Fantastic

Fantastic (pronounced fan-tas-tik)

(1) Conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque; strange, weird or fanciful in conception or appearance (reflecting the original idea of fantasy +‎ -tic (the adjectival suffix)).

(2) A person who dresses or behaves eccentrically (obsolete, but still used in the sense “a fanciful or whimsical person” as a literary or poetic device on the model of “an exquisite”).

(3) Extraordinarily good; excellent.

(4) Something extreme or acute (now rare).

(5) Fanciful, whimsical or capricious (of people, ideas or concepts).

(6) Imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational.

(7) Extravagantly fanciful; marvelous.

(8) Great to an incredible extent; extreme; exorbitant.

(9) In architecture and design, extravagantly decorated or detailed; excessive ornamentation.

(10) Highly unrealistic or impractical; probably impossible; preposterous; absurd.

(11) Created in the mind; illusory; a flight of fancy.

1350–1400: From the Middle English fantastik (pertaining to the imaginative faculty), from the Middle French fantastique, from the Medieval Latin fantasticus, a variant of the Late Latin phantasticus, from the Ancient Greek φᾰντᾰστῐκός (phăntăstĭkós) (imaginary, fantastic; fictional; able to present the appearance (of something)), a derivative of phantázein (to make present to the eye or mind), the construct on the conceptual model of phānós (light, bright) or phaínein (to bring to light, cause to appear) + -tikos .  The –tikos suffix was commonly used to form adjectives.  The Greek τικός (-tikos) was derived from the noun τι (-tis) (“one who does” or “related to”).  Typically, when –tikos was appended to a word, it conveyed the sense of “being related to, characterized by, or pertaining to the base word”.  It was used also (n various contexts) to create adjectives that describe qualities or characteristics associated with the base word.  The ultimate source was the primitive Indo-European beh- (to shine).  The alternative forms fantastick, phantastic, phantastick & phantastique are all obsolete.  Fantastic & fantastical are nouns & adjectives, fantastication, fantasticness, fantasticity, fantasticalness & fantasticism are nouns, fantasticate & fantasticize are verbs, fantastically, fantasticly & fantastically are adverbs; the noun plural is fantastics.

Google Ngram: Fantasticly.

Google Ngram (a quantitative and not qualitative measure): Because of the way Google harvests data for their Ngrams, they’re not literally a tracking of the use of a word in society but can be usefully indicative of certain trends, (although one is never quite sure which trend(s)), especially over decades.  As a record of actual aggregate use, Ngrams are not wholly reliable because: (1) the sub-set of texts Google uses is slanted towards the scientific & academic and (2) the technical limitations imposed by the use of OCR (optical character recognition) when handling older texts (typically a scanner might misread an “f” for a long “s” or a “u” for an “n”) of sometime dubious legibility (a process AI (artificial intelligence) should improve).  Where numbers bounce around, this may reflect either: (1) peaks and troughs in use for some reason or (2) some quirk in the data harvested.

Olivia Hussey (1951–2024) as Juliet in Romeo and Juliet (1968).

Most dictionaries seem now to list the once fashionable adverb fantasticly as “archaic” although none seem yet to have declared it extinct.  The statistics indicating a late twentieth century revival of use are a product of the proliferation of internet sites dealing with such words (dictionaries, thesauruses, style guides, lists of the rare or unusual etc).  Still, it’s there to be used and would add distinctiveness to a text but authors should be cautioned those having an AI (artificial intelligence) agent do the “proof reading” might find it flagged and it may not impress many flesh & blood editors there to render drafts “accessible”.  In the Old French there was the different adjectival form fantasieus meaning “weird; insane; make-believe” while in Medieval Latin fantasticus was used as a noun meaning “a lunatic; a madman”, adopted by William Shakespeare (1564–1616) in the Italian form fantastico (one who acts ridiculously).  That had an interesting history, the plural form (fantasticoes) appearing in Act 2, Scene 4 of Romeo and Juliet (1597), spoken by Mercutio: “The pox of such antic, lisping, affecting fantasticoes, these new tuners of accents!”.  That definitely was the noun being used in the sense of “a person full of wild, extravagant fancies or absurd ideas”, rather than as the modern adjective meaning “wonderful”.  What Shakespeare had Mercutio do was mock Tybalt and young, fashionable men who adopt affected Italian manners, fencing styles, and pretentious speech.  It was printed as “fantasticoes” in the early (1597) first Quarto printing of the play while editors of some later editions (including the widely-distributed 1623 First Folio) used the spelling phantacies (fantasies), though most versions have restored fantasticoes, not merely as a respect for the original but because the form better fits Mercutio's insult.    The “trivial” sense of “wonderful, marvellous” was in use by at least 1938.

In the creation of slang forms, elements of fantastic have contributed to portmanteau words including “fabtastic”, the construct a blend of fab(ulous) + (fan)tastic, “fantabulous”, the construct a blend of fanta(stic) + (fa)bulous, “fantasterrific”, the construct a blend of fantast(ic) + (t)errific, “funtastic”, the construct a blend of fun + (fan)tastic and “fantascience” (a now rare genre of fiction combining orthodox or speculative science with fantastical elements), the construct a blend of fanta(stic) + science.  Fabtastsic, fantabulous, fantasterrific and funtastic (there are others, some quite specific to circumstances) all are used in the sense of “wonderful, marvelous, outstanding (ie simultaneously both fantastic and fabulous) and often as a superlative (eg “a most fantabulous event”).  These coinings appear mostly a post-war phenomenon.

Fantastic magazine covers. Top row: January-February 1953, March 1953, August 1954; Middle row: August 1956, October 1956; November 1959; Bottom row: February 1960, May 1961, November 1963.

Fantastic was a US SF (Science Fiction) and fantasy magazine published between 1952 and 1980.  Founded as a fantasy companion to Amazing Stories (launched in 1926), so successful was Fantastic that the publisher soon closed their other titles serving the genre, merging all content.  Thematically, Fantastic tended to respond to the construct of the scientific zeitgeist in the popular imagination (ie what was appearing in film and on television) so subjects at times embraced included space travel, global thermo-nuclear war, visiting flying saucers and pandemics from other planets although, despite the range, there seemed often a justification for the covers to feature at least one scantily-clad young woman.  Fantastic published work by writers who would become well-known in the SF community but, rather improbably, pieces by Truman Capote (1924–1984) and Evelyn Waugh (1903-1966) also appeared.

A cleverly composed photograph by AP (Associated Press) photojournalist Tom Brenner (b 1994) with Donald Trump reflected in the lens of Susie Wiles' sunglasses, South Lawn of the White House, Washington DC, October 2026.

