Director

Director (pronounced dih-rek-ter or dahy-rek-ter)

(1) A person or thing that directs others or other things (Director of Engineering, Director of Sales etc).

(2) In corporate law, one of a group of persons chosen to control or govern the affairs of a company or corporation, usually as a member of a board of directors and sometimes also including executive functions.

(3) The person responsible for the interpretive aspects of a stage, film, or television production; the person who supervises the integration of all the elements, as acting, staging, lighting etc.

(4) In musical or other artistic productions (stage, art galleries, opera etc) one in charge of all artistic (and sometimes administrative) matters (in larger operations the roles sometimes specialized: sound director, script director etc).

(5) The manager or chief executive of certain schools, institutes, government bureaux etc.

(6) In military use, a mechanical or electronic device that continuously calculates firing data for use against an airplane or other moving target, configured usually graphically to display (in real-time) the targets of a weapons system.

(7) In chemistry, the common axis of symmetry of the molecules of a liquid crystal.

(8) In music, a synonym for conductor (US use, now less common).

(9) A counsellor, confessor, or spiritual guide (now less common).

1470-1480: The construct was direct(us) + -or.  A borrowing in the sense of “a guide” from the Anglo French directour & the French directeur the agent noun from the Latin dirigere (set straight, arrange; give a particular direction to) and its source, the Late Latin directorem, from the Latin dīrectus, the perfect passive participle of dīrigō (straighten, direct), the construct being dis- (asunder, in pieces, apart, in two) + regō (to direct, to guide, keep straight; make straight; rule), from the primitive Indo-European root reg (move in a straight line).  The -or suffix was from the Middle English -our, from the Old French -eor, from the Latin -ātor and reinforced by the Old French -or and its source, the Latin -tor & -tōrem.  It was used to create an agent noun, often from a verb, indicating a person or object (often machines or parts of them) that do the verb or part of speech with which they are formed.  In electrical engineering it has the specific use of being appended to the names of members of classes of components, especially those that have an extensive property name of the same root suffixed with -ance (eg to convey the sense that resistors possess resistance and inductors possess inductance).  The alternative spelling directour became rare in the late eighteenth century and is long obsolete.  Director, directorate & directorship are nouns, directing is a verb, directed is a verb & adjective, directorial is an adjective and directorially is an adverb; the noun plural is directors.  The feminine forms of the noun (directress & directrix) were always rare and are now thought extinct (and by some probably proscribed).

Lindsay Lohan with Spanish fashion designer Estrella Arch (b 1974), on the catwalk, Emanuel Ungaro's Spring-Summer show, Paris, October 2009.  Ms Lohan was employed as a creative director at the House, founded in 1965 by French fashion designer Emanuel Ungaro (1933–2019).

The noun director (corporate sense of “one of a number of persons having authority to manage the affairs of a company” was known as early as the 1630s; the theatrical sense of “the leader of a company of performers” dates from 1911 and it was from here the use was picked up by those in charge of the artistic or technical aspects of movie-making.  The noun directorship (condition or office of a director) has been in use since the 1720s, the adjective directorial known since 1770.  The noun directorate was used first in 1834 of “a body of directors” and may immediately have be used individually of the “office of a director” but this was certainly first documented in 1837.  Director is a word defined both by its history of use (film director, director of football etc) and law (company director) so although titles like supervisor, head, manager, leader, administrator, chief, boss etc certainly implies “one who directs”, they’re traditionally not used as direct synonyms because “director” is a “loaded word”.  It’s also modified as needed (art director, managing director, sub-director etc).

1967 Imperial Crown Coupe with "Mobile Director Package"; note the rearward facing front passenger seat.  

Although the brand had since the 1920s been used for some of Chrysler's more expensive lines, between 1955-1975, the corporation re-created Imperial as a separate, stand-alone division (albeit with some intra-corporate sharing of engines, transmissions and certain other components), the way Ford positioned Lincoln (GM's (General Motors) Cadillac then still with unique engines although much else was shared).  In the early years, the approach yielded some success (most notably with the dramatic 1957 models) but the separation didn’t survive the troubled decade of the 1970s (by which time the platform and body-shells were shared with the other divisions and much of the earlier distinctiveness had been surrendered); a couple of subsequent, half-heated, revivals proved abortive.

Bowing to economic reality, the Imperial in 1967-1968 had switched from the separate frame used since 1955 to the unitary construction of the full-sized ranges offered by other divisions but maintained a certain degree of difference by virtue of a unique body, albeit one with dimensions slightly reduced (not seen by all as a virtue at a time when things were again trending larger).  While styled with an elegance derived from its simplicity of line, the Imperial continued to not quite match the timeless modernity of the Lincoln or the indefinable but incomparable allure of the Cadillac and although sales did improve in 1967, volumes were only ever a fraction of its two competitors.  The basic engineering though was sound, the TorqueFlite 727 transmission as responsive and robust as any (although it didn’t quite slur as effortlessly between ratios as the Cadillac’s TH400 Turbo-Hydramatic 400) while the 440 cubic inch (7.2 litre) V8 was a notch better, something the others wouldn’t match until 1968.  Significantly, reviewers at the time often were prepared to acknowledge the Imperial was the more capable road car although, given it operated in a market where quietness and isolation from the environment were afforded more of a premium than handling prowess, among potential buyers, any perception of real-world advantage probably was marginal.

The more stylish if less roadable opposition: 1967 Cadillac Coupe DeVille (left) & 1967 Lincoln Continental Coupe (right).

In those years however, the Imperial did offer something truly unique.  The “Mobile Director Package” was available exclusively on the Imperial Crown Coupe and reflected (within the limits of what the available technology would then permit) what Chrysler thought a company director would most value in an automobile being used as a kind of “office on the move”, including (1) an extendable walnut-topped table (secured to the floor by a stainless-steel stanchion) able to be unfolded over the rear seats, (2) a Tensor high-intensity lamp with a gooseneck mount enabling the light to be directed anywhere in the cabin and, most intriguingly (3) a front passenger seat mounted on swivelling base enabling it to rotate 180°, the apparatus permitting someone comfortably to use the table and interact with those in the rear.  Conveniently, in a sign of the times, the car was supplied with four cigarette lighters and the lamp could be plugged into whichever was closest to need.  The package was available only for those two seasons and in its first years cost US$597.40 (some US$6,000 adjusted for 2026 values) but only 81 buyers ticked the option box and even reducing the price the next season to US$317.60 did little to stimulate demand; only 70 ordered as a dismal swansong.  Even if the threat of new safety regulations hadn’t been looming, it’s doubtful the Mobile Director Package would have appeared on the option list for 1969 when the new “fuselage” Imperials debuted.

