Palter

Paltering (pronounced pawl-ter)

(1) Insincerely or deceitfully to talk or act; to lie or use trickery; to prevaricate or equivocate in speech or actions.

(2) To bargain with; to haggle (now rare).

(3) Carelessly to act; to trifle (now rare).

(4) To babble; to chatter (archaic).

1530–1540: The original meaning was “indistinctly to speak; to mumble”.  The origin is obscure and etymologists suggest it may have been an alteration of “falter” in (the sense of a “faltering delivery of speech” same sense, with an appended “p-“ from palsy (in pathology, a complete or partial muscle paralysis of a body part, often accompanied by a loss of feeling and uncontrolled body movements such as shaking).  The predominant meaning by the mid-seventeenth century was the use to describe the particular form of deceptive or misleading conduct that is the telling of a partial truth in such as way as to avoid a “technical lie” yet convey an untruth.  The alternative suggestion is a connection with the Middle English palter (rag, trifle, worthless thing), from Middle Low German palter (rag, cloth).  The verb has long been a mystery because it had the frequentative, but there is nothing to suggest the existence of a verb “palt”; it’s not impossible it may have been an alteration of paltry (trashy, trivial, of little value; of little monetary worth; someone despicable; contemptibly unimportant).  The suffix –ing was from the Middle English -ing, from the Old English –ing & -ung (in the sense of the modern -ing, as a suffix forming nouns from verbs), from the Proto-West Germanic –ingu & -ungu, from the Proto-Germanic –ingō & -ungō. It was cognate with the Saterland Frisian -enge, the West Frisian –ing, the Dutch –ing, The Low German –ing & -ink, the German –ung, the Swedish -ing and the Icelandic –ing; All the cognate forms were used for the same purpose as the English -ing).

Via the notion of “talk in a trifling manner, babble” came (by the 1580s) the sense of both “insincere words” or “misleading statements; “playing fast and loose" with the truth.  The sense of “trifle away, squander” was in use by the 1620s.  The now obsolete noun palterly (paulterly the alternative spelling) is unrelated.  It was a late Middle English form from palter (a rag, worthless thing), from the Middle Low German palter (rag, cloth) and was used to convey the sense of something (or someone) "mean or parsimonious".  Palter and paltered are verbs and palterer & paltering are nouns & verbs; the more common noun plural is palterings but all forms of the word are rare outside of academic use in the analysis of politics and commerce.  Palter has been used as an irregular noun and palteresque is tempting in the post-truth age.

Paltering is an old and, outside of academia, rarely used word but the practice it describes, while hardly a modern invention, seems now more prevalent in public discourse so a revival may happen.  Paltering is a term used to describe the act of deceiving someone by telling the truth, but in a misleading or incomplete way, something more devious even than the many lies of crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) (which she usually “explains” by saying she “misspoke”).  The essence of paltering was captured in the elegant phrase of former UK cabinet secretary Sir Robert Armstrong (1927-2020; later Baron Armstrong of Ilminster) who, under cross-examination in the “Spycatcher” trial (1986), when referring to a letter, answered: “It contains a misleading impression, not a lie. It was being economical with the truth.”  Whether the old Etonian was aware of much post-Classical writing isn’t known (at Christ Church, Oxford he read the “Greats” (the history and philosophy of Ancient Greece & Rome)) but he may have been acquainted with Mark Twain’s (1835-1910) Following the Equator (1897) in which appeared: “Truth is the most valuable thing we have.  Let us economize it.” or the earlier thoughts of the Anglo-Irish Whig politician Edmund Burke (1729-1797) who in his Two Letters on the Proposals for Peace with the Regicide Directory (1796) noted: “Falsehood and delusion are allowed in no case whatsoever: But, as in the exercise of all the virtues, there is an economy of truth.”  Just as likely however is that Sir Robert had been corrupted by his long service in HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) and was thinking of: “The truth is so precious, it deserves an escort of lies”, a phrase often attributed (as are many) to Sir Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955), but there’s some evidence to suggest he may have picked it up from comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) and even if it wasn’t something the old seminarian coined, it was the mantra by which he lived so he deserves some credit.  Sir Robert’s phrase entered the annals of legal folklore and was good enough to have been lifted from a script from the BBC satire Yes Minister.

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

Unlike crooked Hillaryesque blatant lying (which involves providing false information), paltering involves using truthful statements (or at least those with the quality of plausible deniability) to create a false impression or intentionally to mislead someone.  Paltering is achieved by (1) omitting crucial details, (2) emphasizing certain truths while downplaying or not disclosing others or (3) presenting information in a way that technically is correct but which leads one’s interlocutor(s) to draw erroneous conclusions.  In practice, the mechanics of paltering usually are (1) Selective Truth: (highlighting facts that support one’s position while ignoring those that do not, (2) Omission: Leaving out vital information that would correct a listener's misunderstanding(s) and (4) Context Manipulation: Presenting information out of context to alter its meaning.  The classic wording of the oath or affirmation given by witnesses in legal proceedings (“the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”) is essentially an “anti-paltering” device.

So paltering is insidious because it is the artful use of the truth to create which might be thought a “constructive lie” and the word seems first to have enjoyed its latter day revival when political scientists in the US adopted it when analyzing texts and there is qualitative research which suggests those who palter can tend to rationalize the act by expressing sentiments along the lines of “lying is worse”.  Helpfully, the Trump White House was (and may yet again be) a place where many case-studies in the “compare & contrast” of lies and paltering were created and for that we should be grateful.