In the aftermath of the 2026 US congressional elections at which (for the Republican Party), things went either “as badly as expected” or “worse than expected”, it’s not known if Pete Hegseth (b 1980; US Secretary of Defense (and War) since 2025) was much assured by Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) saying of him he had done a “fantastic job” but if so, he might have considered that apparent endorsement in the light of the POTUS having just sacked his chief of staff (Susan Wiles (b 1957, chief of staff to the POTUS 2025-2026) despite a fortnight earlier, in response to a question asking if her was considering replacing her answering: “Zero chance, zero.  She’s phenomenal.”  The election results however seemed to focus Mr Trump’s mind and, after announcing her departure, he told the press Ms Wiles had done “a great job… but I just wanted to make a change”, later adding “We’ve got to make moves.  Sometimes in life, you have to make moves.”  Commentators in a number of places have taken some glee is tracking the large numbers of women dismissed from positions during the second Trump administration, contrasting that toll with the remarkable survival rate among the men, even those whose conduct in office has been less than stellar, one even subsequently appointed US ambassador to the UN (United Nations), an institution for which the POTUS has no fondness.  He probably thought of the job rather as Richard Nixon (1913-1994; VPOTUS 1953-1961 and POTUS 1969-1974) regarded the embassy in Upper Volta.

Pete Hegseth (in brown shoes, left) and Donald Trump (right) beneath flags, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia, October 2025.

Certainly, Mr Trump would have understood the point made by Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) who, in Their Finest Hour (The Second World War, Volume II, (1949)), writing of political leadership, observed: “If he trips he must be sustained.  If he makes mistakes they must be covered.  If he sleeps he must not be wantonly disturbed.  If he is no good he must be pole-axed.”  The historian Professor John Ramsden (1947–2009) summed up Churchill’s explanation of the mechanics of the process as “autocracy tempered by assassination”.  Even if not familiar with those passages, presumably Mr Hegseth is wondering if in the POTUS’s mind he’s being “sustained” or about to be “pole-axed” but anyway seems in no mood to admit making mistakes that would benefit from a “covering up”.  Addressing a rare press conference, when responding to a motion of impeachment introduced in the house by disaffected Republican Thomas Massie (b 1971, US Representative for Kentucky 4th congressional district since 2012) who’d been “primaried” by Mr Trump and was thus serving in his last congress, Mr Hegseth was combative, conceding nothing and comparing the unfairness of him being impeached with no such action being taken against Lloyd Austin (b 1953; US Secretary of Defense 2021-2025), despite the several grounds Mr Hegseth cited as a reasonable basis for Congress to take such a step.

In his address, Mr Hegseth managed also to use a phrase suggesting General Austin (an African-American) had been a “DEI” (diversity, equity & inclusion) appointment; Mr Massie’s motion was voted down in the (still) Republican-controlled chamber.  It was a set-piece performance by Mr Hegseth who has been criticized as appearing to be “a method actor auditioning for the part ‘strong, confident and decisive secretary of defense’”, the consensus being he’d likely not be offered the role because of a tendency to “over-act”.  In that, he was unlike the deliciously wicked Donald Rumsfeld (1932–2021: US Secretary of Defense 1975-1977 & 2001-2006) who was strong, confident and decisive, conveying exactly that with a clipped, precise, yet seemingly effortless delivery.  His predecessor’s political fate will however not much encourage Mr Hegseth, Mr Rumsfeld sacked by George W Bush (George XLIII, b 1946; POTUS 2001-2009) immediately after the Republicans were routed in the 2006 mid-term elections.  Most POTUSes have not found the attitude of Harry S. Truman (1884–1972; POTUS 1945-1953) helpful, preferring to have the buck stop somewhere lower down the chain of command. 

Doing a “fabulous job” of looking fabulous: Sydney Sweeney (b 1997) on the cover of Fabulous magazine, August 2025.

As a one-time employee of Fox News (with all that implies), Mr Hegseth will have noticed the similarity in personnel management practices between Mr Trump and Rupert Murdoch (b 1931), both very much of the “hire ‘em and fire ‘em” school and if dwelling on the POTUS saying he’d done a “fantastic job” while in charge of the Pentagon, he may recall it was President Bush minor who had sacked Colin Powell (1937–2021; US Secretary of State 2001-2005) a few months after telling the press at a gathering at his ranch in Crawford, Texas that general had done a “fabulous job” as his “vicar of foreign policy”.  Even at the time, nobody in the White House press corps could recall anyone in Texas ever being dubbed “fabulous” (except maybe in Oil Can Harry’s in Austin) so the conclusion was General Powell's political career prospects were not good.  So it proved.  How Mr Hegseth will determine whether it augers better if one’s boss says one is doing a “fantastic job” rather than a “fabulous job” isn’t known but what won’t be reassuring is that Mr Trump also doubtlessly agrees with Churchill about the circumstances when a swift pole-axing is demanded.

Donald Trump endorses Mr Hegseth's continuation in office, says he has done a “fantastic job” and explains why the “state of armed conflict” in the Persian Gulf is not a “war”.  Had it not been for certain recent events, he might have styled the venture a “special military operation”.

In February 1953, the prime minister had explained to his personal physician (Lord Moran, Charles Wilson, 1882-1977; president of the RCP (Royal College of Physicians) 1941-1949, personal physician to Winston Churchill 1940-1965) why he needed a referral to another eye specialist, Moran noting in his diary: “The P.M. asked me today if he could see another eye specialist.  ‘I have stuck to Juler [Dr Frank Anderson Juler (1888-1962), Ophthalmic Surgeon, St. Mary’s Hospital, London] for so long,’ he told me, ‘because he did discover the in-growing eyelashes when no one else did.  At that time my eyes were so bad I could not read, even official documents.  But he is stumped now, and we must change the bowling.’”  Other than polo and big game hunting (the latter still then thought by many a “sport”), Churchill took little interest in sport so may be forgiven for mixing his metaphors; in cricket it’s a batsman (the gender-neutral “batter” now preferred) who is “stumped” (ie the bails atop the wicket dislodged with the ball by the wicket keeper or other fieldsman (fielder) while the batter is “out of their crease”), the correct idiomatic phrase to describe an ineffective bowler being something like “hit out of the attack”.  It's doubtful Mr Hegseth knows much of the jargon of cricket but he'd get the idea.

Looking fantastic: Lindsay Lohan in skin-tight teal wetsuit during the filming of Freakier Friday (2025), Malibu Beach, California, August 2024.