Imperial's advertising always emphasised the "business" aspect of the package but the corporation also circulated a photograph of the table supporting a (presumably magnetic) chessboard and another with silver compote holding a shiny red apple and a bunch of grapes, dangling seductively.  The latter may have been to suggest the utility of the package when stopping for a picnic with one's secretary; at an advertising agency, once someone suggested using the motif of "forbidden fruit", nobody would have been able to resist.

The advertising copy at the time claimed the package was “designed for the busy executive who must continue his work while he travels”, serving also as “an informal conference lounge”.  The Imperial was a big car (previous generations had been larger still) though “lounge” was a bit of a stretch but “truth in advertising” laws were then not quite as onerous as they would become.  More accurate were the engineering details, the table able to “pivot to any of four different positions, supported by a sturdy chrome-plated pillar and in the forward position, it can convert into a padded armrest between the two front seats while extended, it opens out to twice its original size with a lever on the table swivel support to permit adjustments to the height”.  It was noted “a special tool is used for removing the table and storing it in the trunk” the unstated implication presumably that in deference to the secretary’s finger-nails, that would be a task for one’s chauffeur.  The US$597.40 the option listed at in 1967 needs to be compared with the others available and only the most elaborate of the two AC (air conditioning) systems was more expensive.

Imperial option list, 1967.

1967 Imperial Crown Coupe with Mobile Director Package.  Note seatbelt mounting point.

The publicity material associated with the Mobile Director Package did suggest the rearward-facing seat would likely be occupied by a director’s secretary and, as one might imagine, the configuration did preclude her (in 1967, secretaries almost always were women) using a seatbelt but she would always have been in arm’s reach of at least one cigarette lighter so there was that.  The (male) end of the front seatbelts sat on the sill panel, adjacent to the seat’s squab (back), a placement dictated by the need not to restrict access to the rear-compartment and that worked well for the standard coupe but, obviously, rendered the belt useless when the seat was rotated.  While Chrysler can be criticized for not providing rearward-facing secretaries with what’s now regarded as an essential safety feature, the rest of the US industry and legislatures (federal & state) were in 1967 little less cavalier.  While some state registration authorities had during the decade mandated the provision of seatbelts for front-seat passengers, no US jurisdiction then compelled their use.

The familiar modern three-point (lap & sash) seatbelt evolved in the late 1950s with much input from US designers but it was Swedish manufacturers that first made them universal (Scandinavia being often dark and icy, drivers sharing the roads with large elk).  The modern seatbelt design (conceptually unchanged to this day) is credited to Swedish mechanical engineer Nils Bohlin (1920–2002) who was employed by Volvo, the company making them a standard fitting in 1959, following the example of Saab that had added them the previous year.  During the 1960s, US states gradually imposed a requirement they be fitted until federal law mandated they be installed in all passenger vehicles produced after 1 January, 1968.  The laws requiring people actually to use the things proved more difficult to implement but other countries quickly made both fitment and use compulsory, initially only for those seated in the front but eventually this extended to all passengers.  Although examples existed early in the twentieth century (fitted often by those with experience in aviation) rudimentary seatbelts first appeared in US production cars during the 1950s but the manufacturers must have thought the public indifferent because their few gestures were tentative such as in 1956 when Ford had offered (as an extra-cost option) a bundle of safety features called the “Lifeguard Design” package that included:

(1) Padded dashboards (to reduce head injuries).

(2) Recessed steering wheel hub (to minimize chest injuries).

(3) Seat belts (front lap belts only)

(4) Stronger door latches (preventing doors flying open in a crash)

(5) Shatter-resistant rear-view mirror (reducing injuries caused by from broken glass).

In Western popular culture and advertising, there have been many friendly bears, including this one happily buckled-up with a “Ford seat belt. One third stronger than required for airliners.”

The standard features included (1) the Safety-Swivel Rear View Mirror, (2) the Deep-Center Steering Wheel with recessed post and bend-away spokes and (3) Double-Grip Door Latches with interlocking striker plate overlaps.  Optional at additional cost were (4) Seat Belts (single kit, front or rear, color-keyed, nylon-rayon with quick one-handed adjust/release aluminium buckle) (US$5).  There were also "bundles" (always popular in Detroit), “Safety Package A” consisting of a Padded Instrument Panel & Padded Sun Visors (US$18) while “Safety Package B” added to that Front-Seat Lap Seat Belts (US$27).  On the 1956 Thunderbird (with a significantly different interior design) the options were (1) the Lifeguard Padded Instrument Panel (US$22.65), (2) Lifeguard Padded Sun Visors (US$9) and (3) Lifeguard Seat Belts (US$14).

Years later, internal documents would be discovered revealing conflicts within the corporation, the marketing department opposed to any mention of "safety features" because that reminded potential customers of car crashes; they would prefer they focus on new colors, higher power outputs, sleek new lines and such.  So, with not much done to promote the “Lifeguard Design”, public demand was subdued and soon the option quietly was deleted.  At the time, apart from improving the quality of roads (resulting in higher average speeds with obvious implications) the government had done little about either safety or vehicle emissions but both the rising highway death toll and the worsening air quality in cities was attracting attention, meaning things would change, decades of legislation soon to unfold.  The first decisive step came as a provision in FMVSS 208 (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208) requiring all passenger cars manufactured from 1 January, 1968 onward be equipped with seatbelts at the designated seating positions though this was a federal manufacturing requirement, not a law requiring motorists to buckle up, something not imposed until 1984 when New York made their use mandatory, other states following the lead.

FMVSS emerged from the US NHSB (National Highway Safety Bureau (that in 1970 became the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) under the newly created DOT (Department of Transportation), established by an act of Congress on 15 October, 1966 and beginning operation on 1 April, 1967).  That alphabet soup of activity in a field previously little explored by government came in the wake of the publication of Ralph Nader’s (b 1934) book Unsafe at any Speed (1965) documenting the flaws in the design and construction of US automobiles and industry’s indifference to the consequences.  Regulation ever since has been a growing industry, something emblematic of a theme in Western political culture since the end of World War II (1939-1945): The erosion of personal freedom in exchange for perceived (or dictated) benefits (in the case of the FMVSS, safer cars; other agencies gave us cleaner air).  All of this is fought out in various fora (legislatures, the streets, social media, Fox News etc); sometimes the state giveth, sometimes the state taketh away.

