Response

Response (pronounced ri-spons (U) or ree-spons (non-U))

(1) The act of responding; a reply or reaction; a reaction to a stimulus or provocation.

(2) In the card game bridge, a bid based on an evaluation of one's hand relative to the previous bid of one's partner.

(3) In liturgical use in Christianity, a word, phrase or short sentence recited or sung by the choir or congregation in reply to the priest or officiant at a church service (usually in the plural and used (loosely) also of any versicle or anthem said or sung during or after a lection).

(4) In electronics the ratio of the output to the input level, at a particular frequency, of a transmission line or electrical device.

(5) In pathology, any pattern of glandular, muscular, or electrical reactions induced by stimulation of the nervous system.

(6) In biology, any behavior of a living organism that results from an external or internal stimulus.

(7) In engineering, the reaction of a mechanical device to changes in energy input.

(8) In legal proceedings (and other forms), reply to an objection.

(9) In the calculation of online advertising performance metrics, a measure representing one click-through from an online ad to its destination URL.

1250–1300: From the Latin respōnsum (answer), noun use of the neuter past participle of respondēre (to reply, respond, answer, the construct being re- (in the sense of “again”) + spondere (to pledge), nominal use of the neuter form of respōnsus, the perfect passive participle of respondeō, the construct being from re- + spondeō (promise).  It replaced the Middle English respounse & respons, from the Middle French respons, from the Old French respons, respuns & response (which endures in Modern French as réponse), from the same Latin source.  Response, responsion, responsure & responsiveness are nouns, responsal, responsory & responsorial are nouns & adjectives, responsive is an adjective and responsively is an adverb; the noun plural is resposes.

Depending on context, a response might also be called a feedback, reply or return and in science, medicine and engineering, derived forms such as responseless, counter-response, allergic response, autonomous response, host response etc are coined as required.  In law enforcement and military use, the coinings include armed response, artillery response, naval response etc.  The adjective responsive was an early fifteenth century form meaning “making answer, responding” and was from the Old French responsif and directly from Late Latin responsivus (answering), from the Classical Latin respons-, past-participle stem of respondere.  The use in the sense of “responding readily to influence or action, able or inclined to respond” was documented first in 1762, the adverb responsively & noun responsiveness both appearing within a decade.  In Christianity, the use to mean “a part of the liturgy said or sung by the congregation in reply to the priest” dates from the 1650s.  The transferred sense (adopted in literature, poetry and psychology) of feelings or actions was part of the Romantic movement early in the nineteenth century.  One of the best known “responses” was the adjectival “Pavlovian Response” which dates from 1911 and came from the experimental work of Russian physiologist Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849-1936), the best known example of which was the conditioned salivary reflexes of dogs in response to the mental stimulus of the sound of a bell being associated with food.  The term “response time” seems first to have been used in the US in 1958 and was associated with the increasingly precise measurements needed as transistors replaced vacuum tubes in electronics.

Boris Yeltsin, who got a bit of fun out of life.

The phrase “diplomatic response” isn’t really part of the study of international relations.  It’s used in general discourse to describe ways of communicating that are polite, tactful and intended to ensure reasonable relationships are maintained and the self-help sections in bookshops often contain titles which include guides on the topic, their advice on the matter probably usually suggesting the salient points are (1) Politeness (using courteous language to show respect), (2) Neutrality (avoiding taking sides or making definitive statements that might be thought controversial), (3) Constructiveness (focusing on solutions and positive outcomes), (4), Empathy (acknowledging the other person's feelings or perspectives) and (5) Caution (being careful with word choice to avoid misunderstandings or offense).  In diplomacy proper, there are examples such as when Boris Yeltsin (1931–2007; President of Russia 1991-1999) announced he would decline a Japanese offer of help in dealing with a natural disaster because they might use it as leverage in territorial disputes, the Japanese Foreign Ministry responded by saying: “He must have been misquoted”.  Lindsay Lohan in 2017 followed the example when asked about comments made by Donald Trump in 2004 when he said she was: “probably deeply troubled and therefore great in bed. How come the deeply troubled women, you know, deeply, deeply troubled, they're always the best in bed?”  Her response was to say: “I wish him the best. We live in a world of societies that consistently find fault in people. I think it’s a really scary factor. Taking someone else down is never the answer, and I think we all know that.”  It’s not believed Mr Trump responded.

Responses of some who survived political assassination attempts

That photograph.

The compositional elements of the photograph destined to become one of the classics of US political history are so perfect it would have been assumed to be an AI (artificial intelligence) meme had the moment it captured not been witnessed by so many:  Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021, fist raised in defiance, his blood staining his face, being hustled to safety by his Secret Service detail after an assassin’s bullet was a fraction of an inch to the left; one zephyr during its 125 metre (410 feet) travel and Trump would likely be dead.  The image, taken by AP (Associated Press) photographer Evan Vucci (b 1977) was a an extraordinary piece of serendipity for the Trump campaign, being almost entirely of red, white & blue with the Stars & Stripes flying as a backdrop, the whole thing recalling the famous photograph by AP’s Joe Rosenthal (1911–2006) which captured US Marines planting the flag atop Mount Suribachi during the Battle of Iwo Jima.  Quite how the incident will affect the election campaign can’t be assumed but it’s unlikely to be detrimental to the Trump cause and the photograph will help, the strident defiance of the stance exactly what appeals to the base and probably attractive to not a few of the undecided, the contrast with the less dynamic Biden obviously striking.  As a response from someone who has just cheated death, his presence of mind in having the Secret Service delay his evacuation from the stage by a few seconds so he could provide AP their photo-opportunity will guarantee publicity the Republican Party couldn’t buy no matter how many millions they spent.

Senator Marco Rubio (b 1971; senator (Republican) for Florida since 2011 and the "little Marco" of Mr Trump's 2016 nomination campaign) was quick to tweet "God protected" Mr Trump which was noted by those running the betting markets for the 2024 running mate on the Republican ticket.  On his own Truth social platform, Mr Trump said much the same thing and previously, there have been those who made much of being saved from assassination by "providence" and it's not impossible Mr Trump is now persuaded it was indeed "divine intervention".  In the last decade, Mr Trump has done well by pretending to be religious to court the Christian vote: they knew he was lying and he knew that they knew he knew but such was the political symbiosis that all involved ignored the facts and focused on outcomes.  Now, he may start believing his own publicity.          