Mr Hegseth has been a reformer within the US military and the POTUS has praised him as a “great warrior” who has re-oriented the military away from becoming a “woke institution”, pointing out it had become top-heavy and administratively bloated, more generals reputedly on the establishment than during World War II (1939-1945) when the largest conflict in human history was being prosecuted.  It seems the Pentagon proved as vulnerable as any to the phenomenon of “bureaucratic inertia” and other militaries have similarly been affected.  When in 1952 a delegation from the newly elected British government visited the embassy in Washington DC, instead of the expected handful of military liaison officers, there were over a hundred, nobody in London having ever reduced the establishment created during the war, by then over for more than six years.  Still, Mr Hegseth’s well-publicized assault on the “woke agenda” (ending DEI programmes and banning transgender soldiers from service, conducting testosterone tests on serving personnel etc) has acted like a lightning rod for the Democratic Party and his stance on these matters, combined with the “Iran war” that hasn’t gone as intended, mean impeachment may be re-visited when the new (Democrat controlled) congress assembles in January.  At that point, the word “fantastic” may start to be used of Mr Hegseth in one of its more ancient senses.

Chamber

Chamber (pronounced cheym-ber)

(1) A room, usually private, in a house or apartment, especially a bedroom (now archaic or poetic).

(2) A reception room or audience room in an official residence, palace, etc.

(3) The meeting hall of a legislative or other assembly.

(4) In law, a place where a judge hears matters not requiring action in open court.

(5) In England, the quarters or rooms that lawyers use to consult with their clients, especially in the Inns of Court.

(6) A legislative, judicial, or other like body.

(7) An organization of individuals or companies for a specified purpose.

(8) The place where the moneys due a government are received and kept; a treasury or chamberlain's office (obsolete).

(9) As chamberlet, a small chamber.

(10) Of or relating to, or performing chamber music.

(11) To put or enclose in, or as in, a chamber.

(12) To provide with a chamber.

(13) The space between two gates of the locks of a canal, dry dock, etc

(14) An enclosure for a cartridge in the cylinder of a revolver or for a shell in the breech of a cannon.

(15) An enclosed space, compartment or cavity; the smallest chamber in a cave.

1175-1225: From the Middle English chamber (a room in a (usually private) house) from the eleventh century Old French chambre (room, chamber, apartment), derived from the Late Latin camera (a chamber, room), variant of camara (vaulted room) from the Ancient Greek kamára.  In an interesting linguistic twist, the Old French and Middle English words were also used alone and in combinations to form words for "latrine, privy" from the idea of the "bedroom utensil for containing urine".  The word in the fourteenth century was adopted for use in to anatomy in the sense of "an enclosed space in a body" and this was extended to machinery after 1769, the use in gunnery or ballistics meaning  "part of the bore in which the charge is placed" dating from the 1620s.  The familiar use to refer to the rooms where legislative bodies assemble (ie upper & lower chambers) has been in use since circa 1400.  Chamber music dates from 1789; the distinction being it described a type of music meant to be performed in private rooms instead of public halls.  Chamber-lye, disturbingly to modern ears, meant "urine used as a detergent" and dates from the 1570s and the obviously related chamber-pot (also chamberpot) (vessel for urine used in bedrooms) came into use a decade earlier.  A chambermaid was (1) a female servant who dresses a lady and waits on her in her bedchamber and (2) a woman who makes beds and cleans rooms in a private house, palace or inn, a form which emerged in the 1580s and obviously derived from bedchamber (also bed-chamber) (a room for sleep or repose) which had been in use since the mid-fourteenth century.  Bedchamber is now archaic and used only in relation to royalty (an then mostly in historic reference), expensive hotels and hopeful real-estate salespeople.  The verb chamber was in the late fourteenth century derived from the noun and was used in the sense of (1) to restrain, shut up as in a chamber and (2) to furnish with a chamber" (implied in chambered); the related form was chambering.  The adjective chambered (divided into chambers) was from the same era and was the past-participle adjective the verb.  The famous reference to nautilus shells dates from 1819.  Chamber & chambering are nouns & verbs, chamberful & chamberer are nouns, chambered is a verb & adjective, chamberless & chamberlike are adjectives; the noun plural is chambers.

The cult of the combustion chamber.

In an ICE (internal combustion engine), the combustion chamber is the (temporarily) sealed space in which a quantity of fuel and air is compressed and then ignited (ie the mix is combusted), the energy released moving a piston or rotor, that energy subsequently transferred by a series of mechanical connections so the movement (transferred energy) can be applied to some purpose.  All else being equal, the larger the chamber and the more of them, the more energy can be produced, expressed usually as power or torque.  In an ICE, these ignitions happen thousands of times a second so the transfer of energy from the fuel to a mechanical action can be considerable.  Combustion chamber design has for well over a century occupied the time of engineers and a number of “standard types” emerged including the “wedge”, “hemi” “poly” and “swirl”.  For those designing a device for a single purpose the task can be a relatively simple quest for optimal efficiency (for short-duration purposes such as drag or sprint racing when all that matters is power & torque) whereas if there are a number of parameters it’s a matter of balancing out competing specific efficiencies (in endurance racing, economy matters as well as power & torque).  In mass production units for general sale, as well as striking a balance between output and economy, engineers also have to factor in the cost & ease of manufacture as well as (for the last 60-odd years) the toxicity of emissions.

Smith & Wesson Model 648 .22 WMR Revolver.  In a revolver, the bullets are housed in chambers (typically between 5 & 10) in the revolving cylinder.

Popular in the “female market” (in the US, a sector for some years exhibiting consistent growth) and something of a “sweet spot” for small-game-hunting and plinking (recreational target shooting), the .22 Magnum cartridge is suitable for both handguns and long-arms; inherently an accurate cartridge, the ballistics out of a 6-inch (150 mm) barrel handgun are at least equal to those of a 22 LR out of a 24-inch (610 mm) barrel rifle.  Smith & Wesson’s 648 was produced in runs between 1989-1996 and 2003-2005, the re-introduction in 2020 much welcomed.  The most recent edition uses a stainless steel version of S&W’s 6-inch K-Frame barrel with an 8-chamber cylinder.

The Court of Star Chamber

The former Court of Star Chamber (1836), engraving by unknown artist, published in Edward Walford’s (1823-1897) Old & New London (Volume 3, 1881), reproducing a visual record of the historic chamber shortly before it was demolished.

