Chair

Chair (pronounced cherr)

(1) A seat, especially if designed for one person, usually with four legs (though other designs are not uncommon) for support and a rest for the back, sometimes with rests for the arms (as distinct from a sofa, stool, bench etc).

(2) Something which serves as a chair or provides chair-like support (often used in of specialized medical devices) and coined as required (chairlift, sedan chair, wheelchair etc).

(3) A seat of office or authority; a position of authority such as a judge.

(4) In academic use, a descriptor of a professorship.

(5) The person occupying a seat of office, especially the chairperson (the nominally gendered term “chairman” sometimes still used, even of female or non-defined chairs).

(6) In an orchestra, the position of a player, assigned by rank (1^st chair, 2^nd chair etc).

(7) In informal use, an ellipsis of electric chair (often in the phrase “Got the chair” (ie received a death sentence)).

(8) In structural engineering, the device used in reinforced-concrete construction to maintain the position of reinforcing rods or strands during the pouring operation.

(9) In glass-blowing, a glassmaker's bench having extended arms on which a blowpipe is rolled in shaping glass.

(10) In railroad construction, a metal block for supporting a rail and securing it to a crosstie or the like (mostly UK).

(11) To place or seat in a chair.

(12) To install in office.

(13) To preside over a committee, board, tribunal etc or some ad hoc gathering; to act as a chairperson.

(14) To carry someone aloft in a sitting position after a triumph or great achievement (mostly UK and performed after victories in sport).

(15) In chemistry, one of two possible conformers of cyclohexane rings (the other being boat), shaped roughly like a chair.

(16) A vehicle for one person; either a sedan chair borne upon poles, or a two-wheeled carriage drawn by one horse (also called a gig) (now rare).

(17) To award a chair to the winning poet at an eisteddfod (exclusive to Wales).

1250-1300: From the Middle English chayer, chaire, chaiere, chaere, chayre & chayere, from the Old French chaiere & chaere (chair, seat, throne), from the Latin cathedra (seat), from the Ancient Greek καθέδρα (kathédra), the construct being κατά (katá) (down) + ἕδρα (hédra) (seat).  It displaced the native stool and settle, which shifted to specific meanings.  The twelfth century modern French chaire (pulpit, throne) in the sixteenth century separated in meaning when the more furniture came to be known as a chaise (chair).  Chair is a noun & verb and chaired & chairing are verbs; the noun plural is chairs.

The figurative sense of "seat of office or authority" emerged at the turn of the fourteenth century and originally was used of professors & bishops (there once being rather more overlap between universities and the Church).  That use persisted despite the structural changes in both institutions but it wasn’t until 1816 the meaning “office of a professor” was extended from the mid-fifteenth century sense of the literal seat from which a professor conducted his lectures.  Borrowing from academic practice, the general sense of “seat of a person presiding at meeting” emerged during the 1640s and from this developed the idea of a chairman, although earliest use of the verb form “to chair a meeting” appears as late as 1921.  Although sometimes cited as indicative of the “top-down” approach taken by second-wave feminism, although it was in the 1980s that the term chairwoman (woman who leads a formal meeting) first attained general currency, it had actually been in use since 1699, a coining apparently thought needed for mere descriptive accuracy rather than an early shot in the culture wars, chairman (occupier of a chair of authority) having been in use since the 1650s and by circa 1730 it had gained the familiar meaning “member of a corporate body appointed to preside at meetings of boards or other supervisor bodies”.  By the 1970s however, the culture wars had started and the once innocuous “chairwoman” was to some controversial, as was the gender-neutral alternative “chairperson” which seems first to have appeared in 1971.  Now, most seem to have settled on “chair" which seems unobjectionable although presumably, linguistic structuralists could claim it’s a clipping of (and therefore implies) “chairman”.

Chairbox offers a range of “last shift” coffin-themed chairs, said to be ideal for those "stuck in a dead-end job, sitting on a chair in a cubicle".  The available finishes include walnut (left) and for those who enjoy being reminded of cremation, charcoal wood can be used for the seating area (right).  An indicative list price is Stg£8300 (US$10,400) for a Last Shift trimmed in velvet.

