Doppelganger

Doppelganger (pronounced dop-uhl-gang-er or daw-puhl-geng-er (German))

(1) In legend, a ghostly apparition of a living person, especially one that haunts such a person.

(2) A counterpart of a living person, identical in appearance; a person remarkably similar in appearance to another.

(3) In the pop-culture fantasy genre, a monster that takes the forms of people, usually after killing them.

(4) An evil twin (often as alter ego)

1826 (1824 as a German word in English): From the German Doppelgänger, literally "double-goer" or “double walker” originally with a ghostly sense.  Although now less common, it was once sometimes the practice to use the half-English spelling doubleganger.  Doppel was from doppelt (double), from doppeln (double (made up of two matching or complementary elements)), from the Old French doble (to double), from the Latin dūplus, from the Proto-Italic dwiplos, the construct being duo (two) +‎ plus, from the Old Latin plous, from the Proto-Italic plous, from the primitive Indo-European pleh- & pelhu- (many) and cognate with the Ancient Greek πολύς (polús) (many) and the Old English feolo (much, many).  It was influenced by the Ancient Greek διπλόος (diplóos) (double), the construct being δι- (di-), from δύο (dúo) (two), + -πλόος (-plóos) (-fold) and the Proto-Germanic twīflaz (doubt). A doublet of Zweifel.  Gänger was from Middle High German genger (to go, to walk), the construct being Gang +‎ -er.  Gang was from the Middle High German ganc, from the Old High German gang, from the Proto-Germanic gangaz (pace, step, gait, walk) and cognate with the English gang.  The synonyms in the various senses include double, lookalike, dead-ringer & alter ego.

Kim Jong-un, 2019-2020.

Rumors that Kim Jong-un (b circa 1994, Supreme Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea, the DPRK) since 2011) was incapacitated with (unspecified) health problems spiked in late 2021 when he appeared looking notably thinner than in his appearances only months earlier, the conspiracy theory hinging on the idea the part of the Supreme Leader was being played by a doppelganger.  Most speculation centered on Mr Kim’s apparently chronic obesity, chain smoking and legendarily enthusiastic intake of his favorite Swiss cheese, some suggesting the doppelganger would fulfill the role until a team of foreign doctors working in secret restored the Supreme Leader to good working order while others opined he may actually be dead and the elite of the ruling Workers' Party of Korea (the WPA, a kind of cross between the a communist party and the Kim family’s holding company) was just buying time while they worked out what to do next.

Noted DPRK watchers, the National Intelligence Service (NIS), the Republic of Korea's (South Korea, the ROK) spy agency, dismissed the idea and said the new, sexy, slimmed-down Supreme Leader was real, their findings based on a comparison using facial recognition software, weight-tracking models and analysis of high-resolution video.  According to the NIS, Mr Kim’s weight which by 2019 had reached 142 kg (313 lb), less than a year later had further ballooned to around 146 kg (322 lb) while his appearances in late 2021 indicated a loss of between 20-25 kg (44-55 lb).  They added he appeared to be in rude good health.

Kim Jong-un, 2021.

If that’s true, the weight-loss could be accounted for either by Mr Kim’s desire to slim down for reasons of health or may be political, the DPRK facing one of its worst food shortages in many years and he may wish to convey the impression he’s sharing in the deprivations being suffered by his people.  Various seasonal factors would anyway have squeezed the food supply but the COVID-19 measures taken certainly exacerbated the problem, the closure of the borders inducing the sharpest economic contraction since the loss in the early 1990s of economic assistance from the Soviet Union.  The DPRK’s trade with its main trading partner, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), dropped by between 80-90% from pre-pandemic levels and the NIS noted it was the “mismanagement” of the economy which had caused inflation rates to surge beyond that afflicting all but a few other countries but, with a chronic shortage of ink and paper, the DPRK was unable to resort to the short-term expedient of printing money.  Still, things appear not actually on the point of collapse, ballistic missile tests continuing and the COVID-19 policy has, as stated by official DPRK propaganda, proved an outstanding success, Pyongyang confirming the country has suffered zero cases since the pandemic began.  It does seem to prove a “shoot to kill” border policy works, something a few Western politicians have long suspected and probably longed for.

Kim Jong-un looking at morning tea.