An example of the “simple lie” came when Sean Spicer (b 1971; White House Press Secretary & Communications Director 2017) early in 2021 informed the White House press corps that Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) had enjoyed a greater larger live audience at his inauguration than that which had attended Barack Obama’s (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) in 2009.  All available evidence appeared to suggest Obama’s numbers were up to twice those of Trump and if Spicer hadn’t brought it up (it was hardly a great affair of church or state) probably nobody else would have mentioned it but for Trump, who borrowed for his campaign so many of the techniques he’d learned from his career in reality television, viewer numbers were professional life and death and thus the lie. 

Kellyanne Conway in hoodie: Miss January, Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute's annual Conservative Women Calendar (2009).

The Trump administration actually gave the world a linguistic gift, another term for paltering: “alternative facts”, first mentioned by Trump campaign strategist and counselor, Kellyanne Conway (b 1967; senior counselor to the president, 2017-2020).  Ms Conway used the words during a Meet the Press interview to describe the use of statistics quoted by Sean Spicer (b 1971; White House Press Secretary & Communications Director, 2017), numbers which, prima facie, seemed dubious.  She sought later to clarify “alternative facts” by defining the phrase as "additional facts and alternative information" which, when deconstructed, probably did add a layer of nuance but really didn’t help.  Journalists, not a crew always entirely truthful, decided to help and called the phrase "Orwellian", provoking a spike on the search engines as folk sought out "doublethink" and "newspeak"; sales of George Orwell’s (1903–1950) Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) said overnight to have risen several-dozen fold.  The relationship between the press and the Trump White House was never likely to be friendly but “alternative facts” meant things started badly almost from day one.  That had no discernible effect on Mr Trump who committed a classic act of paltering when, in arguing he had won the 2020 presidential election and it had been “stolen” from him by the corrupt, Democratic Party controlled “deep state”, emphasized that on election day he had “won more votes that any sitting president in history”.  That was of course literally true and something to be noted by psephologists for their trivia nights (psephologists know how to have a good time) but about as relevant to the results of the election as was crooked Hillary Clinton getting three million-odd more votes than Mr Trump in 2016.

The increase in the use of "paltering" is attributed to (1) the internet which encouraged the posting of lists of rare, obscure or archaic words and (2) the use in academia, the publications of which are indexed and harvested by statistical grabbers like Google's Ngrams.  Tempting though it may be, Mr Trump being an arch palterer probably did little to boost the use of the word although he may have inspired others to adopt the technique.

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

Embellish

Embellish (pronounced m-bell-lysh)

(1) To decorate, garnish, bedeck or embroider an object.

(2) To beautify by ornamentation; to adorn.

(3) To enhance a statement or narrative with fictitious additions.

1300–1350: From the Middle English embelisshen from the Anglo-French, from the Middle French embeliss- (stem of embelir), the construct being em- (The form taken by en- before the labial consonants “b” & “p”, as it assimilates place of articulation).  The en- prefix was from the Middle English en- & in-.  In the Old French it existed as en- & an-, from the Latin in- (in, into); it was also from an alteration of in-, from the Middle English in-, from the Old English in- (in, into), from the Proto-Germanic in (in).  Both the Latin and Germanic forms were from the primitive Indo-European en (in, into) and the frequency of use in the Old French is because of the confluence with the Frankish an- intensive prefix, related to the Old English on-.) + bel-, from the Latin bellus (pretty) + -ish.  The –ish suffix was from the Middle English –ish & -isch, from the Old English –isċ, from the Proto-West Germanic -isk, from the Proto-Germanic –iskaz, from the primitive Indo-European -iskos.  It was cognate with the Dutch -s; the German -isch (from which Dutch gained -isch), the Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish -isk & -sk, the Lithuanian –iškas, the Russian -ский (-skij) and the Ancient Greek diminutive suffix -ίσκος (-ískos); a doublet of -esque and -ski.  There exists a welter of synonyms and companion phrases such as decorate, grace, prettify, bedeck, dress up, exaggerate, gild, overstate, festoon, embroider, adorn, spiff up, trim, magnify, deck, color, enrich, elaborate, ornament, beautify, enhance, array & garnish.  Embellish is a verb, embellishing is a noun & verb, embellished is a verb & adjective and embellisher & embellishment are nouns; the noun plural is embellishments.

The meaning "dress up (a narration) with fictitious matter" was first noted in the mid-fifteenth century and was an acknowledgement of a long (if sometimes hardly noble) literary tradition.  It was exemplified by the publication in 1785 by German author Rudolf Erich Raspe (1736-1794) of Baron Munchausen's Narrative of his Marvellous Travels and Campaigns in Russia, a collection of extraordinary stories, based (loosely) on the tales told by the real-life Baron Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen (1720-1797).  The real baron was prone to quite some exaggeration in the tales of his travels but never went as far as Herr Raspe had his fictional baron flying to the moon.  The technique of enhancing a statement or narrative with fictitious additions (ie lies) was later perfected by the author and one-time Tory politician Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare (b 1940) and crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947).

Lindsay Lohan in bikini embellished with faux (synthetic) fur, photo-shoot for the fifth anniversary of ODDA magazine, April 2017.

