Pamphlet

Pamphlet (pronounced pam-flit)

(1) A complete publication, of undefined length with fewer pages than the shortest books (typically, 10-40 pages) and usually stitched or stapled with a paper or soft-cardboard cover (although the very early pamphlets tended to be unbound).

(2) A short treatise or essay, generally a controversial tract on some subject of contemporary interest, historically most associated with a political position.

(3) A kind of precursor newspaper containing literary compositions, advertisements and news (archaic).

(4) A brief handwritten work (obsolete) except in some university clubs and societies.

(5) To print (always rare and now obsolete) or distribute pamphlets (obsolete).

1375–1425: From the late Middle English pamphlet & pamphilet, from the earlier pamflet (brief written text; poem, tract, small book), from the Middle French pamphilet (influenced by the Anglo-Latin pamfletus, panfletus & paunflettus (short written text), a syncopated variant of Pamphiletus, diminutive of the twelfth century Medieval Latin Pamphilus, the short form of Pamphilus, seu de Amore (about love), a brief Latin erotic poem (Pamphilus the protagonist) that was popular and widely copied in the Middle Ages (it inspired also a number of comedies for the stage).  The name came from the Ancient Greek Πάμφιλος (Pámphilos), literally “beloved by all”), the construct being pan- (all) + philos (loving, dear).  Because the poems and dramatic works were issued in the short, easily carried format ideally suited to political or other statements, the widely circulated pamphlets lent their name to the whole phenomenon which, as a form of distribution can be imagined as the tweets or TikTok clips of their time.

The meaning once so associated with the word (brief work dealing with questions of current interest; short treatise or essay, generally controversial, on some topical subject) dates from the late sixteenth century, a time when for social and technological reasons, such publications became suddenly popular.  The noun pamphleteer (a writer of pamphlets) emerged in the 1640s and was applied even to activists who merely supported what was advocated, regardless of their involvement in distribution.  From that noun, by the 1690s, came the verb, used in the sense of “to write and issue pamphlets”.  The spellings pamphlette & pamphleter are functionally extinct.  The word pamphlet was adopted unchanged in French, German and Italian while in Spanish the form was Spanish: panfleto and in Portuguese panfleto.  Pamphlet, pamphleteering & pamphleteer are nouns & verbs, pamphletry & pamphleting are nouns, verb & adjective, pamphletful & pamphletism are nouns, pamphleteered & pamphletize, pamphletizes & pamphletizing are verbs, pamphletary & pamphletic are adjectives and pamphletwise is an adverb; the noun plural is pamphlets (pamphleteers has become rare since the predominant meaning shift from polemics to information although some political scientists are fond).

Areopagitica; A speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicenc'd Printing, to the Parlament of England (1644).  A slim work of 30 pages, long titles were then a thing for pamphlets.  Areopagitica (the title references both the democratic traditions of Ancient Greece and the words of Saint Paul in the New Testaments Book of Acts (17:18-34)) was written in prose and was one of the more influential pamphlets extolling the virtues of the principle of freedom of speech and expression.

The pamphlet was the platform of choice for many writers noted for the vigor of their religious or political views including Sir Thomas More (1478–1535), William Tyndale (circa 1494–1536), Gerrard Winstanley (circa 1609–1676), John Milton (1608–1674), Daniel Defoe (circa 1660–1731), Thomas Dekker (circa 1572–1632), Jonathan Swift (1667–1745), Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792–1822), and the many nineteenth century Chartists.  In this form, it was in England the pamphlet first flourished because unlike in much of Europe, censorship by the state was less restrictive and the power of the churches diminished.  Still, authors did need to be careful and after making the mistake of travelling to Europe where priests still held sway, Tyndale was convicted of heresy and strangled while tied to the stake, actually a merciful act because his body was burned only after death.  In France, the turbulent years of revolutions, empire and wars (1789-1848) were also the “pamphlet decades”, the streets a “battleground of ideas” as well as barricades and bayonets.

The Federalist Papers (Signet Classics edition, 2003) with an introduction, textual notes and a select bibliography by US political scientist Charles R. Kesler (b 1956); since 1788, the book has never been out-of-print.  As well as the obvious importance as a historic document, the contents are of interest if contrasted in content and breadth of ambition with current political discourse.

Among the most famous pamphlets are a few dozen which are remembered not in their original format but as the compilation into which they were assembled for publication the book The Federalist Papers (1788).  The Federalist Papers were literally that, 85 tracts written by Alexander Hamilton (circa 1756-1804), James Madison (1751-1836) and John Jay (1745-1829) and simultaneously in 1787-1788 published in New York newspapers and issued as pamphlets under the pseudonym “Publius”.  The purpose was to encourage ratification of the new US Constitution which had emerged from the Federal Convention in September 1787 and although knowledge of the identity of the authors was widespread, the authors chose “Publius” in a nod to Publius Valerius Publicola, one of the founders of the ancient Roman Republic.  What the pamphleteers wanted was “endorsement by association”; because Publicola translated as “friend of the people” the notion was to link their arguments with republican virtue and the protection of the people from monarchical despotism.

An edition of Some reflections on a pamphlet lately publish'd, entituled, An argument shewing that a standing army is inconsistent with a free government (1697) by Daniel Defoe.

Many of Defoe's pamphlets were not at the time attributed to him although than didn't save him from spending three days in the pillory after political power in the country suddenly shifted.  Nor were most of his novels originally published under his name.  In early eighteenth century England, anonymity was common for those writing novels because prose fiction had neither become “respectable” or solidified as a clearly labeled genre, the objection being the stuff simply wasn’t “true”.  That’s why works like Robinson Crusoe (1719) were marketed as “histories” or “lives”, anonymity helping to sustain the illusion the text was genuine testimony rather than invention.

Meaning shifts in English are not uncommon but the semantic shift of “pamphlet” was an example of a process in which there was first a broadening of use followed by something of a drift rather than a simple replacement. In terms of content, the original sense (which flourished between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) had nothing to do with the source of the name which came from a Latin love poem which remained popular in the late medieval & early modern period.  Although there were a handful of examples of Pamphilus, seu de Amore which had been “embellished and extended” by opportunist authors, almost all versions were distributed as folios of a few pages and because this length was ideal for presenting political or theological polemics to a public unlikely to read (and, importantly, pay for) full-length books on the topics, these came to be known as “pamphlets” and those writing the overwhelmingly religious and political tracts were thus pamphleteers.  Until well into the eighteenth century, the word “pamphlet” was used for no other purpose than this canonical historical sense but in the 1800s a noticeable broadening happened in the UK which historians link with (1) the economies of scale offered by improvement in industrial printing, (2) rising literacy levels (3) a heightened interest in political matters as a consequence of the franchise being extended by the Reform Acts (1832, 1867 & 1884), (4) a splintering of various religious denominations and (5) the reduction in the cost of distribution (the extension of road and rail systems).

Pamphlet dealing with STIs (sexually transmitted infections) which used to be called STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) or VD (venereal disease).  Note the reassuring pastel hues.