The profound recent shift in this mechanism is not the process but the participants: As “big tech” became dominant, that collective gave much to consumers who benefited from what appeared substantially to be “free” while surrendering much that was once by philosophers and political scientists thought precious but which clearly is regarded by many as an abstraction, the loss of which is a price worth paying for TikTok, Instagram, generative AI (artificial intelligence) and such.  In that, big tech’s model is essentially the same as that of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and that seems to have worked well so we should imagine, as the twenty-first century unfolds, we’ll get “more of the same”.  In political theory, what the social contract theorists at big tech are doing is right because we all have clicked on the boxes agreeing to their 30-plus pages of terms and conditions and have certified we have read and understood every clause.  The political process handling this societal overlay is neither static nor lineal; structurally it follows much the same pattern as earlier contests between power and individuals: As governments react to pressure groups by seeking to curb the worst of the consequences, fixes, work-arounds and obfuscations will interact with a flow of money into the coffers of governments, parties (and, now and again, pockets) in a way that will permit most of what big tech plans to do while giving the appearance things are being done to stop them doing at least some of what many people think they should stop doing.  To anyone who remembers the maneuvers and compromises that for more than a decade would flow around the best-laid plans of the NHTSA, it will all be familiar.

1968 Imperial Crown Coupe with Mobile Director Package.  The seatbelt (lap only) was now attached directly to the frame.

Imperial’s designers were compelled by the law to be more imaginative than most.  For the swivelling front seat in the 1968 cars, the seatbelt mounting points were integrated directly into the steel frame of the seat base itself, rather than the vehicle's floor pan.  To achieve the necessary strength, (using techniques borrowed from the seats in airliners), the engineers had both inboard and outboard lap-belt ends bolt directly to reinforced anchor points on the lower structural framing of the seat.  This made seat, mechanism and belts wholly self-contained (a la a military aircraft’s ejector-seat!) and permitted the 180^o swivel effect, belts rotating seamlessly with passenger.  Chrysler did however obtain from the authorities a partial-exemption.  While FMVSS 208 required front-seat shoulder belts, that would have been difficult to implement for the swivelling seat (not impossible because ejector-seats have frame-mounted shoulder-belts) so the restraint system was limited to the two-point lap-belt (admittedly an improvement over what she'd been provided in 1967: nothing).  Secretaries on the move presumably were grateful but the safety feature didn’t see sales improve, despite the slashing of the price.

1966 Chrysler 300X show car.

In 1966, the “swivelling seat thing” must have been exerting a powerful influence in Chrysler’s design offices because also shown that year was the 300X, based on a 300 Convertible (and despite the appended letter, a vehicle not in the tradition of the just-retired “letter series” 300s (1955-1965), the “X” believed a reference to eXperimental) and although mechanically unchanged, the cockpit was packed with “futuristic” ideas, some of which did eventually enter mainstream use (although the swivelling front seat remained one of history’s unwanted orphans).  Rather than a conventional steering wheel, the driver used handgrips and the “steering unit” included button controls for lights, wipers, turn signals, and door locks, enabling use of all functions with a finger or thumb, all the while keeping a both hands on the mechanism.  Door handles were replaced by a keypunch card used also for the ignition while a truck-lid mounted TV camera and monitor on the dashboard replaced the rear-view mirrors.  Rear-seat passengers (and the front-occupant when “swivelled”) were able to enjoy watching a small television, mounted on a bracket allowing it to be stowed away when not in use. Construction of the 300X was out-sourced to the prolific customizer and fabricator Roger Winfield (1927–2025) whose creations became well-known from their appearances in film and television including Blade Runner (1982) and Get Smart (1965-1970).  The 1965 Sunbeam “Tiger” be built for Get Smart was actually a visually almost identical Sunbeam Alpine, chosen because its compactfour-cylinder engine left sufficient under-hood space for the “special accessories” (including a retractable machine-gun) whereas the Tiger’s Ford V8 filled the space to the brim.  To solve the “aural deficit”, the distinctive burble of a Tiger’s V8 was added during the editing process.

1969 Ford Aurora II Concept Car.

The most obvious thing that might puzzle those first seeing the Mobile Director Package is why it was available only in a two-door model when four-door coachwork would seem to make the configuration more obviously functional.  Had Imperial in 1967 sold several thousand of the things it’s at least possible Chrysler would for 1968 (or even mid-way through 1967) had extended availability but that would have been a more demanding process than it may appear, the existing swivelling mechanism unable to be used.  The difficulty was the four-door models (both sedan and hardtop) had respectively a full or partial B-pillar, the latter ending at the belt-line where the greenhouse begins, the structure required to provide a secure anchor point for the rear door's hinges.  The coupes used doors longer than front units on the four-door models, meaning the B-pillar sat further forward than the trailing-edge of the coupe’s door; there was thus a sufficient aperture for the seat to rotate when the coupe’s door was open but the gap would have been too narrow on the four-door cars.  So to offer the package in the four-door body it would have been a matter either of re-designing the doors or the swivelling seat and while the former would have been an expensive exercise (prohibitively so if the only justification was to accommodate a low-volume option), the seat and its base could have been re-engineered but after finding only 81 buyers in 1967 and 70 the next season, investment would have been hard to justify.

1960 Facel Vega Excellence EX1 (left) and 1959 Lancia Appia Series III (right).  Facel Vega produced France's finest cars of the post-war era but while undeniably glamourous, the flaws in the design of the Excellence's door-latches were never resolved and by the time the factory was shuttered in 1964, total Excellence production stood at 148 EX1s (Series One; 1958-1961) & 8 EX2s (Series Two; 1961-1964).  Lancia perfected pillar-free body engineering, using doors with sturdy window frames, permitting latch points at both sill and roof, the configuration offered on a number of sedans including the Ardea (1939-1953), Aurelia (1950-1958) & Appia (1953-1963).  The locking mechanism was intricate but the engineering was simple and proved reliable.  It's sad the company's later attachment to FWD (front wheel drive) ultimately doomed Lancia because in every other aspect of engineering, few others were as adept at producing such fine small-displacement vehicles.