Named for the star pattern on the ceiling of the room in Westminster Palace where sittings were convened, the Court of Star Chamber (known almost always as the Star Chamber), was an English law court that operated in parallel with the common-law courts although its authority was drawn directly from the king's sovereign power and privileges; it was not bound by the common law or legal precedent.  Created originally to ensure the enforcement of laws against the socially and politically well-connected (those "ordinary" courts often for whatever reason hesitant to convict "the rich"), the Star Chamber evolved from the medieval King's Council.  There had been a tradition of the king presiding over a court composed of his Privy Counsellors and in 1487, under the supervision of Henry VII (1457–1509; King of England 1485-1509 and the first Tudor king), the Court of Star Chamber was established as a judicial body separate from the council (analogous with the way by the nineteenth century the courts of final appeal referred to as (1) the House of Lords and (2) the Privy Council had become specialized bodies with a small, judicially qualified membership while retaining the existing names).  The original rationale was for the Star Chamber to (1) oversee the lower courts, (2) act as a court of appeal and (3) hear petitions seeking redress addressed to the king.  Initially, the court heard cases only on appeal, but Henry VIII's (1491–1547; King of England 1509-1547) chancellor, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey (1473–1530; Lord High Chancellor of England 1515-1529) encouraged suitors directly to lodge writs of appeal and not await verdicts from the common-law courts (a concept that might have appeal for some modern-day litigants and lawyers).  Although most of the cases heard involved property rights, trade, government administration and public corruption, the Tudors especially were concerned with public disorder and Cardinal Wolsey referred matters involving forgery, fraud, perjury, riot, slander, and anything else he considered a breach of the peace. Following the Reformation, the Star Chamber was used (and much misused) to punish religious dissenters.

Procedurally the Star Chamber would begin a case with a petition or with information brought to the attention of the judges and depositions would be taken to discover the facts.  Accused parties could be put on oath to respond to the charges and answer detailed questions. No juries were used; members of the court decided whether to hear cases, passed verdicts and assigned punishments.  Structurally, the court was thus a hybrid with influences from the common law, Roman civil law, developments in Chancery (equity) law and the Court of Exchequer.  Interestingly, the court did not have capital jurisdiction so instead declared its choice of punishment was wholly arbitrary and not at all governed by precedent, guidelines or laws, judges able to choose (indeed even invent) the punishment(s) they felt most appropriate to the crime or criminal and on the bench there were some imaginative folk.  The sentences handed down included fines, time in the pillory (stocks), whipping, branding, mutilation or imprisonment for any length of time.  In Australia, there are critics of the NSW (New South Wales) ICAC (Independent Commission against corruption) who compare its operations with the Star Chamber; in this they’re only partially correct in that there are some procedural similarities but the comparison is not valid regarding punishments.

Tucked up: Lindsay Lohan in her bedchamber under tufted bedhead.

The Star Chamber offered an expeditious resolution to legal conflicts. It was popular with the Tudors because quickly it could enforce the law (or the will of the king when the letter of the law proved tiresome) when other courts were slow or tainted by corruption.  In royal circles it was valued because it could be relied upon to deliver "satisfactory remedies" in cases  where the common law restricted punishments able to be inflicted or failed to address specific infractions.  These days, some might call it "judicially efficient".  Under the Tudors, Star Chamber hearings were held in public, proceedings and verdicts subject to inspection, that alone inducing most judges to act with reason and try to deliver fair justice; it was in the seventeenth century, the court evolved into something secretive and corrupt, the Stuarts using the court to enforce their royal proclamations (ancestor of the "executive order" now much associated with the White House), holding sessions in secret and allowing no appeals.  Charles I (1600–1649; King of England, Scotland, and Ireland 1625-1649) saw the court as a substitute for Parliament when he tried to govern without calling the legislature into session and resentment grew as the Stuarts used the court to prosecute members of the nobility who otherwise would not be subject to prosecution in common-law courts.  The Long Parliament in 1641 abolished the Star Chamber and, except in historic references, the term "star chamber" is now almost always pejorative and used to describe social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the powers wielded (in political science, the doctrine of separation of powers is held to be the most effective means to prevent abuse of power by the state; at its most simple, it means the executive can no longer in individual cases impose the sanctions of criminal law, a function belonging exclusively to the courts.  The verbal shorthand for the concept is "judicial independence".

Not often was the Court of Star Chamber a cause for mirth but William Shakespeare (1564–1616) found a way in The Merry Wives of Windsor (1602), Justice Shallow in Act 1, Scene 1 saying: “Sir Hugh, persuade me not; I will make a Star-chamber matter of it: if he were twenty Sir John Falstaffs, he shall not abuse Robert Shallow, esquire.”  The context was the carefully named Justice Shallow, an arrogant, pompous provincial magistrate from Gloucestershire, was furious because Sir John Falstaff and his followers had insulted and robbed him and his cousin.  That this petty crime was not the sort of thing to come before the Star Chamber was the joke, showing Shallow’s puffed-up sense of self-importance and legal pedantry.  The Court of Star Chamber was a classic example of an institution that “seemed a good idea at the time” that came, through a process of “mission creep” later to be "re-purposed" and misused to the extent it became something worse than the problems it was created to solve.  The early records are sketchy so the origins are obscure but the critical point was that despite the creation of several layers of courts and the evolution of the English common law, no sovereign ever surrendered their “supreme jurisdiction” and by the thirteenth century, when sessions of the King's Council became regular (and functionally distinct from parliament), this residual supreme jurisdiction continued to be exercised by the King in council.  What happened was that as the common law administered by the courts introduced (by the operation of precedent) a certain predictability, the more erratic judgments handed down by the council (a body with unlimited jurisdiction) resulted in an increasing volume of complaints but, such was the state of constitutional development (essentially the balance of power between the king and parliament), successive parliaments had little success in effecting reforms.

Sir Edward Coke (published 1792), line engraving by Thomas Trotter (circa 1750-1803), after a portrait by Cornelius Johnson (Cornelius Janssen van Ceulen, 1593-1661), published by publisher & bookseller Thomas Cadell the Elder (1742-1802), National Portrait Gallery, London.

As late as the nineteenth century, historians were still writing of the Star Chamber (after operating for a half-century odd) “ceasing to exist” towards the end of the reign of Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England (and Ireland after 1541) 1509-1547) with the court’s powers reverting to the Council.  The extant records are contradictory but whatever the terminology used, it would seem a deliberative body at least “Star Chamber-like” sat concurrently with the Council and, by whatever processes, the two bodies were again separate institutions late in the reign of Elizabeth I (1533–1603; Queen of England & Ireland 1558-1603).  The murkiness seems to stem from the Act of 1540 including the phrase “in the Star Chamber or elsewhere” and this may explain why it became difficult to determine a clear distinction between the duties of the Privy Council and those of the Star Chamber; essentially, it wasn’t clear in what capacity members were sitting and there’s little to suggest they made jurisdictional distinctions.