The footage was viewed world-wide within minutes and almost immdeiately questions were asked including (1) why was a line-of-shot available within 150 m (500 feet) of the target and (2) why were Secret Service agents allocated who were not even tall enough to reach his shoulder (they are as a last resort, human body armor).  The photograph was political gold for the campaign but it should never have been allowed to happen; Mr Trump should have been smothered with Secret Service bodies and immediately taken from the stage.  Some agreed the presence of the shooter was an obvious lapse but that what happened on stage followed protocol and there's never been any policy (or practice) of allocating agents on the basis of their height matching that of the protectee.    

Portrait of Theodore Roosevelt (1903) by John Singer Sargent.

In October 1912, a man shot Theodore Roosevelt (TR, 1858–1919; US president 1901-1909) while he was on the campaign trail for that year’s presidential election.  What saved Roosevelt was the bullet having to pass through a metal spectacles case and, tellingly, a folded, 50 page copy of the speech he was about to deliver on behalf of his Progressive Party.  The enraged crowd were holding and threatening to lynch the shooter but Roosevelt intervened, ensuring he was handed to the safe custody of the Wisconsin police.  Roosevelt had spent much of his life hunting big game and, on the basis he was not coughing up blood, correctly concluded that bullet was lodged in his muscle and had not punctured the lung, the relative lack of external bleeding suggesting no vital artery or vein had been severed.  His response to what would have put most men into a state of shock was to proceed to the hall and deliver his speech as planned.  Lodged too precariously to extract, the bullet remained with him until, peacefully, he died in his sleep at Oyster Bay, New York.

Men in frock coats: The “Big Four” at the Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920), outside the Foreign Ministry headquarters, Quai d'Orsay, Paris.  Left to right: David Lloyd George (1863–1945; UK prime-minister 1916-1922), Vittorio Orlando (1860–1952; Italian prime minister 1917-1919), Georges Clemenceau (1841–1929; French prime minister 1906-1909 & 1917-1920) and Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924; US president 1913-1921).

Georges Clemenceau (1841–1929; Prime Minister of France 1906-1909 & 1917-1920) was a physician who turned to politics via journalism, a not unfamiliar trajectory for many; at a time of national crisis, he undertook his second term as premier, providing the country’s politics with the stiffness needed to endure what was by then World War I (1914-1918); he was nick-named le tigre (the tiger) in honor of his ferociously combative political demeanour.  In February 1919, while travelling from his apartment a meeting associated with the Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920), he was shot several times, his assailant an anarchist carpenter & joiner, Émile Cottin (1896-1937) and two decades on, another leader would learn carpenters can be assassins. Le tigre was lucky, the bullets missing his vital organs although one which passed through the ribcage ending up lodged close to his heart; too close to that vital organ to risk surgery, like Roosevelt, there it remained until his death (from unrelated causes) ten years later.  Cottin’s death sentence was later commuted to a ten year sentence and he would die in battle, serving with the anarchist Durruti Column during the early days of the Spanish Civil War.  The Tiger’s response to his survival was to observe: “We have just won the most terrible war in history, yet here is a Frenchman who misses his target six out of seven times at point-blank range.  Of course this fellow must be punished for the careless use of a dangerous weapon and for poor marksmanship. I suggest that he be locked up for eight years, with intensive training in a shooting gallery.”  In the circumstances, deploring the state of French marksmanship displayed a certain French sang froid.

Although the details of most at the time weren’t known, there were so many plots to kill Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) that books were written exploring the topic, the most comprehensive of which was Killing Hitler (b 2006) by British historian Roger Moorhouse (b 1968).  For a variety of reasons, none succeeded but the first to come close was in Munich in 1939 when a bomb (it would now be called an IED (improvised explosive device) was fabricated by German carpenter and joiner, Georg Elser (1903–1945) and secreted in a pillar directly behind where Hitler was scheduled to be standing while delivering to his old comrades one of his annual set-piece addresses.  However, on the night, because he wanted to return early to Berlin to resume planning his latest foreign policy adventure, he cut short his speech and the bomb detonated a quarter hour after he and his entourage had left; it killed eight and injured dozens.  Hitler’s response was to say his survival was “…proof to me that Providence wants me to reach my goal.”  Surprisingly, Herr Elser, apprehended almost by chance, wasn’t executed, the fate of many who had done much less, but until 1945 was a “privileged prisoner” in relatively pleasant conditions; Hitler, who for years clung to the idea the man must have had some connection with the British secret service, ordered him hanged only when it was obvious he’d be of no use as a hostage.

Hitler again thanked providence when he survived the most celebrated of the attempts, the bomb in July 1944 planted by an army colonel and timed to explode during a military conference.  Hitler on that occasion avoided death because (1) a table’s heavy socle deflected much of the blast, (2) only one of the planned two charged was primed and (3) the conference was moved from an enclosed underground bunker to a building on the surface with walls and windows which were “blown-out” in the explosion, dissipating much energy.  Those details were lost on the Führer who chose again to attribute this life being spared to “providence”.  One of those convince was the visiting Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943), by then a much diminished puppet dictator of a puppet statelet sustained by the German military.  Dutifully the vassal Duce responded to Hitler: “Absolutely I agree with you, it’s a sign from providence”.  That decided, Hitler’s response to this “stab in the back” from his own army was savage, some 7000 rounded up, 5000-odd of which would be executed, the leading figures in the conspiracy dying in an especially gruesome manner, a event filmed although there are contradictory reports about whether it was something Hitler ever chose to view.  In the way of Nazi crack-downs, not all those executed were actually connected with this or any other plot, the security services using the operation as a pretext to dispose of those of one of their many lists of “undesirables”.

A prototype Humber Imperial fitted with a 273 cubic inch (4.5 litre) Chrysler LA V8.  By the mid 1960s the Humber Super Snipe (1964-1967) was essentially a mid-1950s US sedan being produced in England, a phenomenon which was emblematic of a malaise afflicting much of the UK's motor industry.  The Imperial was an up-market, better-appointed Super-Snipe and after Chrysler took a stake in the company, perhaps as many as six V8 prototypes were built but the advantages gained were few and the project never proceeded to general production.  When Chrysler in 1967 took over Rootes Group (the corporation of which Humber was a part) the Super Snipe range was discontinued, replaced in the UK market by Australian-produced Chrysler Valiants, chosen in preference to the US-built versions because they were available in right-hand drive configuration and the Commonwealth Preference scheme meant they attracted lower import tariffs.  Although only ever a niche product in the UK market and never approaching the sales volumes achieved by the big Humbers, the Valiants remained available until 1976.      