1969 Ford Aurora II Concept Car.

Ford's 1969 Aurora II Concept Car gave an indication of quite what what would have been required to make the Mobile Director Package conveniently functional on the platform of what was then the standard "full-size" four-door US automobile.  The "wrap-around" rear seat was an idea borrowed from the Ford Thunderbird, contemporary reviewers praising the visual impact but noting that as something for humans to sit on it was less comfortable than a conventional design; in the Aurora it probably worked better and certainly lent the cabin the desired "lounge-room" vibe.  The problem of providing (1) space for the seat to swivel and (2) allowing elegant ingress & egress was of course afforded by the the four doors (in "suicide" configuration) and elimination of the B-pillar.  That combination provided unprecedented ease of accessibility but its doubtful it could successfully have been implemented in series-production.  The French concern had earlier tried the approach with their Excellence model but, despite retaining a vestigial hump where a B-pillar would have attached to the sill, the company never solved the problem of the door-locking apparatus "springing open" while the car was in motion, usually when the mechanism was subject to lateral forces such as when cornering.  Because these forces could be exerted at high-speed, having doors suddenly "flying open" was an obvious safety concern.  Lancia in the 1950s solved the problem of doing without a fixed central pillar buy using doors with conventional, full-height frames, thereby enabling locking mechanisms to be fitted top & bottom.  Curiously, the Aurora was based on the LTD Country Squire that came only with fully-framed doors so Lancia's approach could have been adopted but there's no indication Ford ever contemplated series-production, the "concept car" created just to generate interest on the show circuit.

1967 Imperial Crown Convertible (with subsequently added Mobile Director package).

Imperial over two seasons might have managed to sell only 151 of the Mobile Director packages but one owner of a 1967 Crown Convertible was so smitten they cannibalized a coupe to create a unique (if wholly fake) "convertible Mobile Director".  Exactly emulating what the factory did would not have been as simple as it may appear because the floor under the passengers swivelling seat needed to be strengthened with additional bracing and a "baffle" was welded to the transmission tunnel where the table's stainless-steel stanchion was attached (off-set to the driver's side to avoid the drive-shaft).  Although apparently as significantly pointless as the original, it's a novelty that would attract interest at events like "cars & coffee" and may even be more functional in that it would seem an ideal place comfortably to sit and enjoy one's picnic while watching something like polo (on the model of the way the Country Life set re-purpose the tailgates on their Range Rovers).  That said, had the factory in 1967-1968 made the package available on the convertible, almost certainly it would have been just as unsuccessful as the coupe. 

Stewart-Warner's desk-based DataFax (circa 1958).  The process of miniaturization in electronics was by 1966 still embryonic but enough shrinkage had been attained to make a fax fit in Imperial's show car.  Unlike fax machines, the pencil skirt never goes out of style.

The specification of Chrysler's package as it appeared in showrooms for the 1967 season was actually modest compared with the “Mobile Executive” car the corporation sent around the show circuit a year earlier; that Imperial had been fitted with a telephone, Dictaphone, writing table, fax machine, reading lamp and stereophonic sound system; a typewriter and portable television also used in many displays although neither were "fitted".  Also a Crown Coupe, the 1966 show car was much more ambitious, anticipating advances in mobile communications that would emerge over the next quarter-century.  At the time, car phones were available (the first service in the US offered in certain cities in 1946) but they were expensive and the nature of the bandwidth, combined with a lack of data compression, meant the range was limited as was capacity, only several dozen calls able simultaneously to be sustained.  In the 1966 car, there had even been the novelty of a Stewart-Warner Datafax, able to send or receive a US Letter-sized (slightly smaller than A4) page of text in six minutes.  That sounds unimpressive in the 2020s (or compared even with the 14.4 kbit/s for Group 3 FaxStream services of the 1990s) but the appropriate comparison is with the contemporary alternatives (driving, walking, a courier, or using the US Mail) and six minutes would have been a considerable advance.  While more expensive than a stamp and envelope, for the target market the costs would anyway have been a legitimate business expense and thus "a deductible".  As it was, the tempting equipment awaited improvements in infrastructure such as the analogue networks of the 1980s and later cellular roll-outs, these technologies contributing to an extent of use delivering economies of scale that eventually would make possible the smartphone.

The 1966 car that toured the show circuit demonstrated the concept which, in simplified form, would the next year appear on the option list but things like telephones and fax machines anticipated the future by many years (although fax machines in cars (Audi and Toyota among the handful to offer them) never became a thing).  The Dictaphone did however make the list as one of Chrysler's RPOs (regular production options) in the early 1970s and the take-up rate was surprisingly high although the fad quickly passed, dealers reporting the customers saying the hardware worked well but they "never used them".  In the collector community, a surviving Dictaphone in something like a Plymouth 'Cuda is a minor attraction; while not increasing value as would something like and original Hemi V8, it is a legitimate "period piece".

Glovebox-mounted fax machine in 1995 Toyota Celsior (the JDM (Japanese Domestic Market) Lexus LS).

The problem with the scaled-down Datafax was even had it been possible to produce the things at a manageable cost, in 1966 the solid-state electronics that would have made the thing reliable when subject to constant vibration and jolts were still years away (Chrysler’s Bendix “Electrojector” fuel injection in 1958 had fewer moving parts and that didn’t end well).  However, even if reliability could have been "engineered in", there is no guarantee demand would have existed whatever the price-point.  In the 1990s, despite it being installed with Toyota’s typical neatness and attention to detail, there were few buyers for the "fax machine in the glovebox" and if the notion was going to catch on anywhere, it would have been in that nation of early adopters.  While there were many features in the 1966 300X truly that were "ahead of their time", the Mobile Direct Package was a genuine cul-de-sac, at least as implemented in a conventionally sized car (and certainly a two-door coupe).  In 1966, rearward-facing seats had for some years been seen in the "vis-à-vis" arrangement used in some LWB (long wheelbase) limousines and as child-seats in the rear-most compartments of station wagons but those seats had been either fixed or folding and although the Ford Aurora II presumably dazzled a few impressionable souls, the industry showed little inclination to follow Chrysler's swivelling lead.

2021 "Maybach-Look" Mercedes-Benz Metris.  The passenger compartment is a similar configuration as the 1966-1967 Imperials (two forward facing seats, two rearward ("fold-away" rather than swivelling)) and there were folding tables as well as features unimaginable in the 1960s (seat massage, starlight-pattern headliner, flatscreen TV, internet connectivity, touchscreen infotainment system and a Burmester sound system with subwoofers).  Unfortunately, a fax machine wasn't part of the build but by 2021, they were close to extinct even in bricks & mortar offices.   

Flawed though Chrysler's implementation in 1966-1967 may have been, in the twenty-first century, production-line economics made it possible to realise the concept's implications, "big-box" vans able to be outfitted as genuinely functional mobile offices from which communication can be maintained with just about any part of the planet.  Of course, based on the same body used by plumbers, Amazon delivery drivers and such, the Metris doesn't have quite the gravitas of the Mercedes-Benz 600 Grossers of old (it's debatable whether the faux "Maybach-Look" stuff makes things better or worse) but there's more interior space and room for a big-screen TV so it's all a matter of what one wants from life.  Noting that, some operations have fitted-out interiors as offices or luxury transports which eschewing the exterior bling, some (often wisely) preferring to travel as inconspicuously as possible.      