In the matter of Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump

Various matters relating to a payment allegedly made by (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) to adult film star (and director in the same genre) Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Gregory Clifford; b 1979) are currently before a New York criminal court.  When a member of Mr Trump’s legal team suggested she may have a  “propensity to embellish” when giving evidence, counsel was using the word “embellish” in the crooked Hillary sense of “lie”.  Lawyers have many ways to suggest those being cross-examined are lying and embellish is one of the more euphemistic though not as inventive as “economical with the truth”.  That one will forever be associated with former UK cabinet secretary Sir Robert Armstrong (1927-2020; later Baron Armstrong of Ilminster) who, under cross-examination in the “Spycatcher” trial (1986), when referring to a letter, answered: “It contains a misleading impression, not a lie. It was being economical with the truth.”  Whether the old Etonian was aware of much post-Classical writing isn’t known (at Christ Church, Oxford he read the “Greats” (the history and philosophy of Ancient Greece & Rome)) but he may have been acquainted with Mark Twain’s (1835-1910) Following the Equator (1897) in which appeared: “Truth is the most valuable thing we have.  Let us economize it.” or the earlier thoughts of the Anglo-Irish Whig politician Edmund Burke (1729-1797) who in his Two Letters on the Proposals for Peace with the Regicide Directory (1796) noted: “Falsehood and delusion are allowed in no case whatsoever: But, as in the exercise of all the virtues, there is an economy of truth.”  Just as likely however is that Sir Robert had been corrupted by his long service in HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) and was thinking of: “The truth is so precious, it deserves an escort of lies.”, a phrase often attributed (as are many) to Sir Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955), but there’s some evidence to suggest he may have picked it up from comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) and even if it wasn’t something the old seminarian coined, it was the mantra by which he lived so he deserves some credit.  Sir Robert’s phrase entered the annals of legal folklore and was good enough to have been lifted from a script from the BBC satire Yes Minister.

Courtroom sketch of defendant, judge, prosecutor & witness by Jane Rosenberg (b 1949), Manhattan Criminal Court, New York, 7 May 2024.

The work of courtroom sketch artists became a feature of the trial process in many Western courts during the years when photography was banned and Ms Rosenberg has since 1980 become of of the most highly regarded practitioners.  Of her art, she was quoted, in a statement she stressed was non-political and not a comment on the legal merit of his case, that Mr Trump was “fun to draw”.  Something of the character of law will be lost if the courtroom sketch artist is replaced by an artificial intelligence (AI) bot.

The exchange on 7 May wasn’t the first time “propensity” and “embellish” had been entered into the trial transcript.   On 23 April, the court heard about former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker’s (b 1951) “secret arrangement” negotiated in 2015 with Mr Trump and his then attorney (and “fixer”) Michael Cohen (b 1966), the terms of which included the publication (1) promoting Mr Trump’s presidential ambition and (2) publicizing Mr Cohen’s “research” relating to Mr Trump’s opponents: “He would send me information [about the others seeking the Republican nomination for the 2016 presidential election] and that was the basis for our story, and we would embellish (in the National Enquirer tradition "embellish" is a spectrum word ranging in meaning from "exaggerate" to "untrue").” Mr Pecker testified, adding the arrangement was kept secret from all but a handful of his senior executives: “I told them [the National Enquirer’s East and West Coast bureau chiefs] we were going to try and help the campaign, and to do that we would keep it as quiet as possible.”  National Enquirer has bureaux; who knew?

Stormy Daniels.

The day before, Mr Trump’s team pursued a line of questioning designed to cast doubt on Mr Cohen’s credibility, suggesting that for him Mr Trump has become “an obsession” and that he wishes to see him incarcerated and has “a propensity to lie.”  “He has a goal, an obsession, with getting Trump.  I submit to you he cannot be trusted.  His entire financial livelihood depends on President Trump’s destruction… You cannot make a serious decision about President Trump by relying on the words of Michael Cohen.” Counsel argued.  Mr Cohen had certainly left no doubt the case was on his mind, the previous night posting on-line that he’d experienced some “…mental excitement about this trial...” and the testimony he would deliver.

The highlight thus far however came when the state called to the stand Ms Daniels where in greater detail than expected she described the encounter with Mr Trump which led to the hush-money scheme.  The word the press seemed to settle on for their reports was “salacious” but the two things which most struck legal analysts was (1) the unusually wide interpretative latitude the judge appeared to allow himself when deciding the nature of the many details Ms Daniels should be allowed to introduce and (2) the curious reticence of defence counsel in objecting to the course things were taking.  Both of these aspects may be considered if the case goes on appeal when often a ruling is made on what evidence is relevant and what is so prejudicial that under the evidentiary rule it shouldn’t have been admitted and heard by the jury.

Stormy expression: Donald Trump at the defense table, Manhattan Criminal Court, New York, 7 May 2024.