The uncertainty is illustrated in the writings of eminent jurist Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634 Chief Justice of the King's Bench 1613–1616) who observed the Star Chamber “is (or may be) compounded of three several councils: (1) the Lords and others of the Privy Council; (2) the judges of either bench and the barons of the Exchequer; (3) the Lords of Parliament, who are not, however, standing judges of the court.”  Sir Edward usually is regarded as authoritative but William Hudson (circa 1577-1935), an advocate who practiced before the court, in 1621 claimed all peers had the right of sitting in the court and it’s not clear when that right was extinguished but definitely the privilege did not exist late in the seventeenth century.  Hudson’s Treatise of the court of Star Chamber (1621) was a quite strident defence of the Star Chamber, a response to complaints about the body’s haphazard ways with the records of pleadings and judgements.  Critics compared the court’s inconsistent, unstructured approach with the at least semi-codified methods by then adopted by Westminster’s other courts and found a “lack of diligence”, claiming the Star Chamber was no “settled, ordinary court of justice”, nor a “court of ordinary justice ever tied to form” but effectively “a committee for such great causes as it pleased the king”.  Hudson did not deny the administrative neglect but observed it was something new, the court in former times a model of record-keeping.  By the time Parliament abolished the Star Chamber, one of the distinctions MPs drew between it and what they deemed the “ordinary, legitimate courts of common law” was precisely that the former had no proper record whereas the latter did.

The Court of Star Chamber, Westminster (undated), lithograph by unknown artist, The National and Domestic History of England (circa 1890) by William Hickman Smith Aubrey (1858-1916).

That grumble really was a product of how “records” was defined.  The court produced an abundance of material, just not in the predictable, structured form used by other courts, a form that would come to be accepted as the proceedings of a “court of record” (ancestor of the modern law report).  If judged by volume alone, the Star Chamber certainly was productive, its documents including lengthy bills in the form of petitions through to rejoinders, demurrers, interrogatories, and depositions.  In a modern phrase, that was "a lot of data but not much information", lawyers finding it difficult to “mine” all this stuff for findings or facts, let alone incontrovertible determinations.  As an outgrowth of the authority of the sovereign, the jurisdiction of the Star Chamber was as vague as its constitution, Hudson making the point it was “impossible to define” without offending the supporters of “the prerogative” by a limitation of its powers, or the advocates by attributing to it “an excessive latitude”.  Given that, it’s hardly surprising the jurisdiction remained effectively close to unlimited and the vista was extraordinary, encompassing from time-to-time riots, murder, forgery, felony, perjury, fraud, libel and slander, duels and acts tending to treason, as well as of some civil matters, such as disputes about land between great men and corporations, disputes between English and foreign merchants, and testamentary cases.  It can be understood only as analogous to a delegation of the powers of an absolute monarch dispensing justice from his throne and that was of course the body's medieval root.  As Hudson put it: “All offences may be here examined and punished if the King will.”  Not constrained by the limitations and guideposts of the common law, Hudson’s critique was summed-up by a later reviewer as: “Its procedure was not according to the Common Law; it dispensed with the encumbrance of a jury; it could proceed on rumour alone; it could apply torture; it could inflict any penalty but death.”

The paradox of such an institution was that it was thus “admirably calculated to be the support of order against anarchy, or of despotism against individual and national liberty.”  So it proved, operating in the former light under the Stuarts and in the latter under the Tudors, shifting from “a tribunal constantly resorted to as a resource against the ignorance or prejudices of a country jury” where, in such investigations “it showed itself intelligent and impartial.”  Under the Stuarts, the Star Chamber became “the great engine of the royal tyranny” with “hateful and excessive punishments inflicted on those brought it judges”.  Amusingly, despite that perception, even as late as 1629 the Barons of the Exchequer felt moved to observe the Star Chamber was “one of the most high and honourable courts of justice.”  Although in 1641 abolished by an act of parliament, twenty years later the "gap in the judicial market" was considered by a committee of the House of Lords, their lordships reporting “that it was fit for the good of the nation that there be a court of like nature to the Star Chamber.”  The mood had however shifted and the matter wasn’t pursued.

Panda

Panda (pronounced pan-duh)

(1) A black & white, herbivorous, bearlike mammal (in popular use sometimes as “giant panda”), Ailuropoda melanoleuca (family Procyonidae), now rare with a habitat limited to relatively small forested areas of central China where ample growth exists of the stands of bamboo that constitutes the bulk of the creature’s diet.

(2) A reddish-brown (with ringed-tail), raccoon-like mammal (in the literature often referred to as the “lesser panda”), Ailurus fulgens (that inhabits mountain forests in the Himalayas and adjacent eastern Asia, subsisting mainly on bamboo & other vegetation, fruits, and insects).

(3) In Hinduism, a brahmin (a member of the highest (priestly) caste) who acts as the hereditary superintendent of a particular ghat (temple) and regarded as authoritative in matters of genealogy and ritual.

(4) In colloquial use (picked up as UK police slang) as “panda car” (often clipped to “panda”), a UK police vehicle painted in a two-tone color scheme (originally black & white but later more typically powder-blue & white) (historic use only).

(5) Used attributively, something (or someone) with all (or some combination of) the elements (1) black & white coloration, (2) perceptions of “cuteness” and (3) the perceived quality of being “soft & cuddly”.

1835: From the French (Cuvier), a name for the lesser panda, assumed to be from a Tibeto-Burman language or some other native Nepalese word.  Cuvier is a trans-lingual term which references the French naturalist and zoologist Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) and his younger brother the zoologist and paleontologist Frédéric Cuvier (1773–1838).  The term was use of any of the Latinesque or pseudo-Latin formations created as taxonomic names for organisms following the style & conventions used by the brothers.  Most etymologists suggest the most likely source was the second element of nigálya-pónya (a local name for the red panda recorded in Nepal and Sikkim), which was perhaps from the Nepali निँगाले (nĩgāle) (relating to a certain species of bamboo), the adjectival form of निँगालो (nĩgālo), a variant of निङालो (niṅālo) (Drepanostachyum intermedium (a species of bamboo)).  The second element was a regional Tibetan name for the animal, related in some way to ཕོ་ཉ (pho nya) (messenger).  The use in Hinduism describing “a learned, wise; learned man, pundit, scholar, teacher (and specifically of the Brahmin (a member of the highest (priestly) caste) who was the hereditary superintendent of a particular ghat (temple) and regarded as authoritative in matters of genealogy and ritual, especially one who had memorized a substantial proportion of the Vedas)” was from the Hindi पंडा (paṇḍā) and the Punjabi ਪਾਂਡਾ (pāṇḍā), both from the Sanskrit पण्डित (paṇḍita) (learned, wise; learned man, pundit, scholar, teacher).  The English word pundit (expert in a particular field, especially as called upon to provide comment or opinion in the media; a commentator or critic) entered the language during the British Raj in India, the use originally to describe native surveyor, trained to carry out clandestine surveillance the colonial borders.  The English form is now commonly used in many languages but the descendants included the Japanese パンダ (panda), the Korean 판다 (panda) and the Thai: แพนด้า.  Panda is a noun and pandalike (also as panda-like) is an adjective (pandaesque & panderish still listed as non-standard; the noun plural is pandas.