The slang use as a short form of electric chair dates from 1900 and was used to refer both to the physical device and the capital sentence.  In interior decorating, the chair-rail was a timber molding fastened to a wall at such a height as would prevent the wall being damaged by the backs of chairs.  First documented in 1822, chair rails are now made also from synthetic materials.  The noun wheelchair (also wheel-chair) dates from circa 1700, and one so confined is said sometimes to be “chair bound”.  The high-chair (an infant’s seat designed to make feeding easier) had probably been improvised for centuries but was first advertised in 1848.  The term easy chair (a chair designed especially for comfort) dates from 1707.  The armchair (also arm-chair), a "chair with rests for the elbows", although a design of long-standing, was first so-described in the 1630s and the name outlasted the contemporary alternative (elbow-chair).  The adjectival sense, in reference to “criticism of matters in which the critic takes no active part” (armchair critic, armchair general etc) dates from 1879.  In academic use, although in the English-speaking world the use of “professor” seems gradually to be changing to align with US practice, the term “chair” continues in its traditional forms: There are chairs (established professorships), named chairs (which can be ancient or more recent creations which acknowledge the individual, family or institution providing the endowment which funds the position), personal chairs (whereby the title professor (in some form) is conferred on an individual although no established position exists), honorary chairs (unpaid appointments) and even temporary chairs (which means whatever the institution from time-to-time says it means).

In universities, the term “named chair” refers usually to a professorship endowed with funds from a donor, typically bearing the name of the donor or whatever title they nominate and the institution agrees is appropriate.  On rare occasions, named chairs have been created to honor an academic figure of great distinction (usually someone with a strong connection with the institution) but more often the system exists to encourage endowments which provide financial support for the chair holder's salary, research, and other academic activities.  For a donor, it’s a matter both of legacy & philanthropy in that a named chair is one of the more subtle and potentially respectable forms of public relations and a way to contribute to teaching & research in a field of some interest or with a previous association.

Professor Michael Simons (official photograph issued by Yale University's School of Medicine).

So it can be a win-win situation but institutions do need to practice due diligence in the process of naming or making appointments to named chairs as a long running matter at Yale University demonstrates.  In 2013, an enquiry convened by Yale found Professor Michael Simons (b 1957) guilty of sexual harassment and suspended him as Chief of Cardiology at the School of Medicine.  Five years on, the professor accused Yale of “punishing him again” for the same conduct in a gender-discriminatory effort to appease campus supporters of the #MeToo movement which had achieved national prominence.  That complaint was prompted when Professor Simons was in 2018 appointed to, and then asked to resign from a named chair, the Robert W Berliner Professor of Medicine, endowed by an annual grant of US$500,000 from the family of renal physiologist, Robert Berliner (1915-2002).  Professor Simons took his case to court and early in 2024 at a sitting of federal court ruled, he obtained a ruling in his favour, permitting him to move to trial, Yale’s motion seeing a summary judgment in all matters denied, the judge fining it appropriate that two of his complaints (one on the basis of gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) and one under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act (1972)) should be heard before a jury.  The trial judge noted in his judgment that there appeared to be a denial of due process in 1918 and that happened at a time when (as was not disputed), Yale was “the subject of news reports criticizing its decision to reward a sexual harasser with an endowed chair.”

What the documents presented in Federal court revealed was that Yale’s handling of the matter had even within the institution not without criticism.  In 2013 the University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct found the professor guilty of sexual harassment and he was suspended (but not removed) as chief of cardiology at the School of Medicine.  Internal documents subsequently leaked to the New York Times (NYT) revealed there were 18 faculty members dissatisfied with that outcome and a week after the NYT sought comment from Yale, it was announced Simons would be removed from the position entirely and in November 2014, the paper reported that Yale had also removed him from his position as director of its Cardiovascular Research Center.  Simons alleges that these two additional actions were taken in response to public reaction to the stories published by the NYT but the university disputed that, arguing the subsequent moves were pursuant to the findings of an internal “360 review” of his job performance.  In 2018, Simons was asked to relinquish the Berliner chair on the basis he would be appointed instead to another endowed chair.  In the documents Simons filed in Federal Court, this request came after “one or more persons … sympathetic to the #MeToo movement” contacted the Berliner family encouraging them to demand that the University remove Simons from the professorship, prompting Yale, “fearing a backlash from the #MeToo activists and hoping to placate them,” to “began exploring” his removal from the chair.