While the interaction of all these forces meant there were more political and religious tracts (ironically, at a time when matters concerning the latter were becoming less controversial), the short, digestible form of the cheaply-produced pamphlet came to have great appeal in commerce so the term came to be used of just about any small, free booklet.  In an indication that while the means of distribution have changed, the strategy has not, the folk paid a tiny sum to stand on the platforms of railway stations and hand out pamphlets to commuters were fulfilling the same task as the algorithms used to deliver advertising to inboxes and web-pages.  Really, only the targeting has much improved but linguistically, this was the crucial shift; from content-focused to format-defined.  Over time, the proliferation of product announcements, catalogues, and advertising subsumed the original meaning but despite that, many etymologists seem to suggest the association of “pamphlets” with “advertising” didn’t become prevalent until the early twentieth century.

What modern targeted-marketing made an effected tool was the “virtual pamphlet” delivered by companies to digital inboxes of all sorts.  What lands in the inbox of one user will have content optimized for what that user’s history suggests will most likely provoke engagement (and hopefully sell stuff) while the user sitting in the adjacent cubicle might receive something with different content.  In the pre-modern days of printed pamphlets, it was a one-size-fits-all approach although even then a primitive form of targeting was possible; the pamphlets a manufacturer might place in a shop selling women’s shoes would likely be different from the stack in the men’s store.  However, as technology improved and costs further fell (two symbiotic forces) the forms of the printed ephemera of commerce proliferated and the documents became variously smaller, larger, thicker, slimmer, glossier and more colourful which demanded a new descriptive language, thus the emergence or re-purposing of “posters”, “catalogues”, “flyers”, “handbills”, “booklets”, “brochures”, “bulletins”, “folders”, “handouts”, “handbills” and “leaflets”.  With this new generation of forms, the idea of the “tract” which was once synonymous with “pamphlet” became separated and restricted to those documents which were still polemics on religion, politics, policy or some other topical matter.  Pamphlet thus didn’t until later become associated with commercial advertising with “brochure” or “catalogue” used for the more polished publications with the highest production values (indeed, auction houses handling high-priced collectables routinely charge for their glossy catalogues) while “leaflet”, “handbill”, “flyer” and such was used of simpler, often single-sheet and sometimes monochrome.  All this meant by the early twentieth century pamphlet had lost the “exclusivity of seriousness”, something exemplified by a heritage running from Jonathan Swift to The Federalist Papers.

Ocala Plastic Surgery and the Wuxi Sweet Fastener Company both sell solutions to problems but just as their products differ, so do the dynamics of their pamphlets.  Whether pamphlet, catalogue, poster or whatever, content can to some extent dictate form and method.  Ocala Plastic Surgery distributes brochures which not only are information-dense about the range of services offered but also includes visual content designed to entice; even the color choices are part of the messaging.  By contract, the Wuxi Sweet Fastener Company is really providing a list of products and specifications with the photography not at all artistic but most informative.  Not being in markets like Victoria's Secrets or Ocala Plastic Surgery, the Wuxi Sweet Fastener Company uses mostly functional black text on a white background with the odd splash of color there just to draw the eye to a corporate logo or heading.

So the word “pamphlet” became “neutral” because it came to describe a printed format with no implication of content, modern pamphlets typically either instructional, containing information or advertising.  That doesn’t mean there are no longer printed documents described as “political pamphlets” but those which still appear in letter-boxes around election time are better thought of as flyers, usually with a photograph of a smiling candidate and the odd TWS (three word slogan).  The content of pamphlets of the type widely circulated centuries ago has now been relegated to essays published in specialized periodicals and for these “long-form” pieces, readers of course have to pay for the privilege.  In that sense, the “pamphlet” is a historic relic sometimes seen in literary use although, curiously, in political science, politicians with a habit of writing pieces beyond a TWS are still sometimes dubbed “pamphleteers”.  One crew which still occasionally hands outs longer tracts in the style of the old religious pamphlets is the Jehovah's Witnesses but they’re something of a rarity, even a dedicated lot like the Falun Gong prone to modernist brevity.  That leaves some other terms to be described:

Tract: A doctrinal or moral argument in small format, a tract now is understood as a (relatively) short written work advancing a specific doctrine or moral argument.  Whether this is in a simple, accessible form or a dense piece littered with jargon likely to be understood only by other specialists in the field is determined not only by the subject but also the place of publication.  A tract discussing troubles in the Middle East will be different in form depending on whether it appears in a tabloid newspaper or a journal like Foreign Affairs, and that’s one aspect of what Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980) explained as “…the medium is the message…” in Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1964).

Broadsheet: Most associated with the now mostly extinct large-form newspaper, the term “broadsheet was used to describe a large-format single sheet for public display.  A broadsheet (broadside also used) could be similar in size to a “poster” and was also a large sheet of paper (or cardboard or other flat surface), printed on one side and designed to be posting in some public place affording wide visibility.  Broadsheets often were used for announcements, news or proclamations by governments and often featured a mix of bold and dense text, woodcut illustrations once a popular inclusion.  The information could include public notices (executions, laws, events, rewards offered for this and that).

Poster for French market release of The Canyons (2013). 

Poster: Although often thought a twentieth century form, the poster is an ancient medium and definitionally it now differs from a broadsheet in that it seeks to convey a message with the use of image rather than text.  Additionally, when text does appear on a poster (and most do include some), especially in the larger formats, it’s often in a stylized form or a typeface which is obviously “artistic”.  The poster is a practical example of the adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” and there have been some memorable eras in posters as graphic art in the twentieth century assumed a previously denied respectability.  In part this was due to the new movements in art (futurism, orphism, cubism etc) being ideally suited to the poster's traditional rectangular aspect but the finest in the genre were probably those in the traditions of art deco, pop art and psychedelia.  Posters, although two-dimensional and static, remain popular appear to have weathered the onset of digital (and may even have benefited from the technology) and it seems likely AI (artificial intelligence) will also be adapted.

Circular: A circular is a document periodically distributed to a targeted, defined audience.  There is no one definition of what a circular looks like, it may be brief or long and come in a variety of (usually smallish) sizes but its core purpose tends to be  the dissemination of informational deemed to be of interest to the audience (or, at least, that in which it’s thought they should be interested).  The classic circulars are now those used for institutional communication (churches great users of the concept).

Victoria’s Secrets catalogue which, on the internet, works as a kind of combination of advertising copy and interactive database.

Catalogue: Catalogues have a long history in modern commerce and the model used by Amazon and such is exactly the same as the old “mail order catalogues” which in the nineteenth century the Americans perfected as a means of distributing goods (via the US Mail) over vast distances.  What has changed is the immediacy; while something ordered through Amazon can land on one’s porch within 24 hours, goods ordered from a mail-order catalogue might not be seen for weeks.  Still, the principle remains the same.  A catalogue is understood as a list of products and that may be as simple as pages of text or accompanied by lavish and tempting illustrations.

Brochure: A brochure is a “puff-piece” and a kind of advertising pamphlet.  A brochure may focus on a single product, a number of products or a manufacturer’s entire range.  Accordingly, a brochure may be a single page or a longer document which is distinguished from a catalogue only in the level of detail tending to be greater.

