable.

In the US, “president” was used in the original documents of the constitution (1787), picking up the earlier colonial use as “officer in charge of the Continental Congress” and it had also been used in several of the colonies and that in the sense of “chosen head of a meeting or group of persons”.  During and immediately after the Revolution, the tile was adopted by the chief magistrates of several states but before long all instead settled on “governor”, emulating the colonial designation.  In the US, the most common slang shortening of president is “pres”, dating from 1892 although dictionaries note the earlier existence of “prex” which was student slang for the president of a university or college.  First recorded in 1828, as a Latin verb, it meant “a request, entreaty”.  The handy initialization POTUS (President of the United States) dates from 1879 when it was created as part of the “Phillips Code” a system devised by US journalist, telegrapher & inventor Walter Polk Phillips (1846–1920) to speed up the transmission of messages across wire services and reduce their cost (the services charging per letter).  Among those in the code was SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) and later (long after the original rationale had been overtaken by technology) journalists and others started using VPOTUS (Vice-President of the United States), FLOTUS (First Lady of the United States) and NPOTUS (next President of the United States) the latter once applied to both Al Gore (b 1948; VPOTUS 1993-2001 & in 2000 the NPOTUS)) and crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013 & in 2016 the NPOTUS).  Word nerds, pondering nomination of the latest NPOTUS (Kamala Harris (b 1964; VPOTUS since 2021) as the likely Democrat nominee are wondering what will emerge to describe her husband should she become CMOTUS (Chief Magistrate of the United States), the options presumably FGOTUS (First Gentlemen of the United States) or FHOTUS (First Husband of the United States).  Presumably FMOTUS (First Man of the United States) won’t be used.

A full bucket of veep.

In the US during the nineteenth century there was a joke about two brothers: "One ran off to sea and the other became vice-president; neither were ever heard of again."  That was of course an exaggeration but it reflected the general view of the office which has very few formal duties and can only ever be as powerful or influential as a president allows although the incumbent is "a heartbeat from the presidency".  John Nance Garner III (1868–1967, vice president of the US 1933-1941), a reasonable judge of these things, once told Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969) being VPOTUS was "not worth a bucket of warm piss" (which is polite company usually is sanitized as "warm spit").  For US vice-presidents, the slang veep (based on the phonetic V-P (pronounced vee-pee) is more commonly used.  Veep dates from 1949 and may have been influenced by the Jeep, the four wheel drive (4WD) light utility vehicle which had become famous for its service in World War II (1939-1945) with a number of allied militaries (the name said to be derived from an early army prefix GP (general purpose light vehicle)).  It was introduced to US English by Alben Barkley (1877-1956; VPOTUS 1949-1953), reputedly because his young grandchildren found “vice-president” difficult to pronounce.  In the press, the form became more popular when the 71-year-old VPOTUS took a wife more than thirty years younger; journalists decided she should be the veepess (pronounced vee-pee-ess).  Time magazine entered into the spirit of things, declaring the president should be Peep, the Secretary of State Steep, and the Secretary of Labor Sleep.  In the US, a number of VPOTUSs have become POTUS and some have worked out well although of late the record has not been encouraging, the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; VPOTUS 1961-1963, POTUS 1963-1968), Richard Nixon (1913-1994; VPOTUS 1953-1961, POTUS 1969-1974) and Joe Biden (b 1942; VPOTUS 2008-2017, POTUS 2021-2025 (God willing)) 1963-1968 all ending badly, in despair, disgrace and decrepitude respectively.

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei (b 1939; supreme leader of of the Islamic Republic of Iran since 1989) hands Masoud Pezeshkian (b 1954, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran since 2024) the presidential seals of Office, Tehran, 28 July 2024.