School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Later in 2018, Simons was duly appointed to another named chair, prompting faculty members, students and alumni to send an open letter to Yale’s president expressing “disgust and disappointment” at the appointment.  The president responded with a formal notice to Simmons informing him he had 24 hours to resign from the chair, and Simmons also alleges he was told by the president of “concerns” the institution had about the public criticism.  In October 2019, Simons filed suit against Yale (and a number of individuals) on seven counts: breach of contract, breach of the implied warranty of fair dealing, wrongful discharge, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of privacy, and discrimination on the basis of gender under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.   Three of these (wrongful discharge, negligent infliction of emotional distress and breach of privacy) were in 2020 struck-out in Federal Court and this was the point at which Yale sought summary judgment for the remainder.  This was partially granted but the judge held that the matter of gender discrimination in violation of Title VII and Title IX needed to be decided by a jury.  A trial date has not yet been set but it will be followed with some interest.  While all cases are decided on the facts presented, it’s expected the matter may be an indication of the current state of the relative strength of “black letter law” versus “prevailing community expectations”.

Personal chair: Lindsay Lohan adorning a chair.

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

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

The “chair” photo (1963) of Christine Keeler (1942-2017) by Hong Kong Chinese photographer Lewis Morley (1925-2013) (left) and Joanne Whalley-Kilmer (b 1961) in Scandal (1989, a Harvey Weinstein (b 1952) production) (centre).  The motif was reprised by Taiwanese-American photographer Yu Tsai (b 1975) in his sessions for the Lindsay Lohan Playboy photo-shoot; it was used for the cover of the magazine’s January/February 2012 issue (right).  Ms Lohan wore shoes for some of the shoot but these were still "nudes" because "shoes don't count"; everybody knows that. 

The Profumo affair was one of those fits of morality which from time-to-time would afflict English society in the twentieth century and was a marvellous mix of class, sex, spying & money, all things which make an already good scandal especially juicy.  The famous image of model Christine Keeler, nude and artfully positioned sitting backwards on an unexceptional (actually a knock-off) plywood chair, was taken in May 1963 when the moral panic over the disclosure Ms Keeler simultaneously was enjoying the affection of both a member of the British cabinet and a Soviet spy.  John Profumo (1915-2006) was the UK’s Minister for War (the UK cabinet retained the position until 1964 although it was disestablished in the US in 1947) who, then 46, was found to be conducting an adulterous affair with the then 19 year old topless model at the same time she (presumably as her obviously crowded schedule permitted) fitted in trysts with a KGB agent, attached to the Soviet embassy with the cover of naval attaché.  Although there are to this day differing interpretations of the scandal, there have never been any doubts this potential Cold-War conduit between Moscow and Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for War represented at least a potential conflict of interest.  The fallout from the scandal ended Profumo’s political career, contributed to the fall of Harold Macmillan’s (1894–1986; UK prime-minister 1957-1963) government and was one of a number of the factors in the social changes which marked English society in the 1960s.

Commercially & technically, photography then was a different business and the “chair” image was the last shot on a 12-exposure film, all taken in less than five minutes at the end of a session which hurriedly had been arranged because Ms Keeler had signed a contract which included a “nudity” clause for photos to be used as “publicity stills” for a proposed film about the scandal.  As things turned out, the film was never released (not until Scandal (1989) one would appear) but the photograph was leaked to the tabloid press, becoming one of the more famous of the era although later feminist critiques would deconstruct the issues of exploitation they claimed were inherent.  Playboy’s editors would not be unaware of the criticism but the use of a chair to render a nude image SFW (suitable for work) remains in the SOP (standard operating procedures) manual.

Contact sheet from photoshoot, Victoria and Albert (V&A) Museum: exhibit E.2830-2016.

Before the “nude” part which concluded the session, two rolls of film had already been shot with the subject sitting in various positions (on the chair and the floor) while “wearing” a small leather jerkin.  At that point the film’s producers mentioned the “nude” clause.  Ms Keeler wasn’t enthusiastic but the producers insisted so all except subject and photographer left the room and the last roll was shot, some of the earlier poses reprised while others were staged, the last, taken with the camera a little further away with the subject in what Mr Morley described as “a perfect positioning”, was the “chair” shot.

The “Keeler Chair” (left) and an Arne Jacobsen Model 3107 (right).