Over lunch, Mr Trump’s team must have discussed these matters because they moved a motion requesting the judge declare a mistrial on the grounds Ms Daniels’ testimony contained prejudicial and irrelevant comments which: “…aside from pure embarrassment…,” these details did nothing but “…inflame the jury.”  The judge did acknowledge Ms Daniels was a difficult witness to control and agreed: “...it would have been better if some of these things had been left unsaid.” but denied the motion, saying defense counsel should have raised more objections during the testimony and that cross-examination would permit them to redress things, adding that at one point he had intervened to limit her statements simply because the defence had not.  The defense did actually raise a number of objections, a slew of which the judge upheld, after which he cautioned the witness: “Just listen to the question, and answer the question.”  Some may have recalled the infamous cross-examination of Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) by Justice Robert Jackson (1892–1954; US Supreme Court Justice 1941-1954; Chief US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg (IMT) trials of Nazi war criminals 1945-1946) at the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) when the judges of the IMT (International Military Tribunal) declined to “control the witness”, leaving Justice Jackson increasingly exasperated by Göring’s long answers which the prosecutor though mostly irrelevant but which were of great interest to at least some of the judges and permitted under the terms of the court’s charter.  Of course, the IMT wasn’t limited by New York’s rules on admissibility of evidence.

Stormy Daniels (2019) by Robert Crumb.  Robert Crumb (b 1943) is an US cartoonist, associated since the 1960s with the counter-culture and some strains of libertarianism; he was one of the most identifiable figures of the quasi-underground (in the Western rather than the Warsaw Pact sense) comix movement.

However, in one exchange during defense cross examination, there was no question of any propensity to embellish, counsel asking: “Am I correct in that you hate President Trump?” to which Ms Daniels replied: “Yes.”  No ambiguity there and although not discussed in court, her attitude may not wholly be unrelated to Mr Trump’s rather ungracious description of her as “horse face”.  Really, President Trump should be more respectful towards a three-time winner of F.A.M.E.'s (Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment) much coveted annual "Favorite Breasts" award.

Donald Trump leaving Manhattan Criminal Court, New York, 7 May 2024.

Speaking briefly to reporters after leaving the court, Mr Trump said: “This was a very big day, a very revealing day, as you see, their case is totally falling apart, they have nothing on the books and records and even something that should bear very little relationship to the case, it's just a disaster for the DA.”

Deracinate

Deracinate (pronounced dih-ras-uh-neyt)

(1) To pull up by the roots; uproot; extirpate; eradicate.

(2) To isolate or alienate (a person) from a native or customary culture or environment (especially to expel people from their native land and into exile).

(3) To liberate or be liberated from a culture or its norms. 

1590s: A calque of the French déraciner, from the Old French desraciner (uproot, dig out, pull up by the roots), the construct being dé- +‎ racine +‎ -er.  The de- prefix was from the Latin dē-, from the preposition dē (of, from (the Old English æf- was a similar prefix).  It imparted the sense of (1) reversal, undoing, removing, (2) intensification and (3) from, off.  In French the dé- prefix was used to make antonyms (as un- & dis- function in English) and was partially inherited from the Old and Middle French des-, from the Latin dis- (part), the ultimate source being the primitive Indo-European dwís and partially borrowed from Latin dē-..  Racine was from the Old French, from the Late Latin radicīna (a little root), from the Classical Latin radix & radicis (root), from the Proto-Italic wrādī, from the primitive Indo-European wréhds & wrād- (branch, root).  The prefix –er was used to form infinitives of first-conjugation verbs and was from the Latin –are, from the Middle High German –ære & -er, from the Old High German -āri, from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, from Latin -arius.  The -ate suffix -ate used in the English formation was a word-forming element used in forming nouns from Latin words ending in -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as estate, primate & senate).  Those that came to English via French often began with -at, but an -e was added in the fifteenth century or later to indicate the long vowel.  It can also mark adjectives formed from Latin perfect passive participle suffixes of first conjugation verbs -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as desolate, moderate & separate).  Again, often they were adopted in Middle English with an –at suffix, the -e appended after circa 1400; a doublet of –ee.  Deracinate, deracinates, deracinating & deracinated are verbs and deracination is a noun; the noun plural is deracinations.  The noun deracinater (or deracinator) is non-standard.

In English, deracinate is used mostly as a decorative alternative to the descriptive but brutish "uproot" and is probably one of those words which has survived to enjoy it's infrequent appearances because it appears in the Duke of Burgundy's speech in William Shakespeare's (1564–1616) Henry V (circa 1599); the Shakespeare connection has headed-off a few linguistic extinctions.  Use in agriculture and horticulture appears to be rare (the punchier alternatives better understood) although it might be expected when gardening is a part of a literary novel.  In figurative use, the inferences tend to be negative and focus on isolation, alienation, deportation and the cultural separation sometimes felt by diasporic communities.  In English, since 1921 it has been used to mean "uprooted from one's national or social environment" (especially to expel people from their native land and into exile).

Lindsay Lohan gardening with a lopper, decapitation a less demanding path to destruction than deracination, New York City, May 2015.  She appears to be relishing the task. 