Targeted sanctions imposed in response to the regime’s nuclear weapons recalcitrance had already resulted in some humanitarian suffering but the closure of the PRC-DPRK border and has increased this by blocking shipments of grain, fertilizer and farming equipment.  Severe flooding caused by powerful typhoons in 2020 which so lowered that year’s harvest also had effects which lingered, crop yields again very low in 2021.  It had become so bad that in a rare public admission, Mr Kim in 2021 told a Worker’s Party meeting that the “people’s food situation is now getting tense” and his immediate policy switch was to order all citizens to devote all their effort to farming, making sure to secure “every grain” of rice.  With apparently all NGO and UN staff having left the country, most sources of foreign aid have evaporated and the DPRK is more dependent on its own resources than at any time since the end of the Korean War (1950-1953).  All this might explain Mr Kim’s weight-loss, although not yet obviously malnourished, he’s at least setting an example.

Manchu Tuan, Shenyang, PRC (left) and the Supreme Leader (right).

In general circulation, Kim Jong-un doppelgangers are not actually rare, at least two known to be available for hire from talent agencies.  Regardless of what happens in the DPRK, it may be a good gig because in 2012, satirical site The Onion named Kim Jong-un the world’s sexiest man, either because he was, in their words, “devastatingly handsome” or a nod to Henry Kissinger’s (b 1923; US secretary of state 1973-1977) claim (actually probably a boast) that “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac”.  The Onion’s winner in 2011 had been Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad (b 1965; president of Syria 2000-) so the editors may have found Dr Kissinger persuasive.  Manchu Tuan sells kebabs in the north-eastern Chinese city of Shenyang and says business has boomed since this resemblance to Mr Kim appeared on social media and he has hired another cook to prepare the kebabs, much of his time now absorbed with customers taking selfies with him.

Donald Trump doppelganger: Dolores Leis Antelo, a farmer from Nanton, La Coruna, Spain.  The two are reportedly not related and have never met.

Shao Jianhua Changsha, Hunan, PRC and his queue of selfie-requesting customers.

Shao Jianhua, who five years ago moved from his native Zhejiang to Changsha, makes and sells meat pies with dried and pickled vegetables, a dish associated with costal Zhejiang.  His shop operates from a cluster near the university halls of residence and the students, although very fond of his highly-regarded pies, also request selfies, business having expanded since word spread of his resemblance to PRC president Xi Jinping (b 1953; PRC president 2013-).  Mr Shao, whose pies sell for 3.5 yuan (US$0.55) has increased production to 1,600 a day during peak season and the queues are frequently long.

The conspiracy theorists do apply some science to their subjects.  Of particular interest are ears, cosmetic surgeons noting that ears are so difficult to modify to match those of another person and that latex versions attached with surgical glue are the best solution for these purposes although even with these there are limitations.  It’s not the first time a head of government’s ears have attracted interest.  In 1939, Adolf Hitler (1889–1945; Führer of Germany 1933-1945) sent his court photographer Heinrich Hoffmann (1885–1957) with the party which in 1939 went to Moscow to execute the Nazi-Soviet Pact, his task, inter alia, to get a good shot of Comrade Stalin’s (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) ear-lobes, the Führer wishing to be reassured his new (and temporary) ally’s lobes were “separate and Ayran” and not “attached and Jewish”.  He was satisfied with Hoffman’s evidence but that didn’t stop him later double-crossing Stalin.

Front and back of blood sample of prisoner #7 (Hess), “Spandau #7 Pathology SVC Heidelberg MEDDAC 1139.

The flight to England by Rudolf Hess (1894–1987; Deputy Führer 1933-1941) in 1941, an attempt to persuade the British to conclude the war on the eve of the invasion of Russia, was one of the strangest episodes of the war and whether or not his flight was approved by Hitler remained a matter of conjecture for decades although the available evidence does suggest the Führer was as shocked as everyone else.  Another conspiracy theory ran for years, that of whether the Hess the British produced for trial in Nuremberg (1945-1946) and who was subsequently imprisoned in Spandau until his suicide (other conspiracy theories explore this) in 1987 was actually a doppelganger.  Books with various explanations about why the British might have done this were written, including one by a doctor who examined Hess while a prisoner and couldn’t reconcile his physiology with the injuries he’s suffered while serving in the Imperial Army in the First World War.  Eventually even the suspicious authors conceded the incarcerated Hess was the real one and in 2019, after one of Hess’s hermetically sealed blood samples was discovered and subjected to a DNA analysis which found a 99.99% likelihood of a match with one of Hess’s living relatives.

Lindsay Lohan and body double Aoife Bailey during filming of Irish Wish (Netflix, 2024).