Charismatic creature: Panda with cub; like the dolphin with its permanent "happy smile", pandas gained much of their popularity from the genetic accident of their appearance, making them ideal as a model for plushies (stuffed toys).

Illustrative examples of PANDA as an acronym include (1) antiProton ANnihilation at Darmstadt (a particle physics experiment at GSI Darmstadt, Germany), (2) Professional Adult Nightclub DJ (Disc Jockey) Association, (3) Protocol for the Assessment of Non-Violent Direct Action and (4) Programa Nacional Contra el Desarrollo de Pandillas (Spanish: National Development Program against Gangs) while, uniquely, PANDAS stands for Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcal Infection.  As a word, panda has been productive.  The portmanteau noun pandemonium (the blend being panda +‎ (pande)monium was a humorous construct describing the reaction often seen in zoos when pandas appear and was on the model of fandemonium (the reaction of groupies and other fans to the presence of their idol).  The "trash panda" (also as "dumpster panda" or "garbage panda") was of US & Canadian origin and was an alternative to "dumpster bandit", "garbage bandit" or "trash bandit", describing the habit of raccoons foraging for food in trash receptacles.  The use was adopted because the black patches around the creature's eyes are similar to the markings of the giant panda.  The Australian equivalent is the "bin chicken", an allusion to the way the elegant ibis has adapted to habitat loss by entering the urban environment, living (very well) on food scraps discarded in rubbish bins.

Lindsay Lohan with “panda” eye makeup (left) and a cat managing the look, "makeup free" (right).  The companion term is "reverse panda", a usually unintended effect caused by light makeup around the eyes appearing as white circles or patches.  The look sometimes is exaggerated in photographs because of the use of studio lighting or a camera's flash.

The “panda crossing” was a pedestrian safety measure, an elaborate form of the “zebra crossing”.  It was introduced in the UK in 1962, the name derived from the two-tone color scheme used for the road marking and the warning beacons on either side of the road.  The design worked well in theory but not in practice and all sites had been decommissioned by late 1967 (although in New Zealand some were still in use in the 1990s).  The panda’s twotonalism led to the adoption of “panda dolphin” as one of the casual tags (the others being "jacobita", "skunk dolphin", "piebald dolphin" & "tonina overa" (the latter for the black & white Commerson's dolphin (Cephalorhynchus commersonii)).  In English, the first known reference to the panda was as a “carnivorous raccoon-like mammal (the lesser panda) of the Himalayas” while the giant panda was first described in 1901 although it had been “discovered” in 1869 by French missionary priest and zoologist Armand David (1826-1900); it was known as parti-colored until the name was changed after evidence of the zoological relationship to the red panda was accepted.  The giant panda was thus once included as part of the raccoon family but is now classified as a bear subfamily (Ailuropodinae), or as the sole member of a separate family (Ailuropodidae (which diverged from an ancestral bear lineage)).  The lesser panda (the population of which has greatly been reduced by collectors & hunters) is now regarded as unrelated to the giant panda and usually classified as the sole member of an Old World raccoon subfamily, Ailurinae, which diverged from an ancestral lineage that also gave rise to the New World raccoons, most familiar in North America.  As late as the early twentieth century, the synonyms for the lesser panda included "bear cat", "cat bear" & "wah", all long obsolete.

Panda diplomacy

Lindsay Lohan collecting Chinese takeaway from a Panda Express outlet, New York City, November 2008.

Although the first pandas were gifted by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek’s (1887-1975; leader of the Republic of China (mainland) 1928-1949 & the renegade province of Taiwan 1949-1975) Chinese government in 1941, “panda diplomacy” began as a Cold War term, the practice of sending pandas to overseas zoos becoming a tool increasingly used by Peking (Beijing after 1979) following the Sino-Soviet split in 1957.  Quite when the phrase was first used isn’t certain but it was certainly heard in government and academic circles during the 1960s although it didn’t enter popular use until 1972, when a pair of giant pandas (Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing) were sent to the US after Richard Nixon’s (1913-1994; VPOTUS 1953-1961 and POTUS 1969-1974) historic visit to China, an event motivated by Washington’s (1) interest in seeking Peking’s assistance in handling certain aspects of the conflict in Indochina and (2) desire to “move Moscow into check on the diplomatic chessboard”.  Ever since, pandas have been a unique part of the ruling CCP's (Communist Party of China) diplomatic toolbox although since 1984 they’ve been almost always leased rather than gifted, the annual fee usually over US$1 million per beast, the revenue generated said to be devoted to conservation of habitat and a selective breeding program designed to improve the line’s genetic diversity.  Hong Kong in 2007 was gifted a pair but that’s obviously a special case ("one country, two pandas") and while an expression of diplomatic favour, they can be also an indication of disapprobation, those housed in the UK in 2023 returned home at the end of the lease and not replaced.  In the CCP's world view, there are countries in "the panda house" and those in "the doghouse".

It’s one of a set of such terms in geopolitics including  “shuttle diplomacy” (the notion of a negotiator taking repeated "shuttle flights" between countries involved in conflict in an attempt to manage or resolve things (something with a long history but gaining the name from the travels here & there of Dr Henry Kissinger (1923-2023; US national security advisor 1969-1975 & secretary of state 1973-1977) in the 1960s & 1970s)), “ping-pong diplomacy” (the use of visiting table-tennis teams in the 1960s & 1970s as a means of reducing Sino-US tensions and maintaining low-level cultural contacts as a prelude to political & economic engagement), “commodity diplomacy” (the use of tariffs, quotas and other trade barriers as “bargaining chips” in political negotiations), “gunboat diplomacy” (the threat (real or implied) of the use of military force as means of coercion), “hostage diplomacy” (holding the nationals of a country in prison or on (sometimes spurious) charges with a view to exchanging them for someone or something) and “megaphone diplomacy” (an official or organ of government discussing in public what is usually handled through “usual diplomatic channels”; the antonym is “quiet diplomacy”).

Panda diplomacy in action.  Panda up tree can be dubbed "Beijing" and one attempting climb, "Renegade".