However, in figurative form deracinate can carry a positive connotation.  It can mean "to liberate or be liberated from a culture or its norms" and in that sense sometimes appears in right-wing commentaries on certain aspects of the culture wars,  There the point being made relates to the different ways "cultural alienations" are treated, depending on who is being alienated from what.  Someone who is a white, middle class Christian and rejects the beliefs and cultural traditions of their church to emerge as a materialist atheist tied to Enlightenment values is not regarded as "culturally alienated" or a victim of "cultural oppression", indeed, if their transformation is noted at all it may be to call them a "rational" or "an intellectual".  Some might call them "a heretic" but gleefully a rationalist would anyway agree.  For others however, it's argued they can only ever be seen as "a victim".  This seems especially to apply to those from indigenous populations who, if they reject belief in or adherence to the sorts of things Christians are entitled to dismiss as "superstitions", they're treated as "oppressed" and "alienated".  In that sense, the critics say, being something like indigenous (or another ethnic or cultural minority) is "compulsory", some of the very intellectuals who are themselves proudly (and by choice) alienated from a cultural inherence of perhaps centuries declaring those from minorities similarly separated must be victims of hegemonic cultural oppression.  In this sense the critique is something like that made of Western anthropologists who opposed modernizing influences being allowed to "infect" traditional cultures, presumably so they could be preserved in their "unspoiled state" for anthropological study.

Although right-wing politics might seem an unusual source for such arguments, it is intellectually consistent and the internal logic conforms with their hierarchy of priorities.  Although usually they decry post-modernism and most flavors of critical studies (critical race studies (CRT) a particular target) as little more than glossings of nihilism, the right to adopt a world-view at variance with one imposed by cultural tradition has a long history and the importance of defending it well explained by the French philosopher Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet; 1694–1778) and more succinctly still by the Anglo-Irish Whig statesman Edmund Burke (1729-1797).  In the prevailing climate, minority ethnic & cultural identities do seem to remain compulsory (though it may be the converts to post-modernism wisely keep quite about it) but in the the culture wars, no truce has been declared.

Duke of Burgundy's speech (Shakespeare, Henry V Act 5, Scene 2)

My duty to you both, on equal love,
Great kings of France and England. That I have labored
With all my wits, my pains, and strong endeavors,
To bring your most imperial Majesties
Unto this bar and royal interview,
Your mightiness on both parts best can witness.
Since, then, my office hath so far prevailed
That face to face and royal eye to eye
You have congreeted. Let it not disgrace me
If I demand before this royal view
What rub or what impediment there is
Why that the naked, poor, and mangled peace,
Dear nurse of arts, plenties, and joyful births,
Should not in this best garden of the world,
Our fertile France, put up her lovely visage?
Alas, she hath from France too long been chased,
And all her husbandry doth lie on heaps,
Corrupting in its own fertility.
Her vine, the merry cheerer of the heart,
Unprunèd, dies. Her hedges, even-pleached,
Like prisoners wildly overgrown with hair,
Put forth disordered twigs. Her fallow leas
The darnel, hemlock, and rank fumitory
Doth root upon, while that the coulter rusts
That should deracinate such savagery.
The even mead, that erst brought sweetly forth
The freckled cowslip, burnet, and green clover,
Wanting the scythe, withal uncorrected, rank,
Conceives by idleness, and nothing teems
But hateful docks, rough thistles, kecksies, burrs,
Losing both beauty and utility.
And as our vineyards, fallows, meads, and hedges,
Defective in their natures, grow to wildness,
Even so our houses and ourselves and children
Have lost, or do not learn for want of time,
The sciences that should become our country,
But grow like savages, as soldiers will
That nothing do but meditate on blood,
To swearing and stern looks, diffused attire,
And everything that seems unnatural.
Which to reduce into our former favor
You are assembled, and my speech entreats
That I may know the let why gentle peace
Should not expel these inconveniences
And bless us with her former qualities.

Bedchamber

Bedchamber (pronounced bed-cheym-ber)

A now archaic word for bedroom; the alternative form was bed-chamber.

1325–1375:  From the Middle English bedchaumbre, the construct being bed + chamber.  Bed was from the Middle English bed or bedde, from the pre-1000 Old English bedd (bed, couch, resting-place; garden-bed, plot), from the Proto-Germanic badją (plot, grave, resting-place, bed) and thought perhaps derived from the Proto-Indo-European bhed (to dig).  It was cognate with the Scots bed and bede, the North Frisian baad and beed, the West Frisian bêd, the Low German Bedd, the Dutch bed, the German bett, the Danish bed, the Swedish bädd, the Icelandic beður and perhaps, (depending on the efficacy of the Proto-Indo-European lineage), the Ancient Greek βοθυρος (bothuros) (pit), the Latin fossa (ditch),the Latvian bedre (hole), the Welsh bedd (grave), the Breton bez (grave).  Any suggestion of links to Russian or other Slavic words is speculative.

Chamber dates from 1175-1225 and was from the Middle English chambre, borrowed from Old French chambre, from the Latin camera, derived from the Ancient Greek καμάρα (kamára) (vaulted chamber); the meaning “room”, usually private, drawn from French use.  As applied to anatomy, use emerged in the late fourteenth century; it was applied to machinery in 1769 and to ballistics from the 1620s.  The meaning "legislative body" is from circa 1400 and the term chamber music was first noted in 1789, not as a descriptor of any musical form but to indicate that intended to be performed in private rooms rather than public halls.

The Bedchamber Crisis, 1839

A Lady of the Bedchamber, a position held typically by women of noble descent, is a kind of personal assistant to the Queen of England.  A personal appointment by the Queen, they’ve existed for centuries, their roles varying according to the relationships enjoyed.  Most European royal courts from time-to-time also adopted the practice.