The most obvious doppelgangers are "body doubles", actors used when filming scenes when, for whatever reason, the lead actor can't be used.  Such are the tricks and techniques of film production, the body doubles don't have to be even close to exact doppelgangers, they need only be vaguely similar though they often share some distinctive characteristic (such a long red hair).  Generally, body doubles are used for three reasons:

(1) Dangerous stunts: Body doubles with specific expertise are often hired to perform dangerous scenes, such as car chases, fight scenes, or jumps from great heights.

(2) Time constraints: In some cases, the lead actor or actress may not be available to film certain scenes due to scheduling conflicts.  In these situations, a body double can be used to film the scene in their place, allowing production to continue without delay.

(3) Privacy: In some instances, actors may not wish to appear in certain scenes, typically those involving nudity.  Sometimes contractual clauses include these stipulations.

What stunt doubles do, Lindsay Lohan and body double Aoife Bailey during filming of Irish Wish (Netflix, 2024).  The car is a 1965 Triumph TR4A.

Axiomatic

Axiomatic (pronounced ak-see-uh-mat-ik)

(1) Of or pertaining to the nature of an axiom.

(2) That which is self-evident or unquestionable; the obvious.

(3) Containing maxims; aphoristic.

(4) In formal logic (or any logical system), as axiomatic system, a set of axioms from which theorems can be derived by the application of by transformation rules.

(5) In mathematics, relating to or containing axioms (now less common).

1797: From the Ancient Greek ἀξιωματικός (axiōmatikós), from ἀξίωμα ((axíōma), genitive axiomatos) (a self-evident principle), the construct being axiōmat (stem of axíōma) + the suffix ikos (and the related ic).  The now less common form axiomatical was known as early as the 1580s.  The ikos suffix was from κός (kós) with an added i, from i-stems such as φυσι-κός (phusi-kós) (natural), through the same process by which ῑ́της (ī́tēs) developed from της (tēs), occurring in some original case and later used freely.  It was cognate with the Latin icus and the Proto-Germanic igaz, from which came Old English iġ (which in Modern English ultimately was resolved as y), the Old High German ig and the Gothic eigs.  The ic suffix forms adjectives from other parts of speech.  It occurred originally in Greek and Latin loanwords (metallic; poetic; archaic; public etc) and, on this model, was used as an adjective-forming suffix with the particular sense of “having some characteristics of”, as opposed to the simple attributive use of the base noun (balletic; sophomoric etc), “in the style of” (Byronic; Miltonic etc), or “pertaining to a family of peoples or languages” (Finnic; Semitic; Turkic).  The -ic suffix was from the Middle English -ik, from the Old French -ique, from the Latin -icus, from the primitive Indo-European -kos & -ḱos, formed with the i-stem suffix -i- and the adjectival suffix -kos & -ḱos.  The form existed also in the Ancient Greek as -ικός (-ikós), in Sanskrit as -इक (-ika) and the Old Church Slavonic as -ъкъ (-ŭkŭ); A doublet of -y.  In European languages, adding -kos to noun stems carried the meaning "characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to" while on adjectival stems it acted emphatically; in English it's always been used to form adjectives from nouns with the meaning “of or pertaining to”.  A precise technical use exists in physical chemistry where it's used to denote certain chemical compounds in which a specified chemical element has a higher oxidation number than in the equivalent compound whose name ends in the suffix -ous; (eg sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄) has more oxygen atoms per molecule than sulphurous acid (H₂SO₃).  Axiomatic & axiomatical are adjectives, axiomatize & axiomatize are verbs and axiomatically is an adverb.  Clumsy forms (sometimes hyphenated) like nonaxiomatic & unaxiomatic are created as required.

In mathematics (notably in including geometry, algebra, and set theory), an axiomatic system (“deductive system” or “formal system” seem to be the more fashionable terms) is a set of axioms or postulates, which, coupled with rules of inference, can be used to derive theorems or statements from those axioms.  In mathematics, there are collections of equations which can be used to document the processes but in any form of applied logic these systems provide a rigorous foundation for reasoning and proof, using what can be reduced to a mathematical process.  In axiomatic systems, axioms are assumed to be true without proof and the rules of inference are used to derive new statements from the axioms; theorems derived from the axioms are then considered to be true, based on the validity of the axioms and the rules of inference.

Axiomatic: If crooked Hillary Clinton is using a cell phone, she will be deleting something.