Arthur Augustus Calwell (1896-1973; Australian Labor Party (ALP) leader of the opposition 1960-1967) was a rare Australian target of an attempted political assassination.  Two years after being knighted by Paul VI (1897-1978; pope 1963-1978) (his Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great (KCSG) apparent unrelated to the attempt on his life), Calwell was sitting in the front passenger seat (it’s an Australian tradition) of his official car when 19 year-old student Peter Kocan (b 1947), at point blank range, fired a shell from a sawn-off rifle, aimed directly at his target.  In 1966, the Commonwealth’s car fleet still included their last intake of British-built cars and Calwell was sitting in a Series V Humber Super Snipe (1964-1967), an outdated machine but one which was stately & roomy and thus enjoyed by politicians who found their replacement, the lower Ford Galaxie, less comfortable, especially the ingress and egress.  Fortunately for Calwell, the side glass in the old-fashioned Humber was thick and instead of penetrating the pane, it shattered, absorbing most of the bullet’s energy; it was spent by the time it had travelled those few feet, lodging harmlessly in the lapel of the target’s jacket, Mr Calwell's injuries limited to some minor cuts from the broken glass.  Kocan was found guilty of attempted murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, sent initially to Sydney's Long Bay Gaol before being transferred to Morriset Psychiatric Hospital for the criminally insane.  There he studied literature and after his release became a prize winning poet and novelist, eventually graduating from the University of Newcastle with a BA (Hons) & MA.  Calwell’s response to the man who tried to kill him was to pay a visit to the hospital and, although a great hater in the ALP tradition, he was also a good Catholic, sending a letter of forgiveness.

Arthur Calwell leaving hospital in his Humber Super Snipe, the presence in numbers of the New South Wales (NSW) Police suggesting they were going to make sure nothing more happened to him before he returned to Victoria.  The police cars are locally assembled Rambler Classics and in Australia, various AMCs were in small volumes assembled and sold under the Rambler name until 1977.

In an example of how difficult it can be for security services to monitor and intercept those who plan to kill political figures, the motive of the man who in March 1981 shot Ronald Reagan (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989) was to impress an actress with whom he’d become obsessed.  That was something even less likely to attract the attention of the authorities than the earlier case when a botched attempt had been made by a member of Charles Manson’s (1934-2017) “Family” cult to assassinate Gerald Ford (1913–2006; US president 1974-1977).  Mr Reagan’s injury was life-threatening and was saved only by surgical intervention.  When greeted by the surgeons who were to perform the operation, his response was to tell them he hoped they “…were all Republicans”.  In an example of good bedside manner they assured him he was in safe political hands although one later confessed to being a lifelong Democrat.  When his wife arrived at the hospital, he delivered the line “Honey, I forgot to duck”, borrowed from boxer Jack Dempsey (1895–1983) who said it to Mrs Dempsey on the night he'd lost a bout to Gene Tunney (1897–1978).

Holy

Holy (pronounced hoh-lee)

(1) Specially recognized as or declared sacred by religious use or authority; consecrated.

(2) Dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion; godly, or virtuous; of, relating to, or associated with God or a deity; sacred.

(3) Saintly; godly; pious; devout; having a spiritually pure quality; endowed or invested with extreme purity or sublimity.

(4) Entitled to worship or veneration as or as if sacred.

(5) A place of worship; sacred place; sanctuary.

(6) Inspiring fear, awe, or grave distress (archaic).

Pre 900: From the Middle English holi & hali, from the Old English hālig, hāleġ & hǣlig, (holy, consecrated, sacred, venerated, godly, saintly, ecclesiastical, pacific, tame), a variant of the Old English hālig, hǣlig & hāleg, the construct being hāl (whole) + -eg (-y), from the Proto-West Germanic hailag, from Proto-Germanic hailaga & hailagaz (holy, bringing health).  It was cognate with the Old Saxon hēlag, the Gothic hailags the Dutch & German heilig, the Old Frisian helich and the Old Norse heilagr.  Ultimate root was the primitive Indo-European kóhzilus (healthy, whole).  It was adopted at conversion for the Latin sanctus although the Middle English form emerged as holi which remained a common spelling until the sixteenth century.  Holy is a nown & adjective. holiness (the spellings holinesse, holyness & holynesse all obsolete) is a noun and holier & holiest are adjectives; the noun plural is holies.  The noun holiosity is non-standard and is used in humor when referring to those for who religion has become an obsession and often one they think should be imposed on others.

Lindsay Lohan bringing holiness, Machete (2010).  The weapon is a Smith & Wesson .50 Magnum revolver with 8" barrel (S&W500: SKU 163501).

The primary (pre-Christian) meaning is not possible to determine; documentary evidence simply doesn’t exist but most think it probably meant something like “that must be preserved whole or intact, that cannot be transgressed or violated” and was connected with the Old English hal (health) and the Old High German heil (health, happiness, good luck (source of the German salutation Heil which became so well-known in the 1930s)).  Holy water was in Old English and holy has been used as an intensifying word from 1837 and used in expletives since the 1880s; a “holy terror” generally meaning “a difficult or frightening person” but which in Irish informal use means a man thought a habitual gambler, womanizer etc.  The adjectival forms are holier (comparative) & holiest (superlative) while the noun plural is holies but “the holy” functions as a plural when referring to persons or things (eh holy relics) invested with holiness.  When used in a religious context, it’s common to use an initial capital and probably obligatory when referencing the Christian God, or Christ.  The old alternative spellings holi, hali, holie & hooly are all obsolete.  Words that depending on context may be synonymous or merely related include divine, hallowed, humble, pure, revered, righteous, spiritual, sublime, believing, clean, devotional, faithful, good, innocent, moral, perfect, upright, angelic, blessed & chaste.

The Old Testament's Book of Leviticus is regarded by many as a long list of proscriptions, noted especially for the things declared an abomination to the Lord and within the text (Leviticus 17-26) that surprisingly succinct list is known as the “Holiness code” (often referred to in biblical scholarship as the “H texts”), "Holy" in this context understood as “set apart”.  The Holiness code exists explicitly as the set of fundamental rules which the ancient Israelites were required to follow believed they had to follow in order to be close to God and in that sense are the foundational basis for all the moral imperatives in scripture.  What makes them especially interesting historically is the suggestion by a number of scholars that additional laws, written in a style discordant with the rest of the Holiness Code yet in accord with the remainder of Leviticus, were interpolated into the code by a later priest or priests, notably some concerning matters of ritual and procedure hardly in keeping with high moral tone of the apparently original entries.  The contested passages include:

The prohibition against an anointed high priest uncovering his head or rending his clothes (21:10).

The prohibition against offerings by Aaronic priests who are blemished (21:21–22).

The order to keep the sabbath, passover, and feast of unleavened bread (23:1–10a).