The 1839 bedchamber crisis is emblematic of the shifting of political power from monarch to parliament.  Although the eighteenth-century administrative and economic reforms created the framework, it was the 1832 Reform Act which, in doing away with a monarch’s ability to stack parliaments with ample compliant souls, shattered a sovereign’s capacity to dictate election results and within two years the new weakness was apparent.  In 1834, William IV (1765–1837; King of the UK 1830-1837)  dismissed the Whig Lord Melbourne (1779–1848; Prime Minister of the UK 1834 & 1835-1841) and appointed the Tory Sir Robert Peel (1788–1850; Prime Minister of the UK 1834–1835 & 1841–1846).  However, the King no longer enjoyed the electoral influence necessary to secure Peel a majority in the Commons and after being defeated in the house six times in as many weeks, the premier was obliged to inform the palace of his inability to govern, compelling the king to invite Melbourne to form a new administration, one which endured half a decade, out-living William IV.  The king's exercise in 1834 of the royal prerogative proved the last time the powers of the head of state would be invoked sack a prime-minister until an Australian leader was dismissed in 1975 by the governor-general (and in a nice touch the sacked PM had appointed the clearly ungrateful GG).

Queen Mary's State Bed Chamber, Hampton Court Palace (1819) by Richard Cattermole (1795–1858).

By 1839, Melbourne felt unable to continue and the new Queen Victoria (1819–1901; Queen of the UK 1837-1901), reluctantly, invited Sir Robert Peel to assume the premiership, a reticence some historians attribute as much to her fondness for the avuncular Melbourne as her preference for his Whig (liberal) politics.  Peel, knowing any administration he could form would be nominally in a minority, knew his position would be strengthened if there was a demonstration of royal support so asked Victoria, as a gesture of good faith, to replace some of the Whig Ladies of the Bedchamber with a few of Tory breeding.  Most of the ladies were the wives or daughters of Whig politicians and Sir Robert’s request made sense in the world of 1839.

Victoria rejected his request and prevailed upon Melbourne to continue which he did, until a final defeat in 1841.  By then it was clear only Peel could command a majority in the Commons and he insisted on his bedchamber cull, forcing Victoria to acquiesce to the parliament imposing on her the most intimate of her advisors.  This is the moment in constitutional history where the precedent is established of the parliament and not the Crown determining the formation and fate of governments.  Since then, the palace can warn, counsel and advise but not compel.

A lady in, if not of, the bedchamber.  A recumbent Lindsay Lohan in The Canyons (IFC Films, 2013).

Freemason

Freemason (pronounced free-mey-suh n)

(1) A member of a secret society (Free and Accepted Masons, constituted in London in 1717), present in many countries which operates in a cult-like manner (initial upper case and often used in the clipped form “Mason”).

(2) Historically, one of a class of skilled stoneworkers of the medieval period (lasting into the early modern era), possessing passwords and both public & secret signs, used as devices by which they could identify one another.

(3) A member of a society composed of such workers, which also included honorary members (accepted masons) not connected with stone work.

1350-1400: From the Middle English fremason.  Free was from the Middle English free, fre & freo, from the Old English frēo (free), from the Proto-West Germanic frī, from the Proto-Germanic frijaz (beloved, not in bondage), from the primitive Indo-European priHós (dear, beloved), from preyH- (to love, please); it was related to the English friend.  The verb was from the Middle English freen & freoȝen, from the Old English frēon & frēoġan (to free; make free), from the Proto-West Germanic frijōn, from the Proto-Germanic frijōną, from the primitive Indo-European preyH-.  Mason was from the Middle English masoun & machun, from the Anglo-Norman machun & masson or the Old French maçon, from the Late Latin maciō (carpenter, bricklayer), from the Frankish makjō (maker, builder), a derivative of the Frankish makōn (to work, build, make), from the primitive Indo-European mag- (to knead, mix, make), conflated with the Proto-West Germanic mattjō (cutter), from the primitive Indo-European metn- & met- (to cut).  The “mason” element of the word is uncontested.  A mason was a bricklayer (1) one whose trade was the handling, and formation of structures in stone or brick or (2) one who prepares stone for building purposes.  It later (3) became the standard short-form for a member of the fraternity of Freemasons.  However, the origin of the “free” part is contested.  Some etymologists suggest it was a corruption of the French frère (brother), from frèremaçon (brother mason) while others believe it was a reference to the masons working on “free-standing” (ie large rocks they would cut shape into smaller pieces) stones.  Most however maintain it meant “free” in the sense of them being independent of the control of local guilds or lords.  The noun freemasonry was in use by the mid-fifteenth century.  Freemason, Freemasonism & freemasonry are nouns and freemasonic is an adjective; the noun plural is Freemasons.  Unfortunately, the adjective freemasonistic and the adverb freemasonistically appear not to exist.

The origin of the freemasons was in a travelling guild of masons who wandered England offering their services to those needing stonework.  Operating in opposition to the established guilds, the freemasons (ie free from the dictates of the guilds) had a closed system of passwords, symbols and secret signs (the origin of the famously mysterious Masonic handshake) so safely they could identify each-other and ensure intruders (presumably agents of the guild) couldn’t infiltrate their midst.  In the early seventeenth century, they began accepting as honorary members even those who were not stonemasons and by the early eighteenth century the structure had had developed into the secret fraternity of affiliated lodges known as Free and Accepted Masons (often as F&AM) and as an institution the F&AM were first registered in London in 1717.