Exorcise

Exorcise (pronounced ek-sawr-sahyz)

To seek to expel from a person or place an evil spirit by means of adjuration or solemn religious ceremonies.

1350-1400: The verb may have been in oral use as early as the twelfth century but use in Middle English is documented from the later, the form from the fourteenth century Old French exorciser, from the Late Latin exorcizāre, from the Ancient Greek exorkízein (bind by oath; banish an evil spirit) and the sense "call up evil spirits to drive them out" was dominant by the sixteenth century.  In England, exorcize was actually an alternative spelling but this is now one the rare instances in English where the US adopted -ise rather than -ize which some etymologists suggest may have been because of the influence of "exercise" although why that would be compellingly persuasive (this was the country which discarded "cheque" and used "check" for all purposes) seems never discussed.  What is more likely is the appearance of "exorcise" in so many church documents brought to the American colonies led to some reluctance to edit "sacred" works.  Some US academic sources do suggest exorcize is "a rare but correct" alternative, a concession not extended to exercize.  A number of the derived forms (exorcismal, exorcisory, exorcistical, exorcistic) are rare and appear only in specialist publications (or lists or the rare and obscure).  Exorcise is a verb, exorcism, exorcisation & exorcist are nouns, exorcistical, exorcismal, exorcisory & exorcistic are adjectives; the noun plural is exorcisms.

The noun exorcism (a calling up or driving out of evil spirits) was a fifteenth century creation formation from the Late Latin exorcismus, from the Ancient Greek exorkismos (administration of an oath) which, in Ecclesiastical Greek existed as exorkizein (exorcise, bind by oath), the construct being ex- (out of) + horkizein (cause to swear), from horkos (oath) of uncertain origin although some have suggested there's a link to  herkos (fence), the idea being of a oath with boundaries one accepts as "restrictions, ties & obligations" or "a magical power that fences in the swearer".  It's speculative and one etymologist noted dryly that the discipline's enthusiasm to adopt the view "was restrained".  A fourteenth century form describing the ritual was spelled exorcization.

Exorcism: Vade retro satana (Step back, Satan)

Saint Francis and the Dying Impenitent (1788) by Francisco Goya (1746-1828)

Exorcism in Christianity is the practice of casting out demons from a person or place possessed by the Devil.  Although the biblical origins are dubious (some translations to some extent support the notion), by early in the second century of Christianity the word was in general use and paintings of exorcists and their ceremonies are among the darker and more dramatic in medieval and later sacred art.  Whether or not the biblical foundations were solid, priests have always been good at spotting a gap in the market and the drama of a well-scripted exorcism was likely a lucrative venture, supply of which may well have stimulated demand.  In the Roman Catholic Church, the rituals were formalized in 1614 because of Rome’s concerns about clandestine, underground exorcisms performed without their consent and the guidelines remained substantially unchanged until the Vatican’s revisions in 1999, a process necessitated by a late twentieth-century spike in demand, the reasons for which are speculative but involve usually blaming the internet, an explanation at least plausible.  Interestingly, for more than a decade after the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II (1962-65)), it was really not done for clergy to speak of Satan as if "he" really existed, the modernizing church preferring the language of psychology and psychiatry for those displaying symptoms for centuries attributed to the Devil's demonic possession.

Exorcism of Nicole Aubry (1563), etching by an unknown artist.

Popular culture (especially cinema) revived interest in the ritual, with both churches and the medical profession reporting an upsurge in claims of demonic possession and most significantly, Saint John Paul II (1920–2005, pope 1978-2005) had a more robust attitude to the Devil’s role upon earth than any of his twentieth century predecessors.  In 2004, JPII again warned that occult and new age practices were raging out of control in Europe, providing gateways for evil that could result in demonic attachment and possession.  JPII's warning was effective and for the Holy See, it's been good business ever since; a recent Course on Exorcism and Prayer of Liberatio, hosted by the Sacerdos Institute at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum (an educational institute under the auspices of the Congregation of the Legionaries of Christ) in Rome, attracted some 250 priests from 50 countries.  Supply tends to exist only to meet demand so around the planet, the Devil must in many places be afoot.  Interrupted only by the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic (which may have been the work of the Devil), the week-long course has been held annually since 2005, attendance more than doubling over the years.  Cost per head in 2025 was €575 (US$660); bookings were essential and an entry-ticket included discounts on rooms and food & beverage in several Rome hotels.

The Exorcist’s “spider walk” scene.

Based on the William Peter Blatty (1928-2017) novel The Exorcist (1971), the film version (1973) was directed by William Friedkin (1935-2023) and that it did not win the Best Picture Academy Award is a mystery explained only by the prejudices held at the time by those members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences who cast ballots for The Sting (1973) a competently-made but formulaic piece and hardly the a landmark like The Exorcist.  The “spider walk” scene was long the subject of speculation.  Not included in the original theatrical release, the director for years claimed it had never been shot and it was only when copies of takes were found in the archives he admitted it had been done but couldn’t be used because at the time the technology to "edit out" the wires securing the stunt double to a rail above (which made the performance possible) didn't exist.  Subsequently, it was revealed the scene had been shot without use of the harness because it was performed by an experienced stunt double with gymnastic training.  Apparently the director didn’t include it because he thought it appeared too early and disrupted the sequence which is interesting because, structurally, The Exorcist is far from perfect (unkind critics call the editing "a bit of a mess").  The spider walk scene was included in the “director’s cut” editions released the next century and the once genuinely shocking film has attracted parody, a demonically possessed Lindsay Lohan levitating in Scary Movie V (2013). 

The Exorcism of Charles II of Spain

Charles II of Spain (Carlos Segundo 1661–1700), was the last king of the Spanish Habsburg dynasty, sovereign of the Spanish Empire which stretched from Mexico to the Philippines.  The only surviving son of his predecessor, Philip IV (1605-1665) and his second wife, Mariana of Austria (1634-1696), his birth was greeted with enthusiasm by the Spanish people because, as was the fashion of the time, had the old king died without a male heir, a war of succession (traditionally a bloody business) would have ensued.  Unfortunately, Charles was physically disabled, disfigured, mentally retarded and found later to be impotent, usually a drawback for any king but a discovery which brought relief to many courtiers.  He uttered no words until the age of four, didn’t take his first step before he was almost nine, suffering throughout childhood a range of diseases including measles, varicella, rubella, and smallpox.  Left almost uneducated because of his frailty, his mother was regent most of his reign and he came to be known to history as El Hechizado (the Bewitched), the name applied because both court and country believed his mental and physical incapacities were due to an act of witchcraft.  

