Button

Button (pronounced buht-n)

(1) A small disk, knob, or the like for sewing or otherwise attaching to an article, as of clothing, serving as a fastening when passed through a buttonhole or loop.

(2) Anything resembling a button, especially in being small and round, as any of various candies, ornaments, tags, identification badges, reflectors, markers, etc.

(3) A badge or emblem bearing a name, slogan, identifying figure, etc., for wear on the lapel, dress, etc.

(4) Any small knob or disk pressed to activate an electric circuit, release a spring, or otherwise operate or open a machine, small door, toy, etc.

(5) In botany, a bud or other protuberant part of a plant.

(6) In mycology, a young or undeveloped mushroom or any protuberant part of a fungus.

(7) In zoological anatomy, any of various small parts or structures resembling a button, as the rattle at the tip of the tail in a very young rattlesnake.

(8) In boxing slang, the point of the chin.

(9) In architecture, a fastener for a door, window, etc., having two arms and rotating on a pivot that is attached to the frame (also called turn button).

(10) In metallurgy, when assaying, the small globule or lump of metal at the bottom of a crucible after fusion.

(11) In fencing, the protective, blunting knob fixed to the point of a foil.

(12) In horology, alternative name for the crown, by which watch is wound.

(13) In the graphical user interface of computers and related devices, a small, button-shaped or clearly defined area that the user can click on or touch to choose an option.

(14) Slang term for the peyote cactus.

(15) A small gathering of people about two-thirds of the drinks are spiked with LSD.  Those who drink the un-spiked are the buttons responsible for babysitting the trippers (1960s west coast US use, now extinct).

(16) A series of nuts & bolts holding together a three-piece wheel.  Such wheels are very expensive because of the forging process and the ability to stagger offsets to create large lips.

(17) In boiler-making, the piece of a weld that pulls out during the destructive testing of spot welds

(18) In rowing, a projection around the loom of an oar that prevents it slipping through the rowlock.

(19) South African slang for methaqualone tablet.

(20) A unit of length equal to one twelfth of an inch (British, archaic).

(21) Among luthiers, in the violin-family instrument, the near semi-circular shape extending from the top of the back plate of the instrument, meeting the heel of the neck.

(22) In the plural (as buttons), a popular nickname for young ladies, whose ability to keep shirt buttons buttoned is in inverse proportion to the quantity of strong drink taken.

1275-1325: From the Middle English boto(u)n (knob or ball attached to another body (especially as used to hold together different parts of a garment by being passed through a slit or loop)), from the Anglo-French, from the Old & Middle French boton (button (originally, a bud)), from bouter & boter (to thrust, butt, strike, push) from the Proto-Germanic buttan, from the primitive Indo-European root bhau- (to strike); the button thus, etymologically, is something that pushes up, or thrusts out.  Records exist of the surname Botouner (button-maker) as early as the mid-thirteenth century (and the Modern French noun bouton (button) actually dates from the twelfth century).  It was cognate with the Spanish boton and the Italian bottone.  The pugilistic slang (point of the chin) was first noted in 1921.  First use of button as something pushed to create an effect by opening or closing an electrical circuit is attested from 1840s and the use in metallurgy and welding is based by analogy on descriptions of mushrooms.  The verb button emerged in the late fourteenth century in the sense of "to furnish with buttons" which by the early 1600s had extended (when speaking of garments) to "to fasten with buttons".  The button-down shirt collar was first advertised in 1916.  In fields in which there are structures or entities which in part or in whole are “buttonlike” in appearance, there are many uses of “button” as a descriptor (button mushroom, button seal, button willow, button quail etc), botany, zoology anatomy, architecture, cooking and engineering all using the word thus.  There are also a number of idiomatic forms including “cute as a button” (very cute), “on the button” (correct) and “buttoned down (or up)” (conservative to the point of being repressed.Button is a noun & verb, buttoning is a noun & verb, buttoned is a verb & adjective, buttonize is a verb, and buttonlike & buttonable are adjectives; the noun plural is buttons.

John Button (1987) (1933-2008; senator for Victoria (ALP (Australian Labor Party) 1974-1993), oil on canvas by Andrew Sibley (1933–2015), National Portrait Gallery, Canberra, Australia.

New uses continue to emerge as technology evolves:  The phrase button-pusher to describe someone "deliberately annoying or provocative" was first recorded in the 1970s and hot-button issue appeared in political science journals as early as 1954, apparently a derivation of the brief use in the press of big red-button and hot-button to (somewhat erroneously) describe the mechanics of launching a nuclear attack.  Hot button issues can be useful for political parties to exploit but what the button triggers can shift with generational change: As late as the 1990s the Republican Party in the US used "gay marriage" as a hot button issue to mobilize their base but within 25 years the electoral universe had shifted and the issue no longer had the same traction; there had been generational change.  In the 1980s, the now mostly extinct button-pusher had been co-opted as a somewhat condescending description of photographers both by journalists and snobby art critics, the former suggesting some lack of affinity with words, the latter, an absence of artistic skill. 