Freemason T-shirts should not be confused with other "Free" campaign clothing. 

The “accepted” refers to persons admitted to the society but not belonging to the craft and in time this became the nature of the Freemason, long removed from the actual trade of stone-working.  As an institution, the Freemasons (especially by their enemies and detractors) are often spoken of as if something monolithic but the only truly common thread is the name although most do (at least officially) subscribe to a creed of “brotherly love, faith, and charity”.  Structurally, they’re nothing like the Roman Catholic Church with its headquarters and single figure of ultimate authority and are a looser affiliation even than the “worldwide Anglican community” where the spiritual “authority” of the Archbishop of Canterbury is now wholly symbolic.  The Freemasons are more schismatic still and can’t even be compared to the loosest of confederations because their basic organizational units, the lodges, operate with such autonomy that one might not be on speaking terms with one in the next suburb and each may even deny that the other is legitimately Masonic.

Despite that, the conspiracy theorists have often been interested in the Masons because they can be treated as if they are monolithic and it is true that as recently as the second half of the twentieth century there were many entities (notably police forces) where there was an unusual preponderance of Masons in prominent positions and in one force, for decades, by mutual consent, the position of commissioner alternated between a Roman Catholic and a Freemason.  In Europe, it wasn’t uncommon for the Masons to be grouped with the Jews as the source of all that was corrupt in society and some satirists made a troupe of “the Freemasons and the Jews” being at the bottom of every evil scheme, cooked up either at lodge or synagogue.  One who needed no convincing was Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) who perceived a  Masonic plot be behind the overthrow of Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943) in 1943.

Reinhard Heydrich (second from left, back to camera) conducting a tour of the SS Freemasonry Museum, Berlin, 1935.

The Nazis enjoyed curiously diverse interactions with the Freemasons.  During his trial in Nuremberg in 1945-1946 Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) told the International Military Tribunal (IMT) that it was only an accident of history he was in the dock because in 1922 he was on his way “…to join the Freemasons when I was distracted by a toothy blonde.”  Had he joined the brotherhood he claimed, he’d never have been able to join the Nazi Party because it proscribed Freemasonry.  During the same proceedings, Hjalmar Schacht (1877–1970; President of the German Central Bank (Reichsbank) 1933–1939 and Nazi Minister of Economics 1934–1937) said that even while serving the Third Reich he never deviated from his belief in the principles of “international Freemasonry”.  Upon coming to power, the Nazis certainly took that proscription seriously but the suppression of Freemasonry was not unique, the party looking to stamp out all institutions which could be an alternative source of people’s allegiances or sources of ideas.  This included youth organizations, trade unions and other associations, their attitude something like that of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to the Falun Gong and the two authoritarian parties were similarly pragmatic in dealing with the mainstream churches which were regulated and controlled, it being realized their support was such that eradication would have to wait.  By 1935, the Nazis considered the “Freemason problem” solved and the SS even created a “Freemason Museum” on Berlin’s Prinz-Albrecht-Palais (conveniently close to Gestapo headquarters) to exhibit the relics of the “vanished cult”.  SS-Obergruppenführer (Lieutenant-General) Reinhard Heydrich (1904–1942; head of the Reich Security Main Office 1939-1942) originally included the Freemasons on his list of archenemies of National Socialism which, like Bolshevism, he considered an internationalist, anti-fascist Zweckorganisation (expedient organization) of Jewry.  According to Heydrich, Masonic lodges were under Jewish control and while appearing to organize social life “…in a seemingly harmless way, were actually instrumentalizing people for the purposes of Jewry”.

One institution which has for almost three centuries proscribed Freemasonry is the Roman Catholic Church although that official position has run in parallel with a notable Catholic membership in many lodges.  The ban was both explicit and often expressed up until the pontificate of Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958) but after the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II; 1962-1965), the winds of change seemed to blow in other directions and in recent years from Rome, there’s been barely a mention of Freemasonry, the feeling probably that issues like secularism, abortion, homosexuality, radical Islam and such were thought more immediate threats.  It was thus a surprise to many when on 13 November 2023 the Vatican's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (the DDF, the latest name for the Inquisition) reaffirmed the Church's teachings that laity or clerics participating in Freemasonry are in "a state of grave sin."  The DDF didn’t repeat the words of Clement XII (1652–1740; pope 1730-1740) who in 1738 called Masonry “depraved and perverted” but did say: “On the doctrinal level, it should be remembered that active membership in Freemasonry by a member of the faithful is forbidden because of the irreconcilability between Catholic doctrine and Freemasonry", citing Declaration on Masonic Associations (1983) by Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was head of the DDF (then called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)).  Continuing in a way which recalled the ways of the Inquisition, ominously the DDF added: “Therefore, those who are formally and knowingly enrolled in Masonic Lodges and have embraced Masonic principles fall under the provisions in the above-mentioned Declaration. These measures also apply to any clerics enrolled in Freemasonry.”