A case study in the mechanics of panda diplomacy was provided by PRC (People’s Republic of China) Premier Li Qiang (b 1959; premier of the PRC since 2023) during his official visit to Australia in June 2024.  Mr Li’s presence was an indication the previous state of “diplomatic deep freeze” between Beijing and Canberra had been warmed to something around “correct but cool”, the earlier state of unarmed conflict having been entered when the CCP didn't react well to public demands (delivered via “megaphone diplomacy”) by previous Australian prime minister Scott Morrison (b 1968; Australian prime-minister 2018-2022) for an international enquiry into the origin of the SARS-Covid-2 virus which triggered the COVID-19 pandemic.  Such a thing might have been a good idea but underlying Mr Morrison’s strident call was that he was (1) blaming the PRC and (2) accusing the CCP of a cover-up.  Mr Morrison is an evangelical Christian and doubtlessly it was satisfying for him to attend his church (one of those where there’s much singing, clapping, praising the Lord and discussing the real-estate market) to tell his fellow congregants how he’d stood up to the un-Christian, Godless communists but as a contribution to international relations (IR), it wasn’t a great deal of help.  His background was in advertising and coining slogans (he so excelled at both so clearly it was his calling) but he lacked the background successfully to handle the demands of IR (international relations).  The CCP’s retributions (trade sanctions and declining to take Canberra's phone calls) might have been an over-reaction but to a more sophisticated (if less godly) prime minister they would have been reasonably foreseeable.

Two years on from Mr Morrison's self-inflicted diplomatic injury and with Australia now under new management, Mr Li arrived at Adelaide Zoo for a photo-opportunity to announce the impending arrival of two new giant pandas, the incumbent pair, Wang Wang and Fu Ni, soon to return to China after their 15 year stint.  Wang Wang and Fu Ni, despite over those years having been provided “every encouragement” (including both natural mating and artificial insemination) to procreate, proved either unable or unwilling so, after thanking the zoo’s staff for looking after them so well, the premier announced: “We will provide a new pair of equally beautiful, lovely and adorable pandas to the Adelaide Zoo.”, he said through an interpreter, adding: “I'm sure they will be loved and taken good care of by the people of Adelaide, South Australia, and Australia.”  The duo, the only giant pandas in the southern hemisphere, had been scheduled to return in 2019 at the conclusion of the original ten year lease but sometime before the first news of COVID-19, this was extended to 2024.  Although their lack of fecundity was disappointing, there’s nothing to suggest the CCP regard this as a loss of face (for them or the apparently unromantic couple), Wang Wang & Fu Ni able to enjoy a comfortable retirement, munching on abundant supplies of bamboo.  Unlike some who have proved a “disappointment” to the CCP, they’ll be spared time in a “re-education centre”.

Despite tensions between Beijing and Washington, panda diplomacy remains a “headline element” in foreign policy.  During a recent visit to the US, Xi Jinping (b 1953; General Secretary of the CCP and paramount leader of the PRC since 2012) announced a breeding pair of giant pandas would be sent to Zoo Atlanta in Georgia, the “envoys of friendship” (Ping Ping & Fu Shuang) arriving within days.  Whether the alleged “subliminal messaging” (China not as a threatening predator but rather cuddly companion) still works (or ever did) isn’t clear but they’re certainly a popular attraction with crowds at zoos, making the annual lease-fee (up to US$1.2 million per panda with an additional US$600,000 payable for each cub born) sound value.  It’s also a good case study for those writing contracts, China retaining ownership of not only the leased adults but also any offspring and additionally, facilities often pay up to US$2 million for “sponsorship” and “research” funding.  While hard to be definitive, the “panda-rental” programme may be self-funding, one US think tank estimating gross-income between 1994 and 2023 of some US$300 million from its panda-rental program.  Given that, Guinness World Records listing the giant panda as the “most expensive species in captivity” (costing more even than Taylor Swift’s (b 1989) cats) is understandable.

Panda diplomacy in action.

As an example of the craft of legal drafting, the contracts are about as one-sided as it possible to achieve, the lessor able unilaterally to terminate (without notice or compensation) any agreement, effectively without having to cite any reason for the premature recall.  Although a number of potential grounds are mentioned (including “unauthorized release of relevant information”), the vista is so wide they can mean whatever the CCP on the day decides they mean and although some of proscribed words seem innocuous (“lease”; “rental”; “loan”; “contract”), clearly they are thought “sensitive” in Beijing.  That does seem strange given the essentially “transactional” nature of panda diplomacy is hardly a secret and were there any doubts, recalling two US-born panda cubs after the White House announced Barack Obama (b 1961; POTUS 2009-2017) would not cancel his meeting with the 14^th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso, b 1935) illustrated how these things work.  From the point of view of assisting in the conservation of a vulnerable species, panda diplomacy does seem to be a positive force, arguments the bears are being “exploited for commercial and diplomatic purposes” a little abstract given their apparent contentment during the “overseas holidays”.  However, whether their presence in zoos here and there is a meaningful measure of bilateral relations is now questionable but what might be indicative of something is that the number of countries with leased pandas has dropped from (a pre-COVID-19) 21 in 2019 to 16 by 2026.  More fun is to compare the creatures with the PRC’s foreign policy.  Panda’s are popular as plushies because the appears so placid and cuddly but, in reality, are quite formidable with long, sharp claws and a bite with a force similar to that of an adult male lion and, as more than one political scientist has observed, even when sitting docile, a panda cannot conceal its teeth.

Pandas on four wheels

Top row: A classic UK police Wolseley 6/80 (1948-1954, left) in black, a staple of 1950s UK film & television, a brace of Adaux era Hillman Minxes (1956–1967, the time of the first "true" black & white "panda cars", centre) and Jaguar Mark 2 (1959-1969, right).

Bottom row: Ford Anglia 105E (1958-1968, in one of the pastel blues that replaced the gloss black, left) on postage stamp issued by the Royal Mail in 2013, Rover Rover 3500 (SD1, 1976-1984, centre) in one of the deliberately lurid schemes used in the 1970s & 1980s (UK police forces stockpiled Rover 3500s when it was announced production was ending; they suspected what would follow would be awful and they were right) and BMW 320d (right) in the "Battenburg markings" designed by the Police SDB (Scientific Development Branch).

Until the 1960s, the fleets of cars run by most of the UK’s police forces tended to be a glossy black.  That began to change when, apparently influenced by US practice, the front doors and often part or all of the roof were painted white, the change said to be an attempt to make them “more distinctive”.  The new scheme saw them soon dubbed “panda cars”, the slang picked up by police officers (in their economical way, often clipped to “panda”) and use persisted for years even after the dominant color switched from black to pastels, typically a duck-egg blue.  Things got brighter over the years until the police developed the high-visibility “Battenburg markings” a combination of white, blue and fluorescent yellow, a system widely adopted internationally.  Interestingly, although the black & white combination was used between the 1960s-1990s by New Zealand’s highway patrol cars (“traffic officers” then separate from the police), the “panda car” slang never caught on.