1961 Ford Galaxie Starliner (left) & 1962 Galaxie with “distinguished hardtop styling” (aka “boxtop”, right)

There are even “fake brochures”.  The aerodynamic qualities the 1960-1961 Ford Galaxie Starliner, possessed by virtue of its gently sloping rear roof-line, generated both speed and stability on the NASCAR (National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing) ovals; that made it a successful race-car but in the showrooms, after some early enthusiasm, sales dropped so it was replaced in 1962 with an implementation of the “formal” style which had been so well-received when used on the Thunderbird.  As the marketing department predicted (or, more correctly, worked out from the results of their focus-group sessions), what they called “distinguished hardtop styling” proved more commercially palatable but while customers may have been seduced, the physics of fluid dynamics didn’t change and the “buffeting” induced at speeds above 140 mph (225 km/h) limited performance, adversely affected straight-line stability (especially when in close proximity to other cars); it also increased fuel consumption, in distance racing especially, something as significant as weight, speed and power.  What the “distinguished hardtop styling” had done was make the Galaxie less competitive on the circuits, the loss of up to 3 mph (5 km/h) in top speed the difference being winning and losing; putting on the lipstick had produced a pig.

Beware of imitations: Images from Ford's 1962 Galaxie Starlift “brochure” which didn't fool the NASCAR scrutineers. 

Quickly to regain the lost aerodynamic advantage, Ford fabricated a handful of detachable fibreglass hard-tops which could be “bolted on”, essentially transforming a Galaxie convertible back into something as slippery (and even a little lighter) as the previous Starliner.  Having no intention of incurring the expense of designing and engineering them to an acceptable consumer standard (which they knew few anyway would buy) Ford simply gave the hand-made plastic roof the name “Starlift”, allocated a part-number and even mocked-up a brochure for NASCAR's officials to read.  Although on paper it appeared a FADC (factory-authorized dealer accessory) like any other (floor-mats, mud flaps etc), an inspection of the device revealed it was obviously phoney, the rear passenger glass on each side not fitting the sloping C-pillar, demanding the use of a pair of tacked-on plastic fillers to close the gap and it was obvious the thing wasn’t close to being waterproof.  Although prepared to turn a blind eye when it suited them, NASCAR thought all this beyond the pale and outlawed the scam.

Triumph Stag magazine advertising: Although conforming to the general specifications of a “flyer” (one page, single side printing, single purpose theme), magazine advertising tended to use the style and techniques of brochures, some would classify this as a “brochure” because of the shared design language.  Because of constraints of space, such advertising usually didn’t contain the wealth of technical details which typically were included in catalogues.

Political campaign flyers: Physical copies printed for crooked Hillary Clinton’s (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) campaign in the New Hampshire Primary seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for the 2008 US presidential election (left) and a digital template for those supporting Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) in the 2024 US presidential election.  Crooked Hillary’s flyer was distributed by her campaign team; the Trump material was hosted by various Republican-aligned PACs (political action committees).

Flyer, handbill & leaflet: Whether in form or content a flyer, handbill or leaflet differ really doesn’t matter and the three terms are used interchangeably, the choice a function of local practice.  All three imply something small, cheap and “handed-out” (often in the literal sense of someone standing on a street-corner) for some limited, specific purpose (such as a new sushi bar opening around the corner).  The small leaflets came to be known as flyers (the original term in late 1880s US use was “fly-sheet”) on the notion of “made to be scattered around” (ie, the image of stuff “flying around”).  Prior to “flyer” catching on, such papers were called “hand-bills”, that term based on “billboards” (large, poster sized displays) so a handbill was “a bill conveniently held in the hand”.

Contempt

Contempt (pronounced kuhn-tempt)

(1) The feeling with which a person regards anything (or anyone) considered mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn.

(2) The state of being despised; dishonor; disgrace.

(3) An act showing such disrespect.

(4) In most legal systems, willful disobedience to or open disrespect for the rules or orders of a court contempt of court or legislative body; punishable by being cited for “contempt of court”.

(5) In chess engines (the software used in chess games), as an ellipsis of “contempt factor”, a setting that modifies how much an engine values a draw versus a win or loss, making it play more aggressively or defensively based on perceived opponent strength.  The idea is to encourage interesting games by making engines avoid draws against weaker foes or seek them against stronger ones.

1350–1400: From the Middle English contempnen, from the Anglo-French contemner, from the Old French contempt & contemps, from the Latin contemptus (despising, scorn), a noun derivative of contemnere, from contemnō (I scorn, despise).  It displaced the native Old English forsewennes.  The late fourteenth century meaning was “an open disregard or disobedience (of authority, the law etc)” while the general sense of “act of despising; scorn for what is mean, vile, or worthless” was in use by at least circa 1400.  In Latin, there was also the feminine contemptrix (she who despises).  In the technical sense, the codified offence of “contempt of court” (open disregard or disrespect for the rules, orders, or process of judicial authority) dates only from the early eighteenth century but the variants of the concept have been in use almost as long as there have been courts.

Unusually (in terms of construction), the phrase “beneath contempt” really means “extremely contemptible”.  In idiomatic use, “familiarity breeds contempt” suggests “a prolonged closeness or exposure or a profound knowledge of someone or something often leads to diminished respect or appreciation” and a particular form of that is associated with Frederick the Great (Frederick II, 1712–1786, King of Prussia 1740-1786) who observed: “The more I learn of the character of men, the more I appreciate the company of dogs”.  The term “contempt trap” comes from the burgeoning discipline of “relationship studies” (romantic, social or political) and describes situations in which individuals view others as worthless, leading to toxic communication, disconnection, and resentment.  It's a psychological trap where partners or groups focus on flaws, creating a downward spiral in which the “issues fuel themselves”; the best strategy is said to be “empathetic niceness” but, in the circumstances, this can be easier said than done.

The familiar “contempt of court” (plural contempts of court) is conceptually similar to the offences “Contempt of Parliament” & “Contempt of Congress” (ie the act of obstructing the work of a legislative body or one of its committees) and, at law, the noun contemnor describes a party who commits or is held in contempt of a court or legislative body.  The offence is one in which there’s held to have been open disrespect for or willful disobedience of the authority of a court of law or legislative body, typically punishable by such sanctions as a fine or incarceration.  The nature of these punishments varies widely and especially minor transgressions are involved, the penalty can vary from judge to judge; one might ignore the slight while another might send the offender to a cell for a few hours.  The noun & adjective contemptive is rare and used in linguistics to mean “of or pertaining to, or creating a word form denoting the negative attitude of the speaker”.  The negative adjectival form is uncontemptible and incontemptible does not exist although there may be a use for both among those who cherish fine nuances, the former used to mean “not able to be held in contempt”, the latter “incapable of being held in contempt”.  The alternative spellings cōtempt & cõtempt are obsolete.  Contempt, contemnor, contemptibleness, contemptuosity, contemptuousness & contemptibility are nouns, contemptive is a noun & adjective, contemptible & contemptuous are adjectives and contemptibly & contemptuously are adverbs; the noun plural is contempts.

Contempt of Congress

Early in January, 2026, counsel for Bill Clinton (b 1946; US president 1993-2001) and his wife crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) announced they were refusing to comply with a subpoena demanding congressional testimony in matters relating their relationships with disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (1953–2019 who died in custody while awaiting trial on additional offences; it was determined to be suicide).  The former president and first lady were served the subpoena by the Republican-led House oversight committee which is reviewing the government’s handling of “the Epstein matter”.  As part of their combative statement, the couple also launched an attack on the Republican Party and Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025). 

Bill & crooked Hillary Clinton.