Both chair & the gelatin-silver print of the photograph are now in the collections of London’s Victoria and Albert (V&A) Museum (the photograph exhibit E.2-2002; the chair W.10-2013).  Although often wrongly identified a Model 3107 (1955) by Danish modernist architect & furniture designer Arne Jacobsen (1902-1971), it’s actually an example of one of a number of inexpensive knock-offs produced in the era.  Mr Morley in 1962 bought six (at five shillings (50c) apiece) for his studio and it’s believed his were made in Denmark although the identity of the designer or manufacturer are unknown.  Unlike a genuine 3107, the knock-off has a handle cut-out (in a shape close to a regular trapezoid) high on the back, an addition both functional and ploy typical of those used by knock-off producers seeking to evade accusations of violations of copyright.  Structurally, a 3017 uses a thinner grade of plywood and a more subtle molding.  The half-dozen chairs in Mr Morley’s studio were mostly unnoticed office furniture until Ms Keeler lent one its infamy although they did appear in others of his shoots including those from his session with television personality & interviewer Sir David Frost (1939–2013) and it’s claimed the same chair was used for both.  In London’s second-hand shops it’s still common to see the knock-offs (there were many) described as “Keeler” chairs and Ms Lohan’s playboy shoot was one of many in which the motif has been used and it was the obvious choice of pose for Joanne Whalley-Kilmer’s promotional shots for the 1989 film in which she played Ms Keeler; it was used also for the covers of the DVD & Blu-ray releases 

Old Smoky, the electric chair once used in the Tennessee Prison System, Alcatraz East Crime Museum.  "Old Sparky" seems to be the preferred modern term.

Crooked Hillary Clinton in pantsuit.

Although the numbers did bounce around a little, polling by politico.com found that typically about half of Republican voters believe crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) should be locked up while fewer than 2% think she should “get the chair”, apparently on the basis of her being guilty of something although some might just find her “really annoying” and take the pragmatic view a death sentence would remove at least that problem from their life.  The term “electric chair” is most associated with the device used for executions but is also common slang to describe other machinery including electric wheelchairs and powered (heat, cooling or movement) seats or chairs of many types.  First used in the US during the 1890s, like the guillotine, the electric chair was designed as a more humane (ie faster) method of execution compared with the then common hanging where death could take minutes.  Now rarely used (and in some cases declared unconstitutional as a “cruel & unusual punishment”), in some US states, technically it remains available including as an option the condemned may choose in preference to lethal injection.

Electric Chair Suite (1971) screen print decology by Andy Warhol.

Based on a newspaper photograph (published in 1953) of the death chamber at Sing Sing Prison in New York, where US citizens Julius (1918-1953) & Ethel Rosenberg (1915-1953) were that year executed as spies, Andy Warhol (1928–1987) produced a number of versions of Electric Chair, part of the artist’s Death and Disaster series which, beginning in 1963, depicted imagery such as car crashes, suicides and urban unrest.  The series was among the many which exploited his technique of transferring a photograph in glue onto silk, a method which meant each varied in some slight way.  His interest was two-fold: (1) what is the effect on the audience of render the same image with variations and (2) if truly gruesome pictures repeatedly are displayed, is the effect one of reinforcement or desensitization?  His second question was later revisited as the gratuitous repetition of disturbing images became more common as the substantially unmediated internet achieved critical mass.  The first of the Electric Chair works was created in 1964.

Ineffable

Ineffable (pronounced in-ef-uh-buhl)

(1) Incapable of being expressed or described in words; indescribable; indefinable; inexpressible.

(2) Not to be spoken because of its sacredness; too great or intense to be expressed in words; declared as unutterable.

1400–1450: From the late Middle English ineffable (beyond expression in words; too great for words, inexpressible; unspeakable), from the fourteenth century Old French ineffable (which in modern French endures as ineffable), from the Latin ineffābilis (unutterable), the construct being from in- (not; opposite of) +‎ effor (utter) +‎ -bilis (-able), the antonym therefore effābilis (speakable; able to be expressed), from effārī (utter), from fārī (to say; speak), from the primitive Indo-European root bha (to speak, tell, say).  The old English antonym was effable which is archaic and probably extinct except as a literary or poetic device.  Ineffable & ineffaceable are adjectives, ineffability & ineffableness are nouns and ineffably is an adverb.  Although it sounds paradoxical, it can make sense when ineffable is used as a (non-standard) noun so the noun plural can be ineffables.

The meaning "that may not be spoken" is from 1590s and the noun ineffables was for some time a jocular euphemism for "trousers", source of the companion “unmentionables” which survived into the twentieth century to refer to underwear in a similar sense.  The noun ineffably (unspeakableness) dates from the 1620s.  The adjective effable gained its currency in the seventeenth century because of the use in legal jargon to impart "that may be (lawfully) expressed in words" and although long archaic it does still sometimes appear in literary efforts good and bad.