How it came to be done: 2022 Mercedes-Benz EQS 56 inch (1.42 m) single-panel screen.  There are no physical buttons on the dashboard, something which provoked a reaction and, for certain critical features, there's been a welcome "button revival".

In cars, as in aircraft, the shifting of controls for core and ancillary systems from individual buttons and switches to combined or multi-function controllers began to accelerate during the 1960s, a reaction to the increasing number of electrically activated functions being installed to the point where, if left individualised, in some of the more electronic vehicles, space for all the buttons would have been marginal and ergonomics worse even than it was.  Some very clever designs of multi-function controllers did appear but in the twenty-first century, by the time LED flat-screen technology had become elsewhere ubiquitous, it became possible to integrate entire system control environments into a single screen which, able to display either one or a combination of several sub-systems at a time, meant space became effectively unlimited, arrays of virtual buttons and switches available in layers.  That didn't mean thing became easier or more convenient to use but production costs were lower.  Of late, in response to consumer pressure, some manufacturers have admitted the approach went to far and what might be appropriate for someone sitting at their desk using a desktop PC (and the only way things can be done on a phone), might not be a good idea when driving a car at speed, in traffic.  Thus, for core critical functions (ie those drivers most often perform) such as adjusting settings on entertainment and HVAC (heating, ventilation & air conditioning) systems, buttons are making a welcome comeback.

For those who can remember the ways things used to be done: 1965 Jaguar Mark X 4.2 with burl walnut & red leather.  Jaguar's cockpits in the 1960s were among the most atmospheric of the era although, even at the time, the less than ideal ergonomics attracted criticism.  Something has been lost with the decline of the sensual, tactile, analogue world of buttons, knobs & switches.

There were buttons and there were switches.  Jaguar used toggle switches until US safety regulations in 1967 compelled a change to rocker switches with softer edges and less forward projection, similar concerns resulting in the top section of the dashboard gaining a padded vinyl covering.  Indeed, at the time, there was in the UK and Europe a suspicion US regulators might ban the use of decorative timber in car interiors and the models Mercedes-Benz released in 1971 & 1972 had none but the austerity didn't last, the veneers soon restored.  The functionality of the rocker switches was exactly the same as that of the toggles and they were certainly less prone to damage but for some the tactile experience was lacking, the ASMR less satisfying.  ASMR (Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response) describes the physical & psychological pleasure derived from specific stimuli (usually a sound).  A highly segmented market, among the aficionadi there are niches as varied as those who relish the clicking of an IBM Seletric typewriter or Model M keyboard, the sight & sound of South Korean girls on TikTok eating noodles, the mechanical precision of the fore-end slide of pump-action shotgun being operated or the flicking toggle switches.

The accounting departments of car manufacturers liked the change to touch-screens because it was cheaper to produce and install the things rather than an array of individual buttons, switches, instruments and lights, behind each of which ran at least one and sometimes several wires or lines, requiring schematics that could be baffling even to experts who needed sometimes to track (literally) miles of cabling.   While now using sometimes even more wiring, the new systems are capable although their long-term reliability remains uncertain and in many cases, a button or switch is both easier to use and falls more conveniently to hand; that makes sense because with buttons one's sense of touch (finger-tips most sensitive) effortlessly can distinguish whereas all of a touchscreen feel the same.  It would be possible to make a a touchscreen "feedback" different vibrations or sounds depending on which icon is touched but that may create more problems than it solves and is anyway a complicated solution to a simple problem.   It's better just to provide some switches.  

1991 Mercedes-Benz 600 SE (W140).

Built on the SWB (short-wheelbase) platform, the 600 SE was offered only during the W140's first year, the V12 sedans subsequently available only as the LWB (long-wheelbase (V140)) 600 SEL (S 600 after 1993 when the corporate naming system changed).  The duplication on the glovebox of the trunk (boot) lid badging was also a single-year fitting and even if a buyer opted for the "badge delete option" the characters on the glovebox remained.  The badge delete option had existed for a long time but enjoyed a spike in popularity beginning during the 1970s when it became obvious the more expensive models were more likely to attract the eye of terrorists, kidnappers and such.  While outfits like the Baader–Meinhof Gang (technically the RAF (Red Army Faction)) had some fondness for stealing smart cars (the BMW 2002 ti_i and Porsche 911S apparently their favorites), they didn't approve of those driving (or being driven in) conspicuously expensive vehicles.  On the 450 SEL 6.9 (V116, 1975-1980), the factory's delete option code was 261 and in the FRG (Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany; the old West Germany) 1949-1990) it was ticked by those who like to go fast on the Autobahn but not attract the attention of kidnappers or assassins.  One advantage the 6.9 did confer was, if pursued by kidnappers, one could outrun the BMWs and all but the fastest Porsches.