Even in political science it’s not uncommon to see comparisons between “presidential system” and “parliamentary system” and while that verbal shorthand is well understood within the profession, it’s more accurate to speak of “presidential systems” because the constitutional arrangements vary so much.  Essentially, there are (1) “ceremonial presidencies” in which a president serves as head of state and may nominally be the head of the military but all executive functions are handled by a chancellor, premier or prime-minister (or equivalent office) and (2) “executive presidencies” where the roles of head of state & head of government are combined.  However, those structural models are theoretical and around the world there are many nuances, both on paper and in practice.  While there are many similarities and overlaps in presidential systems, probably relatively few are identical in the constitutional sense.  Sometimes too, the constitutional arrangements are less important than the practice.  In the old Soviet Union, the office of president was sometimes filled by a relatively minor figure, despite it being, on paper, a position of great authority, something replicated in the Islamic Republic of Iran where ultimate authority sits in the hand of the Supreme Leader (both of whom have been ayatollahs).  Many systems include something of a hybrid aspect.  In France, the president appoints a prime-minister and ministers who may come from the National Assembly (the legislature) but, upon appointment, they leave the chamber.  A US president appoints their cabinet from anywhere eligible candidates can be found but creates no prime-minister.  In the “ceremonial presidencies” there is also a spectrum of authority and the extent of that can be influenced more by the personality and ambition of a president than the defined powers.  One president of Ireland described the significance of the office as one of “moral authority” rather than legal power.

Some presidents who like being president.

(Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999).

Mr Putin was prime minister from 1999 to 2000, president from 2000 to 2008, and again prime minister from 2008 to 2012 before returning to the presidency.  The unusual career trajectory was a consequence of the Russian constitution forbidding the one person from serving as president for more than two consecutive terms.   Russia has an executive presidency, Mr Putin liked the job and his solution to (effectively) keeping it was to have Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev (b 1965; president of Russia 2008-2012 & prime minister of Russia 2012-2020) “warm the chair” while Mr Putin re-assumed the premiership.  Generously, one could style this arrangement a duumvirate but political scientists could, whatever the constitutional niceties, discern no apparent difference in the governance of Russia regardless of the plaque on Mr Putin’s door.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (b 1954; prime-minister or president of the Republic of Türkiye since 2003), pictured here meeting Lindsay Lohan, Presidential Palace, Ankara, Türkiye, 27 January 2017.  Palace sources say the president regards this meeting as the highlight of his time in office.

Mr Erdoğan has been president since 2014 having previously served as prime minister between 2003–2014.  As prime-minister under Turkey’s constitution with a non-executive president, he was head of government.  After becoming president, he expressed his disapproval for the system and his preference for Turkey’s adoption of an executive presidency.  On 15 July 2016, a coup d'état was staged by the military and, as coups d'état go (of which Türkiye has had a few), it was a placid and unambitious affair and the suspicion was expressed it was an event staged by the government itself although there’s little evidence to support this.  Mr Erdoğan blamed an exiled cleric, his former ally Fethullah Gülen (b 1941), for the coup attempt and promptly declared a state of emergency.  It was scheduled to last three months but the parliament extended its duration to cover a purge of critical journalists, political opponents, various malcontents and those in the military not overtly supportive of Türkiye.  In April 2017 Mr Erdoğan staged a national referendum (which the people duly approved), transforming the Republic of Türkiye into an executive presidency, the changes becoming effective after the presidential and parliamentary elections of June 2018.

Reichspräsident (Reich President) Paul von von Hindenburg (right) accepts the appointment of Adolf Hitler (left) as Reichskanzler (Reich Chancellor), Berlin, Germany, 21 March 1933 (Potsdam Day).  Standing behind Hitler is Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945).

Of course, if one has effectively “captured” the state, one can just decide to become president.  When in 1934 Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) was informed Generalfeldmarschall Paul von Hindenburg (1847–1934; Reichspräsident (1925-1934) of the German Weimar Republic 1918-1933) was dying, unilaterally he had replaced the constitutional procedures covering such an eventuality, the “Law Concerning the Head of State of the German Reich” (issued as a cabinet decree) stipulating that upon the president’s death the office of Reichspräsident would be abolished and its powers merged with those of the chancellor under the title of Führer und Reichskanzler (Leader and Chancellor of the Reich).  Thus, the leadership of the party, government and state (and thus the military) were merged and placed exclusively in Hitler’s hands, a situation which prevailed until his death when the office of Reichspräsident was re-created (by a legal device no more complex than a brief document Hitler called his “political testament”) as an entity separate from the chancellorship.  Interestingly though, in a manner typical of the way things were done in the Third Reich, although in 1934 there ceased to be a Reichspräsident, maintained as administrative structures were (1) the Chancellery, (2) the Presidential Chancellery and (3) what became ultimately the Party Chancellery.