The order to keep Yom Kippur, and Sukkot (23:23–44).

The order for continual bread and oil (24:1–9).

Case law concerning a blasphemer (24:10–15a and 24:23).

The order for a trumpet sounding on Yom Kippur (25:9b).

Rules concerning redeeming property (25:23 and 25:26–34).

Order to release Israelite slaves at the year of jubilee (25:40, 25:42, 25:44–46).

Rules concerning redeeming people (25:48–52, and 25:54).

The Holy Alliance

The Holy Alliance (styled in some contemporary documents as “The Grand Alliance”) was something not quite a treaty yet more than a modus vivendi (memorandum of agreement).  Executed soon after the conclusion of the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), it linked three of the monarchist great states of Europe (Austria, Prussia, and Russia) and existed very much at the behest of Tsar Alexander I (1777–1825; Emperor of Russia from 1801-1825) who had observed the French Revolution (1789) and the convulsions which spread across the continent in its wake and, having little taste for the idea of the mob leading kings to their execution by the guillotine, sought an alliance which would hold in check the forces of secular liberalism.  It was a moment something like that noted by George VI (1895–1952; King of the United Kingdom 1936-1952) who, traveling through the Surrey countryside, pointed at Runnymede (where in 1215 the Magna Carta was forced on a reluctant King John (1166–1216; King of England 1199-1216), saying to his companion: "That's where the trouble started."  

The origin of the Holy Alliance, 1815.

The Tsar envisaged the UK being part of the Holy Alliance but Lord Castlereagh (1769–1822; UK foreign secretary 1812-1822) belonged to the long tradition of trying not become involved in European affairs unless necessary and called it “sublime mysticism and nonsense.”  The troubled Castlereagh committed suicide and in his papers there's no indication of the sense in which he used the word "sublime" but in late fourteenth century it was used as a verb meaning "alchemy".

So inconsequential did Castle think the treaty that he anyway recommended it be joined by the UK, a course of action the Cabinet declined to pursue and the supportive gesture of George IV (1762–1830; prince regent of the UK 1911-1820, king 1820-1830) adding his signature as King of Hanover had the most negligible political or military significance.  Despite London’s reserve, Austria, Prussia, Russia, & the UK did later in 1815 formalize the Quadruple Alliance which had for some time existed in effect to counter the military and revolutionary threat presented by the expansion of the First French Empire under Napoleon I (Napoleon Bonaparte, 1769–1821; First Consul of the French Republic 1799-1804 & Emperor of the French from 1804-1814 & 1815).  Although Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo wrote finis to that venture, the four powers thought the Quadruple Alliance a means by which the framework created by the Congress of Vienna might best be maintained as a stabilizing device so the state of European affairs might indefinitely be maintained, it’s last resort being the military apparatus which could be deployed to ensure something like the French Revolution couldn’t again happen.  Events seemed to move in the direction of the Holy Alliance when, in 1818, the Bourbon monarchy was restored to France under Louis XVIII (1755–1824; king of France 1814-1824 (but for the unfortunate hundred days in 1815 when he fled the advance of Napoleon)) and the Quadruple Alliance became the Quintuple.  However, the British, even then among the most constitutional of monarchies, never had much enthusiasm for the alliance's more illiberal actions but the four continental powers did impose their will, the Austrians in Italy in 1821 and the French two years later in Spain.  Despite those encouraging successes however, although not fully appreciated at the time, both the arrangement and the Holy Alliance became effectively defunct with the death of Alexander in 1825, the events in France in 1830 the final nail in the coffin.

Nevertheless, the Holy Alliance remains an interesting cul-de-sac in European history and one noted for (by diplomatic standards) the brevity of its three articles: (1) That all members are brethren, beholden when necessary to assist one another to protect religion, peace, and justice, (2) That the members are Christian nations who owe the treasure of their existence to God, and recommend to their subjects to enjoy God’s gifts, and exercise his principles and (3) That members agree this alliance shall utilize the principles of God and Christianity to shape the destinies of mankind over which they have influence.  One suspects Metternich (Prince Klemens von Metternich, 1773–1859, Austrian foreign minister 1809-1848, chancellor 1821-1848) and others might have shared Castlereagh’s opinion of the spiritual flavor of the Tsar’s wording but it was recognized by even the most cynical of pragmatists as at least potentially useful and was eventually signed by all European rulers except (1) the Prince Regent of the UK because of the cabinet’s opposition, (2) the Ottoman sultan who could hardly countenance such a Christian document and (3), the Pope in Rome, the papal councilors and bishops approving not at all of something which, for the sake of unanimity, embraced schism, heresy, and orthodoxy alike.  To the Holy See, these were the papers of politicians and thus the work of the Devil.

Whatever it wasn’t, the Holy Alliance was a symbol of the old social order and liberals viewed it with disdain, revolutionaries with hatred.  Although effectively it was in 1825 buried in the tomb of the dead Tsar, its spirit endured until the revolutions of 1848 and in a sense it continued to influence the actions of statesmen until the Crimean War (1853-1856).  That crafter of alliances, Prince Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898; Chancellor of the German Empire, 1871-1890), attracted to something so over-arching yet meaning so little, sort of resurrected it after the unification of Germany in 1871 but the withered idea of a unifying Christendom proved by the 1880s not strong enough to prevail over Austrian and Russian self-interest in the squabbles in the Balkans as the edges of the Ottoman Empire began to fray.

Of unholy alliances

As a footnote, the Holy Alliance left a linguistic legacy: the phrase “unholy alliance”.  Unholy alliance is used to describe a coalition formed between improbable and usually antagonistic parties, such arrangements often ad hoc and the product of circumstance rather than choice.  There need not be any religious or anti-religious element for it to be applied and it’s a companion term to “strange bedfellows” or “uneasy bedfellows”. 

There have been many instances of use and it appeared in the platform of the Progressive Party, formed by Theodore Roosevelt (TR, 1858–1919; US president 1901-1909) to contest the 1912 US presidential election: “To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”  A classic statement of the rationale came from Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) in 1941 when, after Germany invaded the Soviet Union (a unilateral repudiation of an earlier unholy alliance (the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939) which was one of history’s more cynical arrangements between adversaries, both parties knowing it was being pursued for mutual advantage as a prelude to an eventual conflict between them), the UK suddenly had gained a wartime ally albeit one with which relations had been hardly friendly and often strained since the revolutions of 1917.  In a radio broadcast that evening Churchill announced: “No one has been a more consistent opponent of communism for the last twenty-five years. I will unsay no word I have spoken about it. But all this fades away before the spectacle which is now unfolding. The past, with its crimes, its follies, its tragedies, flashes away.… The Russian danger is therefore our danger, and the danger of the United States, just as the cause of any Russian fighting for hearth and house is the cause of free men and free peoples in every quarter of the globe.”  When one of his colleagues noted the queerness of him being the one to announce such an alliance, he remarked: “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”

Portrait of Clare Sheridan (then Ms Frewen) (1907), oil on canvas by Emil Fuchs (1866-1929) (left) and a sepia print of the younger Leon Trotsky (circa 1908) (right).  