In response, committee chairman James Comer (b 1972, Republican-Kentucky) said he would move to hold the pair “in contempt of Congress”.  That was prompted by counsel’s letter which described the subpoenas as “invalid and legally unenforceable, untethered to a valid legislative purpose, unwarranted because they do not seek pertinent information, and an unprecedented infringement on the separation of powers”.  According to the Clintons (both trained lawyers), the committee’s demand they testify (under oath, thereby being compelled to tell the truth) “runs afoul of the clearly defined limitations on Congress’ investigative power propounded by the Supreme Court of the United States”, to which they added “it is clear the subpoenas themselves – and any subsequent attempt to enforce them – are nothing more than a ploy to attempt to embarrass political rivals, as President Trump has directed”.  As well as threatening the pair with being held in contempt of Congress, Mr Comey informed the press: “I think it’s important to note that this subpoena was voted on in a bipartisan manner by this committee.  This wasn’t something that I just issued as chairman of the committee.  No one’s accusing Bill Clinton of anything, any wrongdoing.  We just have questions, and that’s why the Democrats voted along with Republicans to subpoena Bill Clinton.”  Even some Democrats supported the subpoena, one on the oversight committee saying: “Cooperating with Congress is important and the committee should continue working with President Clinton’s team to obtain any information that might be relevant to our investigation.”

The Clintons didn’t much dwell on fine legal or constitutional points, preferring to attack the congressional Republicans for their obsequious acquiescence to the president (not so much the MAGA (Make America Great Again) agenda as to Mr Trump personally) including their support of hardline immigration enforcement, the recent killing of a US citizen in Minnesota by an ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agent and the president’s pardoning of January 6 “insurrectionists”.  “Bringing the Republicans’ cruel agenda to a standstill while you work harder to pass a contempt charge against us than you have done on your investigation this past year would be our contribution to fighting the madness”, the Clintons wrote.  So, the Clintons are running a political campaign in an attempt to solve their latest legal problem and this time they’re putting things in quasi-Churchillian phrases, asserting: “Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, no matter the consequences.  For us, now is that time.”  Clearly crooked Hillary feels her finest hour is upon her but students of her past will variously be amused or appalled at the suggestion she’d do something as a matter of principle rather than base self-interest but she persists in claiming the consequences of refusing to comply with a valid congressional subpoena are “a politically driven process” designed “literally to result in our imprisonment.”

HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton by Jonathan Allen (b 1975) & Amie Parnes (b 1978).  As an acronym HRC can, inter alia, mean “Hillary Rodham Clinton”, “Hazard Risk Category” (science, medicine, engineering etc) or “High-Risk-of-Capture” (US DoD (Department of Defense, known also as Department of War)).  Pleasingly, CHRC can mean “Crooked Hillary Rodham Clinton” or “Criminal History Records Check”.

The “politically driven” argument has before been used by those seeing to avoid answering questions under oath, but despite that former Trump advisor Peter Navarro (b 1949) was in 2023 convicted of contempt of Congress for failing to provide documents and testify about the 2020 election and the Capitol riot.  He also (unsuccessfully) cited executive privilege but that too was rejected; he was jailed for four months.  So the claim a prosecution is a “political weaponization” of the justice system can’t stop a valid legal action like a citation of contempt and Steve Bannon (b 1953 and also a Trump-related figure) served four months in jail for defying a subpoena from the House January 6 committee.  The courts also seem to view such matters as black letter law; on appeal, Mr Navarro’s attempt to stay out of jail while he appealed his conviction was declined while a federal judge rejected a stay on Mr Bannon’s imprisonment and revoked bail.  According to a ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, witnesses who “willfully refuse” to comply with valid congressional subpoenas can be punished, regardless of the excuse.  As a general principle, it seems to be thought an offence of absolute liability.

In mid January, a Republican-led House panel recommended Bill & crooked Hillary Clinton be found in contempt of Congress; although the pair had offered “to co-operate” with the House Oversight Committee, that did not extend to answering questions under oath (ie, by implication, “telling the truth”).  The committee conducted separate votes on what technically were two cases, voting 34-8 to cite Bill Clinton for contempt while the vote on crooked Hillary Clinton was 28-15; As predicted, all 25 Republicans backed the recommendations to cite for contempt and the degree of support from the Democratic members is an indication of the public & press pressure now being applied as a result of suspicions there are rich and well-connected individuals whose involvement with Jeffrey Epstein is being “covered up”.  In the US, the lessons from the Watergate scandal have never been forgotten: it's the cover-up which matters most.

House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer's Facebook profile picture.

Should Congress elect to pursue the matter (as was done with Mr Navarro and Mr Bannon), the brief will then be passed to the DoJ (Department of Justice) for prosecution and the potential consequences include fines of up to US$100,000 and as long as a year in jail.  Obviously, neither is a compelling prospect but the problem for crooked Hillary is that should she comply and testify, she’ll be under oath and thus compelled to tell the truth.  That novel possibility would attract a big audience but her problem is she has no way of knowing in advance what questions will be asked and, being under oath, she’d have to either be truthful or “take the fifth” to avoid self-incrimination.  Paying a US$100,000 fine would seem a very cheap “get out of jail free” card and even some time behind bars may be a better long-term option.  While in the past crooked Hillary probably has used the phrase “no one is above the law” she’d never have imagined it applied to her but some in Congress suspect the Clintons will use "every trick in the book" (and they known them all) to avoid being questioned under oath, one Californian Democrat predicting: "If we launch criminal contempt proceedings, we will not hear from the Clintons.  That is a fact.  It'll be tied up in court".

Presumably, the strategy will be to "string things along" until the mid-term elections in November when the Republicans may lose control of the Congress.  Of course, as a last resort, there remains the “Pinochet option”.  After avoiding trial for crimes against humanity because of his allegedly frail mental and physical state, General Augusto Pinochet (1915-2006; dictator of Chile 1973-1990) boarded his aircraft in England from a wheelchair, looking something like a warmed-up corpse, only to make a miraculous in-flight recovery; the moment he set foot on the tarmac at Santiago, in rude good health, he strode off.  All crooked Hillary would need is a “medical episode”, one not serious enough to kill her but just enough to permit physicians to fill out the forms saying she’s not well enough to be questioned.  Depending on this and that, her condition would need to linger only until the threat of prosecution has been evaded.  One intriguing potential coda to legal action could be that Donald Trump might well grant the pair a pardon.  What's often unappreciated about Mr Trump is he doesn't waste time or effort running grudges against those who were merely opponents as opposed to those who actually tried to damage him or present an on-going threat.  Although he'd spent the 2016 campaign threatening crooked Hillary with jail and encouraging the MAGA faithful to chant "Lock her up!", interviewed after the election, when asked if he'd be taking legal action against the Clintons, he brushed off the the question with a dismissive: "No, they're good people" and moved on.  Should that happen, darkly, some might mutter about him having reasons why he'd not want the pair questioned about Jeffrey Epstein but, like disgraced former congressman George Santos (b 1988), crooked Hillary will not be one to look a gift horse in the mouth.    