In Christianity, at times the very name of God was held to be ineffable because it was something too sacred to be uttered by earthly lips.  Adonai was an Old Testament word for God (used as a substitute for the ineffable name), from the Medieval Latin, from the Hebrew Adhonai (literally my lord"), from adon, from the Ancient Greek Ἄδωνις (Ádōnis). + -ai (the suffix of the first person).  Jehovah was used in William Tyndale's (1494–1536) transliteration of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH (using the vowel points of Adhonai).  The full name being too sacred for utterance, it appears in four places in the King James Version (KJV 1611) where the usual translation the lord would have been inconvenient and was taken as the principal and personal name of God.

Portrait of Pope Leo X and his cousins, cardinals Giulio de' Medici and Luigi de' Rossi, oil on canvas by Raphael (1483–1520).  Leo X got a bit of fun out of life.

The history of the vowel substitution is an example of the sometimes haphazard way in which language evolved in the Medieval period.  It was a loose aggregation of Jewish scribe-scholars called the Masoretes (בַּעֲלֵי הַמָּסוֹרָה in the Hebrew and romanized as Baʿălēy Hammāsōrā, literally “Masters of the Tradition”) who between the fifth and tenth centuries, working out of Palestine and Babylonia, first made the vowel substitution.  Various factions of the Masoretes codified systems of pronunciation and grammatical guides in the form of diacritical notes (the niqqud) on the biblical text in an attempt to standardize the pronunciation, paragraph and verse divisions.  Their work is best remembered for the chanting, defined by the cantillation (the intonation of a sentence, by way of marks which are read as sequences of musical pitches) of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), used by Jewish communities worldwide.  The Masoretes made the vowel substitution a direction to substitute Adhonai for “the ineffable name”.  That was fine but in the West, scholars took it literally as just another word to translate which yielded JeHoVa, the first instance apparently in the writings of the Italian theologian Petrus Galatinus (1460-1540) who held clerical office under Pope Leo X (1475–1521; pope 1513-1521), one of the four Medici popes and remembered (fondly by a few) for his observation “God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it” and although historians have their doubts he ever uttered the words, his conduct while on the throne of Saint Peter made clear if he didn't say it, he should have.  

In modern use the concept of ineffability takes various forms.  There is the idea of what is taboo (that which is by social consensus or convention forbidden to be uttered) which is a shifting set of ideas, subjects and individuals; depending on this and that in one era they may not be mentioned while at other times they may not be criticized.  There’s the notion of it as the indescribable (which can apply equally to extremes of pain and joy) which is really a terms of emphasis which indicates there is not adjective or other word available to encapsulate something so extreme.  In science it describes (actually more “refers to”) those phenomena which may exist but be yet undiscovered because the limitations of language mean it’s not possible even to imagine their existence; the classic Rumsfeldian unknown unknowns, which, upon becoming known become known and sometimes, retrospectively understood known unknowns.

Tomb of Pius IX in the Vatican.

Ineffabilis Deus (Ineffable God) was a statement of dogma issued in 1854 by Pope Pius IX (1792–1878;pope 1846-1878), confirming the long-held belief in much of the Church that the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, was born of an immaculate conception and thus entered the world free of original sin.  Leo’s statement came five years after the circulation to the bishops of the exploratory Ubi Primum (On The Immaculate Conception), a document which might now be called a green paper, seeking as it did their opinion on the matter.   It was their positive reaction which encouraged the publication of Ineffabilis Deus, now recognized as an instance of the doctrine of papal infallibility that was something which would not formally be defined and constitutionally enshrined until the First Vatican Council (1869–1870 and now often referred to as Vatican I).  Papal infallibility is sometimes misunderstood and is actually limited in its application to the times at which when pope speaks ex cathedra (literally “from the chair”): matters of faith and doctrine.  So, like many wise dictators, Pius followed the practice of Catherine the Great (Catherine II, 1729-1796; Empress of Russia 1762 to 1796) who while appearing dictatorial, took care to ensure soundings were taken and her edicts were issued only when she was sure they would be obeyed.  Leo likewise sounded out the bishops.

In the triple crown, laying down the law: Dream of Innocent III and the Confirmation of the Rule (1452) by Benozzo Gozzoli (1421-1497), San Francesco Gallery, Montefalco, Italy.