Churchill didn’t approve of communism, his attitude hardened by the new regime in Moscow having murdered the last Tsar and his family.  Very much a monarchist (his wife once described him as “the last man in Europe who believes in the divine right of kings”), Churchill thus took a dim view of the Bolsheviks and while serving as Secretary of State for War and Air (1919–1921) was involved in the allied intervention supporting anti-Communist White forces in the Russian Civil War (1917-1922), his mood not improved when he learned his favorite cousin, the sculptor Clare Sheridan (1885–1970), had enjoyed a brief affair with comrade Leon Trotsky (1879-1940; founder of the Fourth International).  Whether he ever called Trotsky “the hairiest Bolshevik baboon of all” remains uncertain but it’s at least plausible and he would later tell his cousin “we shall never speak of this unpleasantness again”.  Her memories of the tryst remained fonder, recalling the time her lover had whispered: “a woman like you should be the whole world to a man.”  At least one “Bolshevik baboon” could be poetic.

By 1941, however bad he thought were the communists in Moscow, the Nazis in Berlin were worse so an alliance with the Soviet Union, unholy though it would have felt, Churchill welcomed with barely a qualm.  He was also more perceptive in his assessment of Russian resistance to the invasion than most military & political figures in London, Washington DC or Berlin, the consensus in those circles being the Red Army would be defeated within a few months.  Given the bloody purges comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) had committed against his military leadership and the poor performance of the Russian army against the Finns in 1940, the grim expectations weren’t unreasonable but Churchill offered good odds to anyone willing to take his bet: “I will bet you a Monkey to a Mousetrap that the Russians are still fighting, and fighting victoriously, two years from now.”  That was slang from the turf, a “Monkey” being a £500 wager and a “Mousetrap” a gold sovereign with a nominal value of £1 (ie odds of 500-1).  Unholy the alliance may have been and there were tensions throughout between Moscow, Washington & London but the need to defeat Nazism meant it survived long enough to fulfil its purpose before the Cold War became the world’s new primary political dynamic.

Sisyphean

Sisyphean (pronounced sis-uh-fee-uhn)

(1) Of or relating to Sisyphus.

(2) Something endless and unavailing (describing usually some laborious or repetitive task).

1625–1635: From the Ancient Greek name Sīsýpheios or Sī́syphios, the construct being Sīsýphe + -eios (from the Latin adjectival suffix -ēiōs, the accusative masculine plural of –ēius).  Some etymologists suggest the name has a pre-Greek origin and some connection with the root of the word sophos (σοφός) (wise) while one noted German mythographer thought it derived from sisys (σίσυς) (a goat's skin), a reference to a rain-charm in which goats' skins were used.  A sisyphean task is one which comes to be understood as both endless and futile; no longer how long one persists, the task is never done.  Because it’s based on a name, Sisyphean is often capitalized, but not always and is is used especially in the phrases “Sisyphean task” & “Sisyphean labors”.  The comes from the name of Sisyphus, a character in Greek mythology who was punished by being forced continuously and eternally to roll a boulder up a steep hill and just as he was about the reach the top, the boulder would roll back down, and he’d have to start all over again.  The phrase is now used of any task which seems never to end no matter how diligent one may be, such as clearing the contents of one’s inbox.  A classic modern example (which apparently wasn’t quite true) was the task is allocated to the team painting the Sydney Harbour Bridge; by the time they finished at the northern end, it was time to return to the south and start again.  Sisyphean is an adjective.

In Greek mythology, Sisyphus (Σίσυφος) was the most cunning (if not the most admirable) of mortals.  A Thessalian prince and founder of Corinth (then called Ephyra), he was the son of King Aeolus of Aeolia and Enarete, the daughter of Deimachus and in the way the myths of Antiquity bounced around a bit, he was either the successor and avenger of Corinthus or the successor of Medea.  In the best known of the myths, Autolycus had stolen flocks of sheep from Sisyphus, but because he had engraved his name under the hoof of each, he was able to reclaim them by pointing to the etchings and that day happened to be the eve of the marriage of Anticleia, daughter of Autolycus, and Laertes.  Still not best pleased about the theft of his livestock, Sisyphus that night found his way into the bride’s bed and from that vengeful conquest was born Odysseus.  Those facts are agreed but in some of the myths a scheming Autolycus offered his daughter to Sisyphus because he wanted a grandson to inherit his wiliness & cunning.  The variations in the myths have attracted much comment and it wasn’t until the seventeenth century that some were found to be the work of Medieval writers but some of those with sometimes contradictory “alternative facts” were from Antiquity and it needs to be remembered that many were written by “content providers” who created their “new” product from an existing and popular cast of characters.  In that the process was much the same as the modern equivalent, the US daytime TV soaps, where “killed off” characters can re-appear and on one celebrated occasion, one who had lost a leg managed in a later season to show up again bipedal.

When Zeus abducted Aegina he travelled through Corinth where he was seen by Sisyphus and when her father Asopus came searching for her, Sisyphus promised to reveal the kidnapper's name on condition that Asopus made a spring gush on the town's citadel.  To this Asopus agreed and Sisyphus told him Zeus was the guilty one; here again the myths take forks.  In one telling an enraged Zeus struck the snitch with a thunderbolt, hurling him into the Underworld, where he was condemned for eternity to roll an enormous rock up a hill, the big stone always to roll back to the bottom just as the peak was approached.  However, in the Odyssey, the story was that Zeus sent Thanatos, the spirit of Death, to pay one of his unwelcome visits to Sisyphus in order to bring about his end.  The cunning Sisyphus, however, took Thanatos by surprise and chained him up, meaning that for some time, not one mortal of all of Earth died, compelling Zeus to force the spirit’s release so he could resume his essential tasks; Zeus made sure Sisyphus was the first victim.