Mercedes-Benz 600 Landaulets a 1966 short roof (left) and 1970 long roof ("presidential", right),  

Between 1963-1981, Mercedes-Benz built 2190 600s (W100), 428 of which were the long wheelbase (LWB) Pullman versions, 59 were configured as Landaulets with a folding roof over the passenger compartment.  Built in both six and four-door versions, the Landaulets were available with either a short or long fabric roof, the latter known informally as the "presidential" although the factory never used the designation.  Twelve of the presidentials were built, a brace of which were bought by Kim Il-sung (Kim I, 1912–1994; Great Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1948-1994) and subsequently inherited (along with the rest of North Korea) by Kim Jong-il (Kim II, 1941-2011; Dear Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1994-2011) and Kim Jong-un (Kim III, b 1982; Supreme Leader of DPRK (North Korea) since 2011).

The 1970 Landaulet pictured was purchased by the Romanian government and used by comrade president Nicolae Ceaușescu (1918–1989; general secretary of the Romanian Communist Party 1965-1989) until he and his wife were executed (by AK47) after a “people's tribunal” held a brief trial, the swiftness of which was aided by the court-appointed defense counsel who declared them both guilty of the genocide of which, among other crimes, they were charged.  Considering the fate of other fallen dictators, their end was less gruesome than might have been expected.  Comrade Josip Broz Tito (1892–1980; prime-minister or president of Yugoslavia 1944-1980) had a similar car (among other 600s) but he died undisturbed in his bed.  The blue SWB (short wheelbase) car to the rear is one of the few SWB models fitted with a divider between the front & rear compartments including hand-crafted timber writing tables and a refrigerated bar in the centre console.  It was delivered in 1977 to the Iranian diplomatic service and maintained for Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (1919–1980; the last Shah of Iran 1941-1979).

Crooked Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) chatting with crooked Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969).  His credibility destroyed by the Watergate scandal, Nixon is the only US president to resign from office.

The term Watergate has come to encompass an array of clandestine and often illegal activities undertaken by members of the Nixon administration but the name is derived from a break-in into Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) offices at the Watergate complex in Washington, DC on 17 June 1972.  A series of revelations made it clear the White House was involved in attempts cover up Nixon’s knowledge of this and other illegal activities.  He continued to insist he had no prior knowledge of the burglary, did not break any laws, and did not learn of the cover-up until early 1973.  Also revealed was the existence of previously secret audio tapes, recorded in the White House by Nixon himself.  The legal battle over the tapes continued through early 1974, and in April Nixon announced the release of 1,200 pages of transcripts of White House conversations between him and his aides. The House Judiciary Committee opened impeachment hearings and these culminated in votes for impeachment.  By July, the US Supreme Court had ruled unanimously that the full tapes, not just selected transcripts, must be released.  One of the tapes, recorded soon after the break-in, demonstrated that Nixon had been told of the White House connection to the Watergate burglaries soon after they took place, and had approved plans to thwart the investigation.   It became known as the "Smoking Gun Tape".  With the loss of political support and the near-certainty that he would be impeached and removed, was “tapped on the shoulder” by a group of Republicans from both houses of Congress, lead by crazy old Barry Goldwater (1909–1998).  Nixon resigned the presidency on 8 August 1974.

Mr Nixon assured the country he was "not a crook" although in that he was speaking of matters unrelated to the Watergate scandal.

One thing even his most committed enemies (and there were many) conceded of Nixon was his extraordinary tenacity and Nixon fought hard to remain president and the most dramatically Shakespearian act came in what came to be called the Saturday Night Massacre, the term coined to describe the events of 20 October 1973 when Nixon ordered the sacking of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox (1912-2004), then investigating the Watergate scandal.  In addition to Cox, that evening saw also the departure of Attorney General Elliot Richardson (1920-1999) and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus (1932-2019).  Richardson had appointed Cox in May, fulfilling an undertaking to the House Judiciary Committee that a special prosecutor would investigate the events surrounding the break-in of the DNC’s offices at the Watergate Hotel.  The appointment was made under the ex-officio authority of the attorney general who could remove the special prosecutor only for extraordinary and reprehensible conduct.  Cox soon issued a demand that Nixon hand over copies of taped conversations recorded in the Oval Office; the president refused to comply and by Friday, a stalemate existed between White House and Department of Justice and all Washington assumed there would be a break in the legal maneuvering while the town closed-down for the weekend.

Before the massacre.  Attorney-General Elliot Richardson, President Richard Nixon and FBI Director-Designate Clarence Kelly (1911-1997), The White House, 1973.