Still, it’s a potent authority to possess in an absolute theocracy and as the Ayatollahs in Iran are discovering, has its limitations if imposed beyond the limits the people will accept and they’d do well to recall the shrewd observation of one pope that “when one is infallible, one has to be careful what one says”.  What was codified at Vatican I (in Pastor aeternus (literally “Eternal Shepherd” and the First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ)) really wasn’t new in that historians have cited several instances in medieval theology and although noting alluding to the concept appears to exist in ancient texts, there’s no known discussion of the idea that even a bishop might sometimes be wrong until the Council of Antioch (264) but the sense of the Church’s enduring permanence of rightness does for centuries seem to have been thought implicit.  The theological basis of a pope’s authority come from several Biblical texts, most notably Matthew 16: 18-19 in which is described the delegation of authority Christ passed to St Peter, something which the early Christians held was inherited by his successors.  Of subsequent political interest was that authority in some sense also accrued to Rome because Peter was held to be the its first bishop and was there martyred, things of real significance in the centuries which followed when alternative “popes” in other places contested the rights to power and devotion.  However, although the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria both staked apostolic claims, they fell to Islam while Constantinople, although a military and political power, had no apostolic tradition.  Contested though it sometimes was, Rome’s primacy was established early and it endured although, this did seem to encourage a bit of mission creep, Innocent III (1160–1216; pope 1198-1216) going further than most in asserting ultimate authority in matters temporal as well as spiritual, his omnibus claim of ratione peccati (by reason of sin) probably leaving nothing of the affairs of man beyond a pope’s reach.

Pope Nicholas III in triple crown.

Interestingly, historians regard the emergence infallibility in a recognizably modern form owes much to a legal device.  After Pope Nicholas III (circa 1225–1280; pope 1277-1280) arranged for the worldly goods of Franciscans to be assigned to the papacy so the monks might live in the poverty their vows demanded, one legally-minded Franciscan expressed concern an anti-pope (there were fakes from time to time) might misuse this confiscatory power.  He therefore argued that infallibility existed but that each edict was absolute and no pope could go back on the utterances of his predecessors. So papal, bound by precedent, infallibility was not sovereignty because a pope was bound by the statements of his predecessors.  Squabbles followed, sometimes essentially about money and sometimes the apparently abstract issue involving the authority to create saints, something actually of real significance because of the importance the cults of saints had assumed in the numbers of adherents (and thus their money) the various orders could attract.  More seriously, the Western Schism (1378-1417) introduced what some held to be heretical: that the Church should not be ruled by a sovereign pope, authority instead vested in Church councils, the intellectual rationale being that while a single pope could be in error, the collective of a council could not.  From this can be traced the beginnings of the idea that papal infallibility was defensible (and perhaps even desirable) if limited to matters of faith and morals.  However, there is nothing in the papers left by the Council of Trent (1545-1563) from which it would appear even an inference could be drawn about infallibility and the rise of science and the Enlightenment in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries hardly provided fertile ground to pursue the matter.

Pope Pius XII while Apostolic Nuncio to Germany (1920–1930), leaving the presidential palace in Berlin after celebrations marking the 80th of president Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934), October 1927.

Yet it was in the nineteenth century, as modernity began to intrude even on the Church that the notion was asserted and embedded in the constitution.  Without any explicit precedent in theology or canon law, Pius IX decreed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary to be infallible and this seems to have been the definitional marker used at Vatican I which declared a pope was infallible when speaking ex Cathedra on matters of faith and morals.  Still, even that may have been a double-edged sword for although, by the mid-nineteenth century the matter of Mary’s initial sinfulness was probably of interest to a relative few, Pius IX’s Syllabus Errorum (Syllabus of Errors (1864)) which was a strident attack of much that was liberal and modern was controversial; the council may have decided that the limits of infallibility were as importance as its existence.  Tellingly, the only other statement issued ex Cathedra came in 1950 when in his bull Munificentissimus Deus (The most bountiful God) Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958) defined the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.

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

Pope Benedict XVI in Mercedes-Benz ML 430 popemobile, driving through Via Condotti before a prayer at the statue of the Virgin Mary during the annual feast of the Immaculate Conception at Piazza di Spagna (Spanish Steps), Rome, 8 December 2012.