In the discipline of philosophy, even those parts which are not inherently mathematical (such as formal logic), the axiomatic system works in a similar way in that a statement, proposition, or principle that is considered self-evident or universally accepted without needing to be proven.  Axioms are thus often used as the starting point for logical reasoning or the foundation upon which a system of thought or theory is built, assumed to be true and are not subject to further analysis or questioning within the context of the system they are part of.  There are a number of highly technical rules which define whether a axiomatic system can be described as “consistent” but that means that within its own terms it contains nothing contradictory.  In other words, from the elements of any axiomatic system, it’s not possible to be either proven or disproven. This differs from one labeled “independent” in that that status is defined by them not being proven or disproven from other axioms in the system.  An axiomatic system is labeled “complete” if for every statement, either itself or its negation is derivable from the system's axioms (implicit in which is that every statement is capable of being proven true or false).

Not axiomatic: The real Lindsay Lohan and Take Two Interactive’s alleged doppelganger in Grand Theft Auto V (GTA5).

Lawyers too like the word “axiomatic”, possibly because concepts like “foreseeability” and “causation” are such an essential part of their training.  The use though exists within different parameters to that of mathematics.  In Lindsay Lohan vs Take Two Interactive Software Inc et al (APL-2017—00027 and APL-2017-00028 (November 2017)), the New York Court of Appeals held that a certain section of an act “categorically excludes works of fiction, a protected category of expression beyond the narrow scope of the statutory phrases advertising and trade”, noting the US Supreme Court (USSC) had “reversed course to recognize First Amendment protections for fiction”.  The Court of Appeal explained that after the USSC “limited Section 51 claims for fictionalization” to factual works that place persons in a false light, subsequent case law both isolated the commercial interest protected by the right of publicity and recognized “the right of publicity does not attach” where “it is evident to the public that the events so depicted are fictitious.”  The judgment noted with approval the decision of the California Supreme Court which “famously” recognized fiction writers may “more persuasively be able to more accurately express themselves by weaving into the tale persons or events familiar to their readers”, adding “correctly”, that “the choice is theirs”.  “This categorical protection is now axiomatic”.  Once can see what the judges meant and of course they were correct but what can be held to be “axiomatic” in law can differ from the same thing in mathematics because in the world of numbers, there is no superior court able to rule 2+2=5.  Their position is more akin to the philosophers who for centuries until 1697 could regard as inviolate the axiom to “all swans are white and all non-white birds are not swans”.

Wraith

Wraith (pronounced reyth)

(1) The apparition of a person living (or thought to be alive), said to appear as a portent of impending death.

(2) A visible spirit; a ghost or any apparition.

(3) In art or graphic design, a a deliberately insubstantial (sometimes even translucent) copy or representation of something.

(4) Something pale, thin and lacking in substance (a column of smoke; swirling mist etc).

1510s: A word of uncertain etymology.  Some trace it back to an Old English from the Old Norse reith or reidh (twisted or angry) and in Old English it evolved into wrethe (used generally to refer to “anger, fury or vengeance”).  As Middle English emerged it shifted to wraith which came to be associated with “a ghost or spirit, especially one thought to be the spirit of one dead or about to die”.  The link between the earlier meanings of anger and the later association with spirits may reflect the origins of the modern idea of “a restless or vengeful spirit”.  Most however prefer a connection with early sixteenth century Middle Scots, some suggesting it was from a translation of the Aeneid (29-19 BC), the epic poem written by the Roman poet Virgil (Publius Vergilius Maro (70–19 BC)) which recounts the legend of Aeneas, a Trojan who fled the fall of Troy to travelled to Italy, where he became the ancestor of the Romans.  That view has limited support although many etymologist do seem to agree it was in Middle Scots the form was first popularized, probably as warth, word meaning something like or related to “ghost”, the word perhaps from the Old Norse vorðr (“watcher or guardian” (in the sense of “guardian angel”), source of the Icelandic vörður (guard) and which may also have been an influence on the Gaelic & Irish arrach (specter, apparition)."  Wraith & wrathfulness are nouns, wraithlike, wraithesque, wraithful & wraithish are adjectives and wrathfully is an adverb; the noun plural is wraiths.

A wraith-like Lindsay Lohan, Las Angeles, 2008.  In art or graphic design, a wraith is a deliberately insubstantial (sometimes even translucent) copy or representation of something.  It’s used also of something or someone pale and thin, especially in reaction to sudden or considerable weight-loss.