However, on Saturday, Nixon ordered Richardson to fire Cox.  Richardson refused and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox.  Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned.  Nixon then ordered Solicitor General Robert Bork (1927-2012), as acting head of the Justice Department, to fire Cox; while both Richardson and Ruckelshaus had given personal assurances to congressional committees they would not interfere, Bork had not.  Brought to the White House in a black Cadillac limousine and sworn in as acting attorney-general, Bork wrote the letter firing Cox; thus ended the Saturday Night Massacre.  Perhaps the most memorable coda to the affair was Richardson’s memorable post-resignation address to staff at the Department of Justice, delivered the Monday morning following the “massacre”.  Richardson had often been spoken of as a potential Republican nominee for the presidency and some nineteen years later, he would tell the Washington Post: “If I had any demagogic impulse... there was a crowd... but I deliberately throttled back.” His former employees responded with “an enthusiastic and sustained ovation.”  Within a week of the Saturday Night Massacre, resolutions of impeachment against the president were introduced in Congress although the House Judiciary Committee did not approve its first article of impeachment until 27 July the following year when it charged Nixon with obstruction of justice.  Mr Nixon resigned less than two weeks later, on 8 August 1974, leaving the White House the next day.

Lyndon Johnson (left) & Sam Rayburn (1882-1961, right), Washington DC, 1954.

Nixon’s predecessor also liked being president and few have assumed the office in circumstances more politically propitious, even if it was something made possible by the assassination of John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US president 1961-1963).  Johnson had for over two decades worked to achieve control of the Senate and at the peak of the success of the Johnson-Rayburn congressional era the Democrats held majorities of 64-36 in the Senate and 263-174 in the House of Representatives.  In the 1964 presidential election (facing Barry Goldwater), Johnson won a crushing victory, securing over 60% of the popular vote and taking every state except Goldwater’s home state of Arizona and a handful south of the Mason-Dixon Line.  Relatively uninterested in foreign policy, Johnson had a domestic agenda more ambitious than anything seen since the US Civil War (1861-1865) a century before and what he achieved was far-reaching and widely appreciated for its implications only decades after his death but it was the US involvement in the war in Vietnam which consumed his presidency, compelling him dramatically to announce in April 1968 “…I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”  As a message, it was strikingly similar to that in July 2024 delivered by Joe Biden (b 1942; US president 2021-2025), something nobody seemed to think a mere coincidence.  Also compelling are similarities between the two, both spending a political lifetime plotting and scheming to become president, having no success until curious circumstances delivered them the prize with which genuinely they achieved much but were forced to watch their dream of re-election slip from their grasp.

Nicolás Maduro (b 1962; President of Venezuela since 2013, left) and Hugo Chávez (1954-2013; President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 1999-2013 (except during a few local difficulties in 2002, right)).

Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) of course liked being president and the events of 6 January (the so-called "capitol riot") are regarded by many (though clearly not a majority of US Supreme Court judges) as an attempted (if amateurish) insurrection, something Mr Trump denies encouraging.  To the south, in Venezuela, Mr Maduro also really likes being president and is from the comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) school of democracy: “It matters not who votes, what matters is who counts the votes”.  Accordingly, in July 2024 there was some scepticism when the National Electoral Council (the NEC, controlled by Mr Maduro’s political party) announced the president had won the 2024 presidential election with 51.2% of the vote, despite the country being in a sustained economic crisis during which it had suffered a rate of hyper-inflation at its peak so high the economists stopped calculation once it hit a million percent and seen more emigration than any country in South or Central America not actually in a state of declared war.  For a country which possesses the world’s largest known reserves of crude oil, the economic collapse has been a remarkable achievement.  Mr Maduro came to office after the death of Hugo Chávez, a genuinely charismatic figure who took advantage of a sustained high oil price to fund social programmes which benefited the poor (of which his country had a scandalous number) who, unsurprisingly voted for him; Mr Chávez won his elections fair and square.  The decrease in oil revenue triggered a chain of events which meant Mr Maduro hasn’t enjoyed the same advantages and some claim his victories in the 2013 & 2018 elections were anything but fair & square although the numbers were so murky it was hard to be definitive.  Details of the 2024 results however are not so much murky as missing and although the NEC provided aggregate numbers (in summary form), only some 30% of the “tally sheets” (with the booth voting details) were published.  Interestingly, the (admittedly historically unreliable) public opinion polls suggested Mr Maduro might secure 30-35% of the vote and the conspiracy theorists (on this occasion probably on sound ground) are suggesting the tally sheets made public might have been selected with “some care”.