No pope has since spoken ex Cathedra although during the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II, 1962-1965), in his encyclical Lumen Gentium (literally “Light of the Nations” (1964) and an update to the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ) Paul VI (1897-1978; pope 1963-1978) did stretch the definition a bit by defining papal infallibility as that spoken by a pope on a matter of faith and morals either ex Cathedra or in an ecumenical council.  Among Vatican-watchers, there does seem now a view the Holy See has embarked on a strategy of “Infallibility by stealth”, imposing doctrinal orthodoxies and shutting down debate by clever phraseology.  Still, technically, it remains an authority unused since 1950 and Benedict XVI (b 1927; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus since), always at his happiest dancing on the head of a pin, was often at pains to differentiate between his solemn (but not infallible) pronouncements made as pope and anything else he’s ever said.  The modern popes would appear more aware of their own fallibilities than their predecessors.

Perpetual

Perpetual (pronounced per-pech-oo-uhl)

(1) Continuing or enduring forever; lasting indefinitely; continuing or continued without intermission or interruption; ceaseless.

(2) In horticulture, blooming almost continuously throughout the season or the year; a perennial plant.

(3) As "perpetual motion machine", a hypothetical device which, which, once set in motion, will continue forever unless stopped by some external force.  Dating from the 1590s, however "constructed", it would violate either or both the first or second laws of thermodynamics and is thus a physical impossibility and now thought of as an engineer's version of alchemy.

1300–1350: From the late Middle English perpetual & perpetuall (everlasting, unceasing, existing indefinitely, continuing forever in future time), from the twelfth century Old French perpetual (without end; uninterrupted), from the Latin perpetuālis (universal ("permanent" in the Medieval Latin)), from perpetuus (continuous, universal), from perpetis, genitive of the Old Latin perpes (lasting; continual).  The construct of perpetu(us) was per (through), from the primitive Indo-European root per (forward (hence "through")) + pet (to fly, to rush), the root of petere (to seek; reach for; go towards; aim at) + -uus (the deverbal adjectival suffix (deverbal nouns are nouns derived from verbs or verb phrases, but that behave grammatically purely as nouns, not as verbs)).  The English forms were a direct borrowing from the Old French perpetual and the spellings perpetuall and perpetual co-existed in Middle English.  The synonyms include ceaseless, constant, perennial, unceasing, continuous, eternal, persistent, never-ending, incessant, unending, permanent, enduring, infinite, interminable, endless, recurring, continued, abiding, everlasting, immortal and uninterrupted.  The spelling perpetuall is obsolete.  Perpetual is a noun & adjective, perpetuality, perpetualness & perpetuity are nouns, perpetuate is a verb & adjective and perpetually is an adverb; the noun plural is perpetuals.

In the matter of Mary

Wall painting (unknown artist), circa 1870, in Saint Laurentius Church in Voorschoten, the Netherlands, painted to commemorate Pastor aeternus.  It depicts Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) holding his book Summa Theologica (1265-1274), Jesus Christ (with the Vatican in the background which was a nice touch) and Pope Pius IX (1792–1878; pope 1846-1878).

The Roman Catholic Church’s dogma of papal infallibility holds that a pope’s rulings on matters of faith and doctrine are infallibility correct and cannot be questioned.  When making such statements, a pope is said to be speaking ex cathedra (literally “from the chair”).  Although ex cathedra pronouncements had been issued since medieval times, as a point of canon law, the doctrine was codified first at the First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican (Vatican I; 1869–1870) in the document Pastor aeternus (shepherd forever).  Since Vatican I, the only ex cathedra decree has been Munificentissimus Deus (The most bountiful God), issued by Pius XII (1876–1958; pope 1939-1958) in 1950, in which was declared the dogma of the Assumption; that the Virgin Mary "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory".  Pius XII never made explicit whether the assumption preceded or followed earthly death, a point no pope has since discussed although it does seem of some theological significance.

Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, there had been decrees issued ex cathedra.  In Ineffabilis Deus (Ineffable God (1854)), Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, an important point because of the theological necessity of Christ being born free of sin, a notion built upon by later theologians as the perpetual virginity of Mary.  It asserts that Mary "always a virgin, before, during and after the birth of Jesus Christ", explaining the biblical references to brothers of Jesus either as children of Joseph from a previous marriage, cousins of Jesus, or just folk closely associated with the Holy Family.

In general use, "perpetual" is used typically in the sense of something constant and unchanging although it's used often as a deliberate exaggeration; a term of emphasis.