The noun buttonology genuinely does exist.  It was a calque of the Swedish knappologi and used to refer to the fashion for pedantic and often pointless systematization.  The construct followed the Swedish model (knapp (button) +‎ -ologi, coined by Swedish author August Strindberg (1849–1912) and appearing in the short story De lycksaliges ö (The Isle of the Blessed) which although written in 1884, wasn’t published until 1891 when it appeared in the compilation Svenska öden och äventyr (Swedish Destinies and Adventures).  Buttonology is used most often as a generic term to decry the exaggerated, obsessive or pointlessly pedantic systematization, especially of trivial subjects but literally it can describe the study or categorization of buttons (in the sense of clothing fasteners).  In a light-hearted vein, in the training of software engineers and designers, it’s the component of the course focusing on user interfaces (where there can be many buttons).  In US military slang, buttonology is used of user interfaces generally.

Button porn: Centre console in 1991 Mercedes-Benz 600 SEL (V140).

Although a sight to delight button-nerds, "peak button" unfortunately coincided with the "biodegradable wiring incident" (1991-1995) in which the soy-based insulation for the cables deteriorated some decades before the supplier's projected end-of-life, the issue exacerbated by the taste of soy which would attract rodents and other creatures happy to chew on the stuff for a quick snack.  The basic shape of the gear selector knob dates from one introduced in 1971, the design a product of analysing data from the Swedish government's mandatory post mortems (autopsies) of road-accident fatalities (under Swedish law, such corpses were for 48 hours the property of the state).  What the pathologists' findings revealed was lives could be saved if engineers could devise as a shift lever handle too large to penetrate the eye socket.  While there's an element of the macabre in such research and it wasn't something the factory choose widely to publicize, the design was a classic example of what's called "passive safety".

A tanned young lady in a bikini with a piece of belly button jewellery (sold also as "navel jewellery").

The 140-series sedans (1991-1998) and companion coupé (C140, 1992-1999) were peak-button and it won't happen again, touch-screens now much cheaper to install and although buttons are making something of a comeback, they'll not again be seen on such a grand scale.  The 140-series cars were end-of-era stuff in many ways and the last of the old-style exercises in pure engineering with which Mercedes-Benz re-built its reputation in the post-war years; what followed would increasingly show the influence of accountants and the dreaded "sales department".  Most charismatic of the 140s were the early, 402 bhp (300 kw) 600s tuned for top end power; the 6.0 litre (365 cubic inch) V12 (M120; 1991-2001 (although it would appear in cars by other manufacturers until 2012)) would later be toned-down a little with a greater emphasis on mid-range torque and thoughts of the 8.0 litre V16 and W18 prototypes entering production were shelved as the economic climate of the early 1990s proved less buoyant than had been expected.  Subsequent concerns about climate changed doomed any hope of resurrection but as something of a consolation, AMG for a while offered larger versions of the V12 (as big as 7.3 litres (445 cubic inch)).  Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) died in her hotel's hire-car (S 280 with a 2.8 litre straight-six (171 cubic inch)) version of the 140.

Coincidently, it was in the "peak button" era that Mercedes-Benz revised the convention of model nomenclature, inverting the alpha-numeric placement which had evolved since the 1920s.  Until the 1980s, old nnn.xxx convention (mostly) made sense once the logic behind the sequence had been explained but even then there had long been inconsistencies with the letters doing "double duty" and the numerals not always aligning with displacement (as well as one off aberrations like "219") but by the 1990s the proliferation of ranges and models had made the old system more or less unmanageable.  Every series of cars was changed but most affected were the various C140s and they were especially unusual in being the last of the “SECs” and the first of the “CLs” with a mid-life spent as an “S”, the confusing alpha-numeric trajectory of the C140 600 being:

1992 600 SEC (Not sold in North America)

1993 600 SEC (Global)

1994-1995 S 600 (Global)

1996-1997 S 600 (North America) & CL 600 (RoW (rest of the world))

1998 CL 600 (Global)

1999 CL 600 (North America only)

1993 Cadillac Allanté in standard form (left) and with “wood grain kit” fitted (right).  Cadillac in the peak-button era did its bit and for most owners the look either was “enough” or “too much” but although the Allanté was then a very different sort of Cadillac targeting a demographic younger than the marque’s usual buyer profile, third party suppliers (which for generations had been selling all sorts of Cadillac accessories of dubious taste such as Rolls-Royce style grills & badges in anodized gold or “neo-classical” external spare tyre housings) saw possibilities and offered “wood grain kits”, pieces of plastic appliqué which could be glued to the dashboard and anywhere else there was an accommodating surface.