In the way these things are done, the regime is sustained by being able to count on the reliability of the security forces and the conventional wisdom in political science is this can be maintained as long as (1) the members continued to be paid and (2) the percentage of the population prepared to take to the streets in violent revolt doesn’t reach and remain at a sustained critical mass (between 3-9% depending on the mechanics of the country).  So the streets are being watched with great interest but already Mr Maduro has received congratulations from the leaders of Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (the DPRK; North Korea), Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras, and Nicaragua and Russia so there’s that.  Mr Maduro runs the country on a basis not dissimilar to being the coordinator of a number of "crime families" and on 2 August the US State Department announced they were recognizing the leader of the opposition as the "legitimate winner" of the election and thus president of the Bolivarian Republic; gestures like this have previously been extended but the regime's grip on power was strong enough to resist.  The opposition numbers are now greater and generous will be the resources devoted to ensuring a critical mass of protesters isn't achieved and Caracas doesn't see its own "capital riot".  For as long as the security forces remain willing and able to retain control of the streets and ensure the population isn't deprived of food for three days (another trigger point for revolution established by political scientists), Mr Maduro should be able to keep the job he so obviously enjoys. 

1955 Studebaker President Speedster.  As well as the styling motifs, there was a sense of exuberance in the two (and sometimes three) tone color schemes the US industry offered in the 1950s.  

Studebaker used the President name (they also offered a "Dictator" until events in Europe made that a harder sell) for their most expensive models, the first three generations a range of sedans, coupes and roadsters produced between 1926-1942.  The name was revived in 1955 and used until 1958, the range this time encompassing two and four-door sedans & station wagons and two-door coupes and hardtops.  The last of the Packards (the much derided, so-called "Packardbakers" which had a brief, unsuccessful run between 1957-1958) was based on the Studebaker President Speedster, the most admired of the range.

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.

Euphemism

Euphemism (pronounced yoo-fuh-miz-uhm)

(1) An agreeable or inoffensive word or phrase substituted for one potentially offensive, harsh or blunt, used often when referring to taboo, controversial or distasteful matters.

(2) The expression so substituted.

1656: From the Greek εὐφημισμός (euphēmismós) (use of a favorable word in place of an inauspicious one, superstitious avoidance of words of ill-omen during religious ceremonies), from εὐφημίζω (euphēmízō), from εὔφημος (eúphēmos & euphemizein (speak with fair words, use words of good omen).  Despite the impression conveyed by disapproving historians like Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975) the Romans, like all the cultures of antiquity, used euphemisms but it does seem true the Athenians were the most delicate of all, so careful to avoid ill-omened words they called their prison “the chamber” and the executioner “the public man” and the Furies (Erinyes) they called “Eumenides” (the kindly ones or the Venerable Goddesses).

The construct was εὖ (eû) (good; well) + φήμη (phḗmē) (a voice, a prophetic voice, rumor, talk) + -ismos (-ism).  The Greek phēmē was from φάναι (phánai) (to speak, say), from the primitive Indo-European root pha (to speak, tell, say).  The concept was well-known in Hellenic culture, the Ancient Greek aristeros (the better one) a euphemism for "the left (hand)".  In English, it was originally a rhetorical term, the broader sense of "choosing a less distasteful word or phrase than the one meant" is attested from 1793 and was in common use by the 1830s.  The most common derived form, the adverb euphemistically, dates from 1833.  The –ism suffix was from the Ancient Greek ισμός (ismós) & -isma noun suffixes, often directly, sometimes through the Latin –ismus & isma (from where English picked up ize) and sometimes through the French –isme or the German –ismus, all ultimately from the Ancient Greek (where it tended more specifically to express a finished act or thing done).  It appeared in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form abstract nouns of action, state, condition or doctrine from verbs and on this model, was used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism etc).  Euphemism & euphemist are nouns, euphemistic & euphemistical are adjectives and euphemistically is an adverb; the noun plural is euphemisms.

The surviving defendants in the dock, International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945-1946.