The Brutum Fulmen

The practical significance of a court or other institution holding an individual “in contempt” relies on the body having a means of enforcing its order.  While that order can extend (variously) to a fine, a term of imprisonment or a burning at the stake, if no such means exist (or are, in the circumstances, not able to be used), then, at law, the order is a brutum fulmen (plural bruta fulmina) which historically, appeared also as fulmen brutum.  The term entered the language as a construct of the Latin brutum (stupid) + fulmen (lightning), picked up from the title of a pamphlet (the word then used of documents distributed publicly and discussing political and related matters) published in 1680 by Thomas Barlow (circa 1608-1691; Lord Bishop of Lincoln 1675-1969) who derived the phrase from the passage hinc bruta fulmina et vana (these senseless and ineffectual thunder-claps) in Naturalis Historia (Natural History) by the Roman author (and much else) Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus, 24-79).  Pliny literally was describing the natural phenomenon of lightning (which, having never been struck by one, he dismissed as “harmless thunderbolts”) but the term entered legal jargon meaning “a judgement without effect” and was for a while learned slang for “an empty threat” before fading from use in the late eighteenth century.

Bishop Barlow's original publication, 1680.

So, at law, brutum fulmen is used to refer to a judgment, decree, edict, order etc that while (on paper) is valid and nominally enforceable, is in practice ineffective either because it cannot be enforced or is directed at someone or something beyond the court’s effective power.  There’s a long history of such paperwork, Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) with typical acerbity noting in his diary on 3 April 1945 the pointless bureaucratic output still flowing from the desk of Martin Bormann (1900–1945; secretary to the Führer 1943-1945; head of the Nazi Party Chancellery 1941-1945), even as the Reich was being diminished to an enclave: “Once more a mass of new decrees and instructions issue from Bormann.  Bormann has turned the Party Chancellery into a paper factory.  Every day he sends out a mountain of letters and files which the Gauleiters [the party’s district leaders], now involved in battle, no longer even have time to read.  In some cases too it is totally useless stuff of no practical value in our struggle.  Even in the Party we have no clear leadership in contact with the people.”  Goebbels may have been evil but his mind was well-trained and he was a realist, understanding the “great danger” in the “diminution of authority” likely to be suffered by the party.  Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) called the devoted Bormann “Dear Martin” but interestingly, one author has written works claiming that by late April even Bormann had become a realist and was complicit in having the Führer murdered by his valet (Heinz Linge (1913–1980)), thereby removing the one obstacle preventing the pair’s escape from the Führerbunker.  The author is a well-credentialed medical doctor and although his earlier theory about the Rudolf Hess (1894–1987; Nazi Deputy Führer 1933-1941, who spent 46-odd years in Allied custody) being a “doppelganger” has recently been disproved by DNA analysis, his recounting of how Hitler may have been murdered is well written and, in a sense, the ultimate “the butler did it” tale; it’s not necessary to be convinced to enjoy what may be a tall tale.

From the Vatican, there would have been many popes who would have understood Goebbels’ frustrations because there’s quite a list of Papal Bulls and decrees that proved to be “casting rhetoric to the winds of history”.  Pius V (1504–1572; pope 1566-1572) in 1570 issued Regnans in Excelsis (Reigning on High) which, as an order of excommunication against Elizabeth I (1533–1603; Queen of England & Ireland 1558-1603) was intended to depose the queen by releasing her subjects from obedience but, “having no divisions” in England, the Holy See could not there exercise temporal authority and Elizabeth merely “changed teams” becoming Supreme Governor of the Church of England.  Of course, she remained excommunicated from the Church of Rome but that’s hardly as serious as being burned at the stake.  Less dramatically, papal interdicts issued against secular rulers on matters less consequential routinely were ignored, kings, princes and dukes aware their thrones (and sometimes their necks) might be better preserved by pleasing their many subjects than the bachelor Bishop of Rome.

Papal Bull issued by Urban VIII (1568–1644; pope 1623-1644).  By the mid-fifteenth century, papal bulls had ceased to be used for general public communications and were restricted to the more formal or solemn matters.  The papal lead seals (the spellings bulla & bolla both used) were attached to the vellum document by cords made of hemp or silk, looped through slits.

As well as being appalled by the thought of heretical Anglicans, Pius V disapproved of bull-fighting, calling the tradition “alien from Christian piety and charity, “better suited to demons rather than men” and “public slaughter and butchery” fit for paganism but not Christendom and word nerds will be delighted to note Pius’s ban on bullfighting was technically a “papal bull”.  De Salute Gregis Dominici (On the Salvation of the Lord’s Flock) was issued on 1 November 1, 1567 as a formal proclamation with a bulla (the papal lead seal) attached (hence such edicts being known as the “Papal bulls”), the seal authenticating the document and, as an official decree, it was binding upon the Church and Christian princes.  Disgusted by the cruelty inflicted on one of God’s noble beasts, Pius called bullfighting “a sin” and condemned the events as “spectacles of the devil”, prohibiting Christians from attending or participating under pain of excommunication.  However, like many papal though bubbles down the ages which never quite make it to the status of doctrine, his ban was soon ignored and, after his death the, edict quietly was allowed to lapse.  Predictably, in Spain and Portugal, where bullfighting had deep cultural & political roots, the bulla was either ignored or resisted and Philip II (1527–1598; King of Spain 1556-1598), while as devout a Catholic as any man, was known as Felipe el Prudente (Philip the Prudent) for a reason and quietly he turned the royal blind eye, allowing bullfighting to continue.  Within the Holy See, the king's disobedience of an edict from the Vicar of Christ on Earth would have been disappointing but unsurprising and it was the world-weary Benedict XIV (1675–1758; pope 1740-1758) who best summed-up the church's chain of command: “The pope commands, his cardinals do not obey, and the people do what they wish.”  What is still not always recognized is that Rome’s authority on matters both spiritual and temporal did often depend on consent; in Medieval Europe there were a number of interdicts (such as that against the Republic of Venice in 1606) which indisputably were binding in canon law but had no force because the target solved the legal quandaries by ignoring them.

Secular courts too sometimes have issued orders that look authoritative but are void for want of jurisdiction.  The British Empire is a rich source of such bruta fulmina because, especially in the nineteenth century when expansion (as expressed by land being colored pink on maps) often exceeded control “on the ground”.  A practical exercise in (1) the establishment of trading & coaling stations and (2) theft of the resources of others, what the British Empire did to a greater extent than other European colonial powers was secure what were essentially coastal beachheads and tracks of communication (rivers, roads, railway lines) while leaving vast swathes of territories in the hands of native authorities, some of which were cooperative, some not.  While the Colonial Office understood this was how thing were done (the British Empire in particular something of a well-executed confidence trick because there were never the resources effectively to control all that was claimed on the map), colonial courts, for many reasons, felt compelled to issue orders to what were, in effect, sovereign foreign territories; even at the height of the British Raj, the means did not exist always to enforce judgements or rulings purporting to bind tribal authorities or princes in their palaces.  A post-colonial example is the operation of the “Supremacy Clause” in US jurisprudence.  As a simple constitutional fact, under the Supremacy Clause, a state court has no power to enjoin a federal officer acting in federal capacity; even if correct in every aspect of construction, any such injunction will be held to be a brutum fulmen because it cannot be enforced, the classic example being Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 397 (1872), in which the USSC (Supreme Court) held state courts could not issue writs of habeas corpus to federal military officers; such writs legally void.  What the case settled was that the US Constitution was the supreme law of the land, “anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”  That an order may be perfectly valid under state law was irrelevant and this doctrine has of late been again discussed because of certain actions being taken by the federal government during the second Trump administration.