1991 Cadillac Allanté: Although the lines were neither adventurous or innovative, it was an accomplished design.

The Cadillac Allanté (1987-1993) was an ambitious project, a two-door, two-seater roadster produced in an expensive, travel & labor-intensive process which required trans-Atlantic transport (in modified Boeing 747 freighters) for the bodies from Pininfarina’s Italian factory to Cadillac’s assembly line in Detroit where final assembly was undertaken.  The US industry had in the 1950s & 1960s dabbled with this approach and even then it made little financial sense but it was a time when indulgences could be tolerated as a part of “image building”.  The economics of the late 1980s were very different but Cadillac early in the decade had, with a mix of jealousy and lust, been pondering the numbers achieved by the Mercedes-Benz R107 SL roadster (1971-1989), then quite ancient in automotive terms yet still habitually selling in numbers which belied its high price and vintage design.  Sharing mechanical components with higher-volume models and with the tooling for the structure long since amortized, Cadillac knew the thing was absurdly profitable despite being visually almost unchanged since its debut.

1988 Cadillac Allanté: One tangible advantage was the Allanté's removable hard-top was of aluminum and thus a relatively svelte 58 Lbs (26 kg) compared with the R107's steel unit which weighed in at a hefty 96 (44).  Roof-mounted hoists were popular with R107 owners.

Thus the Allanté, the company’s first two-seat roadster since the 1930s and one with the exclusivity of being built by an Italian coach-builder famous for having designed some of the most admired Ferraris.  Mechanically, the Allanté was unchallenging in that it was built on a shortened version of an existing platform which meant the use of FWD (front wheel drive) and the 4.1 litre (250 cubic inch) HT-4100 V8, both factors which meant there was no need to build new assembly lines or make expensive changes to existing facilities.  While the notion of an expensive “FWD roadster” may now seem strange, dynamically it made less difference than might be imagined because the Mercedes-Benz R107 was no sports car and for the Allanté’s intended market, the advantage of more interior space was thought more important than behaviour on a skid-pan.  The HT engine however proved more troublesome although that was a product of design flaws, not its placement in the Allanté.

Buttons come in many shapes, shades and sizes although most still are circular.  A button with four "sew holes" is called a "four-eye button".

The critical response was unexpectedly favorable.  In a comparison test published in the in February 1989 edition of C&D (Car and Driver magazine, not noted for being lavish in its praise of the US industry’s output), the writers declared it a better car than the Mercedes-Benz 560 SL (which may seem a slight achievement given the R107 was then some 18 years old and on a platform which had been designed in the late 1960s) and didn’t much dwell on either the Cadillac being some 15% cheaper nor it delivering slightly better fuel economy; their judgement was all about the driving experience likely to be typical of buyers (many of whom probably wouldn't notice the difference between FWD and RWD) although perhaps the sight of the “Pininfarina” script on the flanks lent some rose-tinting to their spectacles.  The testers noted the US-Italian hybrid was better suited to the urban conditions where most people would be operating most of the time, finding the Allanté more nimble and decidedly more modern although what was left unstated was it was remarkable the trans-continental effort managed to be only slightly better in some aspects than what was a design two decades old and in its final months.

Last days of the baroque: 1989 Mercedes-Benz 560 SL in Light Ivory over Brasil Dark Brown leather.

The RoW (rest of the world) R107s & C107s didn't suffer the disfiguring modifications (headlights for the whole model life, bumper bars after 1973) fitted to the NA (North America) market cars to ensure compliance with various US regulations.  In the US, there's now a minor industry importing the RoW headlights and bumper bars to restore cars to the appearance the designers intended. 

In one area though, the 560 SL proved its mettle, the 5.5 litre (338 cubic inch) V8 out-running the Cadillac by 10 mph (16 km/h) in top speed and effortlessly out-accelerating it in any range about 25 mph (40 km/h), the advantage increasing as speeds rose.  Despite all the effort and expense, in some seven years, fewer than 21,500 Allantés were built while Mercedes-Benz shipped 237,287 R107s plus 62,888 LWB coupés (C107, 1971-1981) on the same platform, an average annual build rate over 18 years of some 17,000, two-thirds of which were exported to North America where, in places like Los Angeles, they were for decades the preferred (one suspects almost obligatory) transport for types such as interior decorators, successful hairdressers, the wives of cosmetic surgeons and bare-shouldered Hollywood starlets.  Had Lindsay Lohan in 1989 been of age, she'd have been at the wheel of a 560 SL.  Cadillac has had its failures (infamously the Cimarron) but it's believed never to have booked more of a loss on a single model than was the accountants' final reckoning of the (by then virtual) red-ink in which the Allanté's numbers were written.  By comparison, the write-down suffered with the cancellation of the division's remarkable Blackwing V8 (2018-2020) was relatively modest.  

1933 Cadillac 355C Coupe Convertible.  In 1933, Cadillacs had buttons but not many because there was then not so much stuff to activate although a valve-radio was on the options list.  As a nice touch (and a hint Cadillac understood their target market), a “golf bag compartment” was fitted behind the passenger’s door.  The external trunk and folding luggage rack were optional extras.