Euphemisms are used to substitute an inoffensive word or phrase for one thought too offensive or hurtful, especially when the topic being discussed is concerned with religion, sex, death, or excreta.  Euphemisms are also used to disguise intent; the Nazi’s “Final Solution” was actually a programme of mass-murder or genocide as it would come to be called.  Even after the enormity of that became apparent during the first of the Nuremberg trials, one of the indicted Nazis attempted to find a euphemism for the euphemism, arguing it was somehow a substantive point that the English translation of Endlösung der Judenfrage as ”Final Solution to the Jewish Question” was misleading and the German should be rendered as “Total Solution to the Jewish Question”.  Like just about everyone else, in the circumstances, the judges failed to see any distinction.  It wasn’t the only euphemism the Nazis adopted: The phrase Sonderbehandlung (special treatment) refers to the ways and means of mass-murder and the transportation of victims to their places where they would be murdered was officially "re-settlement in the east".  Casually too, there was much that was euphemistic in the Third Reich.  After the failed assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) in July 1944, Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) managed finally to persuade the Führer things were bad and the time had come to convert the German economy to totaler Krieg (total war).  To his office staff, laconically he remarked: "It takes a bomb under his arse to make Hitler see reason" while the same sentiment euphemistically was noted in his diary in the phrase that the brush with death had "...produced clarity in his decisions."

Noted Euphemisms

Tired and emotional: The Rt Hon Sir John Kerr AK, GCMG, GCVO, QC (1914–1991; Governor-General of Australia 1974-1977), Melbourne Cup, November 1977.

To "put to sleep" actually means to euthanize and death generally attracts many: "passed away", "bought the farm", "kicked the bucket", "departed", "lost", "gone", "pushing up daisies", "resting in peace", "met untimely demise", "meet their maker", "going to a better place", "six feet under", "sleeping with the fishes" & "eternal slumber".  Sex is also well covered including "friends with benefits", "roll in the hay" & "sleep with"; related forms being "bun in the oven" (pregnancy), "lady of the night" (prostitute), "affair" (adultery) & "long-time companion" (homosexual partner).  Rather than drunk, one might say "tired and emotional", "gave it a bit of a nudge" or "had one too many".  Politics provides a few, often words which describing lying without actually admitting it including "terminological inexactitudes", "economical with the truth" & that specialty of crooked Hillary Clinton: "misspeak".  Lindsay Lohan's lifestyle choices provided editors with some scope for the euphemistic, the terms applied to her including "controversial actress" or "troubled" (train-wreck), "tired & emotional" (affected by too much strong drink), "special friend" or "friendship" (a bit lesbionic) & "dehydrated" (affected by the use of unspecified substances).    Regarding urination, defecation and bodily functions in general, there are probably more euphemisms even than those covering death.

Students learning English are taught about euphemisms and the vital part they play in social interaction.  They are of course a feature of many languages but in English some of these sanitizations must seem mysterious and lacking any obvious connection with what is being referenced.  There are also exams and students may be asked both to provide a definition of “euphemism” and an example of use and a good instance of the latter is what to do when a situation really can be described only as “a clusterfuck” or even “a fucking clusterfuck” but circumstances demand a more “polite” word.  So, students might follow the lead of Australian Federal Court Judge Michael Lee (b 1965) in Lehrmann v Network TenPty Limited [2024] FCA 369 who in his 420 page judgment declared the matter declared “an omnishambles”. The construct of that was the Latin omni(s) (all) + shambles, from the Middle English schamels (plural of schamel), from the Old English sċeamol & sċamul (bench, stool), from the Proto-West Germanic skamul & skamil (stool, bench), from the Vulgar Latin scamellum, from the Classical Latin scamillum (little bench, ridge), from scamnum (bench, ridge, breadth of a field).  In English, shambles enjoyed a number of meanings including “a scene of great disorder or ruin”, “a cluttered or disorganized mess”, “a. scene of bloodshed, carnage or devastation” or (most evocatively), “a slaughterhouse”.  As one read the judgement one could see what the judge was drawn to the word although, in the quiet of his chambers, he may have been thinking “clusterfuck”.  Helpfully, one of the Murdoch press’s legal commentators, The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen (b 1966; by Barry Goldwater out of Ayn Rand) who had been one of the journalists most attentive to the case, told the word nerds (1) omnishambles dated from 2009 when it was coined for the BBC political satire The Thick Of It and (2) endured well enough to be named the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) 2021 Word of the Year.  The linguistic flourish was a hint of things to come in what was one of the more readable recent judgments.  If a student cites “omnishambles” as a euphemism for “clusterfuck”, a high mark is just about guaranteed.