There is also the matter of orders those who enjoy legal immunity.  Historically, when the concept of “sovereign immunity” was effectively absolute (before “restrictive immunity” emerged in the wake of the modern “commercial exception”, courts would enter judgments against sovereign states; the judges were carrying out a type of “black letter law” but the value of such rulings was purely political or symbolic.  A subset of such things was the matter of declarations unsupported with any mechanism of enforcement and that was one of the several structural flaws which doomed the League of Nations (1920-1946), an institution something of a case study in characterised as a brutum fulmen, whatever it’s noble goals.  However, the judicial model established by the League of Nations (essentially one of “moral authority”) carried over into post-war institutions, the ICJ (International Court of Justice) having often issued advisory opinions states routinely have ignored.

A special case of brutum fulmen concerns domestic statutes struck down by courts but never repealed.  Known as “dead letter” laws, these, ghost-like, remain on the books even after invalidation.  This happens apparently for two reasons: (1) in the technical sense it matters not whether the words are removed from the books or (2) governments retain them because they retain a certain symbolic force as an expression of disapprobation for one thing or another, an example being Section 3 of the US DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) after the decision handed down by the USSC in US v Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013)).  New technology has also created a whole new field of potential bruta fulmina.  Although instances of material banned from publication in one place appearing in another have for centuries been documented, the advent of the internet and its inherently global availability has meant the injunctive and contempt orders which once were such a potent means of preventing or punishing proscribed publication now are of less use because so many potential subjects lie beyond a court’s reach.

Not exactly contemptible, just less desirable: The Alfa Romeo 2600

Brigitte Bardot (1934-2025) in Contempt (1963), perched on an Alfa Romeo 2600 (Tipo 106) Spider.  Note her fetching toe cleavage.

While Ms Bardot was a vision of haunting loveliness, the 2600 is less fondly remembered than its smaller stable-mates.  Whereas in its era Mercedes-Benz and most US-built cars tended to improve as the cylinder count and engine displacement increased, in the post-war years, the most admired and successful Alfa Romeos were the smaller, four-cylinder models renowned for their balance and agility (certainly in the company’s illustrious, pre-FWD (front wheel drive) era).  Tellingly, although imagined as a flagship, the 2600 was in production only between 1962-1968 and despite being offered with a range of coachwork (Berlina (sedan), Sprint (coupé) & Spider (roadster) as well as a typically quirky fastback coupé (the 2600 SZ (Sprint Zagato)) by Zagato), it was not a success; sales were never close to expectations, the high price and nose-heavy, “un-Alfalike” driving characteristics usually cited as reasons for the muted demand.  In its six-odd years of availability, unusually, it was not the sedan which was most successful but, with almost 7,000 sold, the Sprint and even the 2,255 Spiders out-sold the 2,092 Berlinas; the 105 Sprint Zagatos an expensive footnote.

1964 Alfa Romeo 2600 Spider.

Whatever the 2600’s flaws, the engine was a gem.  An all-new, all aluminum 2.6 litre (158 cubic inch) DOHC (double overhead camshaft) straight six, it was very much in the company’s pre-war tradition but, in a way, the image of Alfa-Romeo had been captured by the wildly successful 1900 range (1950-1959) which featured relatively small-displacement, four-cylinder engines.  So seductive did Italians and others find the 1900 that it quickly came to be thought of as the definitive “Alfa Romeo”.  However, the platform which as the 1900 (and subsequent 2000) had been a model of well-balanced agility, didn’t adapt so well to the longer straight six and it was the subsequent 105/115 range (Gulia, 1962-1968) which was the 1900’s true successor, the incomparable 105 coupé among the company’s finest achievements.  The 2600 proved to be the last of Alfa Romeo’s classic DOHC straight-sixes.

The Kaiser and the Old Contemptibles

His Imperial Majesty, Kaiser Wilhelm II (1859–1941; Emperor of Germany & King of Prussia 1888-1918). in one of his many uniforms.  On one of Wilhelm's visits to England, his grandmother (Victoria (1819–1901; Queen of the UK 1837-1901) was much amused to learn his entourage included one servant whose sole duty was the “waxing and curling of the imperial moustache”.

Whether inside courtrooms or beyond, the word “contempt” and its derivatives is not rare but one of the most celebrated instances of use may have been based on a lie.  In August 1914, just after the outbreak of World War I (1914-1918), the British government began to circulate propaganda claiming Wilhelm II had issued an order to his army to “exterminate the treacherous English and walk over General French's contemptible little army”.  The people of the UK were well-acquainted with the character of the Kaiser and it certainly must had sounded “like something he would have said”, hence the success as piece of propaganda.  Later, the survivors of the British Army’s BEF (British Expeditionary Force), proud of their record in battle, happily dubbed themselves the “Old Contemptibles”.  Wilhelm denied ever having made the statement and it has long been suspected the British “put words in his imperial mouth” because Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658; Lord Protector of the Commonwealth 1653-1658) had in 1657 used a similar turn of phrase in a speech to the Long Parliament (1640-1660).

One of the British government's propaganda posters, 1914.

No document has ever been found confirming the Kaiser used the phase the British propagandists spread with such glee and it’s thus almost certainly apocryphal but historians have concluded that, in discussions, he probably did dismiss the British as a military threat on the European mainland on the grounds their army was “so contemptibly small”.  In that, he has a point in that compared to the land forces in the standing and reserve armies of France, Germany, Austria and Russia, the British Army genuinely was small; as a maritime empire with its military strength based on the Royal Navy being the world’s most powerful, the British Army was designed for remote colonial engagements rather than big, set-piece invasions of European countries.  So, from the Kaiser’s point of view it was a reasonable observation; since the time of Otto von Bismarck (1815-1989; chancellor of the German Empire (the "Second Reich" 1871-1890), the dark joke told in continental chancelleries was that while most countries “had an army”, Prussia was unusual in that its army “has a country”.  All he really got wrong was the British did have some contemptibly poor generals, one of who was the Field Marshal Sir John French (1852–1925) mentioned in his alleged statement.  Not for nothing are the “Old Contemptibles” remembered as “lions led by donkeys” but in the way the British ruling class does things, after being asked to resign, Sir John was elevated to the peerage and died laden with titles and imperial honours.

Lindsay Lohan, contempt, and the matter of intent

Lindsay Lohan's adorned fingernail in court, 2010.

Fingernails don’t often hit the headlines but in 2010 one did during one of the Lindsay Lohan's appearances in court during her “trouble starlet” phase: close-up photographs of the relevant (and very colourful) nail (on the middle finger) revealed the text “fuck U”.  In the US of the twenty-first century a fingernail so decorated would be usually unexceptional and uncontroversial but on the digit of a defendant sitting in court to receive a sentence, it was at least taking a risk and defence counsel, had they noticed the artwork, doubtlessly would have insisted on a strategically applied band-aid.  The risk posed by what may have been a misguided manicure was that were the judge to conclude the apparently unambiguous message was directed either at court or judge, Ms Lohan could have been cited for contempt of court on much the same the basis as had she mouthed the words.  Lawyers asked to comment on the matter confirmed that in such circumstances a defendant cannot rely on rights guaranteed by the First Amendment (a component of which is freedom of speech) to the Constitution but what was an intriguing legal question was the matter of intent.  All agreed the judge was sitting too far away to read the distant and tiny “fuck U” so it couldn’t be argued Ms Lohan intended it to be read thus but if the judge saw the paparazzi’s photos, would a “retrospective” citation of contempt be possible?  Given all that, it was at least a gray area but the matter was never pursued.  Ms Lohan clarified things with a tweet on X (then known as Twitter) denying the text was a message for the court or anyone else: “It had nothing to do w/court.  It’s an airbrush design from a stencil”.  According to Fox News (a famously reliable source), the nails were “part of a joke with friends”.