More speculative is the idea of any link with the Middle English wray or bewray and few are convinced any exist despite the similarity in form (something anyway hardly unusual in English).  Even the origin of wray is contested although the orthodox history contends it was from the Middle English wrayen, wraien & wreien (to show, make known, accuse), from the Old English wrēġan (to urge, incite, stir up, accuse, impeach), from the Proto-Germanic wrōgijaną (to tell; tell on; announce; accuse), from the primitive Indo-European were- or wrē- (to tell; speak; shout).  It was said to be akin to the Dutch wroegen (to blame), the German rügen (to reprove) and the Swedish röja (to betray; reveal; expose).  Beray was from the Middle English bewraien, bewreyen & biwreyen, from the Old English bewrēġan, from the Proto-Germanic biwrōgijaną (to speak about; tell on; inform of), the construct being be- +‎ wray.  It was cognate with the Old Frisian biwrōgja (to disclose, reveal), the Dutch bewroegen (to blame; accuse), the Middle Low German bewrȫgen (to accuse; complain about; punish), the Old High German biruogen (to disclose, reveal) and the Modern German berügen (to defraud).  The attraction of the idea of a relationship between wray or beray and wraith is the use of wraith to mean a “vengeful” spirit.

JRR Tolkien (1892–1973), a philologist (is the study of language in oral and written historical sources) of some note, favored a link with writhe on the basis of the sense of “writhing; bodily distorted” (as in a ghost or apparition).  Writhe was from the Middle English writhen, from the Old English wrīþan, from the Proto-West Germanic wrīþan, from the Proto-Germanic wrīþaną (to weave, twist, turn), from the primitive Indo-European wreyt- (to twist, writhe).  It was cognate with the Middle Dutch writen (to turn, twist), the dialectal German reiden (to turn; twist around), the Danish vride (to twist), the Swedish vrida (to turn, twist, wind) and the French rider (to wrinkle, furrow, ruffle).

Not quite what she meant: Gretchen Wieners (Lacey Chabert (b 1982)) in Mean Girls (2004).

In late eighteenth century English, the noun “fetch” could mean “apparition of a living person, specter, a double”, from fetch-life (a deity, spirit, etc who guides the soul of a dead person to the afterlife (a psychopomp)) the source an English dialect word of unknown origin but which may have been from the Old English fæcce (evil spirit formerly thought to sit on the chest of a sleeping person; a mare) and may have been related to or even from the Old Irish fáith (seer, soothsayer).  The (now archaic) "fetch candle" was a mysterious light, which, when seen at night, was believed to foretell a person's death.  The Irish idea of the fetch and the fetch light describes the apparition associated with impending death (commonly in English now called a wraith).  The fetch or wraith was a doppelganger (double) of the dying who appeared when the time was approaching for them to need their spirit to guide them to the afterworld (ie act as a psychopomp).  The poet Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792–1822) and the writer Goethe (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749–1832) are among those who described seeing their own wraiths although most are said to have been visible only to those surrounding the dying.

1952 Rolls-Royce Silver Wraith with touring limousine coachwork by Park Ward.

Rolls-Royce has for almost a century used model names which summon imagery of the silently ethereal including Ghost, Phantom, Seraph, Shadow, Spirit, Spectre & Wraith.  The first Wraiths were introduced in 1938 and although World War II (1939-1945) interrupted things, almost 500 chassis left the factory between then and 1946.  The name was revived in 1946 when the company introduced their first post-war model as the Silver Wraith and although stylistically there would be nothing like the imaginative lines of the new US cars, the underpinnings were significantly modernized and the model would remain in the catalogue until 1958 with almost 2000 chassis produced.  Unlike the smaller Silver Dawn (1949-1955), the factory would only ever supply the Wraith rolling chassis to coachbuilders who would fabricate the bodies in accordance with customer preference although, the (slightly) higher-performance Bentley version was available with what came to be known as the “standard steel body”.

1971 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow long-wheelbase (LWB) saloon with central division (top) and 1979 Rolls-Royce Silver Wraith (bottom).

Within two years of the introduction of the Silver Shadow (1965-1980), a long-wheelbase (“LWB” which gained an additional 4 inches (100 mm) odd of rear-seat leg room) version had been produced and this configuration was introduced as a factory option in most markets between 1969-1971.  Built sometimes with an electrically operated glass division (the associated hardware absorbing most of the gained rear legroom) production continued on a small scale until 1976 when the Silver Shadow II was released at which point the LWB was re-branded as the Sliver Wraith II, incorporating not only the Shadow’s worthwhile mechanical improvements (which was good) but also carrying-over the vinyl roof (which was bad).  Rolls-Royce always used a brand of high-quality vinyl called “Everflex” and never used the word “vinyl”.  The re-naming followed the practice adopted in 1971 when the Silver Shadow two-door saloon (1966-1971) and convertible (1967-1971 and then known as a Drophead Coupé (DHC)) was renamed Corniche which, in convertible form would last until 1995, the saloon retired in 1980.