Epiphenomenon

Epiphenomenon (pronounced ep-uh-fuh-nom-uh-non or ep-uh-fuh-nom-uh-nuhn)

(1) In medicine, unexpected or atypical symptom or complication arising during the course of a disease (ie something historically or literally not connected to the disease).

(2) An activity, process, or state that is the result of another; a by-product, a consequence.

(3) In philosophy and psychology, a mental process or state that is an incidental by-product of physiological events in the brain or nervous system.

1706: The construct was epi- + phenomenon.  The epi- prefix was from the Ancient Greek ἐπί (epí) (on top of; in addition to (in a special use in chemistry, it denotes an epimeric form)).  Phenomenon was from the Late Latin phaenomenon (appearance), from the Latin phaenomenon (attested only in the plural form phaenomena), from the Ancient Greek φαινόμενον (phainómenon) (that which appears in one’s view; appearance; phenomenon), a noun use of the neuter singular form of φαινόμενος (phainómenos), the present middle or passive participle of φαίνω (phaínō) (to cause to appear; to reveal, show, uncover; to expound), from the primitive Indo-European beh- (to glow with light, to shine).  The alternative forms are epiphaenomenon (rare and apparently used only by some pathology journals and epiphænomenon (extinct except when cited in historic texts).  Epiphenomenon, epiphenomenalist & epiphenomenalism are nouns, epiphenomenalize is a verb, epiphenomenal, epiphenomenological & epiphenomenalistic are adjectives, and epiphenomenally & epiphenomenalistically are adverbs; the noun plural is epiphenomena or epiphenomenons.  A need to coin the nouns epiphenomenalization & epiphenomenalizationism seems not to have arisen but there’s still time.

In psychology an epiphenomenon is defined as a mere by-product of a process that has no effect on the process itself and within the discipline is most often used to refer to mental events considered as products of brain processes, the idea explored being the matter of an event secondary or incidental to another primary phenomenon (ie something that occurs as a byproduct or consequence of something else, without having any causal influence on the primary phenomenon).  In the abstract, consciousness or subjective experience is seen as an epiphenomenon of the brain's activity, meaning that it does not play an active role in influencing or causing physical events.  In both the clinical sciences and philosophy, the concept is often applied to a construct of pain, the argument being that the subjective experience of pain is an epiphenomenon of neural processes that are primarily responsible for generating behavioral responses to potential threats or injuries; the conscious experience of pain not directly contributing to behavior but instead accompanying it.  That doesn’t imply mental events are not real, just that they are not real in the sense of biological states and events.

In medicine, the word is used to describe symptoms or complications not directly causative of the relevant disease but occurring as a result of the underlying condition.  For example a patient suffering a chronic autoimmune disease may for a number of reasons be afflicted with inflammation in the joints and the casual relationship between the two is direct.  However, were the patient to react to the inflammation by lapsing into depression, this would be regarded as epiphenomenal because the symptoms are not the primary cause of the disease but arising as a consequence of the physiological and psychological impacts of living with a chronic illness.

Historians and social scientists use the word in the tradition of behaviorism.  In his controversial best-seller Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (1996), then Harvard academic Daniel Jonah Goldhagen (b 1959) argued the “eliminationist antisemitism” which characterized the Nazi state (1933-1945) and culminated in the genocide of the Holocaust was not a product merely of the particular circumstances of the Third Reich but instead of a centuries-old virulent form of antisemitism which was uniquely and specifically German.  His point too was it was something almost endemic among non-Jewish Germans which necessitated him constructing a framework to explain the bulk of what criticism by Germans there was of the persecution of Jews.  This he did by suggesting the criticism… “was overwhelmingly directed at but certain aspects of the persecution [and] was epiphenomenal… in the sense that the criticism did not emanate from (and therefore does not signify) Germans’ departure from the two fundamental bedrock features relevant to the fate of the Jews at the hands of the Germans during the Nazi period, namely eliminationist antisemitism and its practical consequences”.  Goldhagen’s internal logic was of course perfect but it’s easy to see why the work was so controversial.  A best seller, it was well reviewed although there were professional historians who found fault with the scholarship and identified a number of technical issues but the author wasn’t discouraged and has in the years since published extensively in the same vein.