Introduced for 1931 as a lower cost range because the effects of the Great Depression drastically had reduced demand for Cadillac’s V12 & V16 lines, the V8-powered 355s (1931-1935) were, until the Allanté in 1987, the last Cadillac to be offered as a two-seat convertible although La Salle (its lower-cost stable mate) would offer the style as late as 1940, the year the brand was retired after a seven year stay of execution.  Cadillac called the coachwork a “Convertible Coupe” because “roadster” was associated with smaller, lighter machines; had it been built in England this would be dubbed a DHC (drop head coupé) while continental manufacturers would have preferred “cabriolet”.  In the elaborate Mercedes-Benz naming system it would be a “Cabriolet A” which designated “a two, door, two seat cabriolet with no rear quarter glass panes”.  The existence of supplemental passenger accommodation in the rumble seat does not affect the use of “Cabriolet A” because (1) Daimler-Benz never created a designation to describe the configuration (although “Cabriolet E” seems not to have been allocated if the factory is in the mood for retrospection) and (2) “Cabriolet A” anyway included certain models with provision for a third occupant in the rear of the passenger compartment. 

1933 Cadillac 355C Coupe Convertible. 

Somewhat unusually for the industry, Cadillac’s alpha-numerics were from day one locked in (355A (1931), 355B (1932), 355C (1933), 355D (1934) & 355E (1935)) so the “A” was not a retrospective appendage, unlike the Chrysler 300A which (informally) became the description of the 1955 C-300 only after, impressed by the sales of what had been intended as a one-off model to homologate parts for use in competition, the company for 1956 released the 300B.  Retiring the 355 range after 1935 meant Cadillac in 1939 never had to face the problem which afflicted not only Chrysler (when updating the 300H) but also bra manufacturers (what to slot-in between a 32H & 32J?) and the USAF (US Air Force) (when updating the Boeing B-52H).  The issue always was the desire to avoid an “I” being confused with a numeric “1”.  Chrysler and Boeing solved the problem by skipping the letter “I” and going straight to “J” while in the bra business there are very few “I cups”, the usual convention being to offer an “HH” (“double-H” in retail slang) or a “J”.  Although nominally a two-seater, three (snugly) could be accommodated and two more could fit in the rumble seat, the so-called “mother-in-law seat”, an appellation which makes most sense if she’s put there while the soft-top is in the raised position.  Unlike the Allanté, the 355 Coupe Convertibles were bodied in the US by Fisher, a GM (General Motors) coach-building division which was shuttered in 1984.

Reset button on early (clone) PC.

The stability of the PC (personal computer) has improved since August 1981 when the first IBM PC-1 appeared, triggering several waves of transformative changes which profoundly have altered the world; the AI (artificial intelligence) cycle is merely the latest of these “revolutions” and is unlikely to be the last.  One feature common on PCs during their first two decades of existence was the “reset button”, an oft-resorted to device because of the propensity of the things to “freeze” or lock-up, rendering the keyboard (until the late 1980s, mice were rare, expensive and used mostly by a lunatic fringe) useless.  While it might seem a redundant feature given each machine came with an on/off switch or button, the two performed distinct functions related to the limitations of the hardware and operation systems of the era.  The on/off switch performed a “cold start”, cutting and then restoring power to all components, an inherently slow and potentially stress-inducing process.  By contrast, the reset button triggered a “warm reset” which electrically asserted the CPU’s (central processing unit) RESET line (which, as implemented by many manufacturers, also often often reset the system bus) without cutting power; what it did was immediately restart execution at the firmware’s entry point (BIOS (basic input output (I/O) system) on genuine IBM PCs) while leaving the power-flow to the system uninterrupted.  The most obvious practical advantage of using the reset button was a faster restart and a reduction in mechanical wear on hard & and floppy drives by not subjecting them to spin-down & spin-up cycles.

Front panel on early (clone) PC.

The key (to the right, below the on/off power switch) enabled users to "lock" the keyboard, preventing use of the machine.  This mechanical security layer was required because the early operating systems had no accounts requiring a login and no password protection, meaning anyone who turned the thing on had unfettered access (very few programs offered application-level security).  The "Turbo" button was there to permit users to "throttle-back" to CPU to the 4.77 MHz speed used by the 8086 & 8088 CPUs in the original PCs.  That was needed to ensure some older software (especially games) would still run on newer hardware, running at a dazzling 7.16 or 9.54 MHz.  