Apparently, the DDF issued the document in response to concerns raised by a bishop in the Philippines who reported a growing interest in the secret society in his country.  That was interesting in that cultural anthropologists have noted the form of Catholic worship in the Philippines was in some ways a hybrid which merged the Western tradition with the local rituals the Spanish priests who accompanied the colonists found were hard to suppress.  It proved a happy compromise and the faith flourished but one of the Vatican’s objections to Freemasonry has long been that the society swears oaths of secrecy, fellowship and fraternity among members and has accumulated a vast catalogue of rituals, ceremonial attire and secret signals.  It has always made the church uneasy that these aesthetic affectations often use Christian imagery despite being used for non-Christian rituals.  Indeed, it’s not a requirement of membership that one be a Christian or even to affirm a belief in the God of Christianity or Jesus Christ as the savior or mankind and the secret nature of so much Masonic ritualism has given rise to the suspicion of the worship of false idols.  Of relevance too is the existence of the complex hierarchy of titles within Masonism which could be interpreted as a kind or parallel priesthood.

Pope Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) is fighting a war which he hopes will set the course of the church for the next generation.  Before it could commence in anger he had to wait for the death of Benedict but the battle is now on and it’s against a cabal of recalcitrant cardinals and theologians (“the finest minds of the thirteenth century” he’s rumored to call them) who are appalled at any deviation from established orthodoxy in doctrine, ritual or form, regarding such (at least between themselves), as heresy.  Quite where the DDF’s re-statement of the 300 year old policy of prohibition of Freemasonry fits into that internecine squabble isn’t clear and it may be the interest aroused surprised even the DDF which may simply have been issuing a routine authoritative clarification in response to a bishop’s request.  Certainly nothing appears to have changed in terms of the consequences and the interpretation by some that the revisions to canon law made some years were in some way substantive in this matter appear to have been wrong.

Escutcheons of the Holy See (left) and the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d’Or (right).

Interestingly, the DDF (nor any other iteration of the Inquisition) has never moved to proscribe the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d’Or (The Golden Keys; the international association of hotel concierges.  This is despite the organization being structurally remarkably similar to the Freemasons and the similarities between their escutcheon and that of the Holy See are quite striking.  According to the DDF, the crossed keys are a symbol of the Papacy's authority and power, the keys representing the "keys of heaven" that were in the New Testament passed from Jesus Christ to Saint Peter.  In Roman Catholic tradition, Peter was appointed by Jesus as the first Pope and given the keys to symbolize his authority to forgive sins and to make decisions binding on behalf of the Church (this the theological basis of what in canon law was codified in the nineteenth century as papal infallibility).  The two keys thus symbolize the pope's two powers: (1) spiritual power (represented by the silver key) and (2) temporal power (represented by the gold key).  The latter power manifested in a most temporal manner during the thousand-odd years (between the eighth & nineteenth centuries) when the authority of the papal absolute theocracy extended to rule and govern the Papal States (which were interpolated into the modern state of Italy upon Italian unification (1859-1870).  Claiming (officially) only temporal dominion, the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d'Or logo depicts both their keys in gold, one said to symbolize the concierge's role in unlocking the doors to the world for their guests, the other their ability to unlock the secrets of their destination and provide insider knowledge and recommendations (restaurant bookings, airport transfers, personal service workers of all types etc).  However, neither the Vatican nor the Les Clefs d’Or have ever denied intelligence-sharing, covert operations, common rituals or other links.

In an indication they'll stop at nothing, the Freemasons have even stalked Lindsay Lohan.  In 2011, Ms Lohan was granted a two-year restraining order against alleged stalker David Cocordan, the order issued some days after she filed complaint with police who, after investigation by their Threat Management Department, advised the court Mr Cocordan (who at the time had been using at least five aliases) “suffered from schizophrenia”, was “off his medication” and had a "significant psychiatric history of acting on his delusional beliefs.”  That was worrying enough but Ms Lohan may have revealed her real concerns in an earlier post on twitter in which she included a picture of David Cocordan, claiming he was "the freemason stalker that has been threatening to kill me- while he is TRESPASSING!"  Being stalked by a schizophrenic is bad enough but the thought of being hunted by a schizophrenic Freemason is truly frightening.  Apparently an unexplored matter in the annals of psychiatry, it seems the question of just how schizophrenia might particularly manifest in Freemasons awaits research so there may be a PhD there for someone.

The problem Ms Lohan identified has long been known.  In the US, between 1828-1838 there was an Anti-Mason political party which is remembered now as one of the first of the “third parties” which over the decades have often briefly flourished before either fading away or being absorbed into one side or the other of what has for centuries tended towards two-party stability.  Its initial strength was that it was obsessively a single-issue party which enabled it rapidly to gather support but that proved ultimately it’s weakness because it never adequately developed the broader policy platform which would have attracted a wider membership.  The party was formed in reaction to the disappearance (and presumed murder) of a former Mason who had turned dissident and become a most acerbic critic and the suspicion arose that the Masonic establishment had arranged his killing to silence his voice.  They attracted much support, including from many church leaders who had long been suspicious of Freemasonry and were not convinced the organization was anything but anti-Christian.  Because the Masons were secretive and conducted their meetings in private, their opponents tended to invent stories about the rituals and ceremonies (stuff with goats often mentioned) and the myths grew.  The myths were clearly enough to secure some electoral success and the Anti-Masons even ran William Wirt (1772-1834 and still the nation’s longest-serving attorney-general (1817-1829)) as their candidate in the 1832 presidential election where he won 7.8% of the popular vote and carried Vermont, a reasonable achievement for a third-party candidate.  Ultimately though, that proved the electoral high-water mark and most of its members thereafter were absorbed by the embryonic Whig Party.