Ever plotting, before Thanatos did his work, secretly Sisyphus made his wife promise not to perform at his funeral the obsequies to which he was entitled and upon arrival in the Underworld, stridently he complained to Hades about this slight.  It being a boys club, Hades granted him permission to return to earthly life to punish her.  Of course, the devious fellow didn’t keep to the pact and stayed on Earth, living in rude good heath to a great age.  He was though mortal and when eventually he died the gods of the Underworld weren’t going to be tricked again, setting him to the task of pushing the rock uphill, leaving him not a moment to seek his escape.  That story is complete but there were other variations, the most intriguing being in a damaged fragment from the Roman writer Hyginus (Gaius Julius Hyginus (circa 64 BC–17 AD).  Here, it’s described how Sisyphus hated his brother Salmoneus and asked the oracle of Apollo how he could kill the sibling he described as “his enemy”.  Apollo told him that he would find men to take revenge if he slept with his own niece, Tyro, the daughter of Salmoneus.  The deed done, Tyro gave birth to twins by Sisyphus but, learning of what the oracle had promised, she killed her two children.  What happens next is not known because that part of the text has been lost but the concluding passages survived and Sisyphus in found in Underworld, rolling his stone.  For this incestuous tale, readers are invited to fill in the gaps.  The foundation of the Isthmian Games is sometimes attributed to Sisyphus, in honor of his nephew Melicerties.  He was married to Merope and his descendants included Glaucus and Bellerophon.

Some slave for lifetimes at their Sisyphean tasks, others walk away.

Sisyphean and Herculean tasks

A “Sisyphean task” differs from a “Herculean task” in that the latter, although immensely challenging, is achievable with extraordinary effort while the former not only cannot be done but must repeatedly be attempted for all eternity.  Hercules was from the Latin Herculēs, from the Etruscan hercle, from the Ancient Greek Ἡρακλῆς (Hēraklês), believed to be the cognate of Ἥρα (Hḗra) (Hera) and, according to some etymologists, the construct was the primitive Indo-European yóhr̥ (year, season) + κλέος (kléos) (glory).  Hercules was the Roman name for the Greek divine hero Heracles, the son of Jupiter and Alcmene, a celebrated hero who possessed exceptional strength.  In the myths, he’s remembered most for the twelve difficult labors he was made to perform as a penance for killing his family and that's the origin of the phrase.

Mr Trump & Mr Biden on CNN.

Essentially, what certain operatives in the White House are hoping is the task confronting Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) over the next few weeks is merely Herculean and not Sisyphean.  It should of course be neither because all he needs to do is not appear senile or at least not obviously at some stage of cognitive decline.  That would seem a reasonable expectation for a major-party nominee for the office of President of the United States (POTUS), a four-year appointment which, as well as lots of other stuff, includes being commander-in-chief of the planet’s most powerful military and the right to deploy the US nuclear arsenal.  However, after the first televised debate (June 2024) with Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021), he has yet to convince many and in each public appearance since, what he has been doing is pushing his rock (which gets bigger and heavier which each attempt) uphill, only to commit some gaff which means the rock rolls to the bottom and he has to start again.  Mixing up the names of Vladimir Putin; (b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999) & Volodymyr Zelensky (b 1978; president of Ukraine since 2019) might have elicited little more than a smile from observers had it not been part of a pattern of behavior and while in the archives there are doubtlessly many similar gaffs by others, Mr Biden’s are now keenly awaited and rated for severity.  At least quickly he caught the error and corrected himself but later the same day, he referred his vice-president (Kamala Harris (b 1964; US vice president since 2021) as “Vice President Trump”, blithely carrying on, apparently oblivious to what he’d just said.  That seems to be beyond  gaff; more of “a howler”.

It’s definitely a matter of a heightened focus on Mr Biden’s slip-ups and Mr Trump also has “a bit of previous” in mixing up names, something which has not gone unnoticed but has been treated as just an amusing part of the clatter of the campaign and it’s an associative thing: because he’s not labelled as being in “obvious cognitive decline”, when Mr Trump mixes up a name, it’s spun not as a symptom but just an “everyday” gaff.  In January 2024 Mr Trump mistakenly referred to his then rival for the nomination Nikki Haley (b 1972; ambassador to UN 2017-2018) when he should have been attacking Democrat Nancy Pelosi (b 1940; speaker of the US House of Representatives 2007-2011 & 2019-2023), repeatedly naming Ms Haley (who for some two years under his administration served as ambassador to the UN) when speaking at a campaign rally in New Hampshire, discussing the 6 Jan 2021 capitol riot:

“Nikki Haley, you know they, do you know they destroyed all of the information, all of the evidence, everything, deleted and destroyed all of it.  All of it, because of lots of things like Nikki Haley is in charge of security.  We offered her 10,000 people, soldiers, National Guard, whatever they want.  They turned it down. They don’t want to talk about that.  These are very dishonest people.”

Nikki Haley must have been much on his mind.  The previous September, he’d surprised a few by saying “…with Obama, we won an election that everyone said couldn’t be won” before going on to say “…we would be in World War II (1939-1945) very quickly if we’re going to be relying on [Mr Biden].”  Asked for a comment, Mr Trump claimed sometimes “sarcastically” he transposes Mr Biden’s name with that of Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) “…as an indication that others may actually be having a very big influence in running our country.”  Seemingly, crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) is no longer on his mind.

This is a genuine crisis for the Democratic Party and one thing it has done is publicize the way the machinery would work if a critical mass of delegates to the Democratic National Convention (scheduled for 19-22 August 2024) decide to contest Mr Biden’s path to the nomination.  The first potential spanner in the works is a recent amendment to Ohio electoral law which demands presidential candidates be certified (ie the state’s electoral commissioner must be notified that presidential candidates have been officially nominated) at least 90 days before the general election if they are to appear on ballot’s in Ohio.  That makes the Ohio deadline the earliest in the land and the cut-off date is 7 August, some two weeks before the convention.  The Republican National Convention is held in July so this is exclusively a problem for the Democrats and the issue has existed in the past but states have either accepted a “provisional nomination” or extended their deadline.  The Ohio attorney-general however says the state will not be accepting a provisional certificate and the Republican-controlled legislature did not pass an extension amendment so there things stand, appearing to demand the delegates vote in some virtual way prior to 7 August.  There is also the matter of federal electoral law for the delegates to consider.  What it holds is that the millions of dollars being held as campaign funds for the Biden-Harris ticket cannot be transferred to new ticket, unless the new presidential nominee was one of the members of the old.  What this means is that if Mr Biden is not the nominee, the vital campaign funds will remain available only if that nominee is Vice-President Harris.

Mr Biden at work.