Because almost all the early operating systems (PC/MS-DOS, CP/M-86 and the various UNIX ports) had no memory protection and only primitive fault recovery, a single misbehaving program could (1) disable the interrupts upon which hardware depended, (2) corrupt the system state and (3) make the keyboard wholly unresponsive.  Not only did all these things happen, they happened with some frequency so the advantages of the reset button offered were a real benefit to users.  The hardware also enjoyed a protection layer because the power switches on early PCs were "hard mechanical mains" switches, often directly switching line voltage which meant rapid power cycling could stress the power supply, cause voltage transients harmful to expansion cards and risk data corruption or loss because robust “parking” mechanisms were rare on the early hard drives.  As operating systems gained protected mode, multitasking, and graceful reboot mechanisms, the need for reset buttons diminished and gradually they disappeared from the standard specification.

Reset button: Sergey Lavrov (left) and crooked Hillary Clinton, Geneva, 2009.  The delicious irony is that one of crooked Hillary's few diplomatic successes came from a mistake in translation.  

Having failed in 2008 to secure the Democratic Party’s nomination to contest that year’s presidential election, crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947) between 2009-2013 to the consolation prize of becoming US secretary of state, the job she decided was a prelude to her becoming POTUS in 2016, a position to which she believed she was entitled.  Things didn’t quite work out as she’d hoped and her tenure at Foggy Bottom was marked by scandal (related, predictably, to her chronic untruthfulness) but one potential “diplomatic incident” was allowed to pass without adverse comment on the basis “she meant well”.  Following a not untypically troubled recent past, Barack Obama (b 1961; POTUS 2009-2017) decided to try to improve Washington’s relations with the Kremlin.  As a gesture in this vein, in 2009, crooked Hillary presented Sergey Lavrov (b 1950 Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs since 2004) with a red button (of the type often used in heavy machinery as an “emergency stop”) on which was printed “Reset” and a Roman alphabet transliteration of the Russian Cyrillic перегрузка (peregruzka).  The idea was, with the arrival in Washington of a new administration, the two states should “re-start” their relationship and try to pretend to forget as much as possible of the past.  Unfortunately, the department got the translation wrong and used the Russian word for “overload”; it should have read перезагрузка (perezagruzka).  Mr Lavrov however was also at the time anxious to improve things and accepted the gift in the spirit in which it was intended, he and crooked Hillary pushing the button simultaneously for several photo opportunities.

Lindsay Lohan’s belly button adorned  with belly button jewellery, Los Angeles, 2009.

The noun buttonology genuinely does exist.  It was a calque of the Swedish knappologi and used to refer to the fashion for pedantic and often pointless systematization.  The construct followed the Swedish model (knapp (button) +‎ -ologi, coined by Swedish author August Strindberg (1849–1912) and appearing in the short story De lycksaliges ö (The Isle of the Blessed) which although written in 1884, wasn’t published until 1891 when it appeared in the compilation Svenska öden och äventyr (Swedish Destinies and Adventures).  Buttonology is used most often as a generic term to decry the exaggerated, obsessive or pointlessly pedantic systematization, especially of trivial subjects but literally it can describe the study or categorization of buttons (in the sense of clothing fasteners).  Obviously, practitioners of buttonology are buttonologists.  In a light-hearted vein, in the training of software engineers and designers, it’s the component of the course focusing on user interfaces (where there can be many buttons).  In US military slang, buttonology is used of user interfaces generally.

Childless cat lady Taylor Swift (b 1989) with Ragdoll Benjamin Button, named after the eponymous character in the movie The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008), Time Magazine cover for “Person of the Year” edition, 25 December, 2023.  Ragdoll cats make good stoles because (attributed to a genetic mutation), they tend to “go limp” when picked up.

An owner of three most contented felines, gleefully, Ms Swift in 2024 embraced the appellation “childless cat lady” after wide publicity of its earlier use as a slur by James David (J.D.) Vance (b 1984; VPOTUS since 2025), something prompted by Mr Vance being named as Donald Trump’s (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) running-mate in the 2024 US presidential election.  The now famous phrase had been used in a 2021 interview with then Fox News host Tucker Carlson (b 1969) when he lamented the decline in the state of the nation: “…we are effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they've made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too.”  Mr Vance may have struck an electoral chord because while Kamala Harris (b 1964; US vice president 2021-2025) presumably gained the childless cat lady vote, the Trump-Vance ticket won the election: 77,302,580 (49.8%) to 75,017,613 (48.3%) in the popular vote and 312 to 226 in the Electoral College on a turnout of 64.1%.

Pressed or pushed, many buttons needed.

The literal (physical) button-hole was noted in tailoring first during the 1560s, the figurative sense "to detain (someone) unwillingly in conversation” dating from 1862, a variation of the earlier button-hold (1834) and button-holder (1806), all based on the image is of holding someone by the coat-button so as to detain them.  The adjectival push-button (characterized by pressing a button used to activate something) emerged in 1945 as a consequence of the increasing public appreciation of the extent to which military weapons systems had become electronically controlled.  The earlier form “push-buttons" was from 1903, a modification of the noun push-button (button pressed with the finger to effect some operation) from 1865, then applied to mechanical devices.  The earlier adjectival form was “press-button” (1892) derived from the noun (1879).  For no apparent reason, it was the earlier “press of a button” which tended in the 1950s & 1960s to be preferred to “push of a button” to express the concern felt at the ease with which the US and USSR could trigger global thermo-nuclear war although “flick of a switch” also achieved much currency.  None were exactly usefully descriptive of a complex chain of events but it’s true that in a launch of nuclear weapons, many buttons and switches still are involved.