Modern science suggests otherwise, the condition actually the consequence of the strong preference for endogamy (the practice of marrying or requiring to marry within one's own ethnic, religious, or social group) within the Spanish branch of the Habsburg royal family which led to its segregation within related dynasties and thus the emergence of consanguinity (inbreeding).  Inbred Charles II certainly was; his grandparents were at the same time his great-grandparents; One relative's father was married to her sister's daughter, was also her great-uncle, and her mother happened to be her cousin as well.  One could see how things might not have turned out well and the condition was well-known in Europe and not restricted to aristocracy and royalty.  The slack enforcement of marriage laws in Germanic lands was one of the reasons there were so many victims of the Nazi's original euthanasia (Aktion T4, mass-murder of the physically disabled and mentally retarded on the basis of them being "useless eaters") programme and it went back a long way: the scandal of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (circa 575–641; emperor 610-641) marrying his niece Martina (circa 590-circa 644) made still worse by the tragic condition of some of the children the union produced.  However, to speak of incest in the royal family was just not done so the feeling at the time was to blame the stae of Charles II on witches or the Devil so the court sought advice from Fray Antonio Álvarez Argüelles, vicar of the Encarnación de Cangas del Narcea convent and a noted Asturian exorcist who suggested: “…last night the demon told me that the King is evilly bewitched to rule and to beget. When he was 14 years old, he was enchanted with a chocolate in which the brains of a dead man were dissolved to take away his health, corrupt his semen and prevent his generation”.

Exorcism of Charles II of Spain, engraving by Lechard, circa 1840.

The priest's "chocolate theory" must have been convincing because soon after the king was subjected to what was, even by the standards of the age, a most macabre exorcism.  By coincidence, the remains of his ancestors were being transferred to a new pantheon at the Royal Seat of San Lorenzo de El Escorial and the exorcist ordered their coffins opened.  The rationale was a ceremony in which the corpses of his relatives (and, in an advanced state of putrefaction, that of his beloved first wife (María Luisa de Orleans (1662-1689))), were exhibited would assist, the array of the dead helping to drive off the demons so tormenting the unfortunate monarch.  It was in vain and the suffering continued.  Ill his whole life and king since the age of three, he lingered until 1700, dying at 39, the announcement one of the more eagerly awaited events in the courts and chancelleries of Europe, such was the anticipation of the struggles which would erupt to decide the succession.  Summarizing a sad life in Carlos, the Bewitched (1962, published in the US as Carlos: The King who would Not Die), his English biographer John Langdon-Davies (1897–1971) wrote: "Of no man is it more true to say that in his beginning was his end; from the day of his birth, they were waiting for his death".  On his deathbed, his last words were: "Everything hurts".

Institutional exorcism: Pope Leo, modernity and the SSPX

Although the Holy See might find the simile appalling, in the Roman Catholic Church, the political equivalent of an exorcism is an excommunication, a legal and spiritual administrative act excluding a baptized Catholic from certain aspects of sacramental and communal life; although Rome’s most serious canonical censure, despite the common impression, it neither expels an individual from the Church or erases their baptism.  Additionally, while the very word seems to be associated with finality, the purpose of excommunication is medicinal rather than punitive.  Rather than a brute-force punishment, it’s a device the church can use as means of bringing the sinner to repentance and reconciliation; in most cases, once a transgressor confesses their offence and sincerely repents (and, in some cases, fulfils such “special conditions” as may be imposed) an excommunication can be lifted, meaning the individual is welcomed back into communal life.  In the Roman Catholic faith, "reformed sinners" are valued for the good example they set.

As a general principle, what a excommunication does is prohibit an individual so sanctioned from (1) receiving the sacraments (the Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick and such), (2) celebrating or administering the sacraments (if they be clergy), (3) exercising ecclesiastical offices, ministries, performing most official functions within the Church and (4) receiving most ecclesiastical privileges.  However, there’s a procedural hierarchy and because a baptism leaves on the soul an indelible spiritual mark, even the excommunicated remain Roman Catholics, their fate after death ultimately in the hands of God.  As such, they may still attend Mass (though not receive Holy Communion), pray and participate in any aspects of parish life not requiring the exercise of ecclesiastical ministry.  Interestingly, under Canon Law, there are two mechanisms of excommunication.  There is (1) Latae sententiae (sentence already passed) which means the penalty automatically is incurred upon committing certain serious offenses (apostasy, heresy, or schism; desecration of the Eucharist; physically attacking the pope; knowingly and freely participate in an act of abortion and (2) Ferendae sententiae (sentence to be imposed), that requiring a ruling by a competent Church authority after a judicial or administrative process.

Pope Leo XIV: Time will tell if Leo's pontificate will be as "modern" at that of his predecessor (Francis (1936-2025; pope 2013-2025)), accused by some theologians of "heresy".

The Vatican’s announcement in July 2026 that certain followers of the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) had been excommunicated a day after the organization had consecrated four new bishops in defiance Leo XIV's (b 1955; pope since 2025) explicit instruction was thus, in a technical sense, merely advisory because, under the provisions Latae sententiae, by engaging in “a schismic act”, those involved were at the moment of their transgressions no longer in communion with the Church.  However, following the usual protocols, the Vatican issued a decree stating all six of the Society's “bishops” had been excommunicated but what was unexpected was the inclusion of a paragraph stating any lay members who “formally adhere” to the group “are to be considered schismatic and excommunicated”.  Reaching out to the heretics, the statement concluded that those who repented and left the SSPX would be welcomed back to the Church “with sincere affection”.  Because the multi-national SSPX is not a small organization, questions were asked about the scope of the edict and the Vatican’s press office later clarified things by saying not all members would be subject to automatic excommunication but it would be imposed on those who “habitually participate” in SSPX rituals and “formally share its doctrinal positions”.

Pope Saint Pius X who thought "the old ways are the best".