Before, during & after: Lindsay Lohan and her bandaged finger, 2016.

Not until 2016 would one of Lindsay Lohan’s fingers again attain such notoriety.  During an Aegean cruise in October that year, in dreadful nautical incident, the tip of one digit was severed by the boat's anchor chain but details of the circumstances are sketchy although there was speculation that upon hearing the captain give the command “weigh anchor”, she decided to help but, lacking any background in admiralty jargon, misunderstood the instruction.  Despite the grossness of the injury to what in the Western tradition is "the ring finger", she did later manage to find husband and stitched-up digit now sports a wedding ring so all's well that ends well.

Self contempt

The terms “self-hatred”, “self-loathing” and “self-contempt” are familiar in general discourse and pop psychology texts but none are formally distinguished as separate diagnostic constructs or appear in either the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD).  However, the concepts encompassed do appear in theories and research papers as well as being part of clinical discourse and between the three terms are denoted different self-directed attitudes, largely along affective versus evaluative lines. 

Self-hatred is thought a core quality, an intense, hostile feeling directed at one’s self and the affective tone may be one of disgust, anger or revulsion.  Typically, this can appear as a form of self-hostility and may manifest as wishing to self-harm, a feeling of deserving of punishment and a general rage turned inwards.  Self-hatred is often discussed in connection with (1) major depressive disorders, (2) borderline personality pathology, (3) trauma and internalised abuse and (4) self-harm including suicidality.  Self-loathing can perhaps (if not wholly satisfactorily) be characterized as “self-hatred lite” in that it’s treated usually as a pervasive aversion to the self and associated with shame, disgust and revulsion.  There’s obviously some overlap (to the extent the terms probably can be used interchangeably without causing confusion for most) but as used by clinicians, self-loathing conveys the idea of something less aggressive and more avoidant, the emphasis on being repelled by one’s own traits, body, or identity rather than contemplating self harm; commonly it’s linked with shame-based self-schemas, eating disorders, body-image disturbance, depression and social anxiety.  The convenient distinction between the two is that while self-hatred summons the thought: “I should be punished”, self-loathing says “I am repulsive”.  The point about self-contempt is that often it can be transitory (sometimes styled as “transactional”) and related to a particular event or one’s reaction to that event.  In that sense, self-contempt can be seen as something is more cognitive and judgmental than emotional although, obviously, there too there can be overlap.

Within Judaism, a well-explored phenomenon.

There is a special case within internal Jewish discourse of a certain flavor where the term “self-hating Jew” overwhelmingly is more commonly used than the superficially similar “self-loathing Jew”.  “Self-hating Jew” became a standard phrase (and in doing so sacrificed some of its original meaning in favour of becoming a still-potent slur) in Jewish polemical writing and was once most associated with political debates (not always between intellectuals), especially if the matters involved anti-Zionism or internalised anti-Semitism.  The term gained popularity after Der jüdische Selbsthaß (Jewish Self-Hatred (1930)) by German Jewish philosopher Theodor Lessing (1872-1933) was translated into English and the choice of “self-hatred” rather than “self-loathing” “locked in” the English idiom.  What Lessing did was construct a subtle argument in which he attempted to explain the (apparently uniquely European) phenomenon of Jewish intellectuals who incited anti-Semitism against the Jewish people and who regarded Judaism as the source of evil in the world.  The translator’s preference was thought to be a considered choice which reflected a certain conceptual emphasis: Whereas “self-hatred” implies hostility, repudiation, and active rejection of Jewish identity or interests, “self-loathing” suggests inward disgust or shame, which is psychologically plausible but rhetorically weaker for polemical purposes.  In other words, the former is of the political, the latter the personal.  The term has become especially controversial because, within Judaism, it had become a convenient weapon to use against any Jew who criticizes some aspect of the conduct of the government of Israel.

The thoughts of Bill Buckley on the thoughts of John XXIII

By the time in 1961 conservative US writer (and leading lay Catholic) William F Buckley (1925–2008) responded to John XXIII’s (1881-1963; pope 1958-1963) encyclical Mater et magistra (Mother and Teacher), the days were gone when the Church could have heretics burned at the stake (perhaps a source or regret to at least one pope) so suggesting the document “…must strike many as a venture in triviality” didn’t trigger the sort of risk such a critique might in previous centuries have provoked.  Still, what was seen by theologians and the laity alike as a casual dismissal of a work of 25,000 words was thought quite a slight and even an expression of contempt; that Buckley’s objections were less theological than political was a distinction understood by the cardinals and archbishops but that didn’t make them less unhappy.  Buckley was writing during the High Cold War and in the immediate aftermath of comrade Fidel Castro’s (1926–2016; prime-minister or president of Cuba 1959-2008) communist guerrillas taking over Cuba and what most disturbed him was John XXIII’s focus on the inequities of modern capitalism and seeming disregard for the oppressive conduct of various communist regimes.  In that, Buckley was right because arguments in Mater et magistra were striking and the choice of words provocative, the pope noting the “immeasurably sorrowful spectacle of vast numbers of workers in many lands and entire continents who are paid wages which condemn them and their families to subhuman conditions.”  Rejected was the notion prices working people paid should be “left entirely to the laws of the market” rather than being “determined according to justice and equity.”  The encyclical recommended profit-sharing and other “radical” reforms pursued in the name of “socialization”.

John XXIII waving to the faithful, Loreto Ancona, Italy, October, 1962.

The car is a 1961 Mercedes-Benz 300d Landaulet, built by the department responsible for the Spezial coachwork and made on a separate assembly line.  The one delivered to the Vatican including not only the folding soft-top atop the rear passenger compartment but also an elevated roof which extended the “greenhouse” by 100 mm (4 inches).  The 300s of the era (W186: 300, 300b & 300c; 1951-1957 & W189: 300d 1957-1962) came to be referred to as "the Adenauer" because several were used as state cars by Konrad Adenauer (1876–1967; chancellor of the FRG (Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany; the old West Germany, 1949-1990) 1949-1963).  In the days of John XXIII, the Vatican's parade vehicles were not dubbed “Popemobiles” and did not feature armor-plating or bullet-proof glass.  For good reason, all that would come later.

It can now be difficult to understand how controversial once was the participation of Roman Catholics in the upper reaches of US political life; in the nineteenth century the warnings against voting for them was they would visit upon the country: “Rum, Romanism and Ruin!”  When the Catholic Al Smith (1873-1944; Governor of New York 1919-1920 & 1923-1928) in 1928 ran on the Democratic ticket in the presidential election, campaigns against him included the suggestion the pope was already packing his bags in preparation for a move to the White House.  After Smith (in a landslide) lost the election to the Republican’s Herbert Hoover (1874–1964; POTUS 1929-1933), the joke circulated that his first act was not the usual concession speech but wiring a telegram to Pius XI (1857–1939; pope 1922-1939) saying: “Unpack!”