Highly qualified content provider Busty Buffy (b 1996) during “button-theory” test session.  Button theory involves trying on “button-up” tops of various sizes and subjecting each to normal human movement, the test “passed” when no buttons “pop open”.

In fashion, the number of a top’s buttons “left undone” is a signifier of various things and the range extends from “all done up” to “all undone”, the latter usually restricted to catwalks and red carpets when stability of fabric sometimes is achieved with the use of adhesive, double-sided tape.  While not culturally specific, the meanings signified by the number left undone (usually from top-to-bottom) can differ depending on certain circumstantial variables (time, place, temperature, wearer, presence of paparazzi etc).

No fear of button theory: Button theory suggests buttons can be done-up or undone.  Noted empiricist Lindsay Lohan has for some years been undertaking a longitudinal study to test theory.

The fear of buttons is koumpounophobia, the construct being the Modern Greek κουμπί (koumpí) +‎ -phobia and the word, like many describing phobias is a neologism.  Koumpi was from the Ancient Greek κομβίον (kombíon) translates as button in its two literal senses (a fastener for clothing or a device for instrument or remote mechanical control).  A button in Greek is thus κουμπί (koumpí) (the plural κουμπιά) and the verb is κουμπώνω (koumpóno).  In the Ancient Greek the lexemic unit koump- didn’t exist although it did have κομβίον (kombíon (which exists in Modern Greek as komvíon)) which meant buckle.  It may seem as strange omission because Ancient Greek had κουμπούνω, (koumpouno) which meant “to button” but the root was κύαμος (komos or koumos) meaning “broad bean” and, because there were no buttons in the Greece of Antiquity, they used appropriately sized & shaped beans as clothes fasteners.  The construct of koumpouno (to button) koum(os) + + πονέω (poneo) (to work; to exert), the idea of a bean which is used again and again.  The suffix -phobia (fear of a specific thing; hate, dislike, or repression of a specific thing) was from the New Latin, from the Classical Latin, from the Ancient Greek -φοβία (-phobía) and was used to form nouns meaning fear of a specific thing (the idea of a hatred came later).  In medicine, the absence of the belly button is a rare congenital defect, the medical term for which is omphalocele, usually something ultimately of no physiological significance but because it can cause psychological distress, plastic surgeons can re-construct one, a relatively simple procedure.  The alternative for an omphalocelic is to shun omphalophiliacs and hook up with someone who suffers omphalophobia (fear of the belly button); they should live happily ever after.  The phobia koumpounophobia is unrelated and references only the manufactured objects.

Lindsay Lohan in trench coat buttons up.  As fashionistas know, with a trench the belt is tied, only the military buckling up.

So, in the narrow technical sense, an etymologist might insist koumpounophobia is the fear of clothing fasteners rather than buttons of all types but that seems not helpful and it’s regarded as a generalised aversion and one said sometimes associated with kyklophobia (the fear of circles or other round objects) and especially the surprisingly common trypophobia (fear of holes (particularly if clustered or in some way arranged in a pattern)).  Estimates of the prevalence of the condition have been given by some but these are unverified and it’s not clear if those who for whatever reason prefer zips, Velcro or some other fastener are included and with phobias, numbers really should include only those where the aversion has some significant impact on life.  The symptoms suffered can include (1) an inability to tolerate the sight, sound, or texture of buttons, (2) feelings of panic, dread, or terror when seeing or thinking about buttons, (3) an acknowledgment that the fear is either wholly irrational or disproportionate to the potential danger.  Koumpounophobia reactions are usually automatic & uncontrollable and the source may be unknown or experiential (exposure to some disturbing imagery or description of buttons or an actual event involving buttons such as swallowing one when a child).  Like many phobias, the physical reactions can include a rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath, trembling, excessive sweating, nausea, dry mouth, inability to speak or think clearly, tightening of stomach muscles, and an overwhelming desire to escape from button-related situations.  All are likely to involve an anxiety attack to some extent and the recommended treatment is the staggered exposure therapy used for many phobias; the patient slowly learning to wear, use and live with buttons; antidepressants, tranquillisers & beta-blockers are now considered medications of last resort.

Buttons are hard to avoid.