2015 Rolls-Royce Wraith.  The “Starlight headliner” was fabricated by weaving some 1300 strands of fibre-optic cable into the ceiling’s leather lining.  In the US market the option listed at US$14,700, a cost which reflected the high labor component in the production process and it should be compared with the bespoke audio system option which cost US$8,625 (the bulk of the input costs of the audio system was in mass-produced solid-state components).  Rolls-Royce has confirmed the 2023 Wraiths will be their last V12 coupés, the replacement (electric) Spectre going on sale in 2024. 

When introduced in 2013, it was the first time since 1946 the word “Wraith” had been used by the factory as a stand-alone model name.  Only ever available as a two door hardtop (no central pillar) coupé, the Wraith used the highly regarded 6.6 litre (402 cubic inch), twin-turbocharged BMW V12 used in their flagship 7 Series (G11 2015-2022) in happier times.  As is the modern practice at Rolls-Royce, a number of limited production runs of special models were available in the decade the Wraith was made but the platform also attracted the tuners, some emphasizing addition power, some additional stuff, all with high-price tags.

Mansory’s original version of the Rolls-Royce Wraith (top) was almost restrained, something later abandoned when the “Palm Edition 999” (bottom) was released.

German-based Mansory modifies high-priced cars, boosting both power and bling.  A particular specialty is carbon-fibre fabrication, the standard of their work acknowledged as world class and their approach to engineering is also sound, something not always achieved by those who make already highly tuned engines more powerful still.  The appearance (inside & out) of the machinery they modify doesn’t suit all tastes but their success proves a market exists for such things and their sales in markets like the Middle East and India proves that east of Suez there’s a receptive (and rich) audience.  Things from Rolls-Royce, Ferrari etc are anyway expensive but for Mansory (an others) the target market is not millionaires but billionaires, some of the latter needing accessories to prove they’re not merely one of the former.  Just to make sure the message was getting through however, when Rolls-Royce released their SUV (sports utility vehicle), Mansory badged their take as the Rolls-Royce Cullinan Mansory Billionaire (the project a co-development with the German fashion house Billionaire).  Disappointingly perhaps, it was advertised with a list price well under US$1 million.  In the long-running cartoon show The Simpsons, nuclear power-plant co-owner C Montgomery Burns used the phrase “price taggery” in one sense but it's applied also when discussing Veblen goods produced for the "conspicuous consumption" market; there, the purpose of the product is to advertise one's disposable income and a well-publicized (high) price-tag is essential.  

The electric Rolls-Royce Spectre.  Instead of an internal combustion engine, the Spectre is powered by two electric motors producing a combined net 577 horsepower and 664 pound-feet of torque.  There was a time when Rolls-Royce would never have painted their cars purple but the catchment of those with the resources to buy or lease (rent) such things has expanded to include many whose tastes come from different traditions.  It's not the difference between good and bad taste; it's just a difference.

Rolls-Royce has announced its intention by 2030 to offer a range of vehicles powered exclusively by electric propulsion.  For Rolls-Royce, the engineering and financial challenges aside, the obstacles are few because, unlike an operation like Ferrari which for decades has based part of its mystique on the noise its engines make at full-cry, it has always put a premium of silence and smoothness.  Enzo Ferrari (1898-1988) said it was the howl of the V12 Packard engines (which he dubbed “the song of 12”) he heard on the race tracks which convinced him to make the V12 the signature configuration for the cars which would bear his name but for Charles Rolls (1877–1910), the co-founder of Rolls-Royce, the most influential sound was its absence.  In 1904, he had the opportunity to ride in Columbia Electric car and, knowing what so many of his customers craved, was most impressed, noting: “The electric car is perfectly noiseless and clean. There is no smell or vibration. They should become very useful when fixed charging stations can be arranged.”  So, in 120-odd years not much has changed.  Ferrari are doubtlessly hoping the hydrogen re-fueling infrastructure develops at a similarly helpful rate, the exhaust note from exploding hydrogen able to be as intoxicating as that of burning hydrocarbons.

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.