The Vatican regards the SSPX as a splinter sect which has “left the Church” although, in the usual way schismatic squabbles play out, followers of the SSPX claim the “Church has left them”.  Saint Pius X (1835–1914; pope 1903-1914) was pope at the dawn of what would come to be called “modernity” and often is referred to as an “anti-modernist” pope who opposed not only the intrusion of “liberal interpretation” into Catholic doctrine but also any variation of the traditional forms such as the Latin liturgy.  According to Pius X, the last words on Church teachings and interpretation had been written by the Italian Dominican friar, philosopher & theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274); perfection thus was achieved in the thirteenth century, the proceedings of the First Vatican Council (Vatican I; 1869-1870) not merely an affirmation of Thomist scholastic theology but a strengthening of a pope’s legal authority to veto any challenge to doctrinal or procedural orthodoxies.  Although clearly it had long been exercised, it was in Vatical I the doctrine of "Papal Infallibility" was codified and although it has (officially) since been invoked only once, popes increasingly have issued edicts and decrees "vested with infallibility in form if not word", Vaticanologists coining the phrase "creeping infallibility" to describe the development.     

Founded in 1970, the SSPX was a reaction to the distinctly “modernising” reforms imposed on the Roman Catholic Church by Second Vatican Council (Vatican II, 1962-1965, published 1970) and its adherents worldwide are believed now to number more than half a million, hence the interest of the press in the extent of the Vatican’s decree of excommunication.  Although in popular discourse there has been much focus on SSPX priests conducting the mass in Latin while facing the altar rather than following the reformed procedure in which local languages are used with the priest facing his congregation, the sect’s challenge to the authority of Rome is more fundamental and the dispute is not new, a number of SSPX bishops excommunicated in 1988.  It was Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) who in 2009 rescinded the order for four of that number, explaining he hoped his “act of reconciliation” would produce a “real and final unity”.  Benedict instead got a kind of uneasy truce, something emblematic of his papacy.  That state was neither an entente cordiale nor a peaceful co-existence but more a case of Rome “turning a blind eye” as long as the SPSS kept a low profile and did not attempt to “infect the Church” with their notions.  Probably a handful of congregations enjoying the undeniable beauty of the Latin Mass, delivered to conservatively dressed souls hearing only what had for centuries been preached could have been tolerated but the SSPX not only spread but became more dogmatic in claims of correctness and more aggressive in the promotion of their ideas.

Escutcheons of the SSPX (left) and Holy See (right).

The similarity between the Holy See's symbol and the "crossed keys" of the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d’Or is claimed by both to be wholly coincidental.  Modern in technology and media management if not theology, the SSPX have an on-line FAQ page discussing their differences with Rome.  Both sides are committed, well resourced, have skilled coaches and a good bench of reserves so this "ecclesiastical world cup" likely has some way to go and won't yet have reached the half-time break. 

Had it been just disagreements over arcane matters of form (how the communion bread was handled or whether the Mass was celebrated in Latin or the local language etc), it might have been possible for Rome to tolerate the SSPX and hope the cult would fade away as its congregants died off but not only are its numbers growing but the new adherents often are young and committed Catholics (committed certainly to what Catholicism “used to be”).  More troubling still is some of the underlying politics, one notorious SSPX bishop (among the four in 2009 reinstated by Benedict) repeatedly made anti-Semitic statements and, being not at all vague in his Holocaust denial, insisted (after his excommunication was lifted!) in a television interview: “I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against, hugely against, six 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler [Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945)].  I believe there were no gas chambers”.  Curiously, the Vatican didn’t reimpose the bishops excommunication but instead ruled he’d not be permitted to “perform priestly functions” unless he “recanted his views.”  Just as intriguingly, the SSPX didn’t demand a recantation but instead issued an order forbidding the talkative bishop from making “any public statements on political or historical issues.”  In other words: “Don’t mention the war”.  When eventually the SSPX expelled its turbulent priest, it was not for his views but because he defied the sect’s hierarchy.  Still, that meant Benedict was relieved of the strain of having to make a decision; that much pleased him. 

Reacting with remarkable alacrity to the controversy, the SSPX sanitized its web pages, removing anything which might be thought “suspect”.  Afterwards, anyone new to the sect would be forgiven for thinking it was nothing but an order of the Church for those nostalgic for the Latin liturgy, banished to the archives by Vatican II.  However, in the printed record there’s an extensive collection of publications detailing the organization's long history of anti-Semitism, some of it frankly “hate literature” and it also printed or distributed older texts containing a roll-call of the usual tropes: blaming the Jews for the French Revolution, Communism, Bolshevism and accusing them of corrupt practices in their alleged control of international finance etc.  At the root of it all was said to be the Jews' collective guilt of deicide (the old chant of “Christ killers” which didn’t disappear from Roman Catholic sermons until well into the twentieth century) but, to add a new twist, the SSPX also contributes to “replacement theory”, condemning Third World immigration into Western countries as “destroying our national identity and, furthermore, the whole of Christianity”.  The SSPX also is highly suspicious about the agenda of “international Freemasonry, some of its publications quoting the works (appearing also on white supremacist sites) of an author who warned of a “Judeo-Masonic conspiracy to destroy the church”.  To be fair, the SSPX probably are right to be concerned about the plotting & scheming of the Freemasons and even the pope would agree with that.  Leo has made the first decisive act of his pontificate and has drawn a line in the theocratic sand but, in creating a half million-odd schematic malcontents, he may have created more problems than he solved.

Exorcism and the Anglicans

Although the film The Exorcist and a well-publicized history of use may have led some to believe exorcism is exclusively "a Roman Catholic thing", other Christian denominations inherited the idea, some practicing the ritual more than others.  The Lambeth Conference is a (nominally) decennial assembly of bishops of the Anglican Communion convened by the AoC (Archbishop of Canterbury), 15 held since the first in 1867.  The Anglican Communion is an international association of autonomous national and regional churches, not a governing body and the office of AoC is in no way analogous with the Roman Catholic pope; while a pope is an absolute monarch atop a theocracy, the AoC is the "spirital head" of the Anglican community but holds no executive authority.  The conferences serve a collaborative and consultative function and are said to express “…the mind of the communion" on issues of the day; resolutions passed at a Lambeth Conference are without legal effect, but can be influential (if others are in the mood to be influenced).

Lambeth's latest.

Dame Sarah Mullally (b 1962) in the regalia of Bishop of London; in March 2026 she was installed ("enthroned" no longer preferred by modern Anglicans) as AoC.  No longer one of the world's more desirable jobs (essentially because it can't be done), all wish her the best of British luck.  In feminist theory, the phenomenon of women being appointed to suddenly undesirable jobs is known as the "glass cliff"; were it possible for the job still to be done, the Anglicans would have appointed the 106^th man rather than the first woman.  Of the previous 105 prelates, the first was Saint Augustine of Canterbury (circa 630s-circa 604) in 597 (not to be confused with the still influential Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430)).