What is sometimes treated as koumpounophobia can be a manifestation of a different phobia.  In the literature there are examples of buttons triggering anxiety when touched or viewed but the reaction was actually to texture, color or a resemblance to something (typically a face, mouth or teeth).  The button is thus incidental to the reaction in the same way that those with mysophobia (in popular use the germophobic) may react to buttons because of the association with uncleanliness.  One documented aspect of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is that many sufferers immediately wash their hands after touching a button; the increased prevalence of this behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to buttons touched by other (keyboards, elevators etc) is not thought indicative of a phobia but would be if it manifests as life-long behaviour.

Apple Magic Mouse, Multi-Touch Surface in white @ US$99.00 (left), Logitech Signature M650 L, full-size wireless two-button Scroll Mouse with Silent Clicks in blue @ US$37.99 (centre) and Steve Jobs' vision of hell: Canon 5565B001 X Mark I Slim 3-in-1 wireless mouse with keypad calculator @ US$49.95. 

Steve Jobs (1955-2011; co-founder, and sometime chairman & CEO of Apple) was said to have an aversion to buttons, something linked to his fondness for button-free turtleneck clothing but given he spent decades using keyboards without apparent ill-effect, it’s doubtful a clinician would diagnose koumpounophobia and it's more likely he was just convinced of the technological advantages of going button-less.  Without buttons, manufacturing processes would be cheaper, water-proofing devices like iPhones would become (at least theoretically) possible and upgrades would no longer be constrained by static buttons, the user interface wholly virtualized on one flat panel, able to be changed (the industry's term for "change" is "upgrade" although users don't always agree there has been an improvement) purely in software.  It apparently started with the button-less Apple mouse, the industry legend being Mr Jobs saw a prototype (which the designers regarded as nothing more than speculative) and insisted it become Apple’s standard device.

Whether or not it happened that way, the story is illustrative of the way business was done at Apple and it’s notable his veto on offering a stylus with which to interact with apps or the operating system didn’t survive his death.  His response to the idea of a stylus was reportedly “yuk” and he seems to have decided all his users would think the same way and probably he was right, Apple’s users tending usually to do what Apple tells them to do.  Indeed, one of reasons Apple has found the Chinese market so receptive to the iPhone is that the company's approach accords with "the Chinese way": First, their parents tell them what to do, then their teachers tell them what to do, then the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) tells them what to do; Apple found it most agreeable they also did what it told them to do.  However, for those who find the sleek Apple mouse better to behold than use, third-party products with buttons and scroll wheels are available, sometimes for half the cost of the genuine article.  Since the death of Mr Jobs, Apple has relented on the "stylus question".

Shiny on the outside: Finished in Bianco Avus over black leather with Rosso Corsa (racing red) instruments, of the 400 Ferrai Enzos (2002-2004) chassis 133023 (2003) was the only one the factory painted white.  Some Ferraris really suit white, notably the elegant 365 GT4 2+2 and the successor 400 and 412 models (1972-1989).

The dreaded “Ferrari sticky buttons” is a well-known phenomenon, the stickiness coming from the rubberized material preferred by the factory because of the superior feel offered.  However, under just about any climatic conditions, continuous use will induce a deterioration which resembles melting, "mushiness" the final outcome.  The internet is awash with suggestions, the simplest of which involves products like rubbing alcohol (the use of which can cause its own destructiveness) and the consensus seems to be that in many cases only replacement buttons will produce a satisfactory result.  The choice is between obtaining the real Ferrari part-number (if available) with the knowledge the problem will re-occur or use third-part replacements which are made of a more durable material, the disadvantage being the feel won’t be quite the same and there’s a reluctance among some to use non-factory parts, an attitude enforced by the "originality police". 

Sticky on the inside: Ferrari 485 California F1 gearbox buttons, sticky (left) and not (right).

Ferrari does use the suspect material for a reason and it’s applied to interior components such as trim, bezels, buttons & switches, and heating, ventilation & air-conditioning panels.  The coatings are usually referred to as “soft-touch” and designers like them for the soft, velvet-like feel imparted.  Used also on computer mice and electronic remote controls, the low gloss sheen is in cars helpful because being absorptive, glare is reduced and Ferrari uses both a clear and black finish.  It’s an issue not exclusive to Ferraris although owners of those do seem most concerned and while using rubbing alcohol might sound a tempting Q&D (quick & dirty) fix, for those with sticky buttons this is probably a job best left to experts of which there are now a few and they're finding business good.

Contempt

Contempt (pronounced kuhn-tempt)

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

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

(3) An act showing such disrespect.

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

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

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

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

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

Contempt of Congress

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

Bill & crooked Hillary Clinton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Brutum Fulmen

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

Bishop Barlow's original publication, 1680.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1964 Alfa Romeo 2600 Spider.

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

The Kaiser and the Old Contemptibles

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

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

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

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

Lindsay Lohan, contempt, and the matter of intent

Lindsay Lohan's adorned fingernail in court, 2010.

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

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

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

Self contempt

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

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

Within Judaism, a well-explored phenomenon.

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

The thoughts of Bill Buckley on the thoughts of John XXIII

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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