Political junkies who belong to the school of “politics as theatre” are actually hoping for a so-called “open convention” (sometimes called a “brokered convention), something not seen since 1952 although both parties have since flirted with the possibility.  An open convention is one in which no individual secures a majority on the first ballot and it become a matter of horse trading between 4000-odd delegates and for that to happen would require either Mr Biden deciding to withdraw (and presumably endorsing Ms Harris) or a challenge emerging from the floor.  While the junkies can see the potential for fun in such a spectacle, the thought of an open convention sends shivers down the spines of the party bosses who like things to be stage-managed and decided in advance; the potential for messiness just too big a risk.  Still, at least in theory, it really is in the hands of the delegates who under the law are entitled to vote for whomever they wish, even if they have been elected on the basis of a pledge to vote for a certain candidate.

If Mr Biden manages to rise to the herculean task of convincing the necessary folk he’s not senile then the problem goes away because, even if they think he’s likely to descend into senility during a second term, that’s a bridge to be crossed as some later date.  Perhaps fortunately for Mr Biden, even if the task proves Sisyphean, he might still secure the nomination by refusing to withdraw because it’s not as if there are others both outstanding in quality and willing to stand against the Republican’s inevitable nominee; this is not 1968.  Interestingly, analysts have noted a sudden shift in the Trump campaign and suggest rather than trying to damage Mr Biden to the extent he's forced to withdraw from the process, the strategy now appears to be shaped towards ensuring he remains the candidate, the assumption being Trump will beat Biden but only may win against another candidate.  In politics, there's much preference for the known rather than the unknown. 

Prerogative

Prerogative (pronounced pri-rog-uh-tiv)

(1) An exclusive right, privilege, etc, exercised by virtue of rank, office, or the like; having a hereditary or official right or privilege.

(2) A right, privilege, etc, limited to a specific person or to persons of a particular category.

(3) A power, immunity, or the like restricted to a sovereign government or its representative.

(4) Characterized by lawless state actions (refers to the prerogative state)

(5) Precedence (obsolete except in the legal sense of the hierarchy of rights).

(6) A property, attribute or ability which gives one a superiority or advantage over others; an inherent (though not necessarily unique) advantage or privilege; a talent.

(7) In constitutional law, a right or power exclusive to a head of state (often derived from the original powers of a monarch) or their nominee exercising delegated authority, especially the powers to appoint or dismiss executive governments.

1350-1400: From the Anglo-Norman noun prerogatif, from the Old French prerogative, from the Latin praerogātīva (previous verdict; claim, privilege), noun use of the feminine singular of praerogātīvus (having first vote; privileged), in Anglo-Latin as prerogativa from late thirteenth century.  The origin lay in a statute in the civil law of Ancient Roman which granted precedence to the tribus, centuria (an assembly of one-hundred voters who, by lot, voted first in the Roman comita).  The law guaranteed them a praerogātīvus (chosen to vote first) derived from praerogere (ask before others).  The construct of praerogere was prae (before) + rogare (to ask, ask a favor), apparently a figurative use of a primitive Indo-European verb meaning literally "to stretch out (the hand)" from the root reg- (move in a straight line).  In Middle English, the meaning "an innate faculty or property which especially distinguishes someone or something" was added.  The alternative spelling prærogative is long obsolete.  Prerogative is a noun & adjective, prerogatived is an adjective and prerogatively is an adverb; the noun plural is prerogatives.

In English law, a court classified as “a prerogative court” was one through which the discretionary powers, privileges, and legal immunities reserved to the sovereign could be exercised.  The best known of these courts was the Court of Exchequer, the Court of Chancery and the Court of the Star Chamber (the latter one of those institutions formed to rectify injustice but which was later the source of much; the Court of the Star Chamber may be used as a case-study explaining the phrase: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”).  In time, clashes between the prerogative courts and common law courts became something of a proxy-theatre in the contest between the king and parliament.  The way that worked out was that the ancient (essentially personal) prerogative rights of the monarch weren’t abolished but rather exercised by parliament or institutions (including courts) to which the powers were delegated.  Whether any prerogative power remains in the hands of the sovereign to be used in “extraordinary and reprehensible circumstances” remains a matter of debate.  There were also ecclesiastical prerogative courts under the authority of the archbishops of Canterbury and York but they existed only to handle probate matters in cases where estates beyond a certain defined value were spread between the two dioceses but they also handled many wills of those who died in colonial or other overseas service.  As part of the great reforms of the late nineteenth century undertaken in the Judicature Acts (1873-1899) the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical prerogative moved to the common law courts, being finally vested in the Family Division of the High Court of Justice.

In English law, the still sometimes invoked prerogative writ (the best known of which were habeas corpus (from the Latin habeas corpus ad subjiciendum (usually translated as “bring up the body (ie the prisoner))), a demand a prisoner being held by an organ of the state be brought before a court to determine whether there was lawful authority for the detention) and mandamus (from the Latin mandāmus (we command)), an order issued by a higher court to compel or to direct a lower court or a government officer correctly to perform mandatory duties) was a class of six orders available to the crown for the purpose of directing the action of an organ of government (including courts, officials or statutory bodies).  The name was derived from the authority these exercised being traceable ultimately to the discretionary prerogative & extraordinary power of the monarch and the principle remains in use in many common law jurisdictions which evolved from the old British Empire, notably those of the Raj of colonial India.

The woman's prerogative

For a man incautiously to use the phrase “a woman's prerogative”, the risk would be “cancellation” (or worse) although it’s probably still acceptable if there’s a layer of irony.  The phrase is a clipping of the full: “it’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind”, the implication being women have the right to change their minds or make decisions based on their own preferences and need provide no explanation or justification.  Wise men (and the pussy-whipped) accept this without demur.  It is of course a reflection of a cultural stereotype and seems to have come into use in the mid-nineteenth century, an era in which gender roles were more rigidly defined and women were thought to be more capricious or whimsical in their actions.  However, in law, the “woman's prerogative” was once enforceable, granting them rights not available to men, a most unusual development in Western jurisprudence.

Well into the twentieth century, it was legal orthodoxy in common law jurisdictions for an offer of marriage to be enforceable under the rules of contract law.  While courts didn’t go as far as ordering “specific performance” of the contract (ie forcing an unwilling party to marry someone), they would award damages on the basis of a “breach of promise”, provided it could be adduced that three of the four essential elements of a contract existed: (1) offer, (2) certainty of terms and (3) acceptance.  The fourth component: (4) consideration (ie payment), wasn’t mentioned because it was assumed to be implicit in the nature of the exchange; a kind of “deferred payment” as it were.  It was one of those rarities in common law where things operated wholly in favor of women in that they could sue a man who changed his mind while they were free to break-off an engagement without fear of legal consequences though there could be social and familial disapprobation.  Throughout the English-speaking world, the breach of promise tort in marriage matters has almost wholly been abolished, remaining on the books in the a handful of US states (not all of which lie south of the Mason-Dixon Line) but even where it exists it’s now a rare action and one likely to succeed only in exceptional circumstances or where a particularly fragrant plaintiff manages to charm a particularly sympathetic judge.