Amusingly, the slur wouldn’t have survived the scrutiny of modern fact-checkers because between the unification of Italy in 1870 and the signing in 1929 of a concordat (the Lateran Treaty) with Benito Mussolini’s (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943) fascist state, in protest at the the loss of the Papal States (756-1870), no pope set foot outside the Vatican.  The status of the popes in these years as prigionieri del Vaticano (prisoners of the Vatican) was unusual in that it was a kind of “self-imposed exile” in reverse, but the Church insisted it was not a matter of choice (ie “self-restraint”) because it was held to be a “coercive curtailment” (“constructive imprisonment” probably the closest expression of the legal theory) of freedom of movement, consequent upon the Italian state’s annexation of the Papal States and Rome itself.  The argument was that were a pope to set foot on the soil of the annexed territories, that might be held to imply recognition of the Italian state’s sovereignty.  Even at the time, outside the Roman Curia, the legal basis of that was thought at least dubious and the consensus remains the self-imposed “imprisonment” was an act of diplomatic and political symbolism.  Since then, no political figure has exactly replicated what the five “imprisoned pontiffs” did and even old Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (1887-1975; leader of the Republic of China (mainland) 1928-1949 & the renegade province of Taiwan 1949-1975), while to his dying day denying he’d lost the sovereignty of the mainland to the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), did on occasion travel beyond his renegade province, though obviously he never visited the mainland. 

Buckley: The Life and the Revolution That Changed America by Sam Tanenhaus (b 1955).  A highly recommended book.

Religion was an issue still in 1960 when the presidential contest was between the Roman Catholic Democrat John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US POTUS 1961-1963) and the Quaker Republican Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US VPOTUS 1953-1961 & POTUS 1969-1974).  In the campaign, two prominent evangelical Protestant preachers who would now be regarded as something like “celebrity TikTok churchmen” (Billy Graham (1918–2018) and Norman Vincent Peale (1898-1993) both cast aspersions about JFK and the nature of his allegiance to Rome to which the candidate responded by saying: “I believe in an America, where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president, should he be Catholic, how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.”  The idea of “Rome pulling the president’s strings” may have brought a wry smile to the pope who well knew it was often difficult to get his own bishops to follow his instructions, let alone the president of the US.  Buckley took an well-sharpened intellectual axe to Peale but seemed to regard Graham as little more than a vulgarian with a peasant’s view of God.

As it transpired, KFK did, “by an electoral eyelash” win the presidency and his wife (Jacqueline Kennedy (1929-1994; US First Lady 1961-1963) admitted to being baffled by the objections, saying "I don't understand why people are opposed to Jack being elected as a Catholic because he's so poor a Catholic".  Buckley certainly agreed JFK "wasn't Catholic enough" (something like the later complaint from activist African Americans that Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) "wasn't black enough"), unlike his more devout brother, the intense, driven, Robert F Kennedy (RFK, 1925–1968; US attorney general 1961-1964) who Theodore Roosevelt’s (TR, 1858–1919; US president 1901-1909) daughter Alice Lee Roosevelt Longworth (1884–1980) compared to “a seventeenth century Jesuit priest”.  Buckley understood why his family and the Kennedys often were compared (essentially because both were “rich, Catholic and political”) but liked to stress the difference, pointing out the “lace curtain, Irish cultural upbringing” of the Kennedys while his father had not set foot in Ireland until he was sixty and that was “to attend the Dublin Horse show”.  One of his friends observed the very American Buckley should really be understood as “a Spanish Catholic aristocrat” and although it has become customary to speak of the Kennedys as “American Royalty”, Buckley would have though the family “a bit common”.

Crooked Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, New York City, October, 2016.

Fully to understand Buckley’s reaction to Mater et magistra, it must be remembered it was issued only some three years after the death of Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958) and there was at the time, outside of the Church, not a great appreciation of just what an “encyclical” was.  Indeed, in 1927, when asked to comment on Leo XIII’s (1810–1903; pope 1878-1903) 1885 encyclical Immortale Dei, De Civitatum Constitutione Christiana (God Immortal, On the Christian Constitution of States) which reaffirmed the Church’s view on ecclesiastical rights in the apparatus of the modern state, Al Smith had replied: “Will somebody please tell me, what in hell an encyclical is?”  Although he chose only once to vest his words with the authority of “papal infallibility” (indeed, was the last pope to do so), Pius XII (like his predecessor Pius XI) had run “an imperial pontificate” with encyclicals viewed not merely as authoritative but doctrinal; one priest, when asked if they were “binding” stated the orthodox position which held: “the possibility of error in these documents is so utterly remote that it is practically non-existent.”  It was in that milieu Buckley commissioned to a scholar of theology to undertake a historic study of the papal encyclical and the conclusion was they were really “pastoral letters, giving counsel,” not official statements of the magisterium, the Church’s infallible teaching.  That does of course make sense because the whole point in the nineteenth century in codifying papal infallibility was to make a clear distinction between undisputable, undebatable statements of dogma and all other thoughts and expressions.

Whether that at the time softened Buckley’s attitude towards Mater et magistra seems improbable because any document suggesting the state’s social and economic policies should be “pursued in the name of socialization” would have received his condemnation and that the translators chose to interpret the Italian socializzazione (understood as something like European social and industrial democracy rather than the Marxist sense of the collective ownership of the means of production & distribution) as “socialization” (deftly avoiding the politically and historically loaded socialism (socialismo)) is unlikely to have been much assuagement; Buckley would have thought the distinction just “too clever by half”.  So it was his critique of John’s 25,000 words came to be remembered for that one memorable fragment: “venture in triviality”.  In fairness, the passage was more expansive and said: “large sprawling document” would “be studied and argued over for years to come” and that it may one day come to be “considered central to the social teachings of the Catholic Church; or, like Pius IX’s [1792–1878; pope 1846-1878)] Syllabus of Errors [1864], it may become the source of embarrassed explanations. Whatever its final effect, it must strike many as a venture in triviality, coming at this particular time in history.”  Popes have been accused of worse but in 1961, to have an encyclical damned as  “venture in triviality” was about as bad as it got.

A depiction of crooked Hillary Clinton being burned at the stake (digitally altered image).

Although heretics, malcontents and other trouble-makers are no longer burned at the stake, in canon law, the Church does have a close equivalent of citing someone for contempt but it chose not to use it against Buckley although many Catholics did make their opposition to his views known; some cancelled their subscriptions to the magazine he edited (the conservative National Review), prompting him to point out the periodical was no more a Catholic publication than the Kennedy administration was a Catholic government “because the President is Catholic”.  One prominent Jesuit priest damned Buckley’s statement as “slanderous” and while in the internal logic of the Jesuits (perfect chastity, perfect poverty and perfect obedience to the pope) that would have been obvious, it must have baffled those more used to legal dictionaries and thesauruses.  In a way the Church establishment might have had the last laugh because, writing decades later, in his distinctly religious memoir Nearer, My God (1997), stridently Buckley defended papal decrees as statements revealing truth immune from challenge, words of “revelation and providentially guided reason” from the “one Voice for whose decisions the people wait with trust” (ie the pope).  Buckley made no mention of Mater et magistra or the controversy he had triggered and whether this constitutes apology or apologia readers can judge but whenever he's discussed, it’s rare for his words of 1961 not to be reprinted while those of 35 years later rarely are mentioned.  If he had his time again, while still critical, he’d likely have phrased things differently.