The word is not part of the Western legal vocabulary but it is related to the concepts of causation and foreseeability, both essential elements in determining liability in matters of negligence, their interaction a relatively recent development in common law.  For liability to be found, there must be (1) a causal relationship between the negligence and the injury suffered and (2) it must have been reasonably foreseeable that the negligent act might cause the injury suffered.  There’s no mathematical test to determine these things and each case is decided on the basis of the facts presented and even then a judge might find one way, their decision might be reversed 2-1 on appeal and then decided finally 4-3 by the highest appellate court.  So the scorecard of eleven eminent legal minds working with the same facts, in the same tradition can be 6-5 but that’s how the common law evolves.

Known as "The Twisted Tower", the the 28-storey PwC building in Midland, Johannesburg, South Africa, was designed by LYT Architecture.

Of late, causation, reasonable foreseeability and the epiphenomenological have been on the minds of some conspiracy theorists pondering revelations one of the arms of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC, one of the “Big Four” accounting companies (the others KPMG, EY & Deloitte) while acting as consultants to the Australian government in the development of legislation designed to ensure certain multi-national corporations would no longer be able to avoid paying tax on revenue generated within Australia, passed the relevant information to the PwC arm which was consulting with those very companies to design the legal and accounting mechanisms to avoid paying tax.  For PwC, this synergy (vertical integration taken to its logical conclusion) was an extraordinary example of efficiency and apparently a type of high-dollar insider trading which, depending on the chain of events, could disclose all sorts of potential wrongdoing, the obvious conflict of interest perhaps the least serious if it can be proven any involved personally gained from improper conduct.  That will play out, perhaps over years, but what intrigues the conspiracy theorists is whether it was reasonable foreseeable that if one hires the company working for the corporations one wishes to prevent avoiding tax and asks them to help develop a tax code to ensure that tax is paid, that the consultants might be tempted to exchange facts.  In other words, given that such a thing would appear to be reasonably foreseeable, what were the motives of the politicians in putting temptation in the way of PwC?  Theories have included (1) an ideological commitment to support global capitalism in ensuring big corporations pay as little tax as possible while appear to make every attempt to pursue them and (2) it being an example of crony-capitalism whereby politicians ensure big corporations aren’t too troubled by taxes in exchange for a nice sinecure upon retirement from the tiresome business of politics.  The cover of course would be the construct that the ongoing ability of multi-nationals to avoid tax would be something epiphenomenological rather than the reasonably foreseeable consequence of hiring the same accountancy firm as that hired by the multi-nationals.  There has been much muttering about Dracula & the blood-bank but after all, Dracula will do what Dracula does and the more interesting matter is the thoughts of those who thought it a good idea to hand him the keys.

Watched approvingly by comrade Joseph Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) and Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Nazi foreign minister 1938-1945), comrade Vyacheslav Molotov (1890–1986; Soviet foreign minister 1939-1949 & 1953-1956) signs the Nazi-Soviet Pact with its secret protocol, Moscow, August 1939 (left) and Dr HV Evatt (1894–1965; Australian attorney-general & foreign minister 1941-1949, and leader of opposition 1951-1960) with Winston Churchill (1975-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955), Downing Street, London, May 1942 (right).

Perhaps also of interest is that PwC has dozens of contracts with the Australian Department of Defence, generating in excess of Aus$200 million in revenue for the company.  There may be reasons that situation should anyway be reviewed but following recent revelations, the fact that PwC operates in the People's Republic of China (PRC) adds a layer of concern.  As the sharing of confidential information about tax matters indicates, whatever claims PwC make about the robustness of their "Chinese walls", it is clear that in at least some cases, once data is in the hands of PwC, there's no guarantee it will be kept confidential.  Whether PwC has contracts with the Chinese military might be an interesting question to ask but even if it does not, few would doubt that were the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to ask PwC to obtain what they could, cooperation would be forthcoming.  PwC make much of their operation being a collection of "independent" entities but given the company is often as opaque as the CCP, people should make of that what they will.  Still, when asked during Senate Estimates (a process whereby senators can ask questions of ministers and senior public servants) if he still had sufficient confidence in PwC for them to remain as his department's internal auditors (ie advising him, inter-alia, on matters of governance), the head of the Treasury indicated he was on the basis that PwC auditors has assured him of their integrity.  It recalled the moment in October 1955 when Dr HV Evatt, then leader of the opposition, informed the house all members could be assured a certain Russian document about spying was a forgery because he'd written to the Soviet foreign minister to ask and comrade Molotov had replied confirming it was.  Those reporting the exchange were either too polite to draw the comparison or, as seems the case with journalists these days, lacked knowledge of anything which happened more than ten years ago.