The Fiat Panda

Basic motoring: 1980 Fiat Panda.

Developed during the second half of the troubled and uncertain 1970s, the Fiat Panda debuted at the now defunct Geneva Motor Show in 1980.  Angular, though not a statement of high rectilinearism in the manner of the memorable Fiat 130 coupé (1971-1977), it was a starkly functional machine, very much in the utilitarian tradition of the Citroën 2CV (1948-1990) but visually reflecting more recent trends although, concessions to style were few, the asymmetry in the frontal facia one of the few imaginative hints and even that was an example of production-line rationalization, the grille to the left on models with an air-cooled engine and to the right for water-cooled versions, the single panel simply rotated prior to assembly.  In the design brief, Fiat had made clear it wanted a car with the cross-cultural appeal of its earlier Cinquecento (500, 1957-1975 and in some markets dubbed Bambino).  Dating from the eighteenth century, the Italian bambino was used of "a child or baby, especially a representation in art of the infant Christ wrapped in swaddling clothes" and the tiny 500 was, like the BMC (British Motor Corporation, 1952-1968) Mini (1959-2000) or denim jeans, able to transcend class, valued by all for practicality.  Designed from “the inside out” in the Fiat's 600 Multipla's (1956-1967) tradition of pure functionalism, the passenger compartment’s dimensions defined the basic structure atop the mechanical components, the body built around those parameters.

1985 Fiat Panda 4x4.  Although basic, the modularity throughout made the structure highly adaptable.  At the time, green interiors were still a thing.

The focus always was on minimizing the number of components, simplifying manufacturing and assembly processes with the final package designed to render maintenance as infrequently required and inexpensive as possible.  One "retro-innovation" which seemed at the time a money-saving device was that all glass was flat, something that had fallen from fashion for windscreens in the 1950s and for side windows a decade later because it was a simple way to increase interior space.  In theory, reverting to the pre-war practice should have meant lower unit costs and greater left-right interchangeability but no manufacturer in Italy had maintained the machinery to produce such things so consequently, the cost per square metre proved higher than would have been the case for curved glass.  Over three generations until 2024, the Panda was a great success although one that did stray from its utilitarian origins as European economies recovered from the strains of the 1970s.  There was in the 1990s even an electric version which, very expensive and with capabilities (performance & range) limited by the technology of the time, was not a success.

The name came from mythology, Empanda, a Roman goddess who was patroness of travelers and controversial among historians, some regarding her identity as but the family name of Juno, the Roman equivalent of Hera, the greatest of all the Olympian goddesses.  Whatever the lineage, she was a better choice for Fiat than Pandarus (Πάνδαρος) who came from the city of Zeleia, Apollo himself teaching him the art of archery.  Defying his father’s advice, Pandarus marched to Troy as a foot soldier, refusing to take a chariot & horses; there he saw Paris & Menelaus engaged in single combat and the goddess Athena incited Pandarus to fire an arrow at Menelaus.  In this way the truce was broken and the war resumed, the coda being Pandarus then fought Diomedes but was killed, his death thought punishment for his treachery in breaking the truce.  Although neutral on the mythology, the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) had objected to Fiat using the name of an endangered species but, pragmatically, agreed when the company made a “substantial financial contribution” that could be devoted to conservation programmes.  A cheque (check) could then validly be written on any surface so a Panda was delivered to the WWF with the relevant words and numbers on the hood (bonnet).

Press-kit images for 2024 Fiat Grande Panda issued by Stellantis, June 2024.  Despite the advertising agency's efforts, bright colors have yet to make much of a comeback. 

In June 2024, Fiat announced the fourth generation Panda and advances in technology meant the "mild hybrid" and all-electric power-trains were mainstream products, competitive on all specific measures (except price breakdown where the Chinese industry enjoys advantages perhaps beyond what an analysis of production and distribution costs would reveal).  The Grande Panda was built on the new Stellantis “Smart Car Platform” (shared with the Citroën ë-C3), offering seating capacity for five.  Unlike the original, the 2024 Panda features a few stylistic gimmicks including headlights and taillights with a “pixel theme”, the look extended to diamond-cut aluminum wheels, a homage to geometric motifs of the 1980s and the earlier Panda 4x4.  Although an accomplished piece, it lacks the style and charm of what Fiat produced between the 1950s and 1970s although, to be fair, the new Pandas apparently are commendably rust-resistant.

Homer's other odyssey: Homer vs Dignity 

Panda scene from Homer vs Dignity.

Pandas (real & fake) have a role in Homer vs Dignity, (November, 2000, episode 5, season 12 of the animated television series The Simpsons (on the Fox network 1989-2024, on Disney+ since 2024)).  The plot line involved evil nuclear power-plant owner Montgomery Burns hiring Homer Simpson as his “prank monkey”, staging public antics and publicly humiliating himself, all for Mr Burns’ amusement.  The most controversial scene was the one in which Homer, dressed in a panda suit, enjoyed (in two of "enjoyed" several senses) intimacy with a real captive panda (presumably this was referred to and signed-off by Fox's lawyers).  On The Simpsons, there’d not before been a scene like it and despite the cartoon South Park (on Paramount+'s Comedy Central since 1997) raising (or lowering, depending on the degree of one's nihilism) the cartoon bar, there’s not since been another in its ilk.

Psychological moment, Homer Simpson being dragged into panda’s den.  In the age of #metoo, Fox’s lawyers might have suggested a script-revision, “Homer being violated by a panda” just not as funny anymore.

Homer vs Dignity was at the time cited by some as a “jumping the shark” moment although it’s regarded now as a marker of a trend towards cheerfully deliberate inconsistencies (it is, after all, a cartoon show) rather than an aberration or harbinger of decline.  The idiomatic “jumping the shark” is a reference to some creative endeavor having worked the concept dry and resorting instead to gimmicks and absurdities.  The term dates from 1985 and was coined by US media personality Jon Hein (b 1957) as a belated response to an episode in the fifth season of the ABC sitcom Happy Days (1974-1984) in which a character, most incongruously, performs a water ski jump over a caged shark.  However, although Homer vs Dignity widely was panned, typically it doesn't appear in the various “top five worst episodes ever” lists, headed often by The Principal and the Pauper (September, 1997, episode 2, season 9) in which school principal Seymour Skinner is revealed to be an imposter and dismissed from his position.  However, Principle Skinner was needed as an ongoing character so the writers resolved things by having the entire population of Springfield assemble and declare never again to speak of the matter, the town's resident judge imposing the order under penalty of torture.  While the internal logic was faultless, even by cartoon standards it was an obvious fudge.