Conferences were never the pure and high-minded discussions of ethics, morality and theology some now appear to believe characterized the pre-modern (in this context those held prior to 1968 when "the troubles began") events.  Agenda and communiqués from all conferences have always included the procedural, administrative and jurisdictional although in recent years, they’ve certainly reflected an increasingly factionalized communion rent with cross-cutting cleavages, first over the ordination of women and of late, homosexual clergy.  During the 1998 conference, Bishop Emmanuel Chukwuma (b 1954) of Nigeria attempted to exorcise "homosexual demons" from the soul of Nigerian-born Richard Kirker (b 1951), a British priest and general secretary of the LGCM (Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement).  Recalling perhaps Ephesians 4:32 or (less charitability) the more cautionary Matthew 6:15, Kirker forgave him.  There have since (as far as is known) been no exorcisms at Lambeth conferences but the squabbles over gay male and female clergy have never been resolved and when, early in 2026, a woman was enthroned as the 106^th AoC, the schisms began with a number of African churches announcing they were no longer in communion with Canterbury.   

Exorcism and the Ayatollah

Umberto II while Prince of Piedmont, a 1928 portrait by Anglo-Hungarian painter Philip Asexius László de Lombos (1869–1937 and known professionally as Philip de László).  Note one un-gloved hand, ruffled collar and bubble pantaloons.

Umberto Nicola Tommaso Giovanni Maria di Savoia (1904–1983) was the last king of Italy, his reign as Umberto II lasting but thirty-four days during May-June 1946; Italians nicknamed him the Re di Maggio (May king) although some better-informed Romans preferred regina di maggio (May queen).  At the instigation of the US and British political representatives of the allied military authorities, in April 1944 he was appointed regent because it was clear popular support for Victor Emmanuel III (1869-1947; King of Italy 1900-1946) had collapsed.  Despite Victor Emmanuel’s reputation suffering by association, his relationship with the fascists had often been uneasy and, seeking means to blackmail the royal house, Benito Mussolini's (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & Prime-Minister of Italy 1922-1943) spies compiled a dossier (reputably several inches thick), detailing the ways of his son’s private life.  Then styled Prince of Piedmont, the secret police discovered Umberto was a sincere and committed Roman Catholic but one unable to resist his "satanic homosexual urges” and his biographer agreed, noting the prince was "forever rushing between chapel and brothel, confessional and steam bath" often spending hours “praying for divine forgiveness.”  Presumably, he contented himself he'd often found forgiveness though that didn't stop him afterwards repeating his sins.

After a referendum abolished the monarchy, Umberto II lived his remaining 37 years in exile, never again setting foot on Italian soil; while his turbulent marriage to Princess Marie-José of Belgium (1906-2001) produced four children, historians consider it likely none were his.  Despite extensive documentation confirming the prince was possessed by “satanic homosexual urges”, it’s most unlikely the Duce ever contemplated contacting the Vatican to seek the intervention of an exorcist.  Although baptized by his devout Catholic mother, Mussolini when young became an atheist and was stridently anti-clerical, something more than one biographer has attributed (at least in part) to the canings ill-discipline earned him from the monks who were his school teachers.  The Duce certainly understood the Church could be useful and knew his regime likely would not long have survived had the Vatican become his enemy but, although famously he signed the Lateran Treaty (1929) making Catholicism the state religion, he never took seriously the “devotional or mystical stuff” and, after he met a messy end, he was denied a religious funeral.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (1939-2026; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran 1989-2026, Khamenei 1.0, left) with his son and successor, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei (b 1969; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran since 2026, Khamenei 2.0, right).

One unexpected announcement after it was revealed Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei had been appointed supreme leader after the assassination of his father (Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) came from the White House, the claim being the US intelligence agencies had assessed the available information and concluded Ayatollah Khamenei (v2.0) “may be gay”.  Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) publicly confirmed he'd been briefed on the unconfirmed intelligence, “news” he seemed to receive with an amusement he made little attempt to supress.  The US agencies never provided anything substantive to support the claim and most analysts concluded the tale (although there may at least have been "youthful indiscretions") was likely part of a disinformation campaign intended to diminish the new supreme leader’s authority among religious elites in Tehran and destabilize the regime.  The lack of any authentication was tiresomely irrelevant to the meme-makers and response to the suggestion the man standing in the sandals of Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900-1989; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979-1989) might be “a bit of a homosexual” was swift, “gayatollah” memes soon circulating, generative AI (artificial intelligence) allowing intricately detailed, multi-media productions to be posted within minutes.  For whatever reason, since assuming the leadership, although written statements have in his name been issued, he’s been neither seen nor heard and while known to be recuperating from injuries sustained in the attack in which his father was among those killed, one doubtlessly mischievous suggestion was his absence being explained by a raqi (exorcist) undertaking the long and exacting task of driving from his soul the “satanic homosexual urges” alleged by US intelligence.

Exorcism is a part of Islamic theology and is known as al-'azm, ṭard al-shayṭān/al-jinn (expulsion of devils/spirits) or ruqya (spell, charm, magic, incantation).  A spiritual practice, rugya most often is deployed to heal ailments or cure sickness but practitioners can be called upon to deal with the mental distress attributed to spiritual entities like Jinn (witchcraft; supernatural entities), or the evil eye; certainly that would seem to extend to an ayatollah’s “satanic homosexual urges”.  In an authentic Islamic exorcism (Ruqyah Ash-Shar'iyyah), the core component is the recitation of Qur'anic verses (the most invoked the Surah Al-Fatihah, Ayatul Kursi, and the last surahs), augmented by prophetic prayers and supplications to seek Allah's protection and drive out malevolent entities.  For those not brought up in the Islamic tradition, the nature of Jinn sometimes is misunderstood because the supernatural creatures are forces with free will, capable of both good and evil.  In an exorcism, an exorcist, depending on what’s involved, might command the miscreant Jinn to depart or break their spell without harming them.  However, like Christianity, Islam over the centuries spread far and wide, coming into contact with many cultures with long traditions of rituals, magic, witchcraft and such; inevitably, there was “mixing & matching” meaning in some places “folk” elements can be detected in what are notionally Islamic practices, something especially prevalent in North Africa.  Islamic scholars and clerics of course tend to disapprove of departures from Qur'anic orthodoxies based on the words of the Prophet Muhammad (circa 570-632).  Because most scholars regard “folk healing” as “primitive superstition”, these methods frequently are discouraged and fatāwā have been issued, especially if the rituals involve fortune-telling, objects like amulets or the invocation of beings other than Allah; the last strictly is forbidden (Haram) and constituting the major sin of Shirk (associating partners with God).