The royal prerogative and the reserve powers of the crown

The royal prerogative is the body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity and the means by which (some of) the executive powers of government are exercised in the governance of the state.  These powers are recognized in common law (and in some civil law) jurisdictions are held to vest wholly in the sovereign alone, even if exercised through either appointees (of which governors, governors-general & viceroys are the best-known) constitutional government.  In the narrowest sense of technical theory, the recognition of the personal powers of a sovereign exists in most common law systems where the concept is relevant but has long since mostly been reduced to legal fiction and in most constitutional monarchies, almost all individual prerogatives have been abolished by parliaments.  Some republican heads of state also possess similar powers but they tend to be constitutionally defined and subject to checks and balances.  A notable exception to this is a US president’s un-trammeled right to grant pardons to those convicted of offences under federal law and that’s interesting because it’s the only power in the US Constitution not subject to a check or balance.  A US president thus personally continues to exercise a prerogative in a way a British monarch (or their appointees as governors & governors-general), from whom the power is derived, no longer can.

In Britain, prerogative powers were originally exercised by the monarch (at least in theory and the role of the Church needs also to be noted) acting alone but after the Magna Carta (1215, from the Medieval Latin Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedoms) which divided power among the ruling class, there had to be sought the consent of others and this ultimately became parliamentary consent granted to an executive (exercising powers derived from the absolute authority of the monarch) responsible to the parliament.  This took centuries to evolve and eventually meant, in practical terms, the king got the money he needed for his wars and other ventures in exchange for the parliament getting his signature to pass the laws they wanted.

Watched by the courtiers Lord Mulgrave & Lord Morpeth, Lord Melbourne serves King William IV a blackbird pie (1836), lithograph with watercolour by John Doyle (1797-1868), Welcome Collection, London.  The text is a re-arranged selection of lines from the eighteenth century English nursery rhyme “Sing a Song of Sixpence” and reads: “Sing a song of six pence a bag full of rye, four and twenty black birds baked in a pie, when the pie was opened, the birds began to sing, was not this a pretty dish to set before a king.”  The blackbirds sing “Justice for Scotland!” and “No tithes!”, controversial issues of the age.  Nineteenth century cartoonists were sometimes more harsh in their treatment of politicians and royalty. 

In Australia, the royal prerogative is limited (but not defined) by the constitution and those powers which vest a monarch’s authority in a governor-general don’t alter the nature of the prerogative, only its detail; the prerogative is exercised by the governor-general but only on the advice of “their” ministers.  The most obvious exception to this is the reserve power of the monarch (and there are those who doubt whether this still exists in the UK) to dismiss a government enjoying the confidence of the lower house of parliament.  In the UK, it’s not been done since William IV (1765–1837; King of the United Kingdom 1830-1837) dismissed Lord Melbourne (1779–1848; Prime Minister of Great Britain 1834 & 1835–1841) in 1834 (some dispute that, saying it was more of a gentleman’s agreement and the last termination was actually that of Lord North (1732–1792; Prime Minister of Great Britain 1770-1782) by George III (1738–1820) King of Great Britain 1760-1820) in 1782) but Australia has seen two twentieth-century sackings; that in 1932 of NSW premier Jack Lang (1876–1975; Premier of New South Wales 1925-1927 & 1930-1932) by Governor Sir Philip Game (1876–1961; Governor of NSW 1930-1935) and, in 1975, when governor-general Sir John Kerr (1914–1991; Governor-General of Australia 1974-1977) sundered Gough Whitlam’s (1916–2014; Prime Minister of Australia 1972-1975) commission.

Dr HV Evatt in his office at the United Nations, New York, 1949.

The 1975 business provoked much academic discussion of the reserve powers but the most lucid read remains Dr HV Evatt’s (1894–1965; ALP leader 1951-1960) book from decades earlier: The King and His Dominion Governors (1936).  Evatt’s volume was published a hundred odd-years after William IV sacked Melbourne and is useful because in that century there had been more than a few disputes about reserve powers.  Evatt’s central point was that the powers exist but proper rules by which they may be exercised are by no means clear.  The legal power is vested in the governor as the representative of the monarch and when it may properly be used depends on usage and convention.  It seems therefore scarcely possible to say confidently of any case when the Crown has intervened that its intervention was or was not correct for the only standard of correctness in each episode is its consistency with episodes of a similar character, none of which in themselves lay down any principle in law.  Further, Evatt notes, in looking to precedent, support for almost any view can be found in the authorities.  Lofty theoretical purity is also not helpful.  The view the sovereign automatically acts in all matters in accordance with the advice of his ministers rests entirely upon assertion and, Evatt observed, the reserve powers are still, on occasion, properly exercisable and that the Sovereign or his representative may have to exercise a real discretion.  Given that, it really might be impossible that the prerogative could be codified in a document which envisages all possible political or other circumstances.  Evatt nevertheless argued the principles which should guide a sovereign should be defined and made clear by statute.

Nor is practical political reality all that much help, however satisfactory an outcome may prove.  What the exercise of the reserve powers, both in 1932 and 1975, did was enable impasses described, however erroneously as constitutional crises to be resolved by an election, rather than other means.  The result of an election however does not conclude the matter for the correctness of the sovereign's action is not measured by his success as a prophet, any post-facto endorsement by the electorate having not even an indirect bearing on the abstract question of constitutionality.

Although variously a high court judge, attorney-general, foreign minister, opposition leader and Chief Justice of NSW, all Dr Evatt asked for on his gravestone was President of the United Nations, noting his service as president of the general assembly (1948-1949).

Evatt’s core argument therefore was reserve powers should be subject to the normal and natural process of analysis, definition and reduction to the rules of positive law, which, by 1936, had in some places been done.  Evatt considered section 33 (10) of the Western Nigerian constitution which codified things thus: The Governor shall not remove the Premier from office unless it appears to him that the Premier no longer commands the support or a majority of the members of the House of Assembly.  Other sections went on to detail the mechanisms of the exercise of the power, thereby attempting to do exactly what Evatt suggests.  However, the Nigerian example cited by Evatt did not prove a solution because the exercise of the power under the constitution became in 1962 a matter of dispute and the case proceeded though the courts, finally ending up before the Privy Council as Adegbenro v. Akintola (1963 AC 614), an indication even the most explicit codification can